Westminster Hall

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 10 March 2026

[Christine Jardine in the Chair]

Fur: Import and Sale

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

00:00

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the import and sale of fur and related products.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Ms Jardine. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing a debate on fur today. I am grateful for the opportunity to lead a debate on a topic as important as the UK’s continuing trade in animal fur, and in relation to my Fur (Import and Sale) Bill.

To explain the problem with fur, I will start with a true story about a man, a dog and a fox. The man was a prominent leader in the international fur industry and had spent 10 years of his professional career defending the fur trade against accusations of cruelty and working to try to get designers to use fur in their collections. He had increasingly found that to be an uphill struggle. One of his roles in the fur industry was to promote welfare standards on fur farms, and that saw him travel to fur farms around the world.

One day the man found himself on a fur farm in Poland. On that farm, about 1,000 foxes spent every day of their lives in wire cages only a little bigger than they were, about 1 metre square. It was the rough equivalent of a person living their whole life in a phone box. The rows of cages stretched as far as the man could see. Some animals were spinning in desperate circles—a sign of mental collapse. Others were just slumped in hopeless heaps on the wire-mesh floors. All were waiting for the day when they would be electrocuted to be turned into a coat trim or perhaps a bobble hat.

As the man toured the farm with the Polish industry bosses, he locked eyes unexpectedly with a fox. She had beautiful silvery-grey fur, a white stripe down the middle of her nose and shiny hazel eyes. Quite without meaning to, he connected with her, and her eyes told him something. Returning home to the UK the next day, the man was greeted by his adoring Labrador, Barney. After the enthusiastic tail wagging had subsided, the man looked at Barney, and Barney looked back, eyes full of love, optimism and energy. In that moment, the man saw what he had been missing for years—the connection between these two sentient beings. He realised that if anyone tried to do to his Barney what the fur industry was doing to millions of foxes, he would do everything in his power to stop it and help him. In that moment, he decided that he could no longer defend the indefensible and he resigned from working for the fur trade. But he did not just slip off into obscurity. Mike Moser, because that is who it was, approached anti-fur campaigner Claire Bass at Humane World for Animals, explained his change of heart and mind, and offered his insights and services in its campaign for a fur-free Britain.

I have much respect for Mike, who joins us here today. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that his powerful testimony against the fur trade is worth bringing to the attention of the House. Mike says:

“Over time I realised that whatever soundbites we devised to reassure consumers, retailers and politicians, neither welfare regulations nor any industry certification scheme, would ever change the reality of these animals being stuck in tiny wire cages for their entire lives.”

I am grateful for the strong support from so many hon. Members for my Fur (Import and Sale) Bill. It is simple in principle and modest in scope, but overwhelming in its justification. It would end the import of animal fur into Great Britain and prohibit the sale of new fur products in England, while allowing appropriate exemptions and of course respecting devolved competence. In doing so, it would finally bring our law into line with our values, because the truth is this. The United Kingdom banned fur farming more than 20 years ago because we recognised it as inherently inhumane, yet by allowing tens of millions of pounds-worth of fur to be imported here, we continue to be complicit in exactly the same cruelty overseas. My Bill seeks to end that double standard.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I know that the hon. Member will agree that fur is not just a by-product, but a product that relies on animals being caged, confined and killed solely for their pelts, and that a ban on the import and sale of fur would be a proportionate measure, consistent with our ethics, and would end our complicity in the wholly unnecessary suffering of animals.

[Ruth Jones]

I could not have put it better myself. Let us be clear about what the fur trade involves. Each year, tens of millions of animals, including foxes, mink and raccoons, are still trapped solely for fashion. On farms, they are confined for their entire lives in barren wire cages, unable to run, dig, swim or express the most basic natural behaviours.

Investigations on fur farms by organisations including Humane World for Animals repeatedly show animals suffering extreme physical and psychological distress, self-mutilation, cannibalism and untreated injuries, before being killed at around eight months of age, commonly by gassing or anal electrocution. Importantly, that suffering is well documented on farms that operate under the industry’s “welfare assurance” scheme.

Animals trapped for their fur can be caught in maiming metal-jawed traps and left trapped for days with no food or water, exposed to the elements, before a trapper finally returns to kill them. Extremely disturbing footage from undercover investigations into trapping in the US by Born Free USA, Respect for Animals and Humane World for Animals shows trappers laughing as they bludgeon trapped animals to death and drown a terrified raccoon in a river.

There is no such thing as humanely produced or responsibly sourced fur. The European Food Safety Authority recently published scientific opinion on the welfare of animals kept for fur production, which clearly showed that the needs of animals such as mink, foxes, raccoons, dogs and chinchillas cannot be met on fur farms. The report also concludes that suffering cannot be prevented or substantially mitigated in current fur farming systems, which include so-called “high welfare” farms in Europe. Underscoring that, Mike Moser has publicly stated:

“Having spent so many years working to defend the fur industry, it is now my strongly held view that while animals continue to be caged, no improvement to nor strengthening of fur farming regulations will ever prevent the welfare problems and cruelty that are systemic to the fur industry.”

There is no meaningful dispute that the fur trade has suffering written through its DNA. Under a Labour Government, the UK recognised that when it became the first country in the world to ban fur farming on animal welfare grounds. Since then, 23 countries have followed our lead. The question before us today is not whether fur farming is cruel—Parliament has already answered that. The question is if it is too cruel to produce here, why are we allowing it to be sold here?

Despite our domestic ban, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs records show that the UK imports between £30 million and £40 million-worth of fur every year—equivalent to as many as 1 million animals killed annually to be traded here. Although fur is extremely unpopular in Britain’s shops and wardrobes, and only 3% of people say that they would wear fur, by the fur trade’s own admission, the UK is a trading hub for the global industry. Banning fur imports would remove that vital piece of the industry’s trading landscape, and so hasten its demise.

The case for a ban on fur imports and sales does not rest on animal welfare alone. Leading virologists around the world, including from Imperial College London, have warned that fur farms represent a serious threat to public health, describing them as an

“important transmission hub for viral zoonoses”

equivalent to other high-risk practices like the bush meat trade and live animal markets. They are a ticking time bomb for the next pandemic to occur.

Hundreds of outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 and highly pathogenic avian influenza have been recorded on fur farms in recent years. Viruses have mutated, spread rapidly between animals, and been passed back to humans. During the covid-19 pandemic, millions of animals were culled and fur farms shut down in several countries on public health grounds. Yet the industry continues. At a time when Parliament speaks about resilience, prevention and learning the lessons of covid, continuing to be complicit in the public health risk of the global fur trade is indefensible.

In its death throes, the fur industry has attempted to rebrand itself as environmentally friendly, but those claims do not withstand scrutiny. Fur production is resource-intensive, highly polluting and carbon heavy. For example, 1 kg of mink fur generates around seven times more greenhouse gas emissions than 1 kg of beef, and requires over half a tonne of meat feed. Fur processing also relies on toxic and carcinogenic chemicals to prevent decomposition and to dye the fur. Meanwhile, faux fur technology has advanced rapidly, with British designers using recycled and plant-based materials, many of them biodegradable. Ending the UK fur trade will support innovation, not greenwashing.

The public are far ahead of the law on this issue. More than three quarters of voters believe that when a farming practice is banned in the UK for cruelty, imports produced in the same way should also be banned. More than 1.5 million people have signed petitions calling for a ban and over 200 MPs and peers support the campaign for a fur-free Britain led by Humane World for Animals, FOUR PAWS, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Labour Animal Welfare Society, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Animal Aid and others. The vast majority of British retailers and designers have also moved on from fur. Major brands and British department stores do not sell fur. In 2023, the British Fashion Council banned real fur from London Fashion Week. It is time that our laws caught up with society on the issue of fur.

Some hon. Members may wonder about the economic impact of a ban. I can provide assurance that the fur trade is already in steep decline globally. Fur production has fallen by over 85% in the last decade. In the UK, the sector is tiny, employing only a few dozen people, many of whom already trade in alternative materials or services. There is also a clear consumer protection benefit to a ban. A few years ago, there was high-profile coverage by the BBC, Sky News and others exposing the scandal of fake faux fur—real fur being sold as fake fur. That problem has improved thanks to the efforts of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Advertising Standards Authority, Trading Standards and Humane World for Animals, but it is still today possible to buy a bobble hat on a popular online retailer that is described as fake fur but is, in fact, made of fox. That leaves would-be ethical consumers unable to buy with confidence in accordance with their values.

A ban on all animal fur would simplify and strengthen enforcement and restore confidence. The evidence for this ban has been gathered, tested and confirmed for years. Parliamentary inquiries have been held and a Government call for evidence attracted tens of thousands of responses, with over 96% agreeing it is wrong to kill animals for fur. Public opinion, scientific evidence and the economic case are clear.

I was proud when, in opposition, Labour’s shadow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister stated support for a fur-free Britain. We now have an opportunity to make that a reality. I press the Minister today for any details that she may be able to provide on the timing of the publication of the results of the Government’s 2021 call for evidence on the fur trade, as well as the report on the UK fur trade by the DEFRA Animal Welfare Committee. I also place on record my hope that processed animal fur will be left squarely outside the scope of the UK’s ongoing sanitary and phytosanitary negotiations with the EU. As an important agreement to smooth trade in agrifood, it should not concern itself with trying to reach a common position on the trade in furry bobble hats any more than it should worry about trade in leather shoes.

I am grateful to the Minister for the formation of a working group to address the UK fur trade, and I hope that it can conduct its business in the coming months with haste, followed by the political will to act in accordance with public opinion and end the UK’s cruel, outdated and unnecessary fur trade.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

09:43

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing this important debate.

I think that we will rightly repeat several of the key issues and reasons why the import of fur products should be banned in the UK and those points are absolutely crucial. As we have heard, the United Kingdom banned fur farming over two decades ago because Parliament rightly recognised the extreme and unnecessary cruelty it inflicts on defenceless animals. Yet today we continue to allow the import and sale of fur products produced using precisely the same methods that we judged unacceptable within our own borders. That contradiction is simply impossible to defend. If fur farming is rightfully recognised as too cruel to permit in this country, then it also should be considered too cruel to profit from its proceeds.

Every year, tens of millions of animals across the world are confined to small wire cages or trapped in the wild solely for their fur. An estimated 85 million to 100 million animals globally are farmed or trapped for their fur. Investigations and scientific assessment have shown repeatedly that such conditions fail to meet animals’ most basic behavioural needs and cause severe and inhumane suffering; but do we really need scientific studies to prove that the way in which fur is farmed and animals are trapped is inhumane and causes suffering? Of course not; we can see it with our own eyes.

These are wild animals who should be allowed to roam free in the wild, but are instead kept locked up in tiny cages in deplorable conditions. Once their pelts are ready, they are gassed or anally electrocuted, as we have heard. Many of the animals are killed at about the age of one year, when their pelts are in their prime. That is the real nature of the system that continues to supply the global fur trade. While the UK banned fur farming domestically, we remain inextricably connected to the system through the import of furs.

As we heard from the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn, figures from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs show that the UK continues to import about £30 million to £40 million-worth of fur products each year, which equates to an estimate of about 1 million animals annually. That raises an obvious ethical question.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

Last year, I was pleased to promote a private Member’s Bill—now the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025—to stop puppy smuggling, specifically given the issue of ear cropping. It has been illegal to crop a dog’s ears in the UK since 2006, but it was legal to import dogs with cropped ears. We thought that it was unacceptable to do that in the UK on welfare grounds, but people were getting around the loophole by acquiring dogs from abroad. This seems to be exactly the same thing. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should not be offshoring our ethical animal welfare issues by banning something in the UK but allowing people to get those products from abroad? If we think something is unacceptable here, it should be unacceptable anywhere.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I completely agree, and I was happy to support the hon. Gentleman’s private Member’s Bill and speak in the debate. Anything that we deem unacceptable or cruel in our country is unacceptable or cruel wherever it is done, and we should not help to perpetuate that cruelty elsewhere around the world.

The ethical question is, as the hon. Gentleman just said, why are we comfortable outsourcing animal cruelty to other countries simply because it then occurs beyond our shores? Increasingly, the general public recognise the incoherence of that perverse position. There has been a profound sea change in British public attitudes to the fur trade. A YouGov survey found that 93% of people in the UK do not wear real fur and, as we heard, 97% would never wear real fur. A 2023 poll found that 77% believe that when a type of farming is banned in the UK for being too cruel, we should also ban imports of products produced in the same way overseas. An easy win for the Government would be to implement a policy that is widely popular: such cruelty is unacceptable to the people of our country. In other words, that is not a controversial position among the public, but reflects a widely shared, common-sense position that the fur trade is outdated and unnecessary in the 21st century.

The economic case for maintaining the fur trade is increasingly weak. The UK fur market has been in steep decline over the past decade. Fur imports now represent just a tiny fraction of the UK’s overall clothing trade. Many major brands and global luxury houses have already turned away from fur entirely, and London Fashion Week banned its use in 2023. The direction of travel is clear: the industry is dying, consumer demand is collapsing and alternatives are widely available.

Environmental and public health concerns are also associated with fur production. Studies have shown that the carbon footprint of fur significantly exceeds that of many other materials used in fashion, given the intensive farming of carnivorous wild animals and the process it entails. Meanwhile, outbreaks of SARS—severe acute respiratory syndrome—and avian influenza on fur farms have highlighted the risks that such facilities can pose as potential transmission hubs for zoonotic disease, thereby increasing the likelihood of future pandemics.

Taken together, the case for a more comprehensive ban is compelling. I welcome the efforts of colleagues who have brought forward proposals to prohibit the import and sale of fur in the United Kingdom, including the Fur (Import and Sale) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn. Such legislation would close the obvious loophole that currently exists in our animal welfare framework.

The UK was once a global leader in banning fur farming. Many other countries followed our example. We now have an opportunity to lead again, by ending our association with a trade that is morally repugnant, environmentally harmful, economically marginal and overwhelmingly rejected by the public. There is no such thing as humane fur farming, wherever it takes place, and it must end now.

09:50

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for all the work that she does championing animal rights in this space. Whereas she spoke about the fur in a bobble hat, I am going to talk about King’s Guard caps and the use of black bear pelts, which the Government have committed to ending. This has been a commitment for decades, and yet we are still seeing the import of black bear fur.

In the past, the Ministry of Defence believed that the black bear fur came from licensed culls; the Canadian authorities have denied that, both at federal and provincial government levels, saying that there is no such thing as licensed culls. We therefore know that trophy hunters are the source—something that this House has campaigned on time and again. We must ensure that, under this Labour Government, we see an end to trophy hunting.

Coming back to the issue of the King’s Guard caps, we know that trade through the work of trophy hunters leads to bears—killed in a random way—often dying slowly and in much distress through blood loss, infection and starvation. The future is perilous for those cubs that lose their mums. We need to ensure that those pelts do not move on to the auction houses from which the MOD purchases them.

Only part of the pelt is actually used—the bit with longer fur. The rest of the pelt is simply thrown away. It is costing us as taxpayers—this is what I find so repugnant: it has cost us £1 million over the past decade. One thousand bears have been killed to put on the heads of soldiers. What on earth is that all about? When there are faux fur alternatives available, which have been developed with great skill, we need to ensure that we use them.

Faux fur mimics, and even outperforms, real fur with regard to waterproofing; it is lighter, it dries more quickly and it springs back into shape. The chemicals and water used in the making of faux fur are recycled, ensuring that it is environmentally friendly as well as ethical. Faux fur has uniformity of colour and fur length, and it can be developed from a bio-based fabric. The MOD must stop placing these pelts on the heads of soldiers. More than 75% of the public support that, so it is an obvious move.

I call on all hon. Members present to sign early-day motion 2907 in my name to ensure that we end the use of this cruel method of both ceremonially parading these dead animals through our streets and having them standing outside Buckingham Palace. I find it shameful; it must end. What steps is the Minister taking to end the use of bearskins, and what discussions has she had with the MOD concerning that? Will the Minister halt the purchase of any further pelts from this point on, pending a review, and will she ensure that we use faux fur as an alternative to bearskin pelts? I am sure that nobody would disagree with such a move, and it would be such an improvement. Doing so would have no bearing on the safety of soldiers, but would restore safety to bears, so that we can take pride in knowing that animals are not being paraded on the heads of our soldiers.

09:54

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for highlighting this topic, which is important to many of my constituents. I get regular comments and queries about it.

I put it on the record that it is wrong to kill an animal for its fur. That is the point I start on, as did the hon. Lady; other speakers have said, and will say, the same. Fur farming was first banned in England and Wales. That was closely followed by the introduction of similar legislation in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament in 2002. I well remember voting for the legislative change for which the hon. Lady advocates, in my former role as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, and I support her quest.

As a country sports enthusiast, I firmly believe that any animal killed should be used in its entirety, and that animals should not be bred for this purpose. On the rare occasion that I get to shoot—usually twice a year, on Boxing day and new year’s day—all my neighbours look forward to seeing game hanging from their doors, where I usually leave the pheasants, ducks and pigeons as we acquire them, as the meals made from that can be enjoyed by the whole family. When we were in the Assembly, Baroness Foster, the former First Minister, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) were probably in receipt of pheasants and ducks at least once a month, which they too enjoyed. My point is that there is a role in harvesting the birds that we rear and that nature produces, so that we can then enjoy them, but in those cases every possible effort was made to ensure that the birds were used in their entirety, as is right and proper.

I supported the ban more than 20 years ago, and I continue to support it now. It seems incongruous that we have for so long allowed the back door entrance of fur that could not be processed here, yet had been processed elsewhere and shipped in. The hon. Lady’s principle is clear: if there is a loophole, let us close it up to make sure that that cannot happen. While I am not an advocate for the wilful destruction of any antique pieces—in other words, furs that have been passed down generationally—supporting the trade simply to take place elsewhere defeats the efforts that we in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have made.

For that reason, I believe that it is past time that we close that loophole and gap by disallowing the importation of this fur for sale. In that, I believe that I speak for the large majority of my constituents, who regularly make their views known to me on this subject. I again thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn, who has been a doughty campaigner—the word “doughty” is used often, but it describes the hon. Lady well. We thank her for her diligence in raising this matter.

I hope that the Minister will support the Bill and its intentions, as highlighted by the hon. Lady and others in this debate, and will enable its smooth and effective passage through Parliament. We all know that time in the Chamber for the passage of private Members’ Bills is precious, but I think we can all agree that this Bill deserves time and attention to get it right, to ensure that the entire United Kingdom has the same rules—including Northern Ireland, where the intentions and requests are similar—and to answer the questions around its use in military uniforms, on which the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) put forward a clear case. I have seen her EDM and have added my name to it.

Work needs to be done to get it right, but I believe the desire is here, in this Chamber and in Parliament as a whole. I look forward to the Minister’s helping to progress the Bill to prevent the import and sale of fur and other products. Again, well done to the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn. The objectives that we are all trying to achieve are worthy; constituents want them, and this House will hopefully endorse them in their entirety.

10:00

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing the debate and for all her dedicated work to bring us closer to achieving a truly fur-free Britain.

The UK was the first country in the world to ban fur farming. That is a stance of which we should rightly be proud. It has set an example for others to follow: since our decision, 21 other countries have taken the same step to end fur production. However, we still permit the import and sale of fur and fur products, effectively outsourcing the cruelty. Our position should be consistent. If fur is too cruel to farm here, it is too cruel, full stop. I strongly support my hon. Friend’s fur Bill, which would prohibit the importation and sale of fur in the UK.

The case for ending the UK’s role in supporting the fur industry, whether directly or indirectly, rests on three central arguments: cruelty, environmental harm and the risks to human health. First, there is the cruelty. There is no such thing as humane fur farming. It is estimated that each year more than 100 million animals are killed worldwide, solely for their fur. Some 95% of fur on the global market comes from fur farms, where animals spend their entire lives in cages that are typically only slightly larger than the animals themselves. Such conditions subject them to enormous mental and physical suffering. Many animals exhibit signs of severe distress, including self-mutilation and cannibalism, because the environment is so unnatural and restrictive.

Secondly, fur farming is exceptionally damaging to the environment. The carbon footprint associated with producing animal fur is shockingly high. For example, producing 1 kg of mink fur creates seven times more emissions than producing 1 kg of beef. On top of that, the tanning and dyeing processes rely on a cocktail of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals to prevent the pelts from decomposing.

Finally, the industry poses risks to human health. In recent years, there have been hundreds of outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome and highly pathogenic avian influenza on fur farms, clearly illustrating the threat that the industry presents to public health. Let us not forget that during the covid-19 pandemic, millions of animals were culled and fur farming was halted in several countries, yet now the practice continues.

A ban on the import and sale of fur would strengthen the UK’s reputation as a global leader on animal welfare and would let us take a firm stance on the environmental and health concerns associated with the trade. It would set an important precedent for other countries, just as our original ban on fur farming did. We have a clear opportunity to end the double standard. I urge the Government to support my hon. Friend’s Bill. Diolch yn fawr.

10:03

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for the excellent work that she has done and continues to do on this important campaign. I fully support her Fur (Import and Sale) Bill. I am pleased to say that my constituents have highlighted this debate and asked me to attend. I would have attended anyway, as she knows.

I shall keep this brief, as many points have already been raised. I will focus on fashion. More than 1,600 companies are registered as fur-free on Fur Free Retailer, including leading British designers such as Stella McCartney who pioneer innovative faux fur alternatives. We have already heard how easily faux fur can be produced and used. In 2023, the British Fashion Council introduced a ban on real fur at London Fashion Week, which has continued. Those moves are very welcome.

Farming for fur is inhumane. The fur trade is intense, and the animals are kept in barren wire cages with no ability to act out their natural behaviours. Most cages are only 1 square metre larger than the animals themselves. An investigation by animal welfare charities found that animals experience horrific physical and mental suffering, including self-mutilation and cannibalism.

A Labour Government introduced legislation in 2000 and implemented a fur farming ban here in 2002, making the UK the first country in the world to take that step. Some 21 other countries have now ended fur production, and I hope more will follow. Fortunately, the fur industry is declining and far fewer people are wearing real fur. Years ago, people would even wear dead foxes around their shoulders, although I have no idea why anyone wanted to.

A fur ban is a necessary step towards ending this cruel and unnecessary practice. A UK ban on fur import and sales would send a hugely important global message to those countries that are still engaged in cruel and dangerous fur farming, thereby protecting public health and animal welfare, which should surely be more important than fur for fashion, as we have many alternatives. I very much welcome this debate and look forward to the Minister’s response.

10:06

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing this debate and for all her work to bring her private Member’s Bill to the House. It stands in the tradition of the private Member’s Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) in 1999, which paved the way for the banning of fur farming in the UK just one year later.

I welcome the Government’s animal welfare strategy and the Government’s commitment to looking at the fur issue through the working group, but we in this place should be clear that there is no such thing as cruelty-free fur. The domestic farming of fur has been banned since the year 2000, which raises an obvious question: why should we be content for fur to be imported from overseas, when we believe that it should not be produced on our own shores? It is the inherently cruel fruit of an immoral trade.

The European Food Safety Authority published an exhaustive scientific study last year, which found serious harm to species such as fox and mink across a range of issues, including severe stress and self-harm. The EFSA was clear that most of the welfare consequences cannot be prevented or substantially mitigated in the current cage system.

It is important to address the claims made by the proponents of fur and the industry interests who defend fur farming. A ban on imports would not be without precedent. In fact, in the year 2009, the European Union put in place a ban on seal product imports, primarily from Canada. At the time, I had the privilege of working with Humane Society International, which is now called Humane World for Animals, to challenge the legal attempts to overturn that ban. I am very glad to say that it remains in place. Article XX of the World Trade Organisation’s general agreement on tariffs and trade clearly allows bans on the imports of products if they are

“necessary to protect public morals”

or

“necessary to protect…animal…health”.

As others have said, fur is not a natural product. In fact, so-called real fur is so heavily treated by carcinogenic chemicals that it produces seven times as much carbon as faux fur. The other claim made by organisations such as the International Fur Federation, which is headquartered in the UK—a short walk from Parliament—and the British Fur Trade Association is that indigenous communities depend for their economic livelihoods on these exports. This is a complete canard. The overwhelming majority of fur imports are from European factory-farmed locations. Imports from the Canadian hunt, which is not today dominated by indigenous communities, represent a minuscule fraction of UK fur imports.

It is also necessary to address the so-called certification schemes promoted by organisations such as WelFur and Furmark. The fur industry knows that the UK public is repelled by fur farming, so it tries to hide the cruel reality behind sanitising but meaningless labels. The labels do not challenge the cage system, which the EFSA found was incompatible with animal welfare standards. They create the appearance of oversight while leaving the practices unabated. It is a very 21st-century form of greenwashing of archaic butchery.

When the Minister responds, I hope that she can give the House an update on the timelines in which the working group will conduct its business. I also ask the Government not to accept the validity of these self-interested, industry-promoted certification schemes. I place on the record my appreciation for one of the organisations that has led the campaign against the fur trade in the UK over many years: Respect for Animals, originally founded as Lynx. It was founded by Mark Glover, who was joined by Nicki Brooks and Richard Bissett. They do outstanding work.

Three years after the election of the last Labour Government, the law was passed to ban the domestic farming of fur. I hope that we can work to a similar timetable to end the import of fur products under this Labour Government, consistent with their commitment to animal welfare.

10:11

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I had not planned to speak; I only came to show my support for my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), but as there is time I will make a brief contribution, with your indulgence, Ms Jardine. It is excellent to see you up there presiding over us; this is the first time that I have spoken in a debate with you in the Chair.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her consistency and tenacity on these issues, and I thank all colleagues for their contributions to the debate. It has not been political, which speaks to the importance of the issue. I note that we have not heard from the two Opposition Front Benchers, but I feel sure that they will approach this debate as all others have done.

I feel as if I am living in a parallel universe and in a previous life, sitting in a room talking about DEFRA, particularly animal welfare, with my hon. Friend, with various stakeholders and campaigners, and with the now shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who was then a DEFRA Minister. Talk about going back to the future!

I am here to support my hon. Friend, and I support her Bill too. I am from a community in Newcastle-under-Lyme, where—judging from my inbox every week—the vast majority of my constituents could best be described as animal lovers. We have a real opportunity to make a meaningful difference to millions of animals and stop them being forced to endure mental and physical anguish that none of us would wish on our worst enemies.

The good people of our United Kingdom do not support the fur trade. We know that many designers and retailers have got the picture, too. I hope that the Minister will appreciate the significance of her sitting in this debate, because it was her twin, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle)—

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

Right honourable.

[Adam Jogee]

Forgive me, I should have known—two successful twins. My right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston brought back the fur ban while I was in primary school, so it now falls to another Eagle to get the job done and deliver the fur-free Britain that we all want to see.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Adam Jogee]

I will happily give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am not right honourable; my twin is, but I am not, just to put that on the record. I thank my hon. Friend for remembering the history, but I wonder whether he can imagine the kind of pressure that I might be under on this issue, subsequently.

[Adam Jogee]

I think this is the first time a Minister has intervened on me. There is a first time for everything, and it is a moment we will not forget, Ms Jardine.

I am the oldest of three children, so I understand the pressures that siblings apply, and my younger siblings both have particular views about the state of the world today and how I might approach some of those issues. However, I feel sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn will continue to hold the Minister to account and will help her to get to exactly the right place to deliver the fur-free Britain we all want to see.

I thank all those who work, day in and day out, on animal welfare issues. Many of them are in the Public Gallery. I see Danielle, Sonul and others, many of whom I spoke to more than my siblings when I worked for my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn in years gone by.

Finally, I thank my hon. Friend again for securing this debate. I am glad that the speeches I wrote all those years ago were put to good use. And I am pleased, on behalf of my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, to be here today to show my support for this debate, for her Bill and for the campaign to deliver the fur-free Britain we all want to see.

10:15

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

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair this morning, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) on securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to her tireless campaigning on animal rights.

It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats today. We have a track record of animal rights advocacy, and we are clear that the fur trade should have no place in this country, which has some of the highest animal welfare standards anywhere in the world. Yet today’s debate has outlined a glaring contradiction. We have banned the cruelty at home, but by continuing to source fur from overseas, we remain wholly complicit in this unnecessary suffering.

It is understandable that over three quarters of the British public want to see this double standard ended for good. I commend the work of the Fur Free Britain coalition in mobilising such strong public opinion on the topic of fur. The Liberal Democrats support the protection of animal rights and welfare, both domestically and internationally. The previous Conservative Government wrongly pivoted on their decision to scrap the planned ban on the import of fur, and we now call on this Government to enact a comprehensive ban on the import and sale of fur and fur-related products, once and for all, to help to maintain the UK as a global leader in the promotion of animal welfare.

The moral arguments have been well rehearsed by many hon. and right hon. Members today, and those arguments are full of merit. However, I will also evaluate some of the arguments put forward by the fur industry against a ban. The British Fur Trade Association has stated that a ban would not improve animal welfare standards, would result in illegal fur imports, would be unenforceable and would lead to job losses. In addition, it argues that a ban would raise concerns that the World Trade Organisation rules might be broken.

The BFTA has proposed a five-point plan for the Government, including improved labelling of fur products. However, let me be clear that keeping animals in cages for their whole lives inevitably leads to a variety of physical and psychological health problems, so the fur industry’s certification schemes clearly incorporate a high tolerance for poor welfare. Under the “WelFur” approach used within Furmark, farms can retain accreditation even when significant levels of illness and injury persist. The scheme allows alarm thresholds, under which no serious action is triggered.

How we treat animals is a reflection of who we are as a society. The UK is a nation of animal lovers, and we should be proud of the action we have taken to lead the world in upholding some of the highest animal welfare standards. When we take a stand, others follow, such as with the ban on fur farming that was implemented in the early 2000s. Since then, over 20 countries have followed suit. That is something to be proud of, and there is now an opportunity for us to extend that legacy even further.

It is disappointing that there have been claims that a ban would result in job losses and economic damage. A recent report by WPI Economics on behalf of Humane World for Animals has revealed that that is simply not the case. The fur trade’s contribution to the UK economy is very limited and has declined significantly over recent years. In 2023, the value of international fur exports and imports into the UK had fallen by nearly 50% and 39% respectively since 2018, while data from the Business Register Employment Survey shows that the number of people employed in the sector is also declining sharply. Indeed, in 2022-23 only 35 people were employed in the sector in the UK.

There is also growing evidence that a ban is enforceable under WTO rules. The landmark 2014 WTO ruling on the EU’s ban on the import of seal skins shows that WTO rules permit restrictions on imports based on ethical concerns. In March 2021, the UK Trade and Agriculture Commission recommended that the UK should show world leadership in embedding animal welfare into international trade policy and in helping to raise standards worldwide, which is what the public want. Polling suggests that 77% of the public back a ban on the import and sale of fur and fur-related products, while 96% of respondents to the call for evidence under the last Government strongly agreed that it is wrong for animals to be killed for their fur.

In the build-up to this debate, many of my constituents in Glastonbury and Somerton wrote to me to outline their support for a ban. All were united in their belief that it is time to end this cruel, outdated and unnecessary trade, and I agree with them.

I underscore that the global fur trade, of which the UK is still a part, is not just a problem for animals; it is a serious public health risk. The interface between humans and millions of intensively kept and traded animals is giving rise to an era of unprecedented zoonotic disease threats, and fur farming sits squarely in that danger zone. Professor Edward Holmes, an evolutionary biologist and virologist from the University of Sydney, said of the fur trade,

“I think that this trade is a roll of the dice. We’re exposing ourselves to viruses that come from wildlife,”

which is

“an obvious route for the next pandemic to occur… Fur farms present a clear epidemic or pandemic risk.”

Crucially, this is not a hypothetical risk. Reports and official responses in Europe have shown outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza affecting fur-bearing animals on farms, and public health and biosecurity measures are not consistently implemented in practice. We must heed virologists’ warnings and not sleepwalk into another global pandemic.

I take this opportunity to recognise some of the Government’s progress on the issue. I was pleased to see the Government publish the results of the previous Government’s call for evidence on the fur trade. I also welcome the recently launched animal welfare strategy for England, which promises the highest jump in welfare in a generation. It is clear, however, that trade policy must go hand in hand with domestic welfare action. If we do not do that, we risk offshoring animal cruelty. We must not import goods that are not allowed to be produced in this country, and we must extend that to food products produced abroad to standards that would be illegal for British farmers. The Liberal Democrats want to see minimum standards for all imported food, to meet UK animal welfare standards, and we must ensure that no animal product that would be illegal to produce in the UK can be sold in Britain, including foie gras.

The Liberal Democrats have also urged the Government to sign the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU as soon as possible, and to ensure alignment on standards and quality. Part of those discussions will likely focus on the import of fur. Given that it is not an agrifood commodity, however, incorporating it into the SPS agreement would serve only to complicate the matter unnecessarily and delay the process.

The Minister has previously indicated her support for a ban, as have many Cabinet Ministers, many Labour Members and most of Parliament. There is cross-party consensus on the issue, and it is shameful that the previous Conservative Government reversed their commitment to action. This Government must now do the right thing and take this opportunity, once again, to make Britain a global trailblazer by banning the sale and import of fur and fur-related products as soon as possible. The fur trade has no place in a country with such high standards of animal welfare.

It is hypocritical to allow the import and sale of real fur from abroad. The Liberal Democrats support the protection of animal rights and welfare, both domestically and internationally. We call on the Government to enact the comprehensive ban on the import and sale of fur and fur-related products once and for all, helping to maintain the UK as a global leader in the sale and promotion of animal welfare.

10:24

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing today’s debate. She has been a tireless campaigner on this issue in her role as a shadow Minister before the general election, in tabling a private Member’s Bill and securing many Westminster Hall debates on animal welfare issues. I congratulate her on securing this important debate.

As all Members indicated in their contributions, fur farming has rightly been banned in England and Wales since 2000. Legislation prohibits the keeping and breeding of animals solely or primarily for slaughter due to the value of their fur, but that was 26 years ago. The hon. Lady raised the issue of fairness in how, while we have a ban in place here, we still enable imports that do not meet our standards. We have not yet achieved a ban on imports. Personally, I feel that is wholly unfair and inadequate, and it needs to be explored.

What position do we see ourselves in today? There are several restrictions in place that seek to monitor and control how this trade can be carried out in the UK. There are restrictions on some skin and fur products that may never be legally imported into the UK, including fur from cats and dogs, but we all acknowledge that it still does not go far enough. There are also established controls on fur from endangered species protected by the convention on international trade in endangered species, and on imports of fur from wild animals caught using methods that are non-compliant with international humane trapping standards, but again that does not go far enough.

Under the Textile Products (Labelling and Fibre Composition) Regulations 2012—EU regulations that have now been assimilated into UK law—any textile product that contains real fur or other animal-derived materials must carry the mandatory label:

“Contains non-textile parts of animal origin”.

That wording must appear exactly as specified and must be clearly visible to consumers. The regulations require all textile products to display a label identifying their fibre content, including any fur, leather or bone. I would argue that is not adequate or clear enough to a consumer who is buying a product, and therefore it does not go far enough.

Many Members have rightly said that while we have banned fur farming and created a direction for other countries to follow, continuing to enable imports is still offshoring our responsibility. I therefore urge the Government to explore that route.

We know that fur imports are decreasing. Under the previous Administration, as we all know, animal welfare standards increased and the volume of fur imported fell by 50% in five years. The trend is declining and there is a decrease in consumers buying imported fur, so the economics back the position of taking a much stronger approach to banning imported fur.

A consultation was launched seeking views on the fur market. The call for evidence received over 30,000 responses from businesses, representative bodies and individuals, demonstrating strong public support and interest. It is good to see that the Government have now published the responses to that consultation, but I would like to understand from the Minister how the Government will go forward.

In addition to the interests of businesses, it is clear that this is an issue that matters to the British public. A petition to ban fur imports was launched by the Fur Free Britain campaign, receiving over 1.5 million signatures. The issue has also been debated many times in this place. We all acknowledge that this demonstrates a strong feeling from the British people that the import of fur should be banned. I would like to clearly understand the Government’s position following the Animal Welfare Committee’s report, which was published following that petition.

The Government announced their animal welfare strategy in December. Much of it was welcome, but I want to ask the Minister why it did not include a ban on fur imports, as it had previously been indicated that an incoming Labour Government would be willing to explore that. I also want to seek clarity from the Government on the potential timeframe for any additional consultation that is likely to be announced on this issue. What will they be doing, in addition to what is announced in the animal welfare strategy, to explore the issue further?

As has been said, much good work has been done by previous Administrations, and there is an indication of more of this in the animal welfare strategy, to improve animal welfare generally in this country. That was picked up by one of the contributions about ear cropping. We cannot be in a scenario where we are banning things from happening here but effectively enabling an equivalent product—whether it is food, a live animal or a product from a live animal—that is banned or that does not meet our expected level of animal welfare to come into the country. That is simply unfair, and I want to push the Minister on what the Government’s position is on the timing of that going forward.

10:31

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

It is a great pleasure to serve, I think for the first time, under your chairmanship in Westminster Hall, Ms Jardine. We have had a consensus-driven debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) for securing it. I note that she is extremely busy today because she also has a ten-minute rule Bill; since that deals with pets, we know that she has her speeches in the right order. She demonstrates through her work—we also heard it in her speech today—how much she cares for animals in whatever context, whether they are wild, domesticated or livestock.

My hon. Friend represents a deep vein of concern that all of us have recognised that this country is well-known for: its concern for animals. We have a long and proud history of supporting animal welfare. The world’s first animal welfare law was passed here more than 200 years ago in 1822, so there is a long tradition that all of us draw on when thinking about these issues. The Government take that legacy seriously. Last December, we published our animal welfare strategy, which is the most ambitious programme in a generation. It is not just warm words; it is a real plan that is already in motion, with consultations launched on laying hens and lamb welfare.

The UK has been at the forefront of animal welfare for generations. As many hon. Members have mentioned today—notably my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), who had both done a little work and discovered this—it was my sibling, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), who introduced the private Member’s Bill that led to the ban on fur farming in this country. Some of the speeches I heard this morning had a familiar ring to them from the epic battles that my sister had to try to get her private Member’s Bill on the statute book. It was talked out by Members of the then Conservative Opposition, and it was only after that failure that the then Labour Government decided that they would take forward the ban on fur farming, because it had been overwhelmingly demonstrated that that was what the public wanted.

That win was not easily gained. People who are thinking about how to change the law and the moral attitude on these things need to understand that private Member’s Bills, not least the ones brought to the House by hon. Members who care about these things, often have a very important legacy. They can persuade Governments that they ought to get on and do what is sometimes controversial, but more often than not right.

We were the first country to ban fur farming and we did that when a ban was not popular—those arguments had to be made from scratch. That meant other countries then recognised the reality of what was going on and moved to ban it too. We have to recognise, however, that the number of countries that have banned it is still quite small and it remains actively pursued in many other countries. I suspect that the way the ban was done left the loophole that many hon. Members have pointed out: while animals can no longer be farmed for their fur in the UK, the import and sale of fur and fur products from both farmed animals and those hunted or trapped in the wild remain legal.

We heard today that 95% of fur comes from farmed animals. People need to bear that in mind—this is not particularly an issue of trapping wild animals. If we read our history, we know that, particularly on the North American continent, a lot of wild animals were hunted nearly to extinction in earlier times.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The Minister says that 95% of fur comes from farmed animals and 5% from trapped animals, but the estimate is 100 million animals in total, so that is still 5 million animals that are trapped. Those traps do not only capture the animals they target; there is collateral damage, with other animals being trapped and killed. Some animals are not killed immediately and are left to die a slow, agonising death. What is stopping this Labour Government taking the lead, as the Labour Government in the 2000s did, on banning the import of fur products?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I was going to get on to that, but I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point about trapping wild animals, which is why that is dealt with quite extensively in the animal welfare strategy that we published just before Christmas—I hope he acknowledges that that is the case. I was not trying to set one amount of cruelty against another; we try to minimise cruelty to animals in all contexts, which is what the Government’s animal welfare strategy seeks to make progress on.

I was just about to say that although some importation of fur is legal, as we have heard today, there are some restrictions. The fur from cats and dogs can never be legally imported into the UK. Seal products can be imported and placed for sale on the UK market only in limited circumstances and subject to strict conditions linked to the rights of indigenous communities. By the way, I recognise the cynicism with which that was dealt with in contributions and acknowledge that that cynicism may well have some connection to reality.

The Government recognise the strength of feeling on the issue from supporters as well as opponents of the fur trade—I must say I do not hear that much from supporters of the fur trade, but I am sure I will now I have said that. We recognise the state of public opinion in this area. We want to bring together a working group on fur, as set out in the Government’s animal welfare strategy, to seek involvement from both the industry and those who support restrictions to see what we can do ahead of deciding to deal with this in the future.

In the animal welfare strategy, we have committed to publish a summary of responses to the call for evidence on the fur trade in Great Britain, which was conducted in 2021 under the previous Government and sought views from a range of stakeholders. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), pointed out how many responses were received to that. It is interesting being chivvied along by somebody whose party was in government for 14 years and made very little progress in this area. I do not mind being chivvied, but I look slightly askance at where the chivvying is coming from.

My sister, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston, took part in a process which got the Labour Government to ban fur farming within about three or four years of her beginning. We are less than two years into this Labour Government and we are doing a great deal across the animal welfare strategy for all animals, in whatever context they are found. I ask for a little patience to see how we can best take all this forwards.

In the animal welfare strategy, we have committed to publish the opinion that DEFRA commissioned from the independent, expert Animal Welfare Committee on what constitutes the responsible sourcing of fur. As set out in the committee’s work plan, that review will consider available trade data on how much fur is imported to and exported from the UK. It will consider what welfare standards and other safeguards apply to that fur and how well they provide for the welfare needs of animals involved. The evidence that we will seek is what we can then act on once we have it. I hear hon. Members’ views of what the evidence is in this debate. We also must ask those involved in the fur trade to see what they would say so that we can make appropriate policy once we have the evidence in front of us.

I recognise the strong interest in the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion, as well as the summary of responses to the call for evidence from a wide range of interested parties. We will publish both the opinion and summary of responses as soon as we are able. Animal welfare is a global issue, and I take the points that have been made about its impact regarding trading rules. As set out in our animal welfare strategy, the Government are committed not just to raising standards in the UK, but to championing the importance of high animal welfare standards around the world. We will keep working collaboratively with our international partners as part of this work to promote robust standards nationally and internationally.

[Ruth Jones]

It is helpful to hear the Minister outline the progress so far. Given yesterday’s SPS statement, could she clarify that fur and fur products will not form part of the negotiations and are outside of scope?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am not going to clarify or not clarify that now because we are still in the middle of negotiations. I do not want to change the way that negotiations are working by commenting on them before we have final agreements, but I am quite happy to talk to my hon. Friend when all of that becomes much clearer.

We will engage with the EU, which is a major source of fur imported into the UK, as it considers the findings of the European Food Safety Authority’s recently published scientific opinion on the welfare of animals kept for fur production, and the results of the European Commission’s 2025 call for evidence on the “Fur Free Europe” European citizens’ initiative. Those issues make this a bit of a moving feast, and we want to make sure that we get it right. We are also reviewing the findings of that report and will seek views from our working group on the evidence provided by the European call for evidence and the review, as well as the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion.

The Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans in a generation to improve animal welfare, and that is exactly what we are going to do. We look forward to publishing and considering the findings of the Animal Welfare Committee, and to bringing together interested parties to explore concerns in this important area and the different ways in which those concerns can be addressed to ensure the welfare of animals.

10:44

[Ruth Jones]

Thank you again for your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. It has been a pleasure to serve under you. This has been a very coherent and cohesive debate; I am not aware that there have been any dissenters. I thank all hon. Members for participating in today’s debate and bringing their different perspectives to this subject. I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) and for Newcastle-under- Lyme (Adam Jogee).

I thank the people in the Public Gallery for their ongoing work and persistence in ensuring that the animal welfare message goes out loud and clear across the UK, and for educating us in this House so well. I thank the Minister for outlining the progress that the Government have made so far, and I appreciate that a lot of it is happening behind the scenes. I do not envy her the persuasive familial discussions, because I am sure they are going on at all times—I would encourage her sibling to carry on with them. Public opinion is clear, the scientific evidence is clear and the economic case is clear, so let us stop the delay, get on with the action that we need to ban fur and fur products from being imported into this country, and end our complicity in this barbaric trade.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the import and sale of fur and related products.

10:46

Sitting suspended.

Adult Cerebral Palsy: National Service Specification

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

10:57

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the national service specification for adult cerebral palsy in the NHS.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to secure this debate. Approximately 130,000 adults in the UK have cerebral palsy. Although the NHS now officially categorises it as a lifelong condition, there is clear evidence that specialist support stops at the age of 18. A national service specification for adult cerebral palsy in the NHS would ensure that the transition from childhood to adulthood is supported by relevant healthcare services and the necessary support. It would ensure that support continues to be provided throughout adulthood. I pay tribute to Up—the Adult Cerebral Palsy Movement, and Action Cerebral Palsy, for their dedicated advocacy for people with cerebral palsy throughout the UK, their campaigning on this issue and their support in preparing for this debate.

I will start by talking about my experience. As hon. Members will be aware, one of my daughters has cerebral palsy. Although she is still a child, I remain concerned about the level of support that will be provided to her when she reaches adulthood—a concern that I am sure many parents of children with cerebral palsy will relate to. During childhood, layers of support are provided, ranging from paediatricians to services that often are supplied at school and through the NHS such as physiotherapy, speech and language support, and occupational therapy. Parents are rightly concerned about what the transition at 18 looks like and whether wraparound healthcare remains. Sadly, the reality for many people with cerebral palsy is that after the transition, they are left with little support for their health needs and to help them function in life, including for day-to-day activities such as work.

Throughout this debate I will refer to the 2022 report of the all-party parliamentary group on cerebral palsy, “Barriers for adults with Cerebral Palsy on achieving full life participation: access to healthcare services and progressing at work”. Although the APPG is now disbanded, the key recommendations remain relevant. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and the former Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, Paul Maynard, for their work to commission the report.

For many adults with cerebral palsy, their experience is similar: they receive care and support through paediatric services before reaching adulthood, then find themselves facing a cliff edge. In essence, they are left without the support that they received for the first 18 years of their life. Cerebral palsy affects about one in every 400 children in the UK, but the severity of each child’s cerebral palsy varies greatly, and many have more complex issues, with one in two having a learning disability and one in four having a severe learning disability.

The first recommendation in the APPG report outlines that NHS England and social care, education and employment specialists must agree a national service specification for adult cerebral palsy, to be commissioned based on the needs of local populations within the 42 integrated care boards across England. Furthermore, in the 10-year health plan, the Government made the commitment that 95% of people with complex needs should have an agreed personal care plan by 2027. Many adults with cerebral palsy have complex needs and, with that, elevated health risks. They are 14 times more likely to die from respiratory disease and three times more likely to die from cardiovascular disease. In 2023, a review of 69 studies to assess the prevalence and incidence of chronic conditions among adults with cerebral palsy showed that 21% had depression, 21% had anxiety, 24% had asthma, 28% had epilepsy, 32%8 had incontinence and 38% had malnutrition.

I would welcome the Minister’s response outlining how the commitment in the 10-year health plan can be achieved for adults with cerebral palsy. I would also welcome the Minister considering how a national service specification for adult cerebral palsy could be implemented within the 42 ICBs, including by encouraging ICBs to implement the NHS framework for the commissioning of services for children and young people with cerebral palsy as a blueprint for adult cerebral palsy commissioning and provision.

In March 2021, the then APPG on cerebral palsy published its first report, entitled “Early identification, intervention and pathways of care of infants and young children with cerebral palsy: the case for reform and investment”. One of the report’s key recommendations was that all health authorities should be required to implement NICE—National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—guidelines. Dr Charlie Fairhurst, head of children’s neurosciences at the Evelina London children’s hospital and chair of the committee for NICE guidelines on cerebral palsy, accepted those recommendations, which have been implemented in the NICE guidelines for children. It is therefore disappointing that the recommendations for adults outlined in the 2022 report, including the full implementation of NICE guidelines, have not been implemented for adult cerebral palsy in the NHS.

In May 2025, NHS England published the commissioning framework for children and young people with cerebral palsy. The framework aims to simplify and summarise the existing guidance available. It also highlights best-practice care pathways that could be replicated by other systems and enables systems to identify population need through data. Over the past year, eight ICBs have been piloting that framework for children, which involves undertaking a baselining exercise to understand existing service provision and to identify service gaps for children with cerebral palsy. However, as we know—and as the 2022 APPG report highlighted—the needs of local populations differ across the country, and the results from just eight ICBs are not enough to provide an accurate representation of the effectiveness of the framework.

The existing postcode lottery of specialist support constrains the lives of adults with cerebral palsy and results in worse health outcomes, not to mention lower education and employment participation for individuals, with the subsequent substantial economic loss. Analysis from the Northern Ireland cerebral palsy register has shown that the prevalence of cerebral palsy in adults is comparable to that of multiple sclerosis or Parkinson’s disease.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate, and I thank him for sharing his personal story. That personal knowledge adds to the debate.

Studies by Queen’s University Belfast indicates that adults with cerebral palsy often struggle to navigate adult health and rehabilitation services after moving on from paediatric services. That can limit their access to physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy, orthopaedics and neurology. Does he agree that the best way to navigate this issue is to establish a clear, co-ordinated transition pathway from paediatric to adult services, with dedicated case management so that nobody is left behind when it comes to their care?

[Daniel Francis]

I absolutely agree. Between the APPG’s 2022 recommendations and the example the hon. Member gave of the analysis in Northern Ireland, it is clear that the evidence is there, and hopefully we will hear from the Minister about how we can continue to progress some of those matters.

I would welcome a commitment from ICBs across the country to implement the framework as a blueprint for adult cerebral palsy commissioning and provision, as the hon. Member outlined.

The 2022 report’s second recommendation highlighted the need to support GPs in identifying adults with cerebral palsy by extending the UK-wide quality and outcomes framework to incorporate the creation of general practice-level cerebral palsy registers along the lines of the expansion of the QOF to learning disabilities. That would make a profound difference in the health outcomes of children with cerebral palsy when they transition into adulthood care pathways. Would the Minister look to extend the quality and outcomes framework to incorporate the creation of general practice-level cerebral palsy registers, similar to the expansion of the quality and outcomes framework to learning disabilities?

The third recommendation aims to ease the transition into adult care pathways through a national service specification for adults with cerebral palsy in the NHS, which must include training covering adults with cerebral palsy for those working in general medicine, general practice and nursing from entry level. For many adults with cerebral palsy, their primary co-ordinator of care is their GP, who, despite their best efforts, often does not have the specialist knowledge or training to support their patients.

Written evidence submitted to the APPG as part of the report highlighted that medical undergraduate students do not receive training about cerebral palsy in adults. One way to support GPs in identifying adults with cerebral palsy is to extend the UK-wide quality and outcomes framework to incorporate the creation of general practice-level cerebral palsy registers along the lines of the expansion of the quality and outcomes framework to learning disabilities. That would make a profound difference in the health outcomes of children with cerebral palsy when they transition into adulthood care pathways. Would the Minister outline how the current NHS staffing guidelines could be amended to include the incorporation of training for those in general medicine, general practice and nursing from an entry level to cover adults with cerebral palsy?

The report’s fourth recommendation outlined that each ICB should be required to undertake a gap analysis of existing cerebral palsy services for adults against NICE guidance and use the results to inform and guide their local commissioning decisions. This must include investment in services to support and address associated conditions. The results should then be used to establish regional multidisciplinary cerebral palsy clinics for adults, providing access to a range of psychological, physical and complementary therapies. The recommendation highlights that disability access co-ordinators appointed in both acute and primary centres would be able to provide referrals to the clinics and ensure that reasonable adjustments are made.

The report also highlighted that the provision of a neurologist during the transition from childhood to adulthood is an essential component of adult cerebral palsy care to ensure that, when a patient is discharged from their paediatrician, they do not face that cliff edge in support. Will the Minister agree to investigate how ICBs can undertake a gap analysis of existing cerebral palsy services for adults against current NICE guidance, and how they can include adults with cerebral palsy in their integrated needs assessments?

The report’s fifth recommendation suggests that, to ensure the provision of specialist services, the Department of Health and Social Care should provide ringfenced funding to ICBs to enable them to develop the much-needed specialist services at a local level. Will the Minister agree to look at ringfencing funding for the 42 ICBs so that they can develop specialist cerebral palsy services?

Finally, I want to demonstrate why national service specification is so needed. Emma Livingstone, the co-founder and chief executive officer of UP, The Adult Cerebral Palsy Movement, is in the Public Gallery, and her lived experience perfectly encapsulates why national service specification for adults with cerebral palsy is needed. Emma was diagnosed with cerebral palsy at two years old. At 16, she was discharged from medical services after being told that she was the best that she would ever be.

Unfortunately, without any integrated care during Emma’s adulthood, she experienced a significant decline in mobility in her late 30s. That led to Emma having multiple surgeries, and unfortunately having to give up her work as a speech and language therapist. In Emma’s own words,

“In my late thirties, my mobility declined rapidly. I needed hip surgery, then more surgeries, and eventually had to give up work. What shocked me wasn’t the physical deterioration—it was the silence. The coordinated care I’d received as a child simply vanished when I turned 18.”

Emma is sadly not alone in experiencing that. The APPG report found that

“the transition into adolescence and adulthood is often accompanied by a decline in physical function,”

with up to 50%

“of people with Cerebral Palsy experiencing deterioration in walking function between 20 and 40 years of age.”

That statistic alone is reason enough to show why national service specification for adult cerebral palsy in the NHS is so greatly needed.

I would welcome the Minister’s response to the five recommendations from the APPG report that I have highlighted today.

11:10

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for securing this important debate. Many Members in this House speak on issues of importance to their constituents; far fewer bring the depth of personal experience, the understanding and the long-term perspective that he has of this issue. His own experiences of caring for a child with cerebral palsy reflect the realities faced every day by parents and carers across the country, and he speaks with such compassion and authority.

Adults with cerebral palsy make up a significant but often overlooked part of our population—around 130,000 people across the UK. For far too long, they have been “invisible to the NHS”, in the words of the cerebral palsy charter. Although cerebral palsy is a lifelong neurological condition, we frequently see well-structured, multidisciplinary paediatric care systems simply evaporating when people reach the age of 18. Adults are left navigating a fragmented system with no clear pathways, limited specialist input and inconsistent recognition of their needs.

We know that adults with cerebral palsy face disproportionately high risks of chronic pain, fatigue, mobility loss, falls, respiratory illness and cardiovascular disease—harms that are preventable with co-ordinated, proactive care. Young adults who have both cerebral palsy and a learning disability often receive better support, because they can access well-established learning disability pathways that provide structured reviews, specialist teams and co-ordinated care. By contrast, young adults with cerebral palsy alone often fall outside those pathways, and therefore struggle to access the same level of timely, proactive support, despite having significant and lifelong needs.

On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford made about ringfenced funding, we expect ICBs to commission services for people with cerebral palsy based on local population need, and informed by NICE guidance and national service specifications. That approach is consistent with the wider NHS financial framework, which does not create condition-specific funding pots, but rather supports local systems to make evidence-based decisions across all long-term conditions. Similarly, on extending the qualities and outcomes framework, or QOF, to incorporate the creation of general practice-level cerebral palsy registers, we are operating in a very challenging fiscal environment. QOF indicators must be evidence based, deliverable at a national scale and balanced against the need to reduce administrative pressures on general practice.

Current policy is that ICBs should use NICE guidance and national service specifications to commission appropriate local services, rather than creating condition-specific national incentives. Although we have no plans at present to commission any formal gap analysis of adherence to, or non-compliance with, NICE guidelines, I wish to remind all ICBs of their responsibilities and the importance of adhering to those guidelines.

NHS England’s revised service specification for adult specialised neurology services, which was published in August last year and comes into effect next month, represents an important step forward in improving care for adults with cerebral palsy. For the first time, it sets clear expectations for how people with lifelong neurological conditions, including cerebral palsy, should move between general practice, community services and specialist centres.

The specification requires integrated care boards and specialist centres to organise services using a population health approach, ensuring equitable access to both general and specialist neurology services and oversight from multidisciplinary teams. That means better communication between GPs and specialist services, clearer and more consistent referral pathways and stronger recognition that cerebral palsy is a lifelong condition that requires timely review and escalation when needs change.

On cerebral palsy specifically, the service specification mandates a networked, multidisciplinary model for adult cerebral palsy care, emphasising integrated care pathways, structured transition from ages 13 to 14 and annual reviews for complex needs. It ensures equitable access to specialists, specialised treatments such as botulinum toxin and requires services to address physical and communicative barriers to care. Those changes will directly support early intervention, reduce unwarranted variation between local systems and help to embed more proactive, joined-up primary and specialist care, improving outcomes, continuity and quality of life for adults with cerebral palsy.

The updated neurology service specification ensures that cerebral palsy is embedded within a broader national framework, strengthening national expectations for adult cerebral palsy care. One of the most important ways we are strengthening support for adults with cerebral palsy is by improving awareness and understanding within primary care. The service specification now requires integrated care boards and specialist centres to work much more closely with GPs, strengthening communication and clarifying referral pathways so that primary care clinicians understand when an adult with cerebral palsy requires specialist review or escalation.

That is crucial, because too many adults report difficulty in securing informed support in general practice or face long delays in being referred to clinicians with expertise in neuro-disability. Those new expectations are designed to ensure that GPs have the confidence and the clarity they need to identify emerging concerns, initiate timely investigations and support adults whose needs may change as they age.

Importantly, the specification also strengthens national recognition of cerebral palsy as a lifelong condition, helping to embed more consistent, informed support for adults across primary care settings. That includes the requirement for services to identify barriers to access and make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. That is an important safeguard for adults with cerebral palsy, many of whom experience pain, fatigue, visual perceptual changes, challenges or communication needs that can affect their interaction with health services. These reforms ensure that GPs are supported by a clearer national framework, better referral pathways and stronger system expectations.

As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford today, too many adults with cerebral palsy feel that their support drops away as they transition out of paediatric services. That is exactly why the reforms we are delivering through our 10-year health plan are so critical to strengthening the support available for people with cerebral palsy throughout their lives.

Our 10-year health plan sets out a vision for a health and care system that is more personalised, more integrated and more proactive for people with long-term and complex conditions, including cerebral palsy. That means moving away from reactive care based on crisis points towards lifelong support that anticipates needs, prevents deterioration and joins up specialist community and primary care services. The plan focuses on delivering more care in the community, making greater use of technology and building a more preventive health service that supports people to stay well for longer.

Our 10-year health plan will ensure that people with complex needs are supported to be active participants in their own care. As part of that, 95% of people with complex needs or long-term conditions will have an agreed personalised care plan by 2027. Care plans will be a feature of the developing neighbourhood health service, which will deliver more care in local communities and move away from a one-size-fits-all approach, giving people more power and choice over the care that they receive.

Work is under way to determine the definition of complex needs in the context of that target and how care plans will be delivered in the future, including who will be best placed to co-ordinate and support their delivery. We know that key shared decision making is central to patients’ ongoing care, and care plans will look to promote that further. In developing future models of care planning, we will continue to take into account the varied experiences and needs of people with different conditions, such as cerebral palsy.

We also recognise the importance of preventive, proactive care, including annual reviews, as recommended in NICE guidance for adults with cerebral palsy. Although not currently mandated through the quality and outcomes framework, those reviews remain an important mechanism for identifying changes in mobility, pain, fatigue and mental health, and for ensuring that people are offered appropriate interventions early. The 10-year health plan’s focus on personalised and proactive care will support integrated care boards to improve access to those reviews as part of a more consistent offer for adults with cerebral palsy.

The plan will also ensure that no young person is lost in the gaps between children’s and adult services, a point at which many families tell us that they feel most vulnerable. NHS England’s children and young people transformation programme provides a clear nought-to-25 model of care to achieve that. For young people with cerebral palsy, that means earlier preparation for transition, co-ordinated support from a multidisciplinary network and clearer expectations for how professionals should plan and hand over care.

No young adult with cerebral palsy should reach their 18th birthday and face a cliff edge. They have waited far too long for the NHS to acknowledge their existence in policy, planning and commissioning. They deserve the dignity of services that reflect the reality of their lifelong condition. They deserve the best, and we are delivering improvements through integrated, system-wide reforms designed to support lifelong person-centred care.

The steps under way provide a more effective and sustainable foundation for improving outcomes for adults with cerebral palsy. Again, I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford for his tireless advocacy and work to ensure that this issue receives the attention that it deserves. I congratulate him, once again, on securing this important debate.

Question put and agreed to.

11:22

Sitting suspended.

Local Government Reorganisation: South-east

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers in the Chair]

11:29

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of local government reorganisation in the South East.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to the hon. and right hon. Members from across the House who will be contributing to this debate.

Local government is the tier of government that is most closely woven into people’s everyday lives. It is where national decisions become local realities: the roads we drive on, the services that support vulnerable families, the planning decisions that shape our towns and the community spaces that bring people together. It is for that reason that I support the principle of devolution. Decisions should, wherever possible, be taken by those closest to the communities they directly affect. But as is so often the case in public policy, the difficulty is not the principle, it is the implementation.

In Surrey, implementation is already raising serious concerns about scale, financial sustainability and a process that has moved forward with a troubling democratic deficit. This debate concerns the south-east of England more generally, but colleagues from across the region will speak about how reorganisation is affecting their own counties and communities. My perspective naturally comes from Surrey, where those concerns are already becoming clear. Size, remoteness and financial fragility are among them, and we must add to that mix the glaring democratic deficit.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I spoke to him beforehand, so he knows what I am going to say. I want to support him—that is the reason why I am here—and I want to give an example that happened in my constituency and which is similar to what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. Two councils, Ards and North Down, were merged together, and one issue that was put forward as a “must do” was the financial and administrative savings with two councils being able to do the job of one, but that did not work out. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while efforts to streamline governance should be welcomed, more action must be taken to provide adequate financial support to cover one-off reorganisation costs without compromising the delivery of services such as, for example, waste services?

[Dr Pinkerton]

As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful, sagacious intervention. He will discover, if he is able to stay for the rest of my speech, that I will cover those fundamental topics: the funding of the transitional moment, and the certainty that joining two authorities together does produce long-term savings and the modelling that those assumptions rely on.

In late 2024, Surrey was placed on a fast-tracked path towards local government reorganisation. That process was triggered when the leadership of Surrey county council requested that the Government cancel the local elections that were scheduled for May 2025. That request was granted, and the result is that councillors elected in 2021 will now remain in office until April 2027, two years beyond their original mandate, and oversee one of the most significant and consequential restructurings of local government in our county’s history. The idea of cancelling elections has, more recently, fallen out of favour with both the Government and, as I understand it, the Conservative party. Sadly, for those of us in Surrey, that realisation came only after the Surrey Conservatives pulled the trigger on the policy that the Government had placed before them. Whatever one’s view of reorganisation, it is difficult to argue that such a profound change should proceed without giving residents the opportunity to pass judgment on those leading it. Local government reform should be carried out with democratic consent, not in its absence.

Alongside those democratic concerns sit serious financial questions. Over the past decade, several councils across Surrey pursued large-scale commercial property investments in an attempt to generate income as central Government funding declined. In some cases, those strategies have left councils carrying extremely substantial debt. The six councils that could form the proposed West Surrey council—Woking, Spelthorne, Guildford, Runnymede, Surrey Heath and Waverley—collectively carry around £4.5 billion-worth of debt. In my constituency, the then Conservative-led Surrey Heath borough council speculated wildly on commercial property between 2016 and 2019. It spent £113 million on a shopping centre with a knackered roof and a former department store riddled with asbestos. At the time, those purchases were described by the council’s then chief executive as “investments” that would help to secure the council’s long-term financial viability as Government funding declined. In practice, it amounted to a Conservative-run borough council borrowing heavily on the financial markets and through the public works loan board in the hope of defying the gravity of the cuts coming from Conservative central Government. Today, those assets are estimated to be worth around £30 million—not the original £113 million. They are operationally loss-making and together risk bankrupting my borough before we even reach unitarisation next year. Surrey Heath cannot afford to keep them but cannot afford to sell them because selling would crystallise the losses it has incurred.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is eloquently explaining the serious financial situations that many potential unitary councils will be in. They will be saddled with such financial burdens that it will be difficult for them to deliver the services that local residents need. A three-year financial forecast for East Surrey has identified a potential £35 million deficit. The Whitehall funding settlement does not currently reflect the real cost pressures that such councils will experience. Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour needs to fix a broken funding system and not leave residents paying the price?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. Labour may not have broken the local government system in Surrey but there is now an obligation to ensure that people who live in Surrey are not faced with the bankruptcy of their new unitary authorities on day one of those authorities’ existence, especially given the vital services that they will be delivering.

In neighbouring Woking—where there was another Conservative-run council in those fateful years—the gravitational denialism was even wilder. During the same period, Woking borough council accumulated debts that now stand at approximately £2.1 billion. It is said that that debt is so large that it directly impacts the Government’s borrowing capacity in international markets. Versions of that story are repeated across much of west Surrey: it is a pattern of behaviour that has, frankly, never been properly investigated. Its impact has been compounded by systemic failures in the auditing of local government accounts.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman astounded, as I am, that the majority of that debt is with the public works loan board, which sits underneath the Treasury. Where was the Treasury when that debt was being allowed to accumulate?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. I will come on to talk about a systemic failure, as I see it, in the power that section 151 officers of borough councils have in effectively signing off the ability of a council to repay debts when accumulated. That is a power that I think may be far in excess of the skills that they have. After all, there is no separate mechanism to determine—from the Treasury or from the PWLB, for example—the ability of a council to fulfil its obligations.

It is therefore entirely reasonable that residents ask a simple question: why should communities that played no role in accumulating that debt now be expected to inherit its consequences through a newly-created local authority? If reorganisation is intended to create a stable future for local government, it would be deeply concerning for any new authority to begin life already burdened with billions of pounds in inherited liabilities. I ask the Minister what assurances the Government can provide that any future West Surrey authority will begin life next year on a financially sustainable footing? It cannot be right that my residents face the realistic prospect of their new unitary authority being bankrupt or effectively bankrupt on day one of its existence, given the critical services that councils are expected to provide.

The scale of borrowing in Surrey also raises wider questions about financial oversight in local government—this is where I will answer the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb). Local authorities rely on statutory finance officers—section 151 officers—to ensure financial prudence, yet the scale of borrowing undertaken by some councils suggests that existing safeguards have not always been sufficient to prevent high-risk commercial strategies. This debate is often framed in terms of protecting section 151 officers from excessive political pressure, and that may well be necessary, but it is also true that section 151 officers hold significant authority within council structures and must themselves be subject to proper scrutiny and accountability—something that is often lacking.

Councillors very often perceive that they are not allowed to overly scrutinise 151 officers because of members’ codes of conduct. Will the Government therefore consider whether additional safeguards or oversight mechanisms are needed to prevent similar situations arising again in the future, particularly as councils become larger, their finances become more complex and the risks become even greater.

There are also important questions about the size and structure of the authorities now being proposed. Under current proposals, the new West Surrey council would serve approximately 657,000 residents. By comparison, the average non-metropolitan unitary authority in England serves around 265,000 residents, with most serving fewer than 300,000. Authorities of the scale we are talking about today risk weakening democratic accountability, diluting local knowledge and making decision-making feel more distant from the communities they are meant to serve.

Ministers have suggested that having larger authorities will deliver financial efficiencies. In support of that argument, the Government have relied on modelling produced by the County Councils Network, which happens to be chaired by the very same leader of Surrey county council who locked Surrey into this fast-track pathway in the first place. Despite several Parliamentary questions seeking clarification, it remains unclear what independent modelling the Government have undertaken to substantiate those claimed savings. I ask the Minister again: have the Government undertaken their own economic modelling of the projected financial benefits of local government reorganisation in Surrey? If so, will that modelling now be published publicly?

Finally, we should recognise that all of this is unfolding while councils continue to deliver vital services under considerable strain. In my constituency, the concerns most frequently raised with me relate to special educational needs and disabilities provision. Hundreds of families contact me about problems with education, health and care plans—incorrect names, incorrect details, long delays and support packages—that simply do not meet the needs of the children concerned.

For the past three years, Surrey has recorded the highest number of SEND tribunal appeals nationally. At the same time, residents regularly contact me about deteriorating road surfaces, potholes causing vehicle damage and wider infrastructural pressures. These are not abstract policy debates; they are real challenges affecting families who rely on local government services every single day.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for setting out with such exemplary clarity the challenges of going ahead with local government reorganisation, particularly on the timescales that have been set. He represents a Surrey constituency, while I represent a constituency in West Sussex, where we are currently awaiting the outcome of the Government consultation on whether the new unitary will be a single unitary authority covering all of West Sussex, second in size only to Birmingham city council, or our preferred option of two future west Sussex unitary councils.

Does he not agree that constituents need local decision-making and for there to be accountability, so that when pothole or SEND provision fails, constituents have a close relationship with their councils and can get the answers that they deserve?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I feel every sympathy with my hon. Friend’s campaign for two unitary authorities; I was very supportive of there being three unitary authorities for Surrey, and we were sadly denied that. That would have delivered the much more local accountability to which my hon. Friend refers. I wish her good luck in her campaign for two unitary authorities, and for the local accountability which, as she recognises, is so important for her constituents.

There is also a wider concern that I hear frequently from the voluntary and charitable sector. Many charities organise themselves around existing local authority boundaries. They rely on those relationships for funding, partnerships and the delivery of services. Local government reorganisation risks sweeping away that social infrastructure —boundaries change, funding streams shift and relationships built up over years can disappear overnight—but this is happening at precisely the moment that charities may be more important than ever, helping communities to pick up the pieces during a period of institutional upheaval and ensuring that vulnerable people do not fall through the gaps that inevitably appear during major restructuring.

Against that backdrop, local government reorganisation is creating substantial additional workload for councils and their staff, many of whom are already working under tight financial constraints and significant workforce pressures. Local government reform should strengthen local institutions, not weaken them. It should produce councils that are financially stable, democratically accountable and close enough to the communities they serve to understand their needs. Those are the standards that fundamentally matter, and the ones against which people across Surrey and the south east will judge the outcome of this process.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members to bob, as indeed they are doing, if they wish to be called.

14:45

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers.

Local government is an area of great interest to me. I did my master’s dissertation on models for English devolution; I have worked at the UK’s leading think-tank on devolution; for 17 years I worked as an adviser to local authorities, and I have served in local government in a county council and a district council, including almost a decade as a council leader. From 2015 onwards, I have also been involved in various devolution proposals for Sussex in one way or another.

I say all that because, despite that background, I still cannot get my head around what the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is trying to achieve with all this. That is despite talking to the director at No. 10, special advisers and Ministers on this policy area. In fact, the more I delve into it, the more opaque it becomes.

My understanding is that this reform all kicked off with Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves—two people without any background in local government—making a deal: more money now, in return for local government reform. The only reason they thought it would deliver any results was that the County Councils Network had, for many years, been putting forward a document that seemed to set out a case that there would be financial savings if county councils were merged at the unitary level.

Those figures relied on population sizes of roughly half a million people—that figure is critical; I re-read all the statements made by local government Ministers on this before this debate, and it is a figure that has been repeatedly stated and was consistently pushed for the better part of a year. The reason was that, when we look at the County Councils Network figures, the £2 billion savings it talked about delivering, which it presented as if it were an annual statement—it is not, it is over five years—are achievable only when dealing with population sizes of 500,000 or greater.

The problem, when we come down to it, is this: for the Labour party, that is completely unelectable. We have pockets of support within the south east, but we do not have larger footprints. With the politics unravelling around this question, we have started to talk about smaller sizes for unitary authorities, but here we run into a problem: unitary authorities do not save money. Merging existing councils saves money. We could merge districts together—that would save money. We could merge counties together—what an idea!—and that would save money. We could merge existing unitaries together—that would save money. However, when we start creating unitaries, we are merging two different tiers together; if that is a smaller footprint than existing upper-tier authorities, it will always end up costing more money than the alternative.

We now have a proposal that will not deliver politically or financially. I will return to the finances in due course, because the situation is much worse than people think it is. This proposal is somehow still on the table long beyond the original document that set this all out. If there are other figures on this then, like the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), I would be delighted to see them. I have asked for them repeatedly. However, when Governments do not release data, we come to the conclusion that they do not have data that backs up their case. The evidence base here is very hard to find.

The other argument that comes up very frequently is that two-tier areas are too complicated and people do not know who runs what. I have lived in two-tier areas essentially my entire life, apart from when I was at university, and that is not something I have come across, despite being in roles where I might expect to come across it very regularly. If we say tiers are a problem, adding mayors across the country and encouraging people to set up third-tier authorities increases the total number of tiers at the local government level. It adds to the complexity rather than decreasing it.

We hear bizarre arguments about issues such as waste collection and waste disposal authorities, as if the idea that someone collects the bins and someone gets rid of them is complicated. What particularly grates my gears about that argument is that there are many unitary authorities that are not waste disposal authorities. Take the Thames valley waste authority as an example—take Greater London—take Greater Manchester: in all those areas, waste is collected that is then disposed of on a larger footprint. There are many such areas where the powers do not perfectly align, and people manage to get through them without any great deal of controversy.

The argument for much of this change, particularly with the mayoralties, was that we were would get wider public sector reform, which would deliver astounding savings. The problem with that argument is that the footprints that the change was supposed to create would align the mayoralties, the police authorities and the integrated care boards, so that we would get all the services in one area and they could deliver efficiencies. However, we are now talking about creating police authorities on a larger footprint than the existing mayoral footprint, so the two would no longer correspond. There will be a much more complicated structure now, with deputy mayors sitting on different boards in relation to it. Similarly, the ICBs have had to expand, so they no longer go along with the devolution footprint.

The only form of public sector reform that we can now carry out around this process is reform of local government on its own, and that will not deliver the projected savings. Most of the areas that a district council deals with and most of the areas that a county council deals with do not interface in any meaningful way when it comes to savings. If they did, the County Councils Network report, which it paid PwC to produce in order to create the strongest possible case for reform, would have put that forward. Instead, the report solely states that savings can be made by reducing senior officer numbers. As anyone who has been involved in the sector knows, many of those posts no longer exist in the numbers that they did at the time that the PwC report was formed. At this point, such figures simply do not exist.

The only people I can find who have any difficulty with the idea of two-tier areas are civil servants and politicians from unitary authority areas. One might imagine what other people might feel if we went to their areas and tried to impose our culture upon them. There has also been the claim that these reformed authorities will be engines for economic growth and housing delivery, but let us think about it in this way: I was the leader of a local authority that delivered over four times our Government-assessed numbers for housing, whereas—unfortunately—Mid Sussex district council, which was previously under Conservative control, often did not even have a core strategy for that entire period, never mind delivering any actual housing numbers.

We are about to create unitaries where the areas that deliver large volumes of housing, and that need such housing at an affordable rate, will be swamped by rural communities. What do we think will be the dominant factor in these new authorities, where the politics is controlled by rural communities? Will it be a focus on economic development? Will it be a focus on housing delivery? Or will it be stamping down on those two things, as we have seen time and time again? This plan does not deliver on the Government’s missions; it kills them off, as many Members have tried to point out in recent times. The reality is that demography is destiny, and rural communities will have control over those authorities.

Returning to the issue of finance, in my area the actual cost of the merger is estimated as three times greater than the estimate put forward so far. In fact, even on the most optimistic assumptions, on these footprints no savings would be delivered until the end of the next Parliament—but it is more likely that there would not be any saving at all. In fact, the situation gets even worse than that. Who knows when most of the country’s leisure centres were built? I will give Members a clue—it was in the early ’70s. What happened in the early ’70s? We merged all the district councils, and they looked at their accounts and said, “I am not handling this over to the next council”, and they got busy spending.

We can see that in the country currently. The reality is that, until the protections come in with the new authority, people will be getting money out the door. Debt is going up, budgetary decisions are being postponed and savings are being put off in order to invest in local communities while there is one last chance to do that. Over the next 12 months, section 114 notices are far more likely than in any preceding period.

I will move on to the issue of democracy. Resident satisfaction surveys of local authorities have consistently shown a positive correlation between the perception of a local authority and the size of that authority. It is not the other way around, as though suddenly authorities delivered much more effectively when they got to a much greater footprint—why would that be the case? More remote Government is not necessarily going to make people any happier.

Currently, the average size of authorities in the UK is seven times larger than not the European average, but the authorities in the European country with the next largest—and this programme will make our authorities 14 times larger than those. Why are we such an outlier? Why are councils in Europe, which have far greater powers and far greater money than we do, apparently perfectly capable of running their local areas, while in our areas we have to bring things up to a central Government level? Again, I think that the civil service has far more to do with this programme than any actual rational thought does.

The changes will also prevent people from having any meaningful relationship with councillors. In the UK, we are far less likely than in any other part of Europe to have independent councillors. The reason is that with footprints of this size we cannot build a meaningful relationship with a councillor. The distance cuts people off from their democracy and any sense of control, and increases their scepticism. Conversations about area committees are frankly meaningless; anyone who has actually worked with those structures knows they do not replace meaningful representation.

The fundamental problem we will run into is geography. When we strive to get population sizes in rural areas, we come up with enormous geographies; for my patch, we are most likely talking about an area in excess of 50 miles wide. Greater London is just over 30 miles wide. What common interests can exist in that footprint? What common services? What common identity? We will end up with competition between the different communities in those areas, and policy will be driven by those communities whose voices are heard loudest in whatever administration is in control. That will, again, mean that the rural beats out the urban. Urban communities such as mine, which includes some of the most deprived parts of the country—certainly in the south-east, at least—will lose out as a direct result of the restructure.

There are 71 Labour constituencies that trusted us at the last election, but that will see their quality of life decline as a direct result of the policy as well. When we look at the numbers, it might well be that if the Labour party, sacrificed those 71 constituencies, it would never be in office again. I am sure that Opposition Members would be delighted; it is why I thought they would be pushing the policy, not the Members on the Labour Benches. Talk to any Labour party organiser and they will say that the policy undermines our organising model. They are up in arms.

Most Labour Governments in the last century would not have happened had there been a reform such as this. We are arguing for a policy that no longer reflects the principles on which it was first brought together. It no longer reflects the same goals: it will not save us money, it will be more remote and it will undermine the deprived communities that this Government are allegedly in place to serve. It is clear that the advice given to Ministers in MHCLG is poor; we have seen that in just one month, with fair funding miscalculations that took place, and we have seen that with the elections, with the conclusions that we now all have to deal with.

Having been through the detail of the policy over and over again, I cannot see any way that it is not another example of that poor advice.

[Alison Bennett]

I am very much appreciating and enjoying the hon. Member’s contribution to the debate. Can I suggest that, when it comes to getting local government in England on a sound financial footing, the real elephant in the room is putting social care on a financial basis so that councils can deliver decent social care to our communities?

[Peter Lamb]

There are three areas, and social care is one of them. The finances of upper-tier authorities have been totally compromised, initially by the costs of social care, where we have still not taken decisions all these years after the Dilnot review. We all know that social care is slowly bankrupting councils. Go to any single council presentation on local government finance—whether a unitary or upper-tier authority—and that is the thing that will be mentioned.

Then there is SEND, which again has absolutely crippled local authorities’ funding to the extent that we allowed them to keep it off their books because the cost would have bankrupted them. That has now been taken away from them to be covered centrally, so that is one less problem to deal with.

Lastly, there are the costs of temporary housing, which housing authorities, like the districts, are mandated to provide. They have no control over it, and are often dealing with the consequences of central Government decisions that move more people into the area and create that level of housing need. However, those costs ultimately stem from a failure of housing policy in this country.

Those are the three areas bankrupting local government. Despite the fact that local government started out as the most efficient part of the public sector and has become still more efficient since, taking sensible decisions to maintain its survival, it cannot deal with pressures that are not being dealt with centrally. If we deal with those three problems, local government finance problems will go away—but they are central Government’s problems to resolve, and we have not yet quite resolved them.

I accept that all that is in motion, but when I talk to people in local government, very few of them want this policy. The reality is the boundaries are most likely going to end up lasting for another half a century—just look at the pain we are going through now; we are not going to want to go through it all again. We should not be embarking on something that will last 50 years when we cannot publish the evidence base because it is so weak. A pause is now needed to reflect on these proposals. I will continue to argue more and more loudly for that, adding more and more things to the debate about the best outcome here. I say to Ministers, “You’ve inherited a mess from other people; it wasn’t of your making and I really wouldn’t jeopardise your careers seeing this through.”

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we do not refer to other Members by name, but by their constituency?

15:00

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing this important debate.

Last October, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), I met with representatives of 48 parish and town councils from the villages and towns that surround Oxford. These hard-working volunteers are the lifeblood of local communities and the closest level of representation to residents. They were very clear that local government reorganisation is an opportunity as well as a considerable upheaval, and they had three tests for any new arrangement in Oxfordshire: first, that it should make the delivery of public services simpler and more efficient; secondly, that it should retain accountability for key decisions closer to residents and strengthen the role of parish and town councils; and thirdly, that it should make sense in terms of geography, history and existing structures.

Happily, those tests are similar to those that the Government have themselves set out—yet Oxfordshire is shaping up to be an important test of the Government’s approach to local government reorganisation. Ministers have set out clear criteria, and it is essential that they are applied properly to every proposal. On those tests, I believe the strongest fit in Oxfordshire is the One Oxfordshire proposal. Oxfordshire county council’s proposal is for a single county-wide unitary on the existing county geography. The county council says that this would save over £63 million a year, and it stands to reason that consolidating at the higher tier would be more efficient, as the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) set out more eloquently than I could.

The county council already delivers services to over 750,000 residents and accounts for 85% of local government service expenditure in Oxfordshire. Keeping the county structure would avoid splitting critical services such as adult and children’s social care, SEND provision and homelessness. The main challenge to this approach is how it would sustain accountability at a suitably local level. To this, the county council proposes partnerships with town and parish councils, new area committees and other neighbourhood governance arrangements.

As well as local representation, what matters is that the shape of any new unitary authority makes sense to residents. A county-wide model follows the existing Oxfordshire geography, keeps the area together and is plainly easier for residents to understand than a plan built on split districts and cross-boundary complexity. By contrast, the Oxford city council-backed 3Councils proposal asks Ministers to move away from that starting point; the Government’s consultation states that it would split existing district areas and establish a Greater Oxford council, a Northern Oxfordshire council and a Ridgeway council.

That proposal is fraught with issues. It chops and changes existing district-level boundaries, even though the Government’s guidance says that districts should be the building blocks of new unitaries. It shoehorns in west Berkshire, which is in a different fire and rescue service area, even though the Government’s guidance says that proposals affecting wider public services need a strong justification. The Government say that 500,000 residents is the guiding principle, yet Oxford city council’s proposal documents put the populations at 240,000 for Greater Oxford, 265,000 for Northern Oxfordshire and 430,000 for Ridgeway.

Oxford city council argues for an exception, and that is of course open to it, but let us be honest about what it means. It means asking Ministers to depart from their own default principle not once but three times, while accepting greater boundary complexity. The question for Ministers is, what justification could there be for departing so far from Government guidance, and why import additional structural complexity and financial risk into Oxfordshire when there is a county-wide Oxfordshire option that does not require it?

Before we get to a new model for local government in Oxfordshire, we need to address transitional funding arrangements. The Minister is well aware of the challenges of funding the SEND system and the impact that underfunding has had on not only councils but families across the country. The proposal to meet 90% of the high needs block deficit in Oxfordshire with central Government funding is welcome, but Oxfordshire county council understands that this deficit will be defined as of 31 March this year, whereas new funding models will not begin until 2028-29. Will the Minister please set out how the likely additional funding for high needs will be met for the two missing years?

At the same time, Cherwell district council in my constituency was shocked that the Government advised, on 6 February, days before its budget-setting council, that they had made an error in the draft local government funding proposals and were cutting £2 million from Cherwell’s advised settlement. After interventions from local MPs, the Government provided a one-year additional grant to Cherwell, but the council and its residents have no certainty about the next two years of funding, with the threat of losing nearly 10% of income hanging over it. I hope the Minister will agree to meet me and the hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) to discuss Cherwell’s future funding formula.

In October, the 48 parish and town councils were unanimous in opposing the 3Councils proposal. They saw it for what it is: a crude effort by Oxford city council to grab a larger area of land, which would break up existing rural communities, sever historic linkages between villages and market towns, and leave two other ill-funded residual councils as the collateral damage of a power grab that fails to meet the Government’s criteria. Reorganisation should be about better services, clearer accountability and stronger local government. It should not be about bending the rules after the event. In Oxfordshire, the Government have set the tests. They should now apply them properly.

15:06

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I commend the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for bringing this important subject to the House today. It is great to see MPs from across the House here in Westminster Hall, although with 400-odd Labour MPs and quite a few in the south-east these days, we might have expected more than one to come to speak in favour of this flagship Government policy—it is not entirely apparent to all of us why it is a flagship Government policy, but there we have it. Let us be frank: the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) made an unconventional pitch to the Whips Office, but it was a pleasure and privilege to hear his very well reasoned and well thought-out case, obviously based on many years of experience.

There are two big things going on at the same time that quite often get conflated: the creation of mayoralties and the bringing together of different local authorities at unitary level, which we call local government reorganisation—LGR. The two things often get conflated, but today we are talking primarily about the second. I will be honest: we can make arguments in favour of unitary authorities, in favour of two-tier authorities, and in favour of three tiers—we can make all sorts of arguments—but if we are going to have this change, how we divvy up and carve up areas makes a huge difference. In my area, East Hampshire district council and Hampshire county council have been working hard on putting forward a good proposal.

One of the reasons this matters so much—previous speakers have raised this point—is the very high-cost items that will go into these new unitary authorities, principally adult social care and the high needs block, or SEND. In order to fund those costs for people at either end of the age scale, we need quite a lot of people in the middle. We need working-age adults contributing, and businesses contributing their taxes as well.

The hon. Member for Crawley talked about housing. One of the points that has not yet quite registered with everybody is the way that housing development planning will change. It will be on a different level, which will be further away—more remote—from the areas that are affected and could involve quite a lot of rebalancing of where housing goes. The hon. Member expressed the opposite view, but my fear is that in this new set-up, there will be the risk of more encroachment on to rural areas, because in the dominant urban areas, they will see less physical constraints for more sprawl out from those urban settlements.

The other point that I am not sure has quite permeated the public discourse is about identity. People often identify with the county and the town or village they are in. We have not yet given names to any of the new unitary authorities that might be created in the county of Hampshire, but they are almost certainly going to end up being, to some extent, artificial constructs—in the same way that, back in 1974, a lot of new identities were created, which was sometimes a difficult thing for people to deal with.

Whatever the pros and cons of different forms of local government, there is always a difficulty in the short term. Whenever anything is changed or reorganised, as anyone who has worked in business knows, there will be a great argument for, for example, moving the sales force to a regional level or back to a national level. Along the way, however, a lot of cost is incurred and effectiveness is eroded because people’s attention is moved from the key task in hand to what is happening in the organisation. Buildings have to be sold and redundancies made. All sorts of things affect operational effectiveness.

There is then still the question: what, ultimately, is the balance in terms of cost saving? I think that we are all grateful to the hon. Member for Crawley—I will call him my hon. Friend—who set out that it is really quite difficult to find material savings unless it is at a big scale. So many of the proposals that are coming forward are not at that scale—often for good reason, because it is difficult to create a meaningful identity in such a big area. There will, however, be some economies of scale. If bin collection is taken from the lower tier and put into the unitary, it should be possible to do that on a lower unit cost. There will also, however, be some diseconomies of scale, because some things will come from the upper tier and be moved into a smaller unit of geography, creating a diseconomy. I have no idea what the balance of those two things is, but we seem to be launching into this massive change—wholesale reorganisation—without knowing.

On the point about the upheaval along the way, whatever the end state is, I promise that in year one, there will not be a saving. There might eventually be something to look forward to, but we have enough economic troubles that I find it stunning that the Government should be considering entering into something that will make their fiscal task harder, at least in the short term and possibly in the long term.

I have tabled a number of parliamentary questions that have been answered in the name of the Minister before us today. Those answers have all been elegant, but they have not been illuminating. The charitable explanation came from her hon. Friend the Member for Crawley: maybe the Government just do not know what the data are. That might be true. It might also be true that they have a working assumption, but we are not being told.

15:12

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for leading this debate and eloquently putting the case. I endorse his calls this afternoon.

I will use my time to talk about why local government reorganisation in the south-east is happening, as well as its opportunities and risks. LGR, as it is known for short, is happening in Surrey first because of the dire financial state of local government there. I have raised it with the Minister before, in one-to-ones, Committee meetings and the Chamber, so I know that she, too, knows that that is why LGR is happening in Surrey. It is almost inevitable because of the appalling decisions that have been made by the Conservatives who run Surrey county council, and boroughs and districts across my county.

Nowhere is it more true than in my constituency of Woking, where the former Conservative administration of Woking borough council borrowed more than £2 billion for risky commercial investments. It is a small borough council with the debts of a small country. My local authority borrowed and spent more than £700 million on a town centre regeneration scheme, which councillors originally signed off at £150 million. It borrowed money from the Government to loan to a private school, despite the fact, as I highlighted during Prime Minister’s questions last week, that a state school has a hole in its roof and a rotten floor. It then borrowed money to build, run and maintain a power plant in Milton Keynes. That raft of financial decisions will hurt my constituents and, I am afraid, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, and the whole country, for years to come.

Where is the accountability in all this? Well, since those appalling decisions were made my constituents have voted out of office every single Conservative councillor on Woking borough council, and I am pleased they did. There is political accountability there, but where is the personal accountability? I have called for the former chief executive officer of Woking borough council, Ray Morgan, to lose his OBE. Investigations are under way into him and others; does the Minister agree that the former CEO should lose his honour straight away?

I am concerned about the legacy of debt that will be passed on to the new west Surrey council. I am pleased that the Government agreed, among previous Ministers, an unprecedented and historic write-off of £500 million of Woking’s debt. My constituents and I are obviously very grateful for that, but the money could not possibly have been repaid. I am pleased that the Government recognised that, but more debt write-off and more support are going to be needed to ensure that the new council does not start off bankrupt on day one. The Minister recently wrote to me outlining further support for west Surrey, as well as what we have agreed for Woking; will she comment on what further support the Government can bring?

Let me move on to an issue that is close to my heart. Members might think that being the MP for the most bankrupt and indebted council area in the country is about as bad as it could get. I am afraid I also represent the area where Sara Sharif was tortured, abused and murdered by her family. What makes that worse is that Surrey county council could have saved her on multiple occasions. From day one, the council wanted to take custody of her, away from her family, but did not. The day before she was murdered, the council tried to visit her to see whether she was safe but went to the wrong house. Surrey has shown systemic failure in looking after vulnerable constituents, and that was a tragic result.

Thankfully, children’s services will be broken up and divided between east and west Surrey, but I am terrified that the culture of not looking after vulnerable children will be passed on to the new west Surrey council, and I know that colleagues representing the east Surrey council area feel similarly. Will the Minister please work with me and others to ensure that our new council has a good culture that includes looking after vulnerable children and responding to MPs’ emails? That would be a stark contrast to the reality I see from Surrey county council.

Finally, I want to mention another risk of local Government reorganisation. Under the Conservatives, Surrey county council recently announced that it is going to end free school meal vouchers. The council is going to allow them to continue for Easter but, coincidentally, as soon as the elections are over, it is going to stop feeding vulnerable constituents over the holidays in my Woking constituency and across Surrey. That will mean no more free school vouchers in the May half-term or summer breaks. Will the Minister investigate that and ensure that Surrey is adequately funded so that our constituents are supported? Does she agree that it is shocking and deceitful that, under the cloud of local government reorganisation, the Conservative county council is trying to deprive children in my constituency of a healthy meal?

15:18

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am exceptionally grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing the debate and outlining so eloquently his concerns and those of his residents. I thank all colleagues who have spoken; it has been helpful to weave together the different perspectives of those of us who are going through reorganisation and those who are experts in the field. I hope the Minister will take on board everything that has been said in the debate.

Like my hon. Friend, I support the principle of local Government reorganisation. I am sure we have all spoken to residents who are surprised and frustrated to learn that they have to deal with one council to fix potholes and a different one to get their bins collected. Simplification for that purpose is actually a good thing but, as we have heard from west Surrey colleagues such as my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr Forster) and for Surrey Heath—it is a recurring theme in Surrey and for pretty much all councils in the south-east—reorganisation is frankly just about finance.

Colleagues have clearly and starkly illustrated that Surrey is in billions of pounds of debt racked up by Conservative-led councils, and it has been Liberal Democrat colleagues in local government who have led the way in turning councils’ finances around. That said, I am grateful to the hon. Members for Crawley (Peter Lamb) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who both rightly noted that savings are not always guaranteed. It is going to be “interesting” to see how things evolve and whether the savings presented to us will actually come to fruition.

Reshaping local government can make sense, but reorganisation succeeds only when it is done with communities, not to them. Across Surrey, residents, councillors and officers feel that the pace of the reorganisation process has left them struggling to keep up with decisions that will help to reshape local services. When we debated the draft Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026 two weeks ago, I raised concerns about the speed of the process and the lack of meaningful consultation. I highlighted the fact that when residents were asked, they said they wanted three authorities. The financial figures show that the difference between the cost savings for two versus three authorities across Surrey is relatively minimal.

When it comes to ensuring that a local authority reflects its residents, it is important that it gives them the sense of place that the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) referred to, which is really important to residents. The structural changes order came into force today; unfortunately, I have not yet had answers to my questions in the debate on it, but I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that I will have them shortly.

Members have articulated the serious financial pressures facing Surrey. Residents are understandably worried about historical debt, and how the cost of living crisis alongside that will affect them, whether that is through council tax harmonisation, the loss of valued community assets, or pressures on frontline services. Residents did not make the decisions that created the problems, yet they will be asked to shoulder the financial consequences.

I would welcome clarity from the Minister on what transitional funding and support the Government are going to provide for west Surrey and other authorities that are going through reorganisation. They are going to start their lives as new authorities on a potentially unstable financial footing. As colleagues have highlighted, west Surrey is looking at an unstable footing in the order of around £4 billion.

There is a wider question about the economic framework shaping the future of the authorities in question. The current proposals will give west Surrey strategic responsibilities that are similar to those of a mayoral authority, but without access to the equivalent long-term investment. Mayoral authorities benefit from 30-year investment funds, because the Government recognise that long-term certainty unlocks growth. If west Surrey and other new combined authority areas are expected to deliver the same strategic ambitions as a mayoral authority without the same tools, the Government need to explain how they expect those authorities to unlock the growth needed for them to economically succeed and serve their residents.

I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify two points regarding foundation strategic authority status. First, will the Minister give clarity on the pathway to a mayoral authority specifically for Surrey, and on the timing of any future mayoral election? Secondly, will she outline how the Government are going to ensure that areas that are undergoing reorganisation via the foundation authority route do not miss out on the growth funding available to mayoral combined authorities elsewhere?

On communication and governance, large-scale structural change depends on strong collaboration among county councils, district councils, officers, community organisations and Members of Parliament, yet many colleagues across Surrey, including me and my team, have struggled to obtain clear and timely engagement with Surrey county council. A particular example—I could give a litany of them—is my work alongside Guildford borough council, South Western Railway and Network Rail on progressing discussions about a potential new railway station in Guildford. We are struggling to get engagement from the county council, which is also the transport authority. This does not bode well for the wider essential communication needed to make the transition to new councils work. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that.

My final Surrey-specific point relates to the parish councils and voluntary sector organisations across the county, which are also significantly impacted by local government reorganisation and deserve urgent clarity. These bodies provide vital hyper-local leadership. They support vulnerable residents, deliver local services and act as a crucial bridge between communities and the higher tiers of government. Many of them are, frankly, unsure what the new governance structures mean for their funding, commissioning arrangements and day-to-day interactions with the new authorities. Surely such crucial partners need clarity.

A specific concern that highlights the problem was expressed to me this week on behalf of parish councils. The parish council elections are due in 2027, but they will no longer align with the main-tier elections, so parishes will incur additional costs. Currently, those unexpected costs will have to be footed by parishes, so will the Minister outline what support they will be given for the unexpected electoral cost when elections do not align?

To move beyond Surrey, local government across England is under immense pressure after years of financial strain, rising demand in social care and SEND, and inadequate long-term funding. Reorganisation alone cannot resolve the structural challenges; it is part of the solution, and we desperately need it to work, but it is only part of the solution. We Liberal Democrats continue to argue that alongside reorganisation we need fair funding, proper recognition of the costs faced by rural and semi-rural areas, and sustainable, multi-year settlements that allow councils to plan ahead. That is why we focus so much on needing a cross-party solution to the social care crisis. Many county councils face having to spend enormous percentages of their budgets on social care, leaving wider budgets stretched to breaking point, despite their herculean efforts.

In conclusion, communities across Surrey, the wider south-east and England deserve local government reorganisation that strengthens them, not uncertainty that undermines them. We have heard from colleagues throughout the House about their grave concerns as experienced Members of Parliament and experienced individuals with backstories in local government, and about the concerns their residents have raised with them. I hope the Minister will reflect on the issues raised in the debate, take the steps needed to deliver, and work with colleagues across the House to deliver local government reorganisation that works for local people.

15:28

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on my roles as an unpaid parliamentary vice-president of both the Local Government Association and London Councils.

I congratulate to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on securing the debate. He, the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) set the tone of a debate that has engaged, with a high degree of seriousness, not only with the issues that stem from the specifics of what is happening in Surrey but with what they say about the wider local government reorganisation debate.

It was interesting as a parliamentarian to be present, a short time ago, at a Delegated Legislation Committee in which Committee members agreed the abolition of the historic county of Surrey and its replacement with two unitary authorities. That was the conclusion of a long period of debate in which, as the hon. Member for Crawley outlined, the leaders of county councils in particular argued strongly that local government reorganisation on the footprint of the existing county structure would be a way to save money. Many district councils argued strongly against that idea, and it was called into question by many experienced unitary leaders.

We all recognise that there is a need to look again at our local government settlement. This country is already very under-represented in democratic terms at the local level, with the fewest elected politicians per capita of any developed democracy. It is also intensely centralised by comparison with most other countries, with decisions that would as a matter of routine be local decisions in most other democracies taken by Parliament or central Government.

I have a huge amount of sympathy for the Minister, because while she is from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, council services touch on the work of the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education, the Department for Transport, the Treasury, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office. The observations that other Members have made about the impact of special educational needs and disabilities demonstrate that complexity, where an issue that sits outside the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is one of the single biggest factors in the viability of local authorities.

The last time we faced each other across the Dispatch Box, I asked the Minister, with particular respect to Surrey, whether there was an update on negotiations. Surrey had set out very clearly that its deficit on SEND spending sits at around £350 million, and the Government had been clear—in fairness, it was Department for Education Ministers—that they would pay off 90% of that deficit. The offer to Surrey was £100 million, which was significantly less than the 90% that we were promised at the Dispatch Box. This is not simply a matter of what happens in a single Government Ministry; it brings together services, activities and decisions across Government.

Reflecting on the long history of local government reorganisation, it probably predates the existence of our country as a unitary state. Certainly the role of some ancient Saxon kingdoms is quite akin to the behaviour of some local government leaders today. The particular challenges that come from the difficult relationship between central and local government are manifest here today.

With regard to recent developments, I spent 12 years in local government under the previous Labour Government and a further 12 years there under the Conservative Government who left office in 2024, and many of the decisions that were made then by central Government—statutory requirements placed on local authorities such as SEND arrangements, social care, the fair access criteria that were introduced, housing—were never fully funded. Since the early 2000s, there has been steady growth in the share of local government spending that is consumed by social care and housing. We have seen an erosion of the ability of our elected local leaders to deploy locally raised resources against local priorities, to the extent that social care now consumes around 70% to 80% of the budget of a typical social care authority. That is not sustainable.

Other Members have spoken passionately and with a degree of criticism about the impact that investment decisions at the council level have had. We all recognise that councils led by all of the parties represented here have made both good and bad decisions when it comes to investment, but we should be wary of criticising local leaders for having made decisions in good faith that did not end well. At a time when the public works loan board interest rate was 0.25%, the decision—even by a council—to take a loan and put it in the bank would have generated additional finance that could have supported local government services. Those decisions were not always innately wrong, but the impact of covid on local authorities’ investments in commercial property was absolutely devastating. Spelthorne, which has been mentioned today, is one example of that: what would have looked like an extremely sound commercial investment turned into a very bad one because of the impact of covid.

         We find ourselves today in a situation where Surrey is unusual. It is the only authority announced for the devolution priority programme that has got to the point of creating new successor unitary authorities. At the outset of this process, the Government were very clear that they were going to cancel the elections in all the devolution priority programme councils, which we voted against at the Delegated Legislation Committee that considered that matter. They did so on the basis that elections for the new unitaries and mayors would take place across the country. There were supposed to be elections this May for new mayors in Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex, Hampshire and many other places. Political parties and local leaders had been working on that basis, only to find after a 24-hour U-turn last December that the elections that were promised to go ahead were suddenly being cancelled.

All this delay and dithering is imposing costs. I met yesterday with a finance company that told me that the procurement of new finance systems across the local authority sector has simply ground to a halt in the absence of any clarity from Government about what is happening. The commissioning of new services in social care to address homelessness has collapsed, which I know concerns the Minister, as has the delivery of housing—both the pipeline of new applications and the completions of new properties. Two thirds of London boroughs report no new net additional homes. That is an absolute indictment of the state in which many of our councils find themselves because of the delay imposed by this process.

As the hon. Member for Crawley outlined, both the Government and the wider argument for this reorganisation rely on a now rather old report that was prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers at the instigation of the County Councils Network to support the case for county-based reorganisation. It is clear from the evidence he presented that the hon. Member, who left us in no doubt about what he thinks of this process, knows of what he speaks. The start of the process was simple. Half a million people was the minimum footprint in order to secure savings. That was the level that the Treasury expected to see delivered. However, that is significantly larger than the existing footprint of most unitary authorities. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire described, it risked losing the sense of place and identity. Ministers quite wisely backed off. They looked at the bids from the local authority areas that were instructed to submit them and settled on a smaller footprint.

That fundamentally undermines the case that this will result in significant revenue savings to the Government in the medium to long term, for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Crawley. A concern that the Opposition have raised a number of times on the Floor of the House is that the Government have no independent modelling or independent financial analysis to back up their direction of travel on these reorganisation decisions.

As all Members who spoke passionately about their enthusiasm for getting local Government right recognised, when we compare ourselves, sometimes unfavourably, to other European countries and ask why they seem to be able to build railways and public transport infrastructure faster than the United Kingdom, the answer is largely that those decisions are made at local and regional level; they are not made by central Government. Delivery of rail networks or citywide transport, for example, which I know is of concern to a huge number of Members where lots of good projects are on the stocks, is much faster and cheaper in many other countries. We need to look at what we can learn from their experience.

We need to reflect on the role of the Treasury. I have heard former Chancellors say that when the demand for additional day-to-day spending becomes unbearable, the temptation is to simply slow down the exit of capital from the door on major projects. One of the benefits of localisation is that it removes that temptation from Chancellors and ensures that things that are committed to, become deliverable at a local level.

There are many urgent pressures. One of the key concerns I hear from councils all the time is that the Government do not have a huge amount of time to think, not just in the sense of the parliamentary timetable but when we look across our country. Unemployment has been relentlessly rising every single month since the Government took office, homelessness has surged up 27% in London alone since the Government took office, debt is rising rapidly, planning decisions are grinding to a halt and housing delivery is grinding to a halt. We need to give local communities hope that there is a prospect of solving some of those matters. I share a concern with the hon. Member for Crawley, which affects us very directly. The decisions that the Government have made in the Home Office, speeding up decision making on asylum seekers, pushing those people out the door and up the road to the town hall which then has responsibility for housing them, is putting acute pressure on my local authority, his local authority and many others across the country who are doing their best in difficult circumstances.

It is very clear that a whole range of issues are brought to our attention by what is happening in Surrey. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have set out their particular concerns. I hope that, as a result of the observations made in the debate, we may see the Government come back with a revised set of policies that reflect a clear sense of place and the opportunity for all our constituents to know that they will have elected representatives who can make the decisions that they want to see made at a local level.

[Peter Lamb]

On a point of order, Mr Vickers. Regarding my earlier breach, I just want to apologise to you and to the Chamber for referring to my right hon. Friends the Members for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) by their names rather than by their constituencies, and without forewarning. I was unaware of the process. I will make sure it does not happen again.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Your apology is noted.

15:41

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

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing today’s debate on local government reorganisation in the south-east. It is a very important issue for residents and businesses across the region and I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s approach, the progress that is being made and the opportunity that change presents.

Local government reorganisation is an opportunity to modernise how councils operate. For too long, many areas have been served by complex two-tier structures that divide responsibilities, duplicate cost and blur accountability. Residents often struggle to know which council is responsible for which service. I note the various contributions that have been made on that point. I think we would all agree that councils can always do better to help residents engage with them, but there is no doubt that there is evidence out there that the two-tier system does seem to add to confusion and a lack of accountability. Decisions to build and grow our towns and cities can take longer, with resources spread more thinly. We need clearer structures, stronger councils, quicker decisions, more homes and better services for local people. By moving to single unitary authorities we can create councils with the scale, leadership and authority to grow their economies, create jobs and opportunities, and deliver for communities, particularly in the services where pressure is greatest, including children’s services, adult social care and housing. Those areas were mentioned by a number of Members; I appreciate the contributions that they made.

I just want to make one point on identity, because I am sure we will debate the finances of the situation. As he often does, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) raised the very serious situation that that council has been through, but identity is also important. I hope Members will forgive me if they have heard me say this before, but before I was born, my own area was in a two-tier system, with Birkenhead and Cheshire as a two-tier council area. In 1974, before I was born, we became the Wirral in Merseyside. Now, we are the Wirral in Liverpool city region. Those different identities are complex and interconnected. There are some people I represent who would say that they are still Cheshire all these years later.

[Damian Hinds]

Yeah!

[Alison McGovern]

There are! And there are some people who identify as Birkenhead and many people who, as I do, think of themselves as Wirralian. These issues of identity are complicated. We need to take account of them and listen to what residents tell us, but my experience is that there is never one right answer.

Across England, the programme is progressing quickly. Proposals have been submitted and consultations undertaken, and the first decisions are now being implemented. The south-east is at the forefront of this work. It is home to cities such as Brighton, Southampton, Oxford and Portsmouth, which have a vital role to play not only in their local economies, but in our national growth story.



I turn first to Surrey, the most advanced area. Parliament has considered the order to establish two new unitary authorities, East Surrey and West Surrey, with elections taking place this May and new councils formally assuming responsibilities in April 2027. Alongside structural reform, we have committed unprecedented debt repayment support of £500 million for Woking borough council, reflecting historic capital practices at the council and the value-for-money case for acting to protect local and national taxpayers. A couple of Members with Surrey constituencies rightly pointed out the consequences for other Surrey residents; I agree that there are consequences for all citizens in the UK when that sort of thing happens. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath asked about financial sustainability. We are keeping that closely under review as we move forward with this process. The support that we have agreed is a first tranche, and we will continue to explore what further debt support is required at a later point.

A number of Members asked about modelling. In this process, it is for councils to bring forward their analysis of costs and benefits to make the case under the criteria. I add one word of caution: we have all discussed the situation with spiking demand in particular areas of cost. I am working with other Government Departments on that; as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) said, local government is a complex mix when it comes to central Government policy. I spent three years on the Treasury Committee poring over the modelling on Brexit and other matters. It is not a precise science, as Members who have experienced Government know only too well.

[Damian Hinds]

As with many projections, some things are more uncertain than others. Typically, in business, revenues are really hard to project, but costs are a lot easier. Can the Minister share with us what the costs of the reorganisation are anticipated to be?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman; that is exactly the point that I am making. I am very conscious that I have spoken to many council leaders and finance officers in recent weeks who have experienced significant cost pressures in areas where we are in quite an uncertain policy environment. The right response to that is to work with the Department for Education, particularly on children’s costs, and others, to get the policy in the right place so that we can get those costs down.

[Damian Hinds]

I meant reorganisation costs.

[Alison McGovern]

I accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point about reorganisation costs; I will think about whether I can say more to him in writing about that—otherwise we will just go over this forever.

I now turn to the really important point made by the hon. Member for Woking. I probably cannot respond in this context to his specific question about honours, but I will take it away. I have immense sympathy with the points he raised, but I am conscious that investigations are ongoing. I will leave it there, but he was correct to make his case.

The removal of the Audit Commission—and what happened to local audit under the Government from 2010 to 2015—was in my view an absolute disaster. We will put it right with the reintroduction of local audit and much greater constraints on the sort of behaviours we have seen not only in Woking, but elsewhere. I will leave that there, too, but I could go on about it for hours.

I turn to Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight. The Government have received a number of proposals and representations from councils. Across those areas, different authorities have put forward different visions for the future, some favouring multiple new unitary authorities while others, such as the Isle of Wight, have been clear in their preference to remain stand-alone. Those views, alongside the evidence submitted by other councils and stakeholders, will be assessed carefully against the criteria of sustainability, geography and public engagement.

I turn briefly to Sussex. Proposals for reorganisation have been received and the consultation has now closed. The Government are considering all the evidence submitted and will take decisions guided by the statutory criteria and what will best support effective and sustainable local government.

I turn to Oxfordshire. The Government have now launched a statutory consultation on proposals for unitary reform across the country, which closes this month. A range of options have been proposed, including a single county-wide authority, a two-unitary model and a three-unitary configuration, including a Greater Oxford council.

At this point, I note the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller). He will appreciate that I cannot comment on the specifics, but he asked for a meeting on finance with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock), which I am very happy to arrange. Oxford is a vital cog in helping to grow our national economy, but that is exactly why the consultation and the process are so important. Decisions must be informed not only by structural and economic arguments made by local councils but by the views of residents, businesses and communities themselves.

Across all areas undergoing reform, the Government’s priority is that change must not come at the expense of vital decisions to keep building homes and delivering frontline services. We are also providing practical support to councils delivering reorganisation to help with this capacity, including up to £63 million nationally to help manage implementation pressures alongside expert advice from across the sector and the Local Government Association. I note the comments made by the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) about parish councils being responsible for their own services and so on. If she has particular concerns about that, I will welcome a note from her.

Reorganisation also sits alongside wider action to place local government on a stronger financial footing. Earlier this year, the Government confirmed the first multi-year local government finance settlement in a decade, which has been welcomed by Members from across the House because it provides councils with greater certainty and ensures that funding better reflects needs and deprivations.

We should remember that the benefits of strong unitary councils are not theoretical. For example, where they already exist, we are seeing results. In South Yorkshire, four unitary councils working with the mayor are helping places such as Barnsley and Doncaster not only to grow their local economies but to translate that into higher wages for local people. South Yorkshire is one of the places that has suffered worst with unemployment in our country’s history, but it is now making serious and significant progress. That is the real economic growth that improves living standards.

Newer unitary councils such as those in Buckinghamshire and North Yorkshire are delivering millions of pounds of efficiencies through streamlined structures that have reduced duplications, delivering savings that will be reinvested in frontline priorities such as supporting vulnerable children and funding local transport. The hon. Member for Woking made his point about vulnerable children very well; I will alert the Minister with responsibility for children’s care to his comments so that he can get a response.

[Zöe Franklin]

I want to return to the Minister’s point about how mayoral authorities are making such economic progress, and to my question. When foundation authorities are formed on the journey to reorganisation, they do not get the same funding support as a mayoral authority. They are therefore losing out on essential kick-starting resources to help them on their journeys to successful economic growth. Will she clarify what support is coming?

[Alison McGovern]

When my own area in Merseyside started off on the journey to get a mayor, it was really unclear how to build the right resources; the time it took to do that should not be underestimated. The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities started 20 years before the city had a mayor.

The right way is to get the foundation strong first: get the unitary authorities in place and then move forward from there. I know that the hon. Lady will have more conversations with my hon. Friend the Devolution Minister, who will talk to her about the specific process for Surrey. It is important to me, as Minister for Local Government, to get the foundations strong so that we can build devolution up in that way.

I recognise that Members have raised a number of specific concerns about the implications of reform in their own areas, and those concerns matter. They are being carefully considered. Whether the issue is financial sustainability, which we have discussed, local identity, which I went on about again, or the impact of potential boundary changes, decisions will be taken carefully, transparently and in the interests of residents.

Although they are out of scope of our reorganisation programme, town and parish councils will continue to play an important role in representing their communities. New unitary authorities will also be expected to develop strong, local, area-based working, so that decision making remains close to the communities that it affects. As we look ahead, the next steps are clear: the Government will move forward with decisions and continue working with councils across the region to ensure that change is delivered smoothly and responsibly.

In conclusion, local government reorganisation offers an opportunity for the south-east: an opportunity to give local areas the capacity to grow, build the homes their communities need and see better public services; an opportunity to replace complex and outdated structures with councils that are simpler, stronger and more accountable; and an opportunity to ensure that local government is fit for the future.

I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath again for securing this debate. I look forward to continuing to work with Members across the House and with local partners to make changes that will benefit communities right across the south-east.

15:55

[Dr Pinkerton]

I thank the Minister for the seriousness with which she has addressed many of the points raised today. I also thank everyone who has spoken; we had excellent interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) and for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), and from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

The hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) gave a really excellent speech. Like me, he questioned the financial underpinnings and assumptions that sit underneath this process altogether. He also raised important points about urban-rural tension. I slightly agree with the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds): I think the reorganisation will place greater pressure on rural communities than on urban ones, but we will see. The point is that nobody has certainty and there are fears in both directions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) spoke powerfully about transitional funding arrangements, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin). My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster), my constituency neighbour, spoke knowledgeably and passionately about inherited debt—reckless borrowing from the past—but also about the important point of personal responsibility and indeed culpability. I would absolutely support him, and indeed the Minister, in taking that point still further forward.

Lastly, I thank the spokesperson for the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), as well as the Minister once again. Thank you all.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of local government reorganisation in the South East.

15:57

Sitting suspended.

English Rugby

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Valerie Vaz in the Chair]

16:00

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Edward Morello will move the motion and the Minister will respond. I remind other hon. Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention in a 30-minute debate, the Member in charge will not have an opportunity to wind up.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for English rugby.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. Although I confess it is tempting to use this 30 minutes to talk about the disastrous result at the weekend, I will instead stick to the topic. I am a rugby romantic. For me and so many others, the game is about something far deeper than the scoreline. It is of course about solo tries, rolling mauls and high-pressure drop goals that win world cups, but it is also about the burgers from the clubhouse kitchen; standing on the sidelines in the rain, snow, wind and, very occasionally, glorious sunshine; the professional players having their signed shirts on the walls of their childhood club; and tying the laces of my son’s boots on a Sunday morning when he turns out for the under-sevens. That reminds me that rugby is not just a sport, but a community, and at the heart of that community is grassroots rugby.

Local clubs are far more than places where games are played. They are community assets. They are where children, parents, supporters, coaches and volunteers come together. Yes, we go there to play and watch rugby, but they are also where fitness classes, community events and social gatherings are held. They are places where friendships are made and where people feel part of something bigger than themselves.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on this important debate. I am of course the Member of Parliament who represents the home of English rugby; I also have the premiership team Harlequins in my constituency. But we also have grassroots clubs such as Thamesians, which is struggling for pitch space, particularly for its women’s team, who are doing a brilliant job. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we should be doing everything we can, given what he has just said, to improve access to playing-field space, and therefore will he join me in imploring the Minister to talk to his colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about its plans to remove Sport England as a statutory consultee on planning applications, which could reduce the number of pitches?

[Edward Morello]

I agree wholeheartedly and am sure that the Minister will take the opportunity to speak to that pledge.

Most importantly, grassroots clubs are where the future of the sport begins. They are where the next England star first learnt to pass, make a tackle and score a try. Yet many grassroots clubs are struggling. Across the country are clubhouses that are outdated, that have unsuitable changing rooms and where facilities are not always appropriate for the women’s game. Often there are no women’s changing rooms at all.

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

I founded North Dorset women’s rugby club back in 1995 and I am very pleased to say that it is still going. There is now also a fantastic girls’ team, linked with Castle Cary rugby club in my constituency, for girls aged between 12 and 18. There has been some great work on facilities and there has been some funding available through Impact ’25 to help with changing facilities for women and girls. It ends at the end of this month, but it needs to continue. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need that funding in order to ensure that there is that ability to include women and girls in our rugby clubs, particularly in rural areas?

[Edward Morello]

I wholeheartedly agree and will come on to the issues about funding, but also about how we measure the impact to ensure that, whether it be Rugby Football Union funding or Government—taxpayer —money through Sport England, we are measuring the outputs and making sure that we are delivering results.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward for debate. It is not just about the clubs; it is also about those who inspire. One of those who perhaps inspires is the pop culture sensation Fury, a former English rugby player who is now a Gladiator. We watch her—on a Saturday night, normally—encouraging young women to be strong, and perhaps fierce.

Now is the time to encourage young boys and girls to get a love for the sport of rugby, which can only be achieved, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, through adequate funding. Indeed, does he agree that the physical benefits of rugby are equalled by the mental health benefits, and the sense of camaraderie that exists in being part of a team at any level, and that all of that is well worth funding across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Edward Morello]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member about the wider benefits of rugby, and I will go on to speak about some of the important things that physical activity and sport bring to communities and young people. However, as he mentioned “Gladiators”, it would be remiss of me not to mention my son’s favourite Gladiator, Nitro. I am sure that my son will be delighted to have that on the record. [Laughter.]

Financial pressures are constant. Many clubs survive only because of the extraordinary dedication of volunteers who give their time to keep the lights on and the pitches playable. Matches are regularly cancelled because clubs are unable to field teams in certain age groups. In the last 24 years, 174 amateur clubs have disappeared, which should be a concern to all of us, because if we want rugby to thrive in the future, grassroots clubs must be protected and supported.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a very powerful speech about the power of rugby in our communities. As a proud northerner, I am here to speak about league. The Rugby League Foundation and the Leeds Rhinos Foundation both do excellent work with local community clubs. Every £1 that they invest in community clubs generates a £7 return. However, the facilities in such clubs are decaying and in some cases they limit opportunities. Does he agree that the Government should consider targeted facilities support to ensure that community clubs are successful on and off the pitch?

[Edward Morello]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and my Lancastrian wife will be delighted that rugby league was brought into this debate, as she always tries to convince me when I am watching league that it is better than rugby union. I absolutely take his point about targeted support and I am sure the Minister will, too.

Government support has made a difference where it has been targeted effectively. Through arm’s length bodies such as Sport England, almost £14 million has been awarded to grassroots rugby from the legacy funding for the 2025 women’s rugby world cup. Since 2009, nearly £50 million of national lottery funding has been invested in the women’s and girls’ game, with £11.8 million of funding confirmed between 2022 and 2027.

That investment has had positive results. We have seen that clearly in the growth of the women’s game. The Red Roses have become one of the most dominant teams in world sport. They have won three rugby world cups, including the most recent one in 2025. At that tournament, they defeated Canada in front of a record crowd of over 81,000 spectators at Twickenham. They have won 20 women’s six nations tournaments, achieved 18 grand slams and hold the record for the longest winning streak in international rugby union, with 33 consecutive victories. Since 2022, the funding has also supported a 35% increase in the number of age-grade girls playing rugby, and over 43,500 women and girls are now registered with the Rugby Football Union.

Despite that success, however, the women’s professional game still faces major structural challenges. Many players in Premiership women’s rugby remain semi-professional. They train and compete at the highest level, while also holding down second jobs. If we want the women’s game to continue growing, we must ensure that facilities are appropriate, that funding is sustainable and that players are able to become fully professional.

The Government can play a role, not in controlling the sport but in supporting its development, and the same is true at grassroots level. Across my constituency of West Dorset, we have extraordinary rugby clubs: Bridport; Dorchester; Puddletown; and Sherborne. They represent everything that is good about community sport. However, even as we celebrate their achievements, we must expand the game. Grassroots rugby needs more targeted Government investment, particularly in the most deprived communities.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Nottingham Rugby is based in my constituency. It plays in what was formerly known as the Championship and is now known as the Champ. The reality is that funding for the Championship, which is the second tier of rugby in England, has fallen sharply in recent years and my local club is genuinely struggling to stay afloat.

The hon. Gentleman has talked about women’s rugby being largely semi-professional rather than professional. The truth is that the same is true in the second tier of men’s rugby as well. Does he agree that that raises genuine questions about the viability of rugby? And if he does, would he also agree that it would be wise for Ministers to genuinely look at how long the game can survive?

[Edward Morello]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman; in fact, I would quite happily have a whole other Westminster Hall debate on how we raise the level of the Championship, or the Champ, because the difference between the Prem and the Champ now is enormous. There are better models elsewhere. For example, we can look at France and the success of its second division—the “D2”, although I am not sure how that is pronounced in English. It is markedly different to second-tier rugby in this country.

Rugby must be a sport open to everyone, and not just those who happen to attend traditional rugby-playing schools. Where state schools have had the right funding and support, they have thrived in school competitions, fuelled rugby academies, inspired a new generation of rugby fans and shown what is possible with the right conditions. The sport needs far greater diversity, and participation from people of all backgrounds and socioeconomic circumstances. It is not just good for society but good for the sport, because a larger, more diverse player pool ensures that we have the best players and the strongest competition.

That means that rugby must exist in more state schools across the country, but there has been a worrying decline in school sports provision. Data from the Youth Sport Trust shows that the number of hours of PE and sport delivered in schools has fallen by more than 45,000 hours since 2012. That cannot be the direction of travel if we are serious about the health and wellbeing of our young people.

The Government have announced reforms, such as the new school sports partnerships and the national enrichment framework, and they are very welcome steps, but when will those programmes be implemented? Will they be in place for the next school year? Can the Government guarantee that there will be no cuts to school sports funding? School sports need stable, multi-year funding. Active children are more likely to remain active adults, so it brings enormous public health benefits.

The RFU has also begun important work to expand the sport in schools. In 2024, it commissioned a review of rugby union in education, focusing on sustainability and participation. One of the most exciting initiatives is the roll-out of T1 rugby, which is a non-contact version of the game developed by World Rugby. In the 2024-25 season, T1 rugby reached 1,800 schools and around 80,000 students, with a near equal mix of boys and girls. Within four years, the programme aims to reach more than 5,000 schools. It shows what can be achieved when organisations work together with a clear strategy.

Government Departments must do the same. Education policy and sports policy cannot exist in isolation. If the Department for Education and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport collaborate effectively, rugby can reach schools and communities that have never had access to the sport. That means providing equipment, time to have PE on the curriculum, proper time and training for teachers so that they have the confidence to coach, proper facilities to get changed in, pitches to play on, and access for all children to boots and sports clothing so that they are able to play.

We must also recognise the role that rugby can play beyond the pitch. Sport is an important form of soft power. Football, music and the creative industries project British culture across the world, and rugby can do the same. Players such as Maro Itoje, Ellie Kildunne, Henry Pollock, Sadia Kabeya, Ellis Genge and Meg Jones are more than just elite athletes, they should be ambassadors for this country.

We should also recognise the serious financial challenges facing the professional game. Prem rugby has grown in popularity, attendance figures are rising, stadiums are filling and broadcast audiences continue to increase, but financial sustainability at the top of the pyramid remains a real concern, despite those successes. Several Premiership clubs continue to carry significant losses. Collectively, clubs owe large sums in pandemic loans issued through the Government support scheme. During covid-19, the Government provided £123.8 million in loans to premiership rugby clubs, which was 57% of the total amount to sports organisations. Champ clubs received a combined £4.8 million in loan support.

That was vital support that helped clubs survive the pandemic, but the financial model of professional rugby is fragile. Clubs such as Wasps, London Irish and Worcester Warriors have entered insolvency in recent years, unable to pay back the huge amounts of debt owed to the taxpayer. Even among the surviving clubs in the Prem, there are significant financial losses. Figures for 2025 showed that the biggest annual losses were £7.5 million at Saracens and £7 million at Sale Sharks, but every Premiership club recorded a loss, highlighting the financial pressures facing the professional game, even as it works to stabilise after the disruption of recent years.

The Government have been very supportive through the loans system, and I hope that we will hear a firm commitment from the Minister that that will continue, but it is not acceptable for top-flight rugby.

[James Naish]

I want to put on the record that Nottingham Rugby took out a £900,000 covid-19 loan. Before the pandemic, it was receiving somewhere between £500,000 and £750,000 a year in a grant from the RFU, but that is now down to around £150,000, so that £900,000 covid-19 loan is simply not payable. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that covid-19 loans are now a real problem for those smaller clubs, and are becoming a burden that probably will not be payable?

[Edward Morello]

Yes. Even with the renegotiation and the favourable terms that the Government have provided, they are creating a long-lasting problem for both Prem and Championship clubs. I suspect that, if 21% of premiership football clubs had collapsed inside 18 months, there would be widespread calls for a national inquiry. Collectively, Prem rugby clubs carry £300 million of debt, and often rely on the generosity of wealthy owners to remain afloat.

We must acknowledge that reality, but we should not respond with pessimism; instead, we should focus on building a sustainable future. I welcome the Prem’s road map to becoming financially stable and ultimately self-sustaining. When that happens, the professional game will be able to support the wider rugby ecosystem, funding development pathways, supporting lower leagues and strengthening grassroots rugby. As we have discussed, at the moment the gap between the Prem and the Champ is just too wide.

Promotion and relegation have long been a romantic part of British sport: they represent the idea that any club with enough determination and talent can climb to the top; they add jeopardy and excitement, and I wholeheartedly support them. But that system can only work if the financial foundations of the sport are strong enough to support it. The last team to be relegated was Saracens in 2020. The last team to be successful after promotion was Exeter Chiefs. Investors must have confidence that clubs can remain viable whether they are in the Prem or in the Champ. Countries such as France have demonstrated that that is possible. The current choice for professional rugby in England is between ringfencing the Prem, attracting investment and building for the future, or persisting as we are, which risks losing the professional game and clubs forever, because at the moment we do not have the investment, the viewership or the money to keep it afloat.

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

The hon. Gentleman is making an important speech about the input that Government can have and the Prem, but the role that the RFU has in the future of rugby has only been mentioned a couple of times. We hear so much from the RFU about shaping support for the community game, but it was the RFU that savagely cut regional development officers and club relationships managers in 2020. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the RFU should be putting funding back to support the grassroots game?

[Edward Morello]

You leave me in something of a quandary because I deliberately chose Government support for English rugby, rather than using the debate as an opportunity to beat up the RFU—although I certainly have my criticisms of it, and I will come on to some of those points. The Government repeatedly say that the RFU is an arm’s length body, but the reality is that the RFU is in receipt of millions of taxpayers’ money. Therefore, it is absolutely justifiable for parliamentarians to hold it to account, and my personal view is that right now, not enough money is getting to the lower parts of the rugby pyramid.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. Through the Chair, please.

[Edward Morello]

Apologies, Ms Vaz. We will come back to that topic in another debate.

There are signs of growth and optimism in Prem rugby. The quality of rugby is among the best in the world. We are producing world-class talent that—the Six Nations aside—usually excels on the world stage. Attendance is growing, with several rounds of Prem rugby seeing sold-out fixtures and stadium occupancy reaching record levels.

Broadcast audiences are also increasing, with round nine in January attracting more than 1.2 million viewers. The Premiership final last year, which as a Bath supporter I am legally obliged to mention—come on Bath!—drew in nearly 1 million viewers in addition to a live crowd of 82,000 at Twickenham. Following the final, social engagement interactions across Premiership rugby channels rose by 24%. TV figures are up 35% since 2022. Those figures show that when the game is accessible, exciting and well promoted, fans are eager to watch, attend and engage. The professional game also provides a platform not only to showcase elite rugby, but to inspire the next generation and increase participation. But we must translate that success into players that are playing at a grassroots level, something that I worry we are failing to do.

Government have a role in English rugby, not by running the sport, but by ensuring transparency, oversight and responsible use of public money. When taxpayers are funding sports facilities, development programmes or covid loans, Parliament has a duty to ensure that that money is used effectively. Through Sport England, the Government have invested £72 million into rugby union since 2016—most recently £16.9 million in the RFU across the 2022 to 2027 funding cycle. We have a right and a duty to make sure that public money is well spent in the right places and on the right things.

Government can also actively take an interest in promoting and growing all parts of our game, from using our athletes as ambassadors for our country to directly supporting community rugby groups who reach out to those schools that we cannot reach. That brings me back to local communities and grassroots, because without grassroots rugby, none of the rest exists. The volunteers who mark the pitches, cook the food, coach the children and wash the kit are the true foundation of the sport. They deserve our recognition, our support and, most of all, our thanks. If we support grassroots rugby properly, if we bring the sport into more schools, if we invest in deprived communities, if we strengthen the women’s game and if we stabilise the professional leagues, then we will have a game that we love and that we can see flourish.

16:19

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I apologise that the Sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), is at the winter Paralympics in Milan, and there is nobody more appropriate than a Scot to take this particular debate. Ms Vaz, if you will indulge me, the reason I am wearing this tie is purely because I left my other blue one in the car this morning and this is the only one hanging up in my office that I had to put on—of course, I have to be appropriately dressed for replying to debates.

I am pleased to respond to the debate and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing it. I need to declare an interest early on, as holders of the Calcutta cup and favourites for the Six Nations; I wish England the best of luck against France this weekend, as it will allow us to lift that trophy. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that rugby union, and indeed all sports, play a vital role in our national and local identity. The things he said about the people who wash the kits, cook the food and coach the children, and all the people involved in our clubs as volunteers, describe many sports across the country. They are the beating heart of our communities.

From the roar of Twickenham—or sometimes the silence of Twickenham—to the muddy pitches of our local leagues, rugby is a sport that instils the core values of teamwork, discipline and respect. Those values are on show from the grassroots rugby games across the country all the way to the Six Nations. I would like to celebrate the performances by Scotland and Wales this weekend and I hope that England finish strongly, as they probably should.

Beyond the game itself, rugby clubs serve as the beating heart of our communities, demonstrating how much rugby is so much more than just a sport. They are vital social hubs, as the hon. Gentleman said, providing a sense of belonging, fostering local pride and delivering accessible opportunities for people of all ages to get active. That is exactly why the Government have been unwavering in their support for the game, from the grassroots up to the elite level.

On support for grassroots rugby union, as mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and many others in their interventions, the Government are committed to ensuring that everyone has access to and can benefit from quality sport and physical activity opportunities. That includes rugby union and indeed rugby league—Mr Speaker would be upset if I did not mention rugby league too. Sport England is providing more than £60 million of funding to the Rugby Football Union between 2022 and 2029, supporting men’s and women’s grassroots rugby participation.

As well as that, we are providing significant financial support to deliver grassroots sport facilities, including for rugby. The Government recently announced £85 million to build and upgrade grassroots sport facilities across the UK in this year alone, including more than £68 million that will be invested in England via the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme. I hope that will resolve many of the issues about facilities that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) talked about. That builds on more than £80 million being invested in England in 2025-26. Some 40% of funded projects through the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme will have a multi-sport offer to allow more people to participate in a wider variety of sports such as rugby.

In particular, women’s rugby, which has been mentioned, has seen exceptional growth in recent years. Women’s sport has seen exceptional growth, in fact, but particularly rugby. Since 2021, participation in the women’s game has surged by 38%. It is great to see the growth of women’s rugby and it was fantastic to see the success of the Red Roses last summer to inspire the next generation. A record 82,000 crowd, as well as a record television audience—a larger television audience than for the Six Nations—watched that final. That is part of the Government’s work to drive a decade of change in women’s sport, and my Department is using the women’s sport taskforce to drive progress across the sector and is working with the authorities to do so.

[Sarah Dyke]

Holly Davidson made history in February when she took charge of the Ireland versus Italy Six Nations game in Dublin, becoming the first woman to referee a men’s game. Being a proud Scot, will he join me in congratulating her on that terrific move for women’s participation in rugby generally?

[Ian Murray]

It is a terrific success and I congratulate Holly on that. If there were more female referees in the men’s game across all sports, there would probably be a much better-behaved environment for people to participate in. That does offer inspiration; I have a five-year old girl and a one-year old girl and when they see the finals, when they see the Lionesses or the Red Roses lifting those trophies and when they see female referees participating in the game, it inspires them to do so such more. We should celebrate all those successes, but they are still the exception, rather than the rule—we need to make sure they are the rule, rather than that exception.

The Government are building on the huge success of the women’s Rugby World Cup to deliver a successful legacy programme with the RFU. We ensured there is a lasting legacy from the tournament by providing nearly £7 million to the World Cup legacy programme, called Impact ’25.

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

I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello)) for securing this debate. In Keighley we have an urgent challenge: the last Conservative Government allocated more than £2 million to Keighley Cougars to build a new stand, but the money is still being withheld by Bradford council. It needs to be unlocked so we can get that stand built urgently. Would the Minister, or his counterpart in MHCLG, meet me so we can discuss that and try to get that money unlocked for Keighley Cougars?

[Ian Murray]

I am happy to commit my colleagues to a meeting with the appropriate Minister. Let us do that, and let us at least write to the hon. Gentleman and get that issue resolved.

The legacy programme has benefited 850 clubs, supporting women and girls of all ages to get involved in rugby. That includes clubs based in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Dorset, such as Dorchester RFC, which has received £5,000 towards upgrading its facilities.

I will use a couple of minutes, in the time we have left, to run through some of the issues raised. Let us look at the financial stability of the game, which has been a significant concern since covid in particular. My hon. Friend the Sports Minister has previously met with the RFU and Prem Rugby to discuss the long-term financial sustainability of professional rugby union, and my officials regularly engage with both organisations on that issue.

The hon. Member for West Dorset is right to talk about the £158 million to rugby union to support the clubs during covid-19. The loan agent for that is Sport England, which is always analysing the repayments and the borrowers’ financial situations. We cannot comment on individual clubs, but he did mention the favourable terms, including long interest rates, long repayment periods and up-front payment holidays. If any club is struggling, it should get in touch with Sport England as the loan agent to have discussions on covid loans.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned schools, and there is good news for schools. The Government are committed to protecting time for PE in schools, as set out in the Government’s response to the independent expert-led review of the curriculum. The new PE and school sport partnerships, announced by the Prime Minister last June, will ensure that all children have equal access to high-quality PE. These new partnerships will bring together schools, local clubs and national Government bodies to target funding and support where it is most needed—particularly, as hon. Members have mentioned, in state schools in our most deprived areas.

[Munira Wilson]

On PE in schools, will the Minister or his counterparts in the Department for Education commit to publishing a national schools sport strategy and a multi-year funding settlement, with the sport premium having been scrapped and other funds such as the opening school facilities fund that have benefited schools, particularly those in disadvantaged areas,?

[Ian Murray]

I have committed some of my colleagues to meetings already, but let me ask the appropriate Minister from DFE to write to the hon. Lady to answer those questions. I am coming on to her questions about planning and MHCLG in terms of Sport England. MHCLG is considering all responses to its recent consultation and are continuing to discuss the matter with Sport England. No decision will be made until all those responses are analysed as part of the consultation, and MHCLG are taking that forward.

Finally, I want to run through the RFU governance structures quickly—and let us acknowledge that substantial change is taking place within that governance. I think the RFU has heard the message and the PREM has moved towards a criteria-based expansion and demotion model. The Government are consistently working with the RFU and representatives of the Prem and Champ clubs, including Premiership Women’s Rugby, while also monitoring the situation, and are supporting them with the long-term sustainability of elite rugby union.

Rugby union is a great national success story—for some more than others—but it is currently writing its next critical chapter with the women’s game, the grassroots game and the elite game, and the Government are here to support that. We have stood shoulder to shoulder with the sport through its most difficult moments, such as covid, and will continue to champion its growth, particularly in the women’s game. We look forward to seeing English rugby continue to thrive for generations to come—[Interruption.] I have my fingers crossed as I stand at this particular Dispatch Box—apart, of course, from when they play Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Technology Sovereignty

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered technology sovereignty.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. We are four years into the Ukraine war and 10 days into the latest Iran-Israel-US conflict. At the start of this year, the US seized the President of Venezuela. A few weeks later, President Trump was demanding Greenland from Denmark. The world has never felt more insecure and unsecure.

For the first time since I was elected as an MP, global insecurity is an issue on the doorstep in Newcastle. As if that were not enough, we are also undergoing two technology revolutions: one in data and the other in AI automation. Add to that the geopolitical restructuring across different dimensions—Europe and the US, the global south and Russia/China, Europe and Russia, and Iran and the Gulf states—and a green industrial revolution that is driving competition for knowledge, resources, land and people. Is it any wonder that people are feeling insecure?

In the face of those challenges, we must be honest with our constituents about what we can and cannot control, and about the implications for our industrial, civil and defence policy. Technology sovereignty is a key part of that and a placeholder for larger fears. Too often, people feel that big tech is controlling, not empowering, their lives. Techno-feudalism and techno-serfdom may not be commonly discussed in the pubs and playgrounds of Newcastle, but they are a fear that many have.

The previous Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle), said that big tech needs to be treated as a state, not as companies. If so, who are their citizens? Us? We certainly did not elect them, so are we just their serfs? What should the relationship be between those companies and states?

Technology sovereignty matters, but what is it? The current Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology told the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee:

“Sovereign capability is about ensuring the UK has what it needs to become a global leader in AI.”

The Digital Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), told the Committee:

“Sovereignty is a huge issue that we always discuss. Security, safety and resilience are all parts of that, and the digital spending controls that DSIT puts in on behalf of Government, which examines individual contracts on that basis, very much examines these issues as well.”

He also said:

“It is about building those capabilities and supply chains here.”

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has advanced a very powerful vision of the global events affecting the country right now. When I talk to defence tech companies, I see that they reach the point of scaling up, but they are unable to access finance. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government should support defence tech companies to scale up, so that we can have true sovereign capability, as opposed to letting them fly off to America?

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right, and that support should take the form of access to investment, but also procurement and procurement decisions, which I will discuss in more detail.

The Digital Minister also told the Committee:

“There is no single internationally recognised definition of digital sovereignty”

and:

“DSIT is working to develop a comprehensive definition that can be used across the UK”.

We have not received an update, but yesterday, the Government launched the AI sovereignty unit with £500 million, so it is to be hoped that we know what we are spending our money on.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

I cannot help but give way to the hon. Member.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is terribly kind and it is always a pleasure to come to a debate that she has secured. Recent studies indicate that AI-powered tools have already been used in phishing, ransomware, and social engineering attacks, making breaches faster, more targeted and harder to detect. The National Cyber Security Centre has repeatedly warned that the sophistication and scale of cyber-threats are increasing, and that AI could amplify those risks exponentially. Does the hon. Lady therefore agree that we have a critical gap in investment, expertise and the co-ordinated strategy in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to defend against AI-enabled attacks? The Government must focus on being able to combat those in future—does she agree?

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

I certainly agree that we need to be able to defend ourselves against AI attacks.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady and Chair of my Select Committee for giving way. Does she agree that a definition of sovereign tech is something that a foreign power could not switch off, so that the systems on which we rely could not be pulled out from under our feet, much as the Microsoft ones were for the International Criminal Court?

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

My fellow member of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee makes a very important point about the definition of sovereignty. I do not want to get too bogged down in the actual definition, but I agree that control matters, and I will say a little more about that.

I will raise the definition of digital sovereignty cited in the House of Commons Library briefing, which accompanies this debate, which is

“the agency and capacity of any organisation to make intelligent, informed choices to shape its digital future by design.”

On that basis, choosing between Amazon Web Services and Microsoft for our data centre is technology sovereignty. I also think that if British sovereignty depends on our leaders’ ability to make intelligent choices, they spent a lot of our history not having sovereignty.

The Library definition came from a global consultancy called Public Digital. Emily Middleton, the interim director for digital transformation in DSIT, was previously a partner at Public Digital. It rules out digital independence and says that our goal should be intelligent dependence. Can the Minister say whether he is aiming for intelligent dependence?

The definition I like best, however, is that sovereignty is whatever a sovereign power says it is—that is what sovereignty means. The UK has extraordinary technological human capital resources, particularly in AI, where we are probably third in the world, but also in clean energy, quantum synthetic biology and much more. Our human capital means that we are not just any mid-sized country; we can aim higher than intelligent dependence. Elon Musk chose to turn off Ukraine’s Starlink capacity at a critical time in Ukraine’s defence of its sovereignty against Putin’s illegal aggression. None of us wants the UK to be in such a position of dependence.

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

The hon. Lady mentions Britain’s extraordinary human capital. In my role as my party’s Europe spokesperson, of late I have been speaking to very large international defence firms, which thrive in the UK intellectual environment. They have great links with universities, but they say to me that they are increasingly looking to move some of the start-ups that have been created in the UK into Europe, so that they can assemble rapidly the kinds of teams that they need to take those initial ideas and scale them up. Does she agree that having a closer working relationship with our European partners and colleagues, allowing that freedom of movement to return, could be an enormous benefit—counterintuitively perhaps—to our sovereign capacity?

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

The level of interest shows just what an important issue this is. I will come on to discuss some aspects of collaboration as it relates to sovereignty, but I observe that the last time our sovereignty as a mid-sized power was seriously debated was during Brexit, and the slogan “Take back control” reflected the sense that too much sovereignty had been ceded to the European Union without an honest debate with the British people. As a member of the Labour party, I know that we are stronger together and that that can require some loss of autonomy to deliver results, which actually make people more secure, but that must not be done without an honest debate.

Let us look at the four specific sovereignty challenges, the first of which is critical infrastructure and cloud data dependency. The Competition and Markets Authority found that cloud services in Britain are dominated by AWS at 40% to 50%, and Microsoft at 30%. Crown Hosting is meant to be our sovereign hosting capability, but it only hosts 4% of Government legacy services. Both Amazon Web Services and Oracle claim to offer a sovereign cloud—they do say to deal with the difficult part in the title!

The second issue I want to look at is the hot topic of AI. There is no Brit large language model but there is the ambition to transform our public services and industry through AI. The AI opportunities action plan repeatedly references sovereign AI and sovereign compute without defining them. The major AI companies Google, Anthropic, OpenEye, Microsoft and DeepSeek are all headquartered abroad. DeepMind formed Google’s AI capability and was founded right here in the UK before being bought. What capability does the UK now have in AI? What minimum capability does the Minister think we need? How do we respond to the EU Cloud and AI Development Act, which may exclude UK companies?

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. When it comes to AI, an enormous amount of investment is needed. There are many discussions at the moment about the impact of that huge investment in AI. It is very difficult for a smaller country such as the UK to compete in that regard. Does she agree that we need to work with like-minded countries on these issues, including those in the EU? Does she agree that we need to make sure that this is one of the key topics when President Macron visits the UK later this year?

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

I agree with my right hon. Friend that we certainly need to work with like-minded countries.

The third area is cyber-security and data governance. Some argue that we are already at war in the cyber-sphere. Last year’s strategic defence review emphasised cyber and electromagnetic domains, and established a new UK cyber and electromagnetic command to enhance that, with £1 billion in new funding for homeland air missile defence and cyber-security initiatives. Should these be British suppliers? Should they be European? Should they be exclusively NATO suppliers?

On data governance, the foreign direct product rule allows the United States to restrict access to advanced computing chips and AI-related software. By adding UK companies to the entity list, the US can immediately cut them off from cloud services, software and AI tools, while the Cloud and Patriot Acts expand data access powers to compel US companies to hand over data even if held overseas—that is, in the UK. Has the Minister discussed those powers with Microsoft, AWS and Palantir?

Fourthly and finally, we have the UK’s reliance on global supply chains. Critical minerals are an obvious example, but because I am a bit of a geek I want to mention the common information models that enable the things in the internet of things to talk to each other. By 2030, there will be 6 billion CIM connections globally. China controls 70% of the market, creating a huge possibility for the disruption of everything from traffic systems to energy grid operations.

That is a really quick canter through just a few of the technology sovereignty issues. I want to look at two specific examples in more detail. First, the NHS has the largest and most comprehensive longitudinal and structured patient level datasets in the world. I support the push for digital integration as we transition the NHS from analogue to digital, with interoperability and standardisation bringing faster access and better analytics, yet a growing share of NHS data flows through US companies.

The federated data platform contract places core NHS data operations on Palantir’s proprietary systems. Why? There have been numerous reports of irregularities in the way the contract was awarded. In addition—this, for me, is a key point of sovereignty—Palantir’s founder and controlling stakeholder, Peter Thiel, has a political worldview which is at odds with British values. The same is true of Elon Musk. It does our constituents’ sense of agency no good to see their Government so dependent on these companies. Nearly half of adults say that they would opt out of NHS data sharing if the platform was operated by a private foreign provider.

The second example is also to do with Palantir. Its recent defence contract also raised many questions. The strategic defence review emphasised AI as a core enabler of military capability. Reports suggest that Palantir serves primarily as a vehicle for integrating Anthropic’s AI models. The US has just declared Anthropic a supply chain risk for US companies, so will Palantir break UK workflows that are using Anthropic? I am certain that President Trump would not allow British companies to control US defence datasets, so why are we allowing American ones to control ours?

I could go on about civil nuclear, telecoms infrastructure, subsea cables, quantum, space and drones, but I will stop there, and finish by looking at possible solutions. Technology sovereignty was a big theme at the Munich security conference, and the US-Europe trust gap was a yawning chasm following the shock realisation that we could not always count on the US as an ally. Technology sovereignty solutions that focus on technological leadership, such as in the Secretary of State’s definition, reflect the basic idea that if the UK leads on, say, protein folding then Google may be less inclined to switch off ChatGPT if we side with Denmark when the US tries to seize Greenland.

Whether I agree with that approach or not, it certainly resonates with the evidence that the Committee heard from witnesses in so many domains regarding how important it is for the science and business community to understand where the Government are seeking to lead, so that resources can be focused and skills built there. Can the Minister say whether the Government plan to decide which aspects of AI, quantum, space or bioengineering we will seek to lead in? AI is often thought of as having three layers: infrastructure, data and applications. Can the Minister tell us where in the AI stack we are aiming for control, leadership, sovereignty or whatever we want to call it? Also, does he agree that weak competition in the AI and digital sectors, caused by giant incumbents, reduces our ability to lead?

Open source is often cited as at least part of the solution to sovereignty. I am a huge advocate for open source, open interfaces, transparent code and standard protocols, which can reduce or minimise dependence. Despite the policy ambitions, three quarters of NHS trusts’ development teams do not use open source approaches. None of the AI models currently being deployed within the public sector is an open ecosystem; all are proprietary in nature. The Minister’s Department has sign-off on all significant IT procurement. Is open source a requirement of it?

Finally, can science diplomacy help us to negotiate technology sovereignty? A number of Members have raised the issue of collaboration. Can we build on our human capital strengths by collaborating and working with partners who have respect for our values, take collaborative approaches, and can share with us the financial capital needed to make our sovereign objectives a reality? Are we happy to share leadership, and perhaps sovereignty, with our allies?

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important speech on an important topic. She is right to talk about how the US and China dominate on technological sovereignty, and part of the reason it is very difficult for the UK to compete with them is, of course, the scale of those countries. Does she agree that the way we can compete is by co-operating with reform in Europe, and that we should view our strategy not in terms of how the UK can outcompete Europe but in terms of how Europe, with the UK at its heart, can outcompete the US and China?

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

It is an important question. I am not in a position to choose our allies, but I agree in principle that we should be working with the European Union. I do not think it should be a choice between the European Union and the US, though they may make that the choice. I certainly think that we should be working with our European allies in order to form a large market for secure and ethical technology, which is in the interests of everyone.

Finally, we need to monitor the future sovereignty implications of current research, so that that can influence our investment and mergers and acquisitions policy, and so that key technologies and companies are not easily allowed to go abroad.

This debate has attracted a large amount of interest, so I have tried to be as brief as possible. I have asked the Minister many questions; if he cannot answer them all, he can write to me. In summary, we need to understand what we can own, control or lead on ourselves, what we can access that is in the hands of allies we trust, and how we can manage the things we must get from those we do not trust. We must always remember that how we develop and deploy our human capital will be critical to our ability to achieve any kind of technological sovereignty. I urge the Minister to be honest about where we are. We do not want to sleepwalk into technological serfdom and/or some kind of techxit—a technology Brexit.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. Please stay standing if you want to speak. We are very tight on time, because I hope to take the wind-ups at eight minutes past 5. If we have a rough time limit of two minutes, everyone will get in. I call Daniel Zeichner.

16:50

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah).

I have three quick anecdotal points and then a question for the Minister. Data sovereignty has been part of my life. I started my career as a trainee computer programmer at Shire Hall in Cambridge. My prime job was to carry the punch cards to the punch room to make sure that payroll ran properly. Anyone who dropped them was the least popular person in the entire institution, and at that time, the idea that that could be triggered by someone from elsewhere in the world would have seemed fanciful.

A decade later, I was working for a major insurance company. We were struggling to deal with multiple records for the same clients, and we brought in the Americans. They were big people from Texas—really big people. When they went to the coffee machine, they came back with two coffees and two bags of crisps. But they could not solve the essential problem, and the question still remained: who was in control of the data?

Fast-forward two further decades, and I am MP for Cambridge. A major American software provider came to talk to me about the cloud, and the same question arose again. I asked, “Where is the data?” They said they would build more data centres in the UK. I know that it is more complicated than that, but the question of sovereignty and independence is also partly about people. We have to maintain our own workforce.

Let me quickly raise with the Minister an issue that has been coming up very strongly to the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee: funding changes at UK Research and Innovation. I think that this is an unfortunate unintended consequence of a laudable attempt by the new regime to implement the goal, set up a decade ago, to use resources more rationally. UKRI has fallen foul of the existing research council structures, meaning that even though the Government are putting more money in overall, people in the particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics sector are facing 30% cuts. That cannot be UKRI’s intention. I hope that the Minister can confirm that it is not the Government’s intention, and that he will use his influence to get a rethink. Our technological sovereignty will not be secured if we are closing doors to future researchers and putting a key part of our research sector at risk.

16:53

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) on securing the debate.

Ensuring that we have a strong and secure technological landscape in the UK is vital not only to our growth and development but to our national security. As we move at pace, we must also move with precision. That brings me to the £500 million sovereign AI fund. It is a very welcome commitment, but the impact will depend entirely on how it is used. I therefore ask the Minister for assurance and clarity on how the new funding will genuinely break from past initiatives and deliver real, measurable impact. That means being transparent about who will receive support, what priorities will shape those choices, how we will ensure true diversity—not only in the people and organisations involved, but in the problems we choose to tackle—and what value judgments we employ in the decision-making process.

If we want innovation to flourish rather than stall, we must ensure that smaller British and diverse organisations are actively supported to grow and scale. I warn against being dazzled by big promises with big tech, particularly from those who are not British. I am pleased to see the Government’s commitment to building AI infrastructure, data security and compute power, which we see in data centres, AI growth zones and supercomputers, as well as the AI sovereign fund mentioned earlier. However, how can we be assured that such investment happens and has impact? What oversight will the Government have to ensure that funds are used as intended, outcomes are audited, and impact is recognised? Governance of funding beyond product timeframe is vital.

I want to mention again the issue of definitions. We must be clear about what we are supporting. Often the terms “technology”, “digital” and “AI” are used interchangeably as though they describe the same thing, but digital is not the same as technology, and neither is synonymous with artificial intelligence. If we are to build a coherent national strategy, we must be absolutely clear about what we are talking about, what we are funding and what we are trying to secure.

16:55

[Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) for securing this timely and vital debate.

In a world that is increasingly reliant on secure and stable access to digital technology, whether that is artificial intelligence or semiconductors, the ability to control those technologies must be a Government priority. Securing technology sovereignty in the United Kingdom should not be a difficult undertaking. We have world-class universities, industry-leading research institutions and the manufacturing capabilities to turn ideas into marketable products. However, world-class research is only half of the solution to achieving control over the innovative technologies created in the UK.

When the UK university spin-out or research group is forced to trade its intellectual property for Silicon Valley venture capital, we lose more than just the business; we lose our grip on national security. I welcome the Government’s plans to streamline the Intellectual Property Office, but there are lessons we can learn from our intellectual counterparts, where strong links between universities, research groups and industry have given rise to countless pioneering companies. There is no reason the UK could not support universities to own their own intellectual property, and nurture their growth by encouraging partnerships with private enterprise.

Closer collaboration between Government, businesses and research bodies will not only protect our national interests but bolster the financial situation of universities and higher education institutions, where funding shortfalls are already leading to lay-offs and even partial closures. Take the decision of the University of Essex to close its Southend campus, where dozens of my constituents face imminent redundancy and hundreds of students are searching for certainty regarding the future of their courses. The university’s senior leadership has pointed to an unsustainable funding model as a reason behind that devastating decision.

I am grateful that the issue of technological sovereignty is getting the attention it deserves, and I hope the debate prompts further consideration of the benefits of IP capitalisation for our world-class universities.

16:57

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I am grateful to be able to contribute to this important debate on tech sovereignty in the UK. There is something rather poignant about having this debate on the very day the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has announced a consultation on plans to give people access to their Government data through a bespoke digital wallet built in-house. In many ways, that is the ultimate expression of tech sovereignty, but there is much more to do and we must do it now.

For me, growing instability, geopolitically and globally, has shone a light on just how reliant we are on digital infrastructure—the systems that enable our communication, support our health service and help to keep our country safe. The Financial Times recently reported concerns about Iran targeting United States AI data centres, which is a way to undermine neighbouring economies and damage US interests. As AI becomes embedded across both the public and private sectors, we must recognise the risks posed by concentrated powers in the hands of a small number of overseas tech companies.

At its most basic, sovereignty means the ability to make deliberate choices in our own interests, according to our shared values, so it is concerning that so many public sector contracts continue to go to overseas tech giants. In November ’22, Palantir was awarded a three-year Ministry of Defence contract worth £75.2 million, followed by, in December ’25, a further three-year contract worth £240.6 million, both without a formal competitive tender. I would love to see more of those major contracts going to home-grown innovators—companies based in the UK paying taxes here and helping to grow our economy. That is why I am really pleased to hear about the commitment to have a sovereign AI venture fund of £500 million to foster AI development. I would welcome seeing how much of that goes to female founders.

The UK is by no means the little guy in this fight. Our start-up ecosystem is the third largest in the world. We have a real opportunity to grow. If we get this right, tech sovereignty can mean high-quality jobs across our regions, and it can ensure that we become the most trusted and safest country in the world for technology.

16:59

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I want to speak about technological sovereignty from an east midlands perspective. Too often, Westminster debates are focused on venture capital or high-level digital strategy and so forth while the real foundations of our tech capability lie in specific industrial regions.

The east midlands already has the capabilities to anchor British technological sovereignty. Derbyshire, and particularly Derby, is one of Europe’s most important aerospace hubs. Nottingham is home to two world-class universities, driving innovation in materials science, data science and advanced manufacturing. For Nottinghamshire and my constituency, this is about linking university research directly to local production; strategic public investment in sectors such as advanced manufacturing, with a focus on export focused technologies in particular; encouraging pension funds and public investment programmes to support domestic capital, rather than sending wealth abroad; and restoring political and economic confidence in post-industrial communities in the midlands like my constituency.

Technological sovereignty is not just a slogan; it is a matter of real practical capacity and of the technologies that will shape the future being designed and built in this country rather than elsewhere. The east midlands already contains many of the pieces needed to secure that sovereignty. The task is to recognise them, back them and build a new national political economy that puts production, skills and regional industrial strength at the centre of Britain’s future.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

We have two more speakers, and as I said, I will start calling the Front-Bench spokespeople at 5.08 pm. Your kind colleagues have given you a little extra time, Emily Darlington.

17:02

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I thank my kind colleagues. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. This is such a big debate. It is because we are all passionate about UK AI and the growth of the sector in the UK that it is so important, because the growing monopolies that are coming into our country are not actually helping our growth. I know that is quite a controversial statement, but it is not controversial if one thinks about how these industries are developing: they are buying up and squishing out UK inventions, growth and companies.

What is sovereignty? That was the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah). For me, it is UK ideas, it is UK inventors and it is UK based, but it is also about UK values. It is about using our own data protection laws and our own BSI standards, and it is about making sure that UK ideas can be sold to the world without foreign interference.

I do not say that lightly. Recently, Peter Girnus, the AI security expert for Palantir, said:

“The lesson was the speed: the market for military AI does not pause for ethics. It pauses for nothing.”

That is a problem: Ministry of Defence contracts are going to such companies, which think that international law should be ignored in warfare. For that very reason, we have to be very sceptical about going into business with Palantir and with the many other companies that feel that they are too big to follow national law.

On the Floor of the House, I raised the fallacy of Starlink being a safe emergency protocol. Why is it a fallacy? Because it can be turned off, and Elon Musk has said he hates our Prime Minister. What if there is an emergency and Musk wants to create chaos, as he has already done through his contributions to various marches in this country and through his support for that one-man band? I cannot remember what it is called now— Restore or something like that; it starts with an R.

Growth comes from the development of our UK ideas, from tech that supports the UK economy, and from making sure that we see the monopoly that I referred to as a threat to our growth and not as something that we need to bow down or curtsy to. I ask the Minister: what is next? We have a great fund, but what are we investing in? Are we making sure that quantum technologies will be developed here, and will serve the UK people and the UK economy? Are we making sure that we are providing opportunities for UK firms to get the amazing contracts to work with us to make this Government the first digital Government that the UK has ever seen?

17:05

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to take part in a debate with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) for securing this debate. In my best Geordie, I will say that she’s done a geet canny job again. [Laughter.] That is the end of my Geordie—don’t worry.

Much like my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), I am here to talk about quantum technologies. For most people, the word “quantum” sounds like the title of a James Bond film—and if I am honest, “Casino Royale” is better—but it is so important for the future of our economy, and not just because crusty old physics teachers like me get really excited about it. The quantum industry is projected to generate $100 billion globally by 2035, which is now not that far away. That economic impact is one thing, but the fact that it will also revolutionise defence and huge amounts of our civil infrastructure means that it is a great example of why technological sovereignty is not just an economic issue but a security issue.

The UK is home to some really exciting quantum research and quantum businesses, and it is vital that we keep this industry here, strong and growing. The Government aim to make the UK a leading quantum-enabled economy by 2033, which I absolutely welcome, but too often these businesses are tempted abroad as they scale.

How do we stop that? One way, which hon. Members have not touched on today, probably because of the time limit on speeches, is to improve the skills supply. That is not just at the PhD level that we often associate with physicists, but at the level of the lab technicians who will physically build the machines and maintain the infrastructure—it is vital that we have the skills supply to provide those guys too. People do not need to aspire to a doctorate to work in this sector; we need more pathways for apprentices to do these roles, which are more skills-based than some other roles.

We also need better access to capital for quantum companies. We have brilliant start-ups, but every time they go through a round of funding, they find it harder and harder to secure the funds they need to be able to remain in the UK. We need specialised infrastructure, such as cryogenic systems, advanced fabrication facilities and secure quantum networks.

We also need to ensure that many more of our colleagues understand that this next industrial revolution—the quantum revolution—is coming and we need to get ahead of it. That is why I have brought together a number of Members to form the all-party parliamentary group on quantum technologies, and I thank many colleagues here in Westminster Hall for being part of that.

I will finish with a plea to the Minister. We are here to talk about technological sovereignty, but we live in a globalised world and I hear real concerns from the sector about procuring helium. The international situation in the strait of Hormuz means that Qatar, which is home to one of only two plants that produce semiconductor-grade helium, has been forced to pause production because it has been targeted by Iranian airstrikes. I do not expect the Minister to have an answer to that issue immediately, but I do ask him to have a look at it and consider how we can support the sector during this time of huge uncertainty.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Beautifully done. I thank all colleagues for sticking to the time limit.

17:08

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I massively thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, not only for securing this debate on one of the biggest issues of our time, but for opening it so eloquently and constructively.

We do indeed live in a digital world: our jobs, our banks, our transport and our national security all run on technology. The question of who owns that technology and who controls the data that it generates is not an abstract one; instead, it is the defining question of our time. It is about choice for our Government and for consumers, it is about growth for British tech in a global world, and it is about creating resilience by diversifying risk. A bold strategy on technological sovereignty is how we meet the challenge that we face.

Such a strategy means backing British tech, supporting innovation by British businesses that pay British taxes, strengthening our economy and—crucially—protecting our national economy. As Members from across the House, including the hon. Member, have discussed, such a strategy is also about security. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) talked about the risks of foreign interference, and the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) highlighted that Palantir felt it was too big to follow national law. This issue is about our security, so it is vital.

Across the pond, President Donald Trump has demonstrated his willingness to weaponise American power, and especially American technology, to exercise his own political will. Even at home in the US, we see what has happened with Anthropic: he called the people who run it “left wing nut jobs” and directed all Government agencies to stop using it just because the company refused to allow the military unfettered use of its AI tools.

We have also seen that approach with the International Criminal Court. The chief prosecutor of the ICC was personally sanctioned by the Trump Administration, including through the disconnection of his Microsoft email last May. Such episodes expose the reality of the world’s increasing vulnerability. The digital infrastructure underpinning international institutions—and by extension our own public services—increasingly can be disrupted at the discretion of a foreign Government.

Such concerns are shared. In June last year, a study by Civo, a UK provider of sovereign cloud, found that of 1,000 UK-based IT decision makers, 83% were worried about the impact of international developments on their data sovereignty, with the majority considering data sovereignty a strategic priority. Yet even though the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West highlighted the statistics on the technology used, it seems that that is not a concern of Government.

We directly asked the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology how dependent our public services are on US-based cloud technology but the answer was that the Government do not know: it is not being measured at a Government level. That is a serious concern. One of the most basic requirements for resilience is knowing what we depend on. I ask the Minister: do we intend to start collecting that data? At this moment, our essential public services may be running at the mercy of Donald Trump and these big tech firms, yet the Government cannot even tell us by how much.

Sovereign technology is not just a matter of national security. As many hon. Members have highlighted in this debate, it is about our economic advantage, growth in this country, improving national standards for technological development, boosting public trust in modern technology, and increasing tax revenues for the UK. Luca Leone, the chief executive officer of Kahootz, wrote for techUK,

“The crucial question is no longer only who builds our platforms, but who owns and operates the systems that underpin our most critical capabilities. This is where digital sovereignty meets supply chain resilience.”

The hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) spoke eloquently about the skills, the businesses, the spin-outs, and the university research that is so strong in the UK. We need to help those things stay here and scale up—scale-up finance was talked about a lot in this debate. We can be that global leader and we should be.

This debate has also highlighted that much of the money set aside for technological investment is not going to UK companies. The National Audit Office concluded that the Government’s procurement strategy actively favours large, predominantly foreign suppliers. The Government have a budget of £14 billion for such investments; where does that money go?

Dan Jones, the defence account manager of 4Secure, wrote for techUK that

“Digital sovereignty…is not just a single procurement decision. It is an ongoing commitment to control, assurance, and resilience”.

Public service contracts go worryingly against that trend. We talked about the contract for Palantir in the NHS, and we talked about Palantir in defence. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West eloquently questioned how much the leaders of such tech firms are aligned with British values, and talked about ensuring that the tech we have is aligned with such values. I ask the Minister to explain why Palantir was prioritised over UK tech in the NHS contract, and what work is being done to review our Government processes. This is about not just software but our telecoms infrastructure—the reliance on Starlink is increasingly worrying—and of course our cloud.

I will wrap up by saying that, ultimately, sovereign tech is about power over our everyday lives. Does the Minister agree that now is the time to secure our technology sovereignty? Will he support our new clauses to the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill about digital sovereignty—

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order.

17:13

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) on securing such an important debate. It is so well attended, and it is a shame that it is not longer; I commend everyone for their two-minute raps. In the context, I will plug tomorrow’s Conservative-led debate on Government support for UK tech, which will be an opportunity to speak about some of the concerns that have been expressed on a cross-party basis about the direction of tech policy.

We all come to this place with experiences that shape our thinking on these critical tech issues. Members have probably never heard this before, but the hon. Lady is a former telecoms engineer—[Laughter.] She brought her expertise to Ofcom and is now a distinguished Select Committee Chairman. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) brings his experience as a computer engineer, and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) his experience as a “crusty old” physics teacher. He talked about quantum, and one question that I have in relation to today’s launch of the policy on digital identities is whether a quantum-proof system is being built.

I come to this debate as a former Cabinet Office and telecoms and digital infrastructure Minister. During my tenure, the Government in which I served faced three supply chain crises that permanently changed how I think about resilience: Brexit, covid and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Each forced us to confront uncomfortable truths about where we source from, whom we can trust and what risks we carry when we fail to think strategically about our dependencies.

I also think of my experiences on a trip to China in 2018 as a new Back Bencher visiting Huawei’s Shenzhen lab. I later found myself as the Minister overseeing the removal of high-risk vendors from the 5G core, and I saw how an earlier decision not to scrutinise those providing critical infrastructure came at real economic cost as well as security cost. Security risk and economic risk are deeply intertwined and will become ever more so as more of our economy moves online. In the space of a week, those Gulf economies that have been expanding voraciously into the digital sphere have found three AWS data centres under attack—a deliberate strategy by Iran to cripple critical digital infrastructure and, in so doing, mete out economic pain and chaos.

Those experiences shape how I think about technological sovereignty. We have to be clear about what we mean by that. It does not mean autarky, complete self-reliance, or pretending that Britain can or should build every piece of technology ourselves. That is not realistic or, actually, risk free. It is not about stopping important tech companies investing here and bringing expertise. I see it instead as being about resilience and influence. It means understanding the risks that we are carrying in the tech stack that we increasingly rely on; mitigating those risks; and ensuring that we do not steadily reduce our leverage by ceding power to companies or countries whose influence over those systems may ultimately exceed our own.

We are seeing this play out in the cloud, where I think we need to be pursuing a dual strategy whereby, alongside the hyperscalers, we start to expand our edge capacity, with smaller data centres and a more pluralistic market, using competition policy and thinking strategically about procurement. We need to think about it in terms of the components that power modern computing. How do we make ourselves an indispensable part of any critical supply chain in the way Taiwan and the Netherlands have done in relation to chips?

We need to think about the concerns in relation to Chinese tech in energy policy. I think that as we move further into the renewables space, we are building in quite a lot of risk there. We have heard today about critical minerals, and I have talked about high-risk vendors in telecoms. Dependency on China and dependency on America are not equivalent risks. None the less, I worry that, having learned the lesson about Chinese technology, the Government now appear content to place an extraordinarily high level of dependence on American hyperscalers instead. Of course the US is our closest ally and has enormous expertise that in many respects we cannot match—we cannot do so in every field—but sensible allies hedge their risks. That is especially relevant when we think about some of its cloud rules, which have been mentioned today.

The Government are pursuing an odd strategy here. We are upping our dependency on the US while reducing our reliability and credibility as a partner. Similarly, while inviting circular investments in mega data centres, entering into data partnerships with AI firms and blowing ever larger balloons of fantasy out of the US-UK tech partnership—something that has been picked up today, but also in The Guardian this week—the Government are actually making it harder for UK tech firms to grow, because of Government procurement rules, high taxes, crippling energy costs, wealth taxes and all the rest of it.

I appreciate that we are very short of time—I am getting a little nod to shuffle along—but my worry is that the Government thus far have not had a strategy for tech sovereignty and are heightening our dependence on US hyperscalers. I would be very grateful if the Minister could address those concerns, which I think are shared across the House.

17:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)]

It is such a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, for securing this debate and bringing to it her deep expertise across engineering, policymaking and leadership in the House on the question of tech sovereignty. I also thank all hon. Members for making very thoughtful points and bringing to the debate a range of experiences—as well as swiftness of speech, given the constraints imposed by time today.

I have long felt that the central question in our politics and for our country is the future of technology in this country. It will be the major driver of prosperity and dignity for people, and the central question is whether Britain gets to shape it or is shaped by it. In Westminster, we sometimes talk about technology sovereignty as an abstract geopolitical goal, but we have to keep in mind that, ultimately, it is the basis for our NHS radiologists to have access to the best tools for detecting cancer, with data here in the UK; for British founders and builders to be able to train and deploy models, rather than depending on foreign APIs and pricing; and for people in their homes and workplaces across the country to know that their everyday AI systems are governed transparently and democratically here in the UK.

My view is that technology sovereignty is a state’s ability to have strategic leverage when it comes to a technology, such that it can ensure ongoing access to critical inputs and ongoing assurance that its wider economic and national security objectives can be met more broadly. It is to take the best tools the world has to offer today, but also to shape the rest, and ultimately to make that which is critical here in Britain.

As I think of it, that strategic leverage is obtained by three steps on a ladder. The first is just to have enough of the critical inputs. Taking AI as an example, we have to have enough chips today to be able to do anything with AI in the first instance. With that in mind, the Government have always been very keen to secure the level of capital investment that means that Britain is at least at the table with critical inputs.

Once we are at the table, the second part of sovereignty is to make sure that we have some diversification in who we procure critical inputs from so that we can bargain effectively. We are the party of labour; we understand that who has power matters as much as what the powers are. In that context, one of the first things I did in my role was to engage with a series of companies in every part of the stack so that we were able to build more diversity into the landscape.

The third rung of the ladder is, ultimately, to build British in order to make sure that we have the full-fat version of sovereign capability here in critical parts of the stack.

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for setting out his sovereignty stack. Just as an example, is an LLM a critical input or another level in the stack—and does it need to be British?

[Kanishka Narayan]

I valued my hon. Friend’s earlier point that sovereignty has to be seen in the round. We cannot make everything here; we have to look at the entire bundle that we have to offer. In the context of LLMs, there is some uncertainty as to whether all the capability will ultimately accrue in closed proprietary models, or whether open-source, open-weight models might be part of it. To me, as things stand today, it is a pretty important part of the stack. The question then is whether we have enough of it to be able to make the most of it by adopting it for economic and national security usage here, or whether there are aspects in which, at least from a distillation or small-model point of view, we need to develop some capabilities here as well. I do not think there is a binary answer to the overarching question; the answer is much more nuanced. I am happy to discuss that further if it is of interest.

As I said, the third rung of the ladder is, ultimately, to build British and focus on areas in which we can develop our strengths. I have to point out that we made sure that Nscale, one of our neocloud hyperscale providers, was an important part of the supply chain for AI growth zones. I noticed that yesterday Nscale raised the largest ever series-C funding in Europe, in part as a result of the Government’s support and convening in that context. Arm, the leading chip design company globally, is still headquartered in Cambridge, and we have fantastic companies in the AI inference chip part of the stack, Fractile and Olix being two of them. It is an area that I spend a lot of my time on.

When it comes to models, we have huge strengths, not just because a number of the Gemini teams and researchers continue to sit in King’s Cross at DeepMind, but because companies developing foundation models in AI for science and autonomous vehicles, embodied AI, and aspects of world models and computer vision reside here in the UK. Wayve raised £1.5 billion just this year, the largest funding round in Europe to date for that stage. It is a fantastic company that looks in particular at embodied AI and vision. I am proud of those companies. It is right that the Government are supporting them through the lens of tech sovereignty, as that is what both Britain’s and the companies’ best interests dictate.

The sovereign AI unit will be crucial to that. I am glad to see the level of interest in that across the House. It will concentrate efforts on priority areas. There was interest in my specifying those areas. The four areas that are of interest at the outset are novel compute, in particular focusing on the inference chip part of the stack; novel model architecture; AI for science—I point hon. Members to the AI for science strategy published by the Department three or four months ago, which set out particular areas of focus and priority—and embodied AI.

To give a concrete example of early action that the sovereign AI unit has taken, we have already invested £8 million in the OpenBind consortium to accelerate AI-driven drug discovery, and £5 million in the Encode: AI for Science fellowship to support the next generation of world-class talent. The focus of the unit will be on both capital and compute, to incrementally anchor more and more British companies here, but I know that the unit will only be part of the solution. We have a role to look at innovation and market support much more broadly across the tech landscape.

In November, we also announced a significant advance market commitment—a deeply innovative procurement shift—which meant that up to £100 million in Government funding was available to buy products from promising UK chip companies once they reach a high-performance benchmark. That presents UK start-ups with an exciting opportunity to grow and compete right here, building for the world.

AI is of course just one area of Britain’s flourishing tech ecosystem. I point out to my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), who made important points about quantum, that the Government have doubled the rate of investment in quantum, with about £1 billion committed over the next four years. The points on helium made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield have very much been taken into account. The Government are looking at the developing situation on helium supply in the middle east, which is of concern.

Through our national programme, we broadly want to anchor development and access to technological capabilities that are most important to economic growth and national security. That means, in the context of quantum, more companies starting, growing and staying here and, in the context of AI, not just developing capabilities in particular parts of the stack, but in part looking upstream for skills as well.

In that context, I agree totally with my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) that the quality and scale of our talent and skills in our universities and schools is the single biggest determinant of where we end up. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge about the UKRI changes that we are making. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford, IP capitalisation is a deeply important part of what I focus on with the Intellectual Property Office, and I am happy to engage him on the question of Essex University in particular.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

The Minister knows that the Computer Misuse Act 1990 criminalises a lot of legitimate cyber-resilience and vulnerability research. I think that the Government are minded to introduce a statutory defence for such research, but can he share whether that defence will be introduced as part of the cyber Bill?

[Kanishka Narayan]

The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise that point about a defence for cyber-security purposes. The Computer Misuse Act is being reviewed at the moment—the Home Office is looking at it—but, as I mentioned in Committee on the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, that is not the appropriate vehicle, given its much narrower scope than the broad scope that we would like in the context of a defence. For those reasons, I am keen that we pursue the matter, but elsewhere.

I am conscious of time, so I will proceed at pace. Alongside quantum and AI, semiconductors are another technology that underpins the global economy and is fundamental to our way of life. As part of our industrial strategy, digital and technology sector plan, we are taking measures to foster the growth of that particular sector.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) spoke very thoughtfully about the fact that we should not just rely on venture-focused companies in particular parts of the country, but look at our industrial heritage. That is exactly why I have focused on ensuring that the AI growth zones programme puts data centres in the north-east, alongside the headquarters of our largest listed tech company. A deep heritage of financial services technology innovation in Newcastle and the surrounding area is now able to benefit from good jobs anchored by that data centre.

In south Wales, the data centre planned for the site of the old Ford car manufacturing plant gives hope for jobs in the semiconductor cluster, anchored by that data centre. That is critical. In north Wales, data centres are pulling our nuclear small modular reactor into the future, which is critical to thousands of jobs in that community. In Lanarkshire, the old steelworking community, which lost thousands of jobs and never fully recovered, now has hope from half a billion pounds of community investment as a result of data centres. That is precisely what I believe in.

[Anneliese Dodds]

In one sentence, will the Minister say something about another geographical issue: collaboration with like-minded countries, especially in the EU?

[Kanishka Narayan]

I will simply give a note of total affirmation on the importance of that. Having met a series of Ministers from Europe, I know that we have a huge amount in common and a huge amount to do in the future.

I am being tested pretty intensively on time, so I will focus on one final point. Some Members rightly raised the question of mergers, acquisitions and investment controls. As my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee will know from the time that I worked for her on the Bill as it was proceeding through the House, the National Security and Investment Act 2021 is an excellent example of where we are ensuring that investment and sensitive areas maintain the national security interests of Britain now and in the longer term.

In summary, the Government will continue to support our tech sectors as best they can. Only yesterday, Nscale raised the largest series-C funding round in all of Europe. Isambard-AI has raised a £50 million round for embodied AI—manufacturing AI—as well. Those are testaments to the approach that I have set out, which will ensure that British firms and people can seize every opportunity they can in tech-enabled Britain.

17:30

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).