House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
It is going to be a busy day for the Department for Business and Trade team. We are going to be spending a lot of time together today, Mr Speaker, and I very much look forward to it.
We are improving how businesses find, log into and use digital Government services. Better digital services—increasingly joined-up services—can reduce administrative burdens and save businesses time and money. That is why we have pledged to reduce the administrative burdens on business by 25%, and digital will play a key role in that.
Gurinder Singh Josan
Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, yet research shows that the average small business cannot start its real work until 2.36 pm on a Wednesday because of the time lost to administrative tasks. My own experience is that business owners need to engage regularly with various departments and agencies for all manner of reasons, and proving their identity can be a time-consuming task, so will the Secretary of State consider introducing a unique business passport—effectively, a unique digital ID for businesses—to cut administrative burdens and free up small businesses to deliver growth?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend and I share a zeal for using digital to transform the relationship between Government and those who use services. When I was the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, I was very proud to work with the Government Digital Service team and see how they are transforming the ability of individuals to interact with Government. We need to have the same zeal for transforming how businesses interact with Government, and I can assure him that a programme of work is going on with my Department to make sure that that is the case.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I welcome the keen interest in this issue that my hon. Friend has shown. I and my officials have regular discussions with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, including on the publication of the draft secondary ticketing Bill in the second Session of this Parliament. Consumer enforcement is a key strand of that work, and the CMA is the UK’s main consumer enforcer. As such, we have naturally discussed its important role in the ticketing ecosystem and consumer protection more broadly. In addition, last week the Government introduced the Sporting Events Bill. This will make the unauthorised resale of tickets for major sporting events that meet the conditions in the Bill a criminal offence.
Dr Huq
Ending ticketing scandals was a manifesto pledge prompted by the Oasis surge-pricing scandal, but it appears only in draft form in the King’s Speech. Peak gig-going season is upon us—maybe even for you, Mr Speaker, with your Motown habit—as is a cost of living crisis. [Interruption.] We all know about it and love you for it, Mr Speaker.
Dr Huq
Indeed—reflections of you. Will Ministers meet me to discuss the solution? My meticulously researched, widely backed ballot Bill from 2024 is ready-made and ready to go. It deals with this issue by among other things banning the bots that hog tickets for resale, so that we can stop this rip-off without delay.
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for her work on this issue; I know that it has been close to her heart for many years. That is why we have committed to publishing a draft secondary ticketing Bill, as set out in the background to the King’s Speech. That shows our continued commitment on the issue and we are pressing ahead on work that will allow us to legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows. The benefit of the draft Bill is that it will allow scrutiny from parliamentarians and sector experts to ensure that we are getting the approach right. I thank her and hope that she can hear my commitment today.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
As artists and songwriters gather today for the Ivor Novello awards, fans across the country are still being ripped off by ticket touts, despite the Prime Minister’s promise to act “as soon as possible”. It is incredibly disappointing that the Government have proposed only a draft ticket tout ban Bill in the King’s Speech. Does the Minister accept that any further delay simply benefits those touts and secondary ticketing platforms, and will she give us a date for when proper legislation will be brought forward to protect fans?
Kate Dearden
The hon. Member will know that since the Government published our response to the consultation on the resale of live event tickets, we have been working tirelessly to prepare new measures—exactly to his point—to tackle those ticket touts who take advantage of real fans who want to see their favourite bands and artists. That is why the next step is to introduce a draft Bill in this Session. That will enable parliamentary scrutiny and allow us to draw on the expertise of key stakeholders to ensure that our legislation is truly effective and enforceable, because a well-functioning ticket resale market can play such an important role in enabling those who cannot attend an event to give someone else the opportunity to go in their place.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
The Minister responsible for small business and economic transformation, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), met Royal Mail’s chief executive on 12 May to discuss its service improvement plan. I know that my hon. Friend has been campaigning on these issues in her constituency vigorously and that has been heard loud and clear. Royal Mail has told my Department that Middleton delivery office in my hon. Friend’s constituency is fully staffed and delivers to most addresses six days a week. I know that she will be scrutinising that and might well have a bit more to say on that now.
Mrs Blundell
Last week, I held a meeting at the fantastic Burnside community centre in Langley with representatives from Royal Mail and constituents, including those who have had to deal with a substandard postal service resulting in crucial correspondence arriving weeks late, if at all. To many people in Heywood and Middleton North, that is a direct result of a national asset being sold off to a private company focused on profit rather than quality of service. If that level of service continues, what further options is the Secretary of State considering to hold Royal Mail to account, and where necessary will the Government step in and force the changes that my constituents need to see?
Peter Kyle
I said that my hon. Friend was a great advocate for her residents on this issue; she is proving so once again. I can reassure her that the Government have secured a commitment from Royal Mail’s owners to prevent the payment of dividends until service levels improve. That will be a tangible impact on the business unless service levels improve. I have also been involved in discussions with Royal Mail’s owners and the Communication Workers Union to get a deal that can start work on the universal service offering and modernisation reform package for the company, as well as one that tackles pay equalisation. They have reached a deal and it is now out to CWU members. I hope that that will be the foundation for real improvement into the long term. It shows this Government’s active industrial strategy that get things done.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
We have just heard from the Secretary of State about our active industrial strategy. This question is timely, because we are one year on from setting out our industrial strategy. We have announced our British industrial competitiveness scheme, expanding its scope to support 10,000 businesses with their energy costs, a £500 million sovereign AI fund, and the creation of 19 new technical excellence colleges, giving opportunities for young people across the country.
Chris Hinchliff
If climate breakdown accelerates, many of the international supply chains that we have relied upon for essential goods and resources for far too long will cease to exist. We are sleepwalking towards a situation in which this country can no longer guarantee the basic needs of its people. At that point, no amount of AI slop or casino capitalism will be an alternative to actually making things. Before ecological collapse makes it too late, will Ministers use their industrial strategy to pivot our economy back to producing more of the essentials that we use in our daily lives?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend knows that when he talks about reindustrialisation and improving the manufacturing base of this economy he finds a very sympathetic ear in me. Certainly, we have all seen over the course of the past few years, through multiple crises, how the resilience of global supply chains has been reduced. Increasing the share of our economy that is dedicated to manufacturing will serve the ecological aims that he has mentioned, improve our national resilience and provide good, well-paid and high-productivity manufacturing jobs in our industrial heartlands across the whole of the country.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The largest sector of the manufacturing base is food manufacturing, but it was deliberately left out of the industrial strategy. As a consequence, food manufacturing is now facing rising input costs, especially from energy, and is unable to get the assistance that the Minister just referred to. The Food and Drink Federation thinks that food price inflation could get to 9% or 10% this year. With the benefit of hindsight, do the Government think that it was possibly a mistake to exclude food manufacturing from the industrial strategy?
Chris McDonald
At the time that the industrial strategy was established, the Government carefully selected those sectors that had the greatest growth potential for the economy, but we were also extremely clear in communicating that that does not mean that sectors that were not identified as having high growth potential were not important—quite the contrary. Our food manufacturing sector is incredibly important, and the Government are acutely aware of the issues around food prices. I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may well have more to say on that subject in a statement later today.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
The future of the car industry is in electric and automated vehicles, and the west midlands and the UK have always been leaders in car manufacturing across the world. Can the Minister say more about what we are doing to protect the industry and ensure that its future lies in the UK?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right that automotive manufacturing is a key part of our advanced manufacturing sector, and she has done a huge amount here in the House to champion the sector in her area nationally. One area we are focusing on is supporting the sector with the development of new technology, such as autonomous vehicles; last week, the Secretary of State signed a memorandum of understanding with Wayve. We are determined that the UK will become Europe’s first market for digital driving services, driving the market and driving our automotive industry.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
In my constituency, I have one of the last remaining chlorine production sites, Vynova. On a recent visit, I was told that its future is uncertain because of production costs—it is a highly energy-intensive industry. Does the Minister agree that it is strategically critical that the UK has its own chlorine production, and will he meet me to discuss the future of the site?
Chris McDonald
I commend the hon. Lady for championing the chemicals sector in the House. I am extremely concerned about the sector, including chlorine, because it is vital to the UK economy, as she says. This Government are taking action through our industrial strategy to focus on heavy industry and energy-intensive industries. I might have an opportunity to speak with her later today, if that would be of interest.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
The Government’s industrial strategy rightly states that improving skills in the construction sector is essential to keeping our country building. In fact, on page 44, there is a commitment to invest
“£625 million to train…60,000 more skilled workers”.
It has been one year since publication, so how many more skilled workers have entered the construction workforce as a result of that commitment?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the importance of construction skills. In fact, on a recent visit to a construction skills academy in east London, I had the opportunity to do a bit of tiling myself—that has come in quite handy at home, actually—and to talk to some of the young people, who realise that they are developing skills for life. The Government are incredibly committed to that. The hon. Gentleman may have missed it, but he will be pleased to know that the Government have announced five new technical excellence colleges to help young people to get those skills for life in the construction sector.
Gareth Davies
I am grateful for the update on the Minister’s tiling skills, but I did not hear a number showing how he is making progress on the £625 million commitment. Perhaps he can write to me on how they are making progress. One of the existing schemes that supports training is the Construction Industry Training Board, but many industry leaders believe that it is no longer working or delivering. Construction firms are facing significant bills as a direct result of the levy, all while the CITB is reducing training provision. What is the Minister’s view of the CITB, and has he engaged with the construction industry to discuss it?
Chris McDonald
Yes, indeed. I engage with the construction industry extremely regularly as the co-chair of the Construction Leadership Council, and skills, along with health and safety, are absolutely at the top of our agenda. The views of the construction industry on the Construction Industry Training Board are discussed there and decided there by the industry.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Government announced their intention in the industrial strategy to use their procurement power to shape markets for innovation in the longer term. Tech start-ups in my constituency complain that the process of getting Government contracts is slow, risk-averse and structurally biased in its financial viability tests and paperwork requirements towards incumbents and US suppliers. As one of them put it to me, no one gets sacked for buying IBM. That surely prevents the Government from achieving their goal of greater innovation. What conversations is the Minister having with his Cabinet Office counterparts to ensure that our ambitious home-grown small and medium-sized enterprises are not being squeezed out of the competition for public contracts that could provide these firms with valuable growth opportunities and the innovation that our economy and public services so badly need?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Member raises an extremely important point: Government procurement can, of course, be an important lever for growing our economy. Whereas previous Governments used the fig leaf of being in the EU as an excuse to buy things from overseas simply because they were a penny cheaper, this Government are committed to ensuring that as much as possible of UK taxpayers’ money is spent in the UK.
The hon. Member asks what discussions I am having with Cabinet Office colleagues. I am having discussions with colleagues in the Cabinet Office, the Home Department, the Ministry of Defence and across Government, because there is a commitment among Ministers to ensure that Government procurement is targeted at British companies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made a strong commitment to reduce regulation and bureaucracy, so we can ensure that these contracts are awarded more efficiently and more easily to small businesses in the UK.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Pubs such as The Crown and the Running Horse in the hon. Member’s constituency are a real asset, bringing people together and supporting community life. They are now benefiting from a 15% reduction in their business rates bill, with bills frozen in real terms for a further two years. Around three quarters of pubs will see their bills stay the same or fall, saving the average pub around £1,650 this year. Going even further, the Government are launching a review of how pubs are valued for business rates. The hospitality support fund has been increased to £10 million, to support businesses, including pubs, to invest, grow and remain resilient.
Jerome Mayhew
Pubs in my constituency will respond to that answer with disbelief. There were 74 pubs in my constituency at the last count—that may be an inaccurate figure now; it could have dropped—employing roughly 2,000 people, and on top of that there are cafés such as the Heydon Village Tea Room. They tell me that they are being crucified by the Government’s policy of the jobs tax, the removal of business rates relief and the business rates revaluation, and to top it off there is now talk of an overnight levy for pubs with rooms. Why do the Government not want pubs and hospitality to thrive in Broadland and Fakenham?
Kate Dearden
We absolutely want pubs and our hospitality sector to thrive. They are the backbone of our communities and often provide people’s first job. That is why they are so vital to our high streets, to the hon. Member’s constituency and to our local communities. As he will know, pubs in particular have been under huge pressure in recent years. Their numbers have fallen by nearly 7,000 since 2010—a roughly 15% reduction and among the highest across hospitality overall. That is why, since April, every pub and live music venue will have 15% off their new business rates bill, on top of the support announced at the Budget. We know that we continuously need to support our pubs and the wider industry. That is why I work really closely with the Hospitality Sector Council and with publicans and pubs all across the country, to understand how we can better support them, and I will continue to do so.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
My hon. Friend was an advocate for such legislation long before it was introduced in the House last year. I know how passionate he is about our wider Make Work Pay agenda, as I am too. The Employment Rights Act 2025 is bringing employment rights legislation into the 21st century. We have already repealed burdensome trade union legislation, strengthened statutory sick pay, introduced day one rights to paternity leave and launched the Fair Work Agency. We are implementing the Act over a two-year period and consulting widely with business organisations, trade unions and civil society, to ensure we get the details right and provide the support people need.
Laurence Turner
I draw attention to my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions, and I welcome and acknowledge the Minister’s firm commitment to this area. The Department recently published its response to the trade union right of access consultation. Capping fines at £500,000 equates to a potential liability of 0.02% of operating profits for Amazon’s warehousing operations, but up to 20% of the surplus of a medium- sized trade union. We must get this right. How does disproportionate liability achieve the Government’s aim of creating a workable right in the minority of cases involving very well-resourced and hostile employers?
Kate Dearden
The legal framework for the right of access in the Employment Rights Act 2025 provides an enforcement mechanism that applies to all parties involved in an access agreement. The Government are clear that the enforcement mechanism must be fair, proportionate and adaptable, and we have set out the factors that the Central Arbitration Committee must consider when setting the value of penalties, acknowledging that some breaches will have a greater impact than others. Those factors will include the gravity of the breach, the number of workers affected by it, and the size and resources of the liable party. The Government believe that the level of penalty fines that the CAC may impose must reflect the seriousness of the breach.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Unemployment is rising, with youth unemployment now at 16%, and the jobs tax and the Employment Rights Act are destroying opportunities. Should Ministers not listen to the chief executive of M&S, who said that instead of “trying to run business,” the Government “should…understand business better”? Will they reduce the burden of regulation and tax, rather than continuing to increase it?
Kate Dearden
The hon. Member will know the stats and the results that we have seen in the economy this year, particularly on growth. I am glad that he references youth unemployment, which is a long-term problem in the UK. The number of young people not in education, employment or training went up by a quarter of a million in the last three years of the previous Government. It is a long-term problem, and that is why we are taking it very seriously. He will know about our announcements on the youth guarantee to provide hiring incentives to foundational apprenticeships, especially in retail and hospitality. We all know the importance of that. Overall employment levels are healthy, but we are not complacent. We know that there is more work we need to do with employers to support them. That is why, for example, the £2.5 billion that we are making available through grants to businesses to help to create over 500,000 opportunities for young people to earn or learn is so important.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Employment Rights Act is one of the reasons given by one in eight business leaders for considering leaving Britain. Indeed, 30% of the Sunday Times rich list have already fled this high-tax socialist Government. The family business tax is another. Will the Minister please lobby the Chancellor for another U-turn, this time to adopt our policy of scrapping the family business tax?
Kate Dearden
This Government are absolutely clear that economic growth is a top priority. We are also absolutely clear that we cannot build the foundation for a strong economy with people in insecure work. That is why this legislation is so important, and we were proud to bring it forward. We are also proud to work with businesses across the country on it, and with our trade union and other partners across the country, working together so that we can build an economy that works for working people, reverse the damage that the hon. Lady’s party did in government and make sure that the economy works in the interests of everybody.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
Ensuring that business support takes account of rural needs is incredibly important for this Government. Around one in six people live in rural areas in England, with over 520,000 businesses contributing £259 billion to the English economy.
Tessa Munt
My constituent Jason runs The Cider Barn in the village of Draycott just outside Cheddar, a fantastic local venue that hosts live music and serves, unsurprisingly, really good local cider and ales. Jason was rocked by this year’s massive increase in business rates, which have jumped from £100 a month to £600 a month. I should not have to explain that that meant a significant rise in his operating costs. This kind of shock makes it so hard for micro and small businesses to survive, let alone to thrive. Given how important The Cider Barn is to the local community, what can the Minister say—and, importantly, do—to assure small businesses like Jason’s that they will be supported by this Government?
Peter Kyle
The fact that the hon. Lady’s constituent works in the hospitality sector and is located in a rural area means that he requires multiple types of support from this Government, which he is getting. We have permanently lowered the business rates multiplier for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties. That is worth nearly £1 billion and benefits over 750,000 businesses. I imagine that his business will fall within the definition of a small business. Just this week, we have introduced legislation to tackle late payments for small businesses, which will inject another £11 billion into the economy. This Government are on the side of businesses, whether they are in urban or rural areas and whether they are large or small.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras ha myttin da, Mr Speaker. Over 95% of Cornish businesses are small or microbusinesses. We are a hotbed of innovation and agility, but these Cornish businesses have been supported over the last 10 years with European Union objective 1 funding and shared prosperity funding, both of which have ended, and there is zero chance of Cornwall joining an English mayoral combined authority, so can the Minister outline how we can protect our innovative and agile micro and small businesses?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend is describing businesses that are the lifeblood of the British economy, and the innovation that flows from them is vital. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ rural taskforce is taking a strategic view of the challenges faced by businesses in rural areas, and I imagine that the one that he mentions will be in scope. The business growth service also includes growth hubs across the UK, which are supporting businesses in rural areas so that they can get the growth they need into their businesses.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The Government call for evidence on the opt-out collective actions regime closed in October last year, with almost 100 responses received. I welcome the input stakeholders have provided. We are committed to economic growth and robust competition enforcement, including private enforcement, which is good for businesses, consumers and the economy. A consultation will be published as soon as possible. My officials would be happy to work with the right hon. Gentleman to discuss this work further.
Sir Julian Smith
As the Minister says, it is really important that the collective regime continues—we have a great reputation globally for our opt-out regime. The litigation finance industry is vital to supporting claims from consumers. The Government said last year that they would proceed with a Bill to restore a legal issue following the PACCAR judgment, so does she have an update on when that Bill will come forward? It was not in the King’s Speech.
Kate Dearden
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the PACCAR review involves complex issues, and it is important that we take the time needed to get it right. Great care is being taken to ensure that proposals for the opt-out collective actions balance the need to preserve a route to redress for consumers with ensuring a proportionate regime for business. As I said in my previous answer, officials would be happy to discuss this issue further with the right hon. Gentleman.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
We are helping SMEs do more trade with European countries by taking down tariff and other trade barriers in our EU-UK summit, reducing red tape in individual countries, enabling easier business travel and allowing the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, both across the EU and bilaterally. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman welcoming that.
Ben Maguire
I always welcome the cutting of red tape and I await the details excitedly. My North Cornwall constituent, Hannah Willow, runs two art businesses. Prior to Brexit, around 30% of her sales were to customers in Europe, but this has now fallen to 10%. As a result of recent tariffs on trade, her exports to the US have also declined by 20%. Now, adding insult to injury, the de minimis threshold will be removed from 1 July this year. That means that items valued at under €150 entering the EU will no longer be exempt from customs duty and will incur a flat €3 fee per item. Will the Government take up the Liberal Democrats’ call to negotiate a bespoke customs union and finally put our small businesses back at the heart of economy, where they belong?
Chris Bryant
I am afraid that I am not going to take any ideas from the Lib Dems on this matter—I think I can pretty much unite the House on that. One of the things I am very keen on is that we maintain our position as the second-largest art market in the world. That means that we have to negotiate better agreements, including with the European Union. That is one of the things we are doing at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the de minimis rule, but I notice that other businesses in his constituency are doing well. Tarquin’s Cornish Gin is doing well; it has been winning awards in the United States of America and elsewhere—I understand that it is the best gin in the world.
Of course, the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) is doing on critical minerals is bound to benefit Cornish lithium. We are very keen to ensure that we have that capacity in the UK, rather than the lithium just being processed in other parts of the world.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
Since publishing our steel strategy on 19 March, we have published provisional product scope and quota volumes for the new steel trade measures; further reduced electricity prices for steel companies from 1 April through our network charging compensation scheme uplift; confirmed that some steel companies will be part of the British industrial competitiveness scheme; announced new transparency requirements on the origin of steel in public procurement; set up a cross-Government working group on scrap; and introduced—today—the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill.
Mr Barros-Curtis
Last week, Sev.en Global Investments announced a £100 million investment into 7 Steel UK in Cardiff, a site that I have recently visited. Do the Government agree that that investment shows our plan to prioritise a modern steel strategy is paying off for jobs and growth while putting working people in Wales and the rest of the UK first?
Chris McDonald
I do indeed agree. The £100 million investment in 7 Steel UK is welcome news, but I met the owners of the business, and they told me that they were able to release that investment only because of the confidence they had in the Government’s approach following the publication of our steel strategy. That is a direct correlation between Government action and £100 million-worth of investment in Cardiff.
I know that my hon. Friend has been a strong advocate of the steel industry. There is an opportunity later today for Members of the House to decide whether they are on the side of the steel industry or not. I encourage the Opposition to put their ideology aside just for a moment and get behind the steel industry this afternoon— I know that is difficult when a Bill has the word “nationalisation” in its title.
Cat Eccles
May I put on record my thanks to Ministers and the Department for their ongoing excellent engagement with me and my local businesses on the steel strategy? Many of the downstream businesses in my Stourbridge constituency currently import products—including zero-carbon steel—that are not produced in the UK. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that businesses like those in my constituency are not unfairly disadvantaged by the quotas and tariffs being introduced under the steel strategy in a few weeks’ time?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for raising issues with businesses in Stourbridge when we met earlier this week; I am happy to continue to work with her. The measures we have introduced, which are primarily to protect the UK steel industry, are targeted at steels that are made or can be made in the UK. There are sometimes difficulties where a product code covers multiple steel grades, but that is what the quota system is intended to deal with, and of course there will be a review in 12 months’ time.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Further to the question from the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) and my question to the Prime Minister yesterday, I am sure the Minister is aware that lots of manufacturing businesses are, frankly, screaming about the damage that the tariffs are going to do in five weeks’ time. Will he please consider an extension of the transition period to two years to allow three things to happen? First, it would allow UK steel capacity to grow in order to cover the gap. Secondly, it would allow quotas to be set correctly, so that UK businesses are not disadvantaged in the absence of UK production capacity. Thirdly, it would allow us to work out how it can be fair that somebody importing steel into the UK to produce a product pays tariffs, but somebody importing a finished product from overseas that is made from the self-same steel does not face tariffs.
Chris McDonald
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I believe we have had representation from Stannah, the stairlift company based in his constituency. It is important to say that the Government take action like this reluctantly, but ultimately there are distortions in the market around steel. The EU taking action itself would lead to the UK becoming a dumping ground for cheap steel flooding in from overseas. We have taken a very carefully balanced approach and consulted carefully with the industry. I continue to receive representations, and, as I said, there is an opportunity for a review of the measures in 12 months’ time.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
May I gently but urgently reiterate the previous two questions? Sam, one of my constituents, has raised Dynamic Metals, an independent British supplier working on specialised steel and metals for aerospace and motorsports. We have to champion those industries in this country. From 1 July, his business will see import tariffs go from zero to more than £3 million. That is pretty much insurmountable, and this policy could have an awful impact on industries that we must champion. Will the Minister consider the points raised in the previous two questions, as well as extending the deadline and meeting my constituents and those of many others in order to understand the full impact? That way, we can stand up for our industries and support our steel partners.
Chris McDonald
I am not familiar with the situation with Dynamic Metals. I was just having a discussion on the Front Bench with the Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), and if the hon. Lady writes to him, he will look carefully at the matter she has raised.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I will carry on with the same theme, because it is clear from all sides that there are real issues with the element of the steel strategy that imposes a 50% tariff on 1 July. It is affecting manufacturing businesses up and down this country, and it is being done in a way that not only threatens manufacturing jobs, but increases inflationary pressures. Can the Minister tell the House what impact assessment he has done on the effect of these measures on inflation and on jobs?
Chris McDonald
I reiterate the point that the action that the Government have taken has been to correct an issue in the market. We have taken wide representation. In fact, we amended the list as a result of some of that representation. The shadow Minister’s point about inflation goes exactly back to the point that I made earlier. This country cannot be in a position where we say that we are prepared to buy the cheapest thing, wherever it is made in the world, to the sacrifice of our own industry. We cannot allow foreign Governments’ industrial policies to drive our own industrial policy. That is why we have taken this action—similar action to that taken by the EU. It comes down to a question of whose side are you on. Are you on the side of British industry, like the Government, or are you on the side of overseas industry? That seems to be the case being prosecuted by the Opposition.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Pubs in Bromsgrove are vital to the local economy, supporting jobs and bringing communities together. I welcome success stories such as the Gate at Bournheath being named Bromsgrove and the villages’ pub of the year 2026, highlighting the strength of the sector. The Government are committed to backing pubs with permanently lower business rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and an additional 15% relief for pubs. We have also significantly increased the hospitality support fund to £10 million to help businesses invest, grow and remain resilient. That fund will help more than 1,000 pubs to diversify their business models, improve efficiency and productivity in the sector, and support people who are furthest from the labour market to move into jobs in hospitality.
Bradley Thomas
I thank the Minister for her response, but I am afraid that the picture she paints is not one that pubs across my constituency will recognise. A typical pub in my constituency is paying around £2,500 in additional costs a month compared with two years ago, because of a rise in energy costs, employment costs and business rates. If the Minister is serious about supporting the hospitality sector, will the Government look at a permanent cut to business rates for pubs and exempt pubs with accommodation from the overnight levy?
Kate Dearden
I understand that rising energy prices and the wider supply chain effects can place particular strain on sectors such as pubs and the wider hospitality sector, which often rely on that discretionary spending, and operate on tight margins. I have met lots of such businesses up and down the country over recent weeks, and I know that the current situation with energy prices, especially given what is happening in Iran, is causing a lot of concern. Across Government, we are considering carefully this area as part of our ongoing assessment of economic conditions and support mechanisms. We absolutely want to support our pubs and the hospitality sector, as they are vital to our local communities and high streets. It is vital that we provide the economic stability that we have shown this year, ensuring that the economy can keep growing, wages can rise, and people can have money to spend to support our pubs and our hospitality sector.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The Government recognise the vital role that hospitality plays in keeping high streets vibrant, driving footfall, supporting local jobs and sustaining town centre services. We know that many businesses, including the Swan Hotel, Bar and Grill in Maldon, are still facing real pressures, which is why we have delivered permanently lower business rates for over 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties, alongside a £4.3 billion support package, including transitional relief, to help firms to remain on the high street, invest and grow. Later this year, we will bring forward a new high streets strategy, developed with businesses, to support regeneration and help town centres to thrive.
Sir John Whittingdale
Despite what the Minister says, hospitality businesses in my constituency, and the constituencies of my hon. Friends, are reeling from the impact of higher energy costs, and increased national insurance contributions and business rates. These businesses are making it clear that if there are any further increases, they will simply not survive. Why are the Government pressing ahead with another tax in the form of the overnight visitor levy, and will she talk to businesses before proceeding with that?
Kate Dearden
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the decision on the overnight visitor levy is down to mayoral authorities. They will work really closely with businesses and stakeholders in making that decision, but he raises an important point. I recognise the significant pressures facing pubs, hospitality businesses and breweries, which are facing sustained cost increases. We are closely monitoring the potential impact of disruption to trade and the wider economy, because our priority is to keep prices down for households and businesses. Going forward, we will build on our work to cut energy bills and crack down on unfair profiteering. The new framework that we have announced will help regulators spot trouble early and protect consumers, and we will work with businesses on that. We understand and recognise the pressures, and we will work really closely with businesses to support them.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
This week, I hosted the British Beer and Pub Association in Parliament. It has more than 20,000 members across the country, including Camerons Brewery in Hartlepool. Among the many issues that it raised was this summer’s football world cup. In other parts of the UK, late licences are being permitted for all games, but in England and Wales, they are only for England and Scotland games. Will my hon. Friend make representations to her ministerial colleagues about allowing late licences for all games, so that we back our pubs and celebrate this festival of football?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important point. I am looking forward to getting out to the pub and supporting England in the world cup. His point about licensing is really important, and we will work closely with colleagues across Government on that.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for not ruining my moment to shine.
I told the House that I would be an activist, interventionist champion for business. I am very pleased to say that later today, the Chancellor will announce funding for two of our foundational sectors: ceramics and chemicals. She will set out more detail to the House shortly, but I can say that we are working with industry and experts to provide the targeted intervention that those sectors need. Today’s business tells the story: this Government stand with British business when it comes to creating the resilient and growing economy that this country deserves.
Jerome Mayhew
Our economy needs access to oil. Last October, the Government announced that they were going to sanction Russian oil and jet fuel. Yesterday, they decided not to do so, on the same day that they banned new drilling in the North sea. Why do the Government support Putin’s Russian oil, but not our UK oil?
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
The thing about a Labrador is that when it has got hold of the wrong end of the stick, it is very difficult to get that stick back. A lot of hon. Members have got the wrong end of the stick about what we are doing. We are increasing the sanctions on Russian oil. Up until now, it has been perfectly possible to bring Russian oil products into the UK if they are processed elsewhere, without any impediment whatsoever. It is absolutely right that we are bringing that to an end.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. We are on topicals, and I have to get other Members in. I am sure the Minister will have got it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
We recognise the vital contribution of hospitality businesses in the UK, including pubs in Carlisle, to supporting local employment and sustaining high streets and communities. They play a really important role in the cultural and social fabric of communities. I am always delighted to meet my hon. Friend.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
First, I congratulate the Government on securing the Gulf Co-operation Council deal. Success has many authors, and Members on both sides of the House have been part of these negotiations as Ministers, but a win is a win. These are—[Interruption.] These are our historical friends and allies, and this is part of a growth agenda.
Summer is approaching and young people are graduating. The Office for National Statistics reported this week that, as a direct result of this Government’s choices, one in six young people is looking for a job, but cannot find one. Sectors like retail and hospitality are shedding jobs by the thousands. Will the Secretary of State finally accept that, well-intentioned or otherwise, the Government have got it wrong?
Peter Kyle
It speaks for itself when the Opposition try to take credit for the Government’s achievements. It shows just how good this Government actually are. However, I am grateful for the hon. Member’s warm words about the GCC deal. A lot of work went into it, but of course when we came into office, we were practically on the starting line; we were so close to it at that moment.
I will be really up front about youth unemployment. This issue faces most communities in our country, and we should have much more cross-party support on it. In the interests of offering an olive branch, let me say that as someone who had a challenging pathway through education into employment, I recognise the issue. However, the Opposition must admit that, in the three years before they left office, youth unemployment went up by 250,000. Yes, we will work together, but it does—
Mr Speaker
Order. Secretary of State, my words apply to you as well as to Back Benchers, because I am trying to help your Back Benchers get their questions in. We will now hear a very quick question from the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Griffith
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. I hope he would agree, cross-party, with the Tony Blair Institute, which has said that the UK must restore “dynamism” to its labour market, rather than imposing restrictions such as the Employment Rights Act 2025. Could the Secretary of State, who is a good man, at least promise me that, if he gets to serve as Chancellor in a Government led by his friend, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), he will use that chance to change the Government’s approach?
Peter Kyle
Dynamism is increasing in our economy, and that is why we have so much growth—growth that the Conservatives failed to deliver in their 14 years. As for young people, we have the youth guarantee, which includes a six-month funded programme placement that provides a rich environment for kids who were put out of work—a lot of the time, by the Conservatives when they were in government. It gets kids back into work, and does so sustainably.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Peter Kyle
Just last year, I was in my hon. Friend’s neck of the woods for the investment summit, unleashing further billions into his part of the country. I know that the automotive sector is incredibly important to him, and we are pledged to getting back to the level of automotive output we had before the Tories halved it. When we get back to that point, he will see a flourishing, booming industry, with the jobs that follow.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
According to reports in both the Financial Times and The Times, the Government have asked supermarket retailers to reduce the price of essential food items, such as milk, bread and eggs. The chief executive officer of Marks & Spencer has described the proposals as “completely preposterous”. Can the Secretary of State confirm that instead of trying to impose price controls on private businesses, his Department will look to reduce the cost of Government-imposed burdens on retailers, such as business rates, national insurance contributions and energy costs?
Peter Kyle
There will be no price cap and there will be no price controls, but I am not going to apologise for throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the cost of living challenges that we inherited, along with an economy that was broken.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Peter Kyle
I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. Yes, I can say that Little Layton in his constituency is one of the 379 communities across the UK that will receive Pride in Place funding, just one of the cross-departmental packages of support that his constituency will benefit from. We will not forget. We will keep on supporting him all the way.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Chris Bryant
I am very happy to meet the company, and the right hon. Gentleman if he want to come and see me, to talk through all those issues. It is really important, if we are to have a steel production sector in this country, to ensure that it has an opportunity to compete with unfair competition around the rest of the world. That is why we are taking the action that we are. The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), made the point earlier that if we do not take this action on quotas and tariffs, we will be dumped on, because every other equivalent major economy to ours is taking that action, but I am very happy to look at the precise details with the company, and with him.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, come on! Tell me who you don’t want me to get in, because that is what happens when we do this.
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. The UK Government have a support package for England, with £4.3 billion to protect ratepayers. The Barnett consequentials provide support for Scotland, but where the UK Government are supporting businesses, the SNP is choking off investment and risking jobs.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Chris Bryant
Of course I am happy to meet. Maybe we should organise a meeting for several companies and several hon. Members. I am very happy to do that as soon as possible. I do not want to extend the transition period, for the simple reason that the EU, the United States and other countries are introducing very similar measures, and the danger is that we would just be dumped on. There will be a review mechanism after a year. I am very keen to meet colleagues to explain the trade-offs we are having to make.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
The Committee is meeting steel makers later today and will supply the Government with its advice from that, but I want to raise the automotive sector. We are not going to double automotive production in the way the Secretary of State wants unless we fundamentally reform the zero emission vehicle mandate. Auto makers are subsidising sales by £5 billion a year. They are transferring money to state-subsidised players, such as BYD, and battery costs have not fallen. Will the Secretary of State bring forward a whole-market review and reform the ZEV mandate for good?
Peter Kyle
My right hon. Friend, as always, gives great voice to the automotive sector. I have listened closely to the voices of the sector in relation to the ZEV mandate—it is important that we do that. It is also important that, when setting such targets, we take into account consumer demand. That is something I am very aware of and having conversations about with colleagues across Government.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Kate Dearden
Boosting opportunity and tackling youth unemployment in every area remains a priority, and helping young people into work is crucial for that. We know that some people value that flexibility, which is why I will be considering that as part of the regulations.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Cornwall has so much to offer the UK—critical minerals, floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea, defence, geothermal energy—but infrastructure, particularly ports and rail, will be critical to enable growth. Cornwall is a perfect place to designate as an industrial strategy zone. Will the Minister agree to meet me and Cornish colleagues to discuss this?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the potential in Cornwall, which is a unique and distinctive part of the country. It powered our industrial past and it will power our industrial future. I am happy to meet her and colleagues to talk more about the opportunities in Cornwall.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The pubs in Spelthorne are under the cosh. The Minister, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), said that a review of pubs and how they are valued for business rates purposes is ongoing. She will know that the review will not be relevant until 2029. Pubs are closing today. Young people are losing their jobs today. Will those on the Government Front Bench please do more to lobby the Treasury for our pubs?
Kate Dearden
Pubs in the hon. Member’s constituency and nationwide are so important to day-to-day community life, and we are mindful of the challenges that they have faced in recent years. The number of pubs has fallen by nearly 7,000 since 2010. We know how significant that is, and I will work closely with colleagues to support pubs.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am delighted that the Government have listened to my calls, and those of my neighbours in Stoke-on-Trent, to finally act to support the ceramics industry—calls so loud that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) has lost his voice. While we await the detail, will the Secretary of State come to North Staffordshire to meet the ceramics businesses that he and this Government are helping today?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The package that we are announcing today will be significant. I will not say any more, because the Chancellor will be making that announcement later. I can say, however, that the boldness of the package is a direct consequence of the voices that we have heard from MPs, including from my hon. Friend and others in Stoke—whether losing their voice or not. Those voices have been profoundly important to the scope, scale and boldness of what will be announced today.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Hospitality businesses in North East Fife support the Lib Dem call for a VAT cut for hospitality, but the Government do not seem to be moving on it. Will the Minister consult with businesses on a lower national insurance contribution band for part-time workers? Part-time opportunities are so important to hospitality and for getting younger people into work.
Kate Dearden
It was a pleasure to meet the hon. Member and the hospitality sector in her constituency recently. There are a wide range of factors when introducing new tax reliefs, and they need to happen in the usual way. The alleviation that we have already introduced on NIC is making a real difference to young people getting into employment. We will review it in the usual way in due course.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In October, Nestlé announced 16,000 job losses, including 450 in the UK. In the light of the significant impact that this will have in York, will the Secretary of State ensure that meaningful consultation happens with the trade unions, and will he meet them to save those jobs?
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Small businesses in Didcot’s Broadway are struggling with energy and staff costs, business rates and a rising tax burden, and the older town centre would benefit from investment and rejuvenation. For areas, such as Didcot, that did not receive Pride in Place funding, what suggestions does the Secretary of State have for funding or other forms of support?
Peter Kyle
What businesses in Didcot and right across the country need is a fast-growing economy, and that is what we are delivering.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
In my constituency we are seeing good growth in our large employers and a great skills pipeline coming through from our advanced technical college, but we need a little support for our SMEs. Will the Minister say what targeted support is available for SMEs in towns like Stafford?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend raises an important point about support for small businesses. It is important that their cash flow is protected and that they are paid on time—hopefully my hon. Friend will have noticed the announcement of the Commercial Payments Bill in the King’s Speech, which will give us the strongest legal framework in the G7.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Fifteen months on from the £200 million pledged for Grangemouth, and five months on from the Minister’s confirmation that prospective projects were being examined and shortlisted, what progress is being made to deliver new industry and jobs for Grangemouth?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right: £200 million is available for such projects. The initial £14.5 million of funding that was announced will help businesses to test the feasibility of their project ideas in order to secure long-term funding from the National Wealth Fund.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Back to the 1 July tariffs: the quotas are too small and the commodity codes are too broad. The steel required for aerospace can come only from, I think, SSUK, which is currently in liquidation. That grade of steel cannot be produced elsewhere—that is for commercial steel. Businesses will be bankrupted within six months—12 months is far too long. Will those on the Front Bench please listen to industry on this?
Chris Bryant
We are listening to both sides of industry, because there are the downstream users and there is the production. The truth of the matter is that UK steel production under the previous Government fell from— I think this is correct—27 million tonnes a year to 4 million tonnes a year. If we are to meet our armaments needs in future years, we need a sovereign steel capacity in this country. We have to be able to produce British steel. We have been very careful to ensure that the quotas are cutting areas only where the UK can produce that steel.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that expanding the use of home-grown timber in construction and manufacturing would not only support UK forestry and small businesses, but strengthen supply chain resilience and reduce our reliance on imports, which currently make up 80% of the timber we use? What specific measures will the Government introduce to support this sector as a strategic national asset?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend knows that I am a strong advocate of steel in construction, but she is right: there has been a missed opportunity on timber, particularly as many of our hardwood forests are coming to maturity, which means we will have a real surplus of hardwood in the UK. Something we will suffer from, though, is downstream processing of timber, so we need to look at how we can encourage more investment in the sawmills and downstream processing industry.
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to let Members know that Harriet Cross had the first topical question on the Order Paper, but she had withdrawn it. I want to reassure the House that that was a mistake, and we were following the agenda. Hopefully that will not be repeated by the Table Office.
Costs for Motorists
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the urgent question, let me repeat what I said to the House at the start of this parliamentary Session. The Government’s own ministerial code makes it clear that important policy announcements should be made in the first instance to this House when it is sitting. Some people seem to have very short memories. This announcement has been drip-fed to the media over the past three days. That is not in line with the Government’s own rules, and it is unacceptable. Back Benchers on either side have been elected to this House to hear such announcements first, instead of outside a Morrisons petrol station, on a bus, or on TikTok. Members should be respected. I uphold this House and I respect them, even when the Government do not. The Government have to get their act together and recognise the value of their own Back Benchers.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on the Government’s plan for costs for motorists.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
Mr Speaker, your comments have been fully noted, and I will ensure that they are fed back to the entire ministerial team.
The Government are taking steps to support households and businesses with fuel costs in response to the conflict in the middle east. A rapid de-escalation in the middle east remains the best way to bring down fuel prices. The most impactful step, of course, would be to reopen the strait of Hormuz. That is exactly why the UK Government are playing a leading role in the international effort to get shipping flowing freely. Indeed, I contrast that with the position of the Leader of the Opposition, who would have rushed us to war. [Interruption.]
Alongside this key step—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, the boys’ club—
Mr Speaker
Order. I cannot hear what the Minister is saying. We have agreed to an urgent question in order to hear from the Minister. I am proud of this Parliament and of this country, so I want to hear what the Minister has to say.
Lucy Rigby
Alongside this key step, the Government’s priority will continue to be helping families with the cost of living, including through protecting the public finances. The Government are taking action to bear down on prices at the pump, and in November we extended the 5p per litre cut in fuel duty for a further five months. Right now, petrol and diesel are 11p per litre cheaper than they would have been under the plans we inherited from the previous Government.
Some fuels have been more impacted than others by the conflict, and we recognise that. The Government also recognise the pressures being faced by drivers and other fuel users. That is why we are introducing a package worth over £400 million that combines broad support for motorists with targeted support for the sectors most exposed to and affected by higher fuel prices.
Yesterday the Prime Minister made it clear that we will not increase fuel duty this year. The temporary 5p cut will be extended until the end of the year. Taken together, the Government’s decisions will save the average motorist over £120 this year, compared with the plans we inherited from the previous Government.
We also recognise that farmers face substantially increased costs for fertiliser and fuel. That is why we are going further and cutting the duty rate on red diesel by over a third per litre, to the lowest rate in over 20 years. That will help other users of red diesel too.
The road haulage sector is vital for transporting goods across the country. Recognising the sector’s key role and the increased costs that it is facing, we are introducing a 12-month holiday from vehicle excise duty for the majority of heavy goods vehicles. This will save a typical HGV over £600—up to £912 for some vehicles—on top of the savings that I have just described for fuel duty.
To conclude, this change is one part of our support for households and businesses. It combines universal support for motorists with targeted support for those most affected by higher fuel prices. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will update the House later today on further support measures for households and businesses.
Sir Mel Stride
May I begin by agreeing with you, Mr Speaker, and saying how disrespectful it is that this U-turn on fuel duty has already been released to the media earlier this week? The news was plastered across national newspapers on Monday, and yesterday the Chancellor conducted a visit to a petrol station with journalists, but it has taken until today for this House to be updated. This is a pattern, Mr Speaker—including, of course, the relentless briefings before the Budget last year about tax measures and fiscal forecasts. You would think that a Government with so little support among their own Back Benchers would have more respect for this place.
This change to fuel duty is yet another humiliating U-turn from a Chancellor and Prime Minister whose authority is shot. The Chancellor fought us tooth and nail on this issue. The Conservative party has been campaigning for a fuel duty freeze for months. The Chancellor repeatedly rejected those calls, creating unnecessary uncertainty for motorists and businesses. Why did it take her so long to realise that putting up fuel duty during an energy crisis is a bad idea? Does she really expect us to believe that this is all only happening, as she has suggested, because of better growth?
Let us be clear: the Chancellor has been pointing to the slight upward revision in the International Monetary Fund’s growth forecast earlier this week. That forecast was for growth of 1%, but until April the IMF was forecasting growth this year of 1.3%, so where is the supposed growth dividend? Perhaps the Minister can address that momentarily. Is the Chancellor seriously suggesting that the outlook is better now compared with how it looked at the last fiscal event? On wider measures, will the Minister confirm what has also been briefed to the press and not told to the House: that HM Revenue and Customs’ mileage rates are to be changed?
Let us be clear that this is a Government lurching from one U-turn to the next. Their mismanagement has left our economy weak. The reality is that they are in no position to support people through these cost of living pressures because they have mismanaged the economy. They have no credibility left, and clearly they have no respect for the House.
Lucy Rigby
Put simply, as I said, the shadow Chancellor’s party would have had motorists hurtling full speed towards higher fuel costs. It is only because of the action that this Government have taken that we have applied the brake to the hikes that his party would have introduced. The Conservatives would have introduced higher costs; we are keeping the freeze on fuel duty and protecting millions of motorists right across the country. Exactly as I said, we are taking further measures on red diesel and for HGV drivers.
That is on top of additional action that we are taking on the cost of living. The shadow Chancellor and I saw each other in the studios earlier this morning when I was out there talking about the free, unlimited bus travel for children that the Chancellor will update us on—
Mr Speaker
Order. I just say to the Minister that if that was being said in the studios, rather than to the House, it is not a good example—it confirms that you somehow think that Sky or BBC are more important than Back Benchers, elected by constituents across this country, who must hear it second-hand. It is not acceptable. Do not think that it is a bonus to tell the House that now.
Lucy Rigby
Mr Speaker, the Chancellor will come to the House later on today, and she—
Mr Speaker
Order. The point I was making was that you said you were doing the studios. You are here now, and I think it should have been announced here first. Do we both agree?
Lucy Rigby
My apologies, Mr Speaker. I had intended to say just then that the Chancellor will come to the House and give a full statement on everything, including the matters that we are discussing.
I am sorry that the shadow Chancellor is so upset and appalled by the recent growth figures. I am in the business of talking this country up rather than down. Indeed, I am grateful to him for highlighting that growth has been revised up, interest rates are coming down, inflation is coming down and real wages are going up. As I said, that is because of the prudent decisions that the Government have taken, all of which are allowing us to take further action on the cost of living.
The action that we are taking on fuel duty is very important. It will save millions of motorists across this country a lot of money. I will address the point on HMRC mileage rates: as I said, the Chancellor will come to the House later and talk about the full package.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
Thank you for facilitating the urgent question, Mr Speaker. I welcome the announcements on fuel duty, but I did not hear the Chief Secretary say anything about remedies for the new costs on drivers of electric vehicles. Those new costs, imposed at the last Budget, are suppressing demand for electric vehicles to such an extent that UK automakers are having to subsidise demand by £5 billion a year. That is imperilling their future and imperilling the target of doubling automotive production by 2035. Can we have a statement about what the Government will do to reform the zero emission vehicle mandate and get in place a plan that leads to a thriving auto industry, not a dying one?
Lucy Rigby
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I know how passionate he is about these issues. He refers to changes made at the Budget, which were made with the best of intentions and from the point of view of encouraging the use of electric vehicles. I believe that the Chancellor may say something on that later on.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Like so many Labour Government announcements, the announcement to extend fuel duty relief later this year is too little, too late. When we look around the world, we see other countries acting now. Other countries are cutting fuel duty now. Other countries are cutting public transport costs now. That is why we Liberal Democrats continue to call on the Government to cut fuel duty and public transport costs now. What message does the Minister think it sends to people that the Government will take action later in the year when people are feeling the pain in their pockets right now?
On farmers, the Government will be aware that the cost of fertiliser is going through the roof; world prices are up 44%. The Minister says that there will be a further cut in duty on red diesel, but what assessment have the Government made of the cumulative impact of the war in Iran on farmers? It is clear to me that the cut in red diesel duty will not touch the sides when the cost of fertiliser is rocketing through the roof.
Lucy Rigby
The hon. Member makes a really important point about the cost that farmers are facing, but that is exactly why we are taking steps to cut the duty on red diesel by more than a third to its lowest rate in over 20 years. As I said, that will help not just farmers, but other sectors, too, including in relation to freight. I am afraid that, as so often, we hear suggestions from the Liberal Democrats, “Cut this”, “Cut that”, “Try to bring things down”—[Interruption.]—but they are never funded. We manage the public finances—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) has asked her question and I want respect given to the Minister when she is answering it, please.
Lucy Rigby
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point is that we have to manage the public finances responsibly. We cannot put in place measures that are not fully funded, and I wish that some of the proposals being put forward were adequately backed up and fully funded.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
These are welcome announcements, and I welcome the Chief Secretary to her place. The Government have a very important convening power, and one thing that residents in Oldham raise all the time is how much they pay for car insurance compared with those in other areas. For low-paid workers, particularly those who need their car for business, that additional premium represents a lot of money going out every year above and beyond what those in neighbouring areas pay. Will the Chief Secretary convene the insurance industry and see what can be done to finally address the postcode lottery?
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue, and I thank him for all the work that he has done in this space to try to bring down the cost for people across the country. In my old role as Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I was closer to the work of the insurance sector and the work that the current Economic Secretary is now taking forward to try to ensure that prices are brought down, but I am more than happy to convene with the new Economic Secretary and take forward the work that my hon. Friend suggests.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Obviously, the Minister is not aware that the previous Conservative Government froze fuel duty for 14 years. Some of us lobbied for the Government of the day to abolish the escalator, but we did not do it. However, may I ask her one key question? How much extra money has the Treasury obtained as a result of the rise in the wholesale price of fuel at the pumps?
Lucy Rigby
I am afraid that the hon. Member has entirely missed the fact that the plans that his Government left in place would have seen fuel duty go up. It is only because of the action that this Government are taking that millions of motorists across the country will save money.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
I welcome the efforts to support drivers at the petrol pumps, but this situation has not led to an increase in demand for electric vehicles. As the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) has said, the automotive sector is facing a real crisis because of the ZEV mandate. I was at the Vauxhall plant in my constituency last week; there is not, and there will not be, the consumer demand to meet the escalating demands of the ZEV mandate. Will the Treasury please use its convening power across Government to bring forward the review of the mandate?
Lucy Rigby
As I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), I appreciate that this is a really important issue, and I know what an important issue it is to my hon. Friend and his constituency too. As I said, I am more than happy to take up the matter, and I will discuss it with the Exchequer Secretary.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Increased fuel costs are a real pain point in a constituency like mine. Rural households that depend on their cars spend nearly £800 a year more on fuel than people who live in urban areas. Will the Government listen again to the Liberal Democrats’ demands for an immediate 10p cut in fuel duty, which would bring down pump prices by 12p per litre?
Lucy Rigby
I think that these suggestions are being made with the best of intentions, but with the deepest respect to the hon. Member, this is all motherhood and apple pie. If we want to do these nice things, we have to be able to say where the money will come from.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for recognising the important role that hauliers and freight play in our national and local economies. The steps announced yesterday will hugely support the 3,500 people in my constituency who work in transport and logistics. These are the people who keep our shelves stocked and our economies moving. Will the Minister liaise with her colleagues in other Government Departments on what other support could be made available for the logistics sector, including improved welfare facilities?
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend raises the important issue of hauliers and the road haulage sector. What we are discussing today is so critical to the costs that hauliers are paying, including vehicle excise duty, which of course is on top of the changes we are making to fuel duty to save hauliers money. This is one of the ways in which we are recognising the critical role that hauliers play in setting costs, including of consumer goods. All these things fit together, and I recognise how important the sector is to my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Rural drivers in West Worcestershire will be delighted that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has seen the political reality that it would have been mad to put another 5p on petrol on 1 September, but can she explain to my constituents why we are not allowing oil and gas extraction from our own basin yet we are allowing an increase in Putin-produced oil and gas?
Lucy Rigby
I am grateful to the hon. Member for her question, but if it would have been so mad to deal with fuel duty in that way, why was it her party’s intention to do exactly that? On oil and gas, we have been very clear that they will play a part in our fuel mix for years and years to come.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
The Tories oversaw the only Parliament in history where living standards were lower at the end than they were at the start. This Government, by contrast, got wages up more in a year than the Tories did in a decade, with growth and inflation rates better than forecast. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that ours is the best possible economic plan when it comes to delivering for my constituents, including their interests as motorists?
Lucy Rigby
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. It is because of the fiscally responsible choices that the Chancellor has made that growth and real wages have gone up, and inflation and interest rates have come down. [Interruption.] These things do not happen by accident; they are because of the fiscally responsible way that the Chancellor is managing our economy. That is fiscal responsibility for a purpose, that purpose being to support working people across this country.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I welcome the hon. and learned Lady to her new role in the Cabinet. She was an excellent colleague when she was on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and it does not surprise me that she is the first of her intake to make it.
It is in that spirit that I hope to be able to help the hon. and learned Lady in marking out her career. Some 90% of my constituency is rural, and increases in the price of fuel worry people. They do not put money into the economy because they do not know where that price will go. Will the hon. and learned Lady take the opportunity to do something that should have been done by the last Conservative Government? Rather than put out false figures for raising fuel duty that never happen, it would be a much better boost to the economy if people had certainty about their fuel costs.
Lucy Rigby
I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for his kind comments. I appreciate where he is trying to go with his remarks, but what we are doing with this announcement is saving the average motorist over £120 this year, compared with the plans that we inherited. By saying—as the Prime Minister has—that we are going to extend the cut until 31 December, we are trying to give people a bit of certainty and reassurance. We recognise that family budgets are really stretched at the moment, which is why we are introducing this measure, and plenty of others, to try to help people with the cost of living.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that it is right that we did not rush into the Iran war and that our Government’s plans and actions to support households are responsive to changing events, rather than being knee-jerk reactions that end up causing more damage to our economy in the longer term?
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend’s comments again highlight that the Conservative party would have raced to war. When I said that earlier—Conservative Members are doing it again; they are shaking their heads at me. The reality is—
Lucy Rigby
Okay. One of two things is true: either the Leader of the Opposition said that she would have taken us into the conflict and she did not mean it, in which case she is really confused, frankly; or she said it and she meant it, which is demonstrative of catastrophic judgment. Neither of those things—catastrophically bad judgment or deep confusion—is an ideal quality for someone who wants to run the country.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Government have repeatedly pointed to the fuel finder website as the best way to keep prices low through competition. Yet in my constituency costs have gone up so much that there is basically no variation between the pumps. Those high prices are crippling for everyone, but particularly for local businesses such as the fish merchants from the East Neuk, who go far and beyond North East Fife to deliver to customers directly. Driving is not avoidable for a constituency such as mine. Obviously, the Government are not looking at the Lib Dem proposals, but why do they not offer meaningful support beyond red diesel in rural constituencies? What about EV charging, for example? Often, in constituencies such as mine, people have to charge away from home because they need their car to get about the constituency.
Lucy Rigby
We are supporting motorists in a meaningful way and it is really important. The hon. Member mentioned the Competition and Markets Authority’s fuel finder scheme. The intention of that is to save households that own a car up to £40 a year. She is right that the key principle behind that is competition. We know that competition is the way that we get to greater choice and lower prices for consumers.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury reassure me that the Treasury really understands that in rural areas the cost of fuel not only relates to what motorists pay for driving but affects everything—all the goods and services provided—on sale in the shops? Therefore, rather than trying to put caps on the things that are on sale in shops, the best way to help keep costs down in rural areas is to keep fuel costs down.
Lucy Rigby
I have to tell the right hon. Member that we are not attempting to cap the prices in supermarkets and nor were we intending to do so. The Chancellor is having discussions with supermarkets, as she is with other sectors, with a view to putting downwards pressure on prices and helping people with the cost of living. As I have said repeatedly, we on the Government Benches recognise that there is a cost of living crisis out there, not least because of the inheritance we received from the Conservatives, and we are seeking to help people with those costs.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
May I thank my hon. Friend for recognising and supporting hauliers and logistics companies, such as the Malcolm Group, the UK’s leading independent provider of third-party logistics services, which is based in my constituency and supports many hundreds of jobs across Paisley and Renfrewshire South? Those companies play such an important role in keeping our shelves stocked and our economies running. I echo the calls made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) for us to go further in supporting greater welfare facilities for drivers. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury make some comment on the safety of logistics staff who, too often, man vehicles that are targeted by criminals?
Lucy Rigby
I am glad to hear that the measures will help the Malcolm Group in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as indeed they will hauliers right across the country. She raises, as other hon. Members have, an important point around welfare. She also alludes to freight crime, which has been discussed at length in this House and is something in which I am particularly interested, given the nature of my constituency. The Government are taking forward action to seek to deal with freight crime, as well as taking action on welfare, but I would be more than happy to convene a meeting with other Ministers and my hon. Friend on the issue.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Does the Minister agree that one of the Government’s main responsibilities is to provide energy security for its citizens? As a nation resplendent with our own resources, why will this Government not issue more licences to drill in the North sea for oil and gas, which would make us energy-sufficient and have a knock-on effect at the pumps?
Lucy Rigby
The best way to get to energy security is by doing exactly what the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is doing at the moment with the push towards renewables. New licences in the North sea would not bring new oil and gas on stream for another 10 years, so they really are the wrong solution.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
The freeze in fuel duty will be a relief to drivers in North East Hertfordshire, but part of the reason there is such a problem is that the Conservative party’s last stint in government left public transport virtually non-existent in rural communities such as mine. We discussed earlier this week the enormous cost of HS2—more than £100 billion. If we were investing at that scale in bus services, we could provide a vastly improved network across the whole country for decades to come. Will the Government learn the lessons of the current crisis and redirect our public transport spending towards the journeys we need to make in our day-to-day lives?
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend raises an important point about the critical nature of bus services to the entire country. That is exactly why we are providing more than £3 billion for buses over the next three years, to cap fares at £3 and maintain and improve services. That includes funding for local authorities to put in place local fare initiatives if they wish to do so, as I believe the North East combined authority has done. We are also making reforms to bus franchising, which will allow for new and better services.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I want to come back to what the Minister said earlier about the war in Iran. She knows full well that the Leader of the Opposition did not say that she would take us into the conflict, and she knows full well that it was a NOFORN—no foreign nationals—operation and that there was never an opportunity for the UK to be involved. If she does not know that, she should go and speak to the Defence team and get up to date with the details. She has some cheek, considering that the Government have just decided that they are going to row back on the pressure they put on Russia. Given that the Minister did not explain it in her media round this morning, will she now explain exactly why the Government decided to exempt oil and oil products that originate from Russia under commodity codes 2709 and 2710?
Lucy Rigby
I wholeheartedly reject any accusation or idea whatsoever that we are somehow going soft on Russia and Putin. That is completely wrong. The new package of sanctions that we have introduced is stronger today—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I told the Front Benchers, and I am telling the Back Benchers: they have had the courtesy of being able to ask a question; I want them to hear the answer, and I need to hear it as well.
Lucy Rigby
The package of sanctions in place today is stronger than the package of sanctions that was in place last week. We have a world-leading sanctions regime in this country: at the moment, we have more than 3,300 sanctions on Russian entities, businesses, individuals and ships—the list goes on and on. Why does it go on and on? It is because of our steadfast support for Ukraine.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Scotland is an energy superpower, so it is particularly galling for constituents and businesses in my constituency, which is a two and a half hour drive end to end, and where road vehicles are an absolute necessity to conduct daily life, to face the prices they currently face. Will the Government commit to using the hundreds of millions of pounds of extra tax revenue from VAT for a VAT freeze for the duration of the current crisis?
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
While it is good news that the Chancellor has been forced into another humiliating U-turn over her increase to fuel duty, it just delays the increase until the end of the year. The cost of living is surging, and families are feeling the pinch in every aspect of their lives. Why will the Government not give people and businesses the certainty they need and cancel the fuel duty increase altogether?
Lucy Rigby
There is absolutely nothing humiliating about the action being taken by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to protect millions of motorists across this country. Again, I have to remind the hon. Member that the plans we inherited from the previous Government would have seen motorists paying more.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I welcome this latest U-turn by the Chancellor to freeze fuel duty, which will help my constituents, and I also welcome the cut in duty on red diesel to help our farmers. The Government’s carbon border adjustment mechanism comes into effect on 1 January. That will increase further the cost of fertiliser, which in turn will push up the price of food. Will the Chief Secretary undertake a review of that carbon border adjustment mechanism, to protect all our constituents from further food price increases?
Lucy Rigby
I am grateful for the hon. Member highlighting the measures we are taking when it comes to red diesel. He mentions fertiliser costs. We know that substantially increased fertiliser costs, as well as fuel costs, are hurting farmers. That is exactly why we are taking these measures on red diesel, cutting the duty rate by over a third per litre from just over 10p to 6.5p, which, as I said, is the lowest rate for more than 20 years.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I warmly welcome the Chief Secretary to her new role. My rural constituency does not have a regular or reliable bus service. It does not even have a single mainline train station, so my constituents are forced to rely on their cars to get to school or work and to care for relatives, not to mention the transport of goods. I welcome this modest freeze, but please will the Minister meet me to discuss North Cornwall being part of the Government’s rural fuel duty relief scheme? While we are there, perhaps I can explain how our excellent Lib Dem proposals are all fully costed.
Lucy Rigby
I am grateful to the hon. Member. I might ask that our meeting—when indeed we do meet, as I am happy to do so—is fully focused on the matters at hand.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Having worked in the oil industry, I understand the flow of oil products around the world quite well, and it is unquestionable that the Government have eased the prospect of Putin’s oil flowing into the UK’s oil market—that is beyond doubt. I have three questions for the Chief Secretary. Can she explain the Treasury’s calculation of the extent to which this move may benefit UK motorists? Can she explain why the Government have decided to do this, and can she tell us what she thinks the cost will be to the Government’s integrity and whether it is worth it?
Lucy Rigby
I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the decision on licences in the sanctions regime. These licences are specific, targeted and will be reviewed on a very regular basis. Given that he understands the flows of oil so well, he will know that licences are a very common part of the sanctions regime. The reason these licences are being put in place is to stage the impact on the economy. Indeed, the European Union is going to achieve a full ban by the end of 2026—it, too, is staging the impact. This is a sensible measure when it comes to our economy. What is totally beyond doubt is our steadfast support for Ukraine and the pressure that we continue to put, with our international allies, on Vladimir Putin.
Business of the House
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 1 June will include:
Monday 1 June—Second Reading of the Health Bill.
Tuesday 2 June—Committee of the whole House on the Armed Forces Bill.
Wednesday 3 June—Remaining stages of the Railways Bill.
Thursday 4 June—General debate on Pride Month.
Friday 5 June—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 8 June will include:
Monday 8 June—Committee of the whole House on the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill (day one).
Tuesday 9 June—Conclusion of Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill.
Wednesday 10 June—Remaining stages of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network And Information Systems) Bill.
Thursday 11 June—General debate on the legacy of Jo Cox.
Friday 12 June—The House will not be sitting.
Jesse Norman
It is famously true that our present Prime Minister gets 100 times more animated and passionate about the performance of his football club every weekend than he does about trivial details of social, economic or foreign policy, and still more so when it comes to defeating the enemy from Manchester. So one would have to have a heart of stone not to congratulate the Prime Minister on the success of Arsenal football club in winning the premier league—I notice the astonishing lack of reaction from the Labour Benches. As we United fans say, only 11 more premiership wins to go, and Mikel Arteta will still be one short of Alex Ferguson.
In this world cup year, we remember with deep warmth and affection the heroes of 1966. I refer, of course, to the band of brothers who were so inspired by England’s world cup victory that they set up Westfields football club in Hereford. I pay special tribute to the legend that is Andy Morris—not ignoring his brilliant wife Sandra—who has been synonymous with Westfields ever since.
Whatever happens in Makerfield, it seems inevitable that there will soon be a leadership contest in the Labour party. The markets are spooked, the pundits are pontificating, the pollsters are rampant, but amid all the media speculation, there is one candidate—one extraordinary dark horse—who has not yet even been mentioned. That is why I am delighted, in relation to the leadership of the Labour party, to announce my strong support, in his bid for the top job, for the Leader of the House. Colleagues will have noticed a certain coyness from the Leader of the House about his own position last week in business questions. Make no mistake, Mr Speaker, that is the clear sign of a man preparing to throw his hat into the ring.
For months now, I have lived with a secret fear that the Government will have a reshuffle and the Leader of the House will be relegated from the light of the Chamber back into the stygian depths of the Labour Whips Office. Luckily, the Prime Minister has remained far too weak even to contemplate a reshuffle, but I ask colleagues across the House, and especially on the Labour Benches, to contemplate that hideous prospect—that drastic loss of warmth, and wit and wisdom from these proceedings. As Ben Jonson said of Francis Bacon, when he spoke, the fear of everyone was that he would make an end.
Some foolish and ill-advised people will say that this leadership bid is an improbable one, and possibly even, in this age of botox, TikTok and Justin Trudeau, that a Prime Minister should be constructed on more youthful, foolish, inexperienced and, dare I say it, sleeker lines. To which I cry shame! Fie upon these unimaginative gloomsters and naysayers. What fools they are. It is precisely that apparently diffident Clark Kent exterior that makes my candidate—our candidate—such a politically electrifying prospect. In a world in which a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer can seriously advance the total economic shambles of supermarket food price caps, any move is on the table. The Leader of the House can therefore immediately become leader of the Labour party. It is simple common sense; we barely even need to change the name.
Mr Speaker, you will be relieved to know that under my steady hand, the Leader of the House’s Labour leadership campaign is ready to roll. The website is in hand, the baseball caps and T-shirts have been ordered. As Hilaire Belloc said of Lord Lundy:
“The stocks were sold; the Press was squared;
The Middle Class was quite prepared.”
Donors are falling over themselves to associate themselves with this extraordinary political intervention.
The one crucial remaining question is what campaign slogan we should use. We thought about “Common sense with Campbell”, “Campbell for the country” or “All in for Alan”, but there are two slogans with which we really cannot fail. When he responds, I know the Leader of the House will want to take the opportunity to formally launch the campaign himself from the Dispatch Box, but perhaps he can also indicate which of these two slogans he prefers: is it to be “Yes, we Cam-bell”, channelling the spirit of Barack Obama, or more inclusively still, “Make Britain Campbell again”? A nation awaits, so may we have a debate in Government time on this vital question?
Mr Speaker
I remind the House that the most important game is being played on Sunday, between Bolton Wanderers and Stockport County. Good luck to Bolton!
Sir Alan Campbell
I see the shadow Leader of the House has had his Weetabix again this morning.
I extend my sympathies to the family of Lance Bombardier Ciara Sullivan, who lost her life in a tragic incident last week. It reminds us of the price sometimes paid by the brave men and women who serve our country so well.
Tomorrow is the ninth anniversary of the horrific Manchester Arena attack, which claimed the lives of 22 people and left many more injured. I am sure all those affected remain in the thoughts of the whole House. Last year, Martyn’s law received Royal Assent, delivering on our commitment to strengthen security at public events and venues to help to prevent another tragedy from happening. I thank all the campaigners who were pivotal in delivering that legislation.
At the end of last week, the Treasury announced an independent review on access to banking to assess how changes to in-person banking services are affecting customers. The review will be chaired by Richard Lloyd, whom many Members will know. This issue is regularly raised with me by Members, and the Government are committed to ensuring that everyone has access to the services that they need.
Fly-tipping is also an issue that Members have raised with me frequently. The Government are listening. Laws laid this week will require waste handlers to prove that they are qualified to transport waste. We are tightening the net on waste criminals, with tougher sentences for those illegally dumping waste and advanced background checks to put rogue operators out of business.
Members will also be pleased that we are cracking down on high street crime, rogue barber shops, vape stores, mini-marts and sweet shops linked to organised crime. They will face raids, closures and cash seizures under a new £30 million crackdown targeting money laundering, tax evasion and illegal working. Again, those issues have been raised in these sessions, which underlines the importance of the role that Members play in influencing future policy and decision making.
I hope that Members will be able to spend time in their constituencies over the recess and enjoy the hopefully warmer weather over the bank holiday. As an MP for a coastal constituency, I know how dangerous the sea can be and I want to highlight the Royal National Lifeboat Institution’s annual “Float to Live” campaign. This year’s campaign is being fronted by Euan Gray from Gateshead, who with his brother, Andrew, got caught in a notorious riptide off my constituency at Longsands beach in May last year. I pay tribute to the volunteers of Cullercoats lifeboat and Tynemouth lifeboat, and all the RNLI volunteers who tirelessly provide a critical service in coastal towns and villages across the UK.
Let me turn to the remarks made by the shadow Leader of the House. I am sure that his gratitude for Arsenal beating Manchester City is genuine coming from a dedicated Manchester United supporter—I am sure that it is genuine. He also reminded us about the heroes of 1966, the last time England won the world cup. I remind the House that England has only ever won the world cup under a Labour Government, and therefore I look forward to the world cup, which starts shortly.
On the other matter that the right hon. Gentleman seems preoccupied with—my candidature to be the Prime Minister—let me say that there is no vacancy for a Prime Minister. I thank him for his endorsement, which I am sure is well intentioned, but I should warn the House that there is a double edge here. Every candidate that the right hon. Gentleman has endorsed for the Tory leadership has either failed at the first hurdle or is failing in their leadership now.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
A number of constituents continue to really struggle as a result of Capita’s delays in processing their civil service pensions. Many of them have been retired for months without income. I know the Paymaster General has been holding Capita to account in various ways, but with it continuing to miss its own deadlines, can we have an update from the Paymaster General?
Sir Alan Campbell
As we have said before, these delays are unacceptable. That is not the service that people deserve, and resolving this issue is a matter of urgency. We have mandated a deadline of 30 June 2026 for Capita to restore all civil service pension scheme service levels to standard contractual agreements. The Government will continue to monitor this issue closely and press for swift action.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), who is usually here for business questions, is probably very glad not to be here, given Arsenal’s success. It has been very good to see teams succeed in English football who have not succeeded for some time, but it was a different case in Scotland at the weekend. I congratulate Celtic on winning the league again, but as the wife and mother of Heart of Midlothian supporters, it has been a very difficult week. I congratulate the club on its amazing season.
I thank the Leader of the House for providing us with the certainty of the business for the next sitting week—it seems to be the only certainty that we have. Who knows where we will be after that? The Prime Minister may well still be in post, but there is no doubt that his fading authority is doing the country no favours. We have seen how the bond markets have reacted to the uncertainty and chaos. I fear that this Government are becoming a little like HS2: they are moving more slowly and making things more expensive for people in this country.
While the Government lay out their vision, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that a crucial piece of the economic puzzle is still missing. We will continue to make the case for closer ties with our closest allies and trading partners in the European Union, but the Labour party cannot quite make up its mind about that policy. I note that the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), has made his pro-EU stall abundantly clear, whereas Labour’s candidate in Makerfield seems a little more unsure, despite his previous representations.
The Prime Minister’s trade deal with North Korea is impressive—I trust that he misspoke yesterday. We Liberal Democrats think that a UK-EU customs union is the single best way to start fixing the profound damage done to the British economy since Brexit, so I was disappointed that Labour MPs joined forces with Reform and the Conservatives yesterday to vote down our plans for a customs union. Those red lines are deeply damaging to our economy. Will the Leader of the House impress on the Prime Minister that, whatever his potential leadership rivals think, the Government’s EU reset Bill must include steps to negotiate such a customs union? We on the Liberal Democrat Benches will keep coming back to that issue whenever we have the opportunity to do so.
Sir Alan Campbell
As the Prime Minister acknowledged in real time yesterday, he misspoke about the trade deal, but he was absolutely clear about our relationship with Europe. There will not be a return to the customs union, the single market or freedom of movement, and the Government came into office on that basis. However, we are clear that it is in the national interest to be closer to Europe. That is good for us and good for Europe, and it is good for our security and economy.
As the hon. Lady said, an EU reset Bill will be coming through. I am sure that she will be able to put the points that she raises not just to debate, but to the test of a vote.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Sunflowers Children’s Action Group, a children’s charity in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, on winning by popular poll on my Facebook page a £2,000 donation from Bacta, the amusement and arcades representative body? Sunflowers provides activities, respite and trips for children with life-limiting illnesses and does amazing work to support families in my local area, and this donation will help it to continue to do just that.
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Sunflowers Children’s Action Group on its brilliant work supporting children and their families and on winning vital funding. We are taking action in this area with our best start in life strategy by pledging to invest £1.5 billion over the next three years to support early years.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, who was re-elected unopposed.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
As we approach the end of the domestic football season, it is only right that we congratulate Aston Villa on winning the Europa league last night. Indeed, it was only a year ago that I was celebrating Tottenham winning the Europa league. If I may say so, however, the most vital game on Sunday is Tottenham versus Everton.
I thank the House for re-electing me as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. I am glad that there will be a motion on the Order Paper to reappoint five Members to the Committee. On that basis, we will try to meet on Tuesday 2 June to consider applications. I understand that there are 11 new applications already, adding to the 42 we had left when Prorogation took place. I note that the Chairman of Ways and Means has granted two of those debates in Westminster Hall to reduce our burden. Will the Leader of the House grant time in the Chamber as soon as possible for the Backbench Business Committee? For those colleagues who are on the existing waiting list, the Committee will decide whether we continue with it or clean it out. I ask colleagues not to reapply until the Committee has made that decision.
Mr Speaker, you will know that I have been a champion of homeless people throughout my parliamentary career, and I was delighted that the Government eventually got through the abolition of the Vagrancy Act 1824 in the last Session. However, a statutory instrument is required to abolish the Vagrancy Act for good. Will the Leader of the House therefore arrange for the relevant Minister to make sure that the statutory instrument is brought forward forthwith, so we can get away from a position where people who are homeless can be prosecuted for being homeless? That is unacceptable and needs to be consigned to the history books.
Sir Alan Campbell
I join the rest of the House in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his unopposed re-election as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, not just for the next year but for the rest of this Parliament. I sincerely look forward to continuing to work with him. I will endeavour to give him and the Committee as much forward notice as I can of upcoming Backbench Business days, but I advise Members to listen to his wise words about applications. I will certainly give consideration, as he requests, to using Government time for some of the debates in the queue.
The hon. Gentleman is a staunch advocate for tackling homelessness and I remind the House that he successfully led a private Member’s Bill, which is no mean achievement. I agree that no one should be criminalised for sleeping rough and that the Vagrancy Act has no place in a just society. We have committed to repealing it in full. I will draw the statutory instrument to the attention of the relevant Minister, and I will get him the update that he seeks.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
According to recent media reports, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has taken a £5 million gift from a billionaire living halfway across the world. Without the Guardian investigation, however, we would be none the wiser, and there are no controls on gifts for those campaigning before a general election is called. I remain deeply concerned, as do my constituents, that substantial funds may be making their way into British politics through the back door. Will the Leader of the House ask Ministers to consider how the Representation of the People Bill could tackle undeclared cash gifts and donations?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend says, the Representation of the People Bill will give greater transparency and security around political donations, but I will draw his concerns about the need, perhaps, to go further to the attention of the very able Minister taking that Bill through. The matters that my hon. Friend alludes to are serious allegations, and I welcome the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards looking into this matter.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I recently visited the North Cotes shooting club in my neighbouring constituency, where hundreds of my constituents gather every week to participate in their chosen sport. They tell me that there are proposals to merge section 1 and section 2 certificates for the licensing of shotguns and rifles, but they are very different. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Minister responsible to have a look at this issue and perhaps report back to the House?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly will arrange for Ministers to look at this issue and report back to the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, to the House. Having previously had some responsibility in Government for the issues that he raises, my view is that one does not have to be a shooter to value shooting as a sport, and to value the clubs in our local communities.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
Nobody should go to work, never to return home. On Tuesday 13 January 2026, Kenny Campbell Smart went to work at Corby steelworks and never returned home. Now that I have said his name, it will be written down and recorded in Hansard, and his name will live on forever. Today we are joined in the Gallery by Kenny’s wife Sally and his son Kian, who are determined that no other family should go through what they have been through. In the light of this, does the Leader of the House agree with them that we should do all we can to keep people safe at work, and that health and safety is not red tape, bureaucracy or a barrier to growth, but what keeps people safe at work? In the name of Kenny, his community, his workplace and his family, we should strengthen our laws so that this never happens again.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure the whole House will join me in extending our heartfelt condolences to Sally, Kian and all Kenny’s friends and family. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that health and safety in the workplace is not an inconvenience. Good health and safety practices save lives, and I will ensure that the relevant Minister writes to him to set out what further action the Government intend to take.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Nurses are at the heart of our wonderful NHS. I am delighted that two nurses from NHS Borders recently gained national recognition from the Royal College of Nursing Scotland: intensive therapy unit clinical nurse educator Karen Bacon was highly commended in the “learning in practice” award category, and Michelle Brownlee, a healthcare support worker in the ITU, was a runner-up in the nursing support worker of the year award. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Karen and Michelle, and pass on all our thanks to our hard-working nursing staff in the NHS?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will indeed join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Karen and Michelle on their exceptional achievements. He is absolutely right to celebrate the work of all our wonderful NHS nurses, and I am sure the whole House will join me in giving thanks for all the hard work that they do.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
I am sorry to say that I have not been able to feel the same enthusiasm as the Prime Minister in recent days, and we are at odds over a big issue—Arsenal’s premier league victory. However, I join the majority of people in this country in wanting the champions league final, which Arsenal are participating in, to be a success for English football, so it is very upsetting to see that the game will not be free to air on TV. It is a moment for the nation to come together, get behind a great English football team and have a victory in Europe. Will the Leader of the House do what he can to ensure that the game is free to air for the nation to enjoy?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: such matches should be available for people to watch for free. I will raise his concerns with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to see if anything can be done.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Along with the stealthy silence of knives and the deadly danger of guns, crossbows, in the wrong hands, cost lives. As the Leader of the House will know, they cost the lives of Louise Hunt and her sister Hannah, who were murdered by such a weapon. I am delighted that the Government announced in March that they are going to ban the sale of new crossbows and license existing ones. That responded to calls that I and Members from across the House made following that awful event, but we have heard little more. All we have heard is that the Government will consult on the detailed arrangements. However, there is no detail on the timetable and nothing about means or method. Will the Leader of the House update the House, or will the appropriate Minister do so by means of a statement, so that we can be sure that there will be no hesitation, no obfuscation and no prevarication? Any of those things would cost still more lives.
Sir Alan Campbell
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no hesitation or prevarication, because the Government are committed to this. However, I gently say to him—again, having had some experience myself—that we can discuss these matters and all get to pretty much the same conclusion, but implementing that conclusion is often more difficult than many people think. We should not offer something that ultimately does not work. We need to make sure that such a measure has the effect that right hon. and hon. Members desire, so there is often a delay. However, I will draw his remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister, and see if we can get the update he seeks.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Denbigh youth shed, led by the inspirational Scott Jenkinson. Youth Shedz is youth-led, with young people in leadership roles shaping their own activities, ranging from upcycling old guitars to creating comfort packs for children going into care. The Government have recently published the youth justice White Paper, in which early intervention and improving consistency are clear priorities. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on support for community-led youth organisations that are engaging with our young people, so that Ministers can outline how initiatives such as Youth Shedz can access sustainable funding and can be expanded across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to champion the great work of Youth Shedz and similar community organisations. Their work is vital to support young people in our communities. As she rightly points out, the youth justice White Paper sets out how we can make the justice system fairer and more consistent. I will draw her remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister, and see if we can find time for such a debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before the next question, Members should be aware that I am aiming to finish business questions at about 12.15 pm, so it is unlikely that I will get everybody in, even if the questions are very short.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Would the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Jenny Rayner MBE? She has managed to raise an amazing £2 million for a new wellbeing centre locally to support young people with mental health issues and get them the support they need before a crisis is reached. We in Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages are so proud of what she has achieved in raising this money and supporting our young people, so would he join me in congratulating her?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join the hon. Member in congratulating her constituent. Last week was Mental Health Awareness Week, and it is vital that we continue to raise awareness of the signs and symptoms of depression and other mental health issues in young adults. The exemplary work of people in our local communities underlines how important that is to keeping young people well.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Angela and Terry, a couple from my constituency, were the proud owners of Otis, a little three-legged shih tzu dog. Angela, who is in her 80s, was walking Otis a few weeks ago when two rottweilers got loose and savaged Otis terribly. Angela took him to the vets and paid thousands of pounds, but, sadly, Otis died. It is very brave of Angela and Terry to speak out, and the community are up in arms. Please can we have a debate to talk about the owners of dangerous dogs, as it is the owners who are often the problem here, and about who pays when one dog attacks another?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. This is an upsetting case, and I know other responsible pet owners will be concerned about attacks in their communities. There are powers under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to protect the public, and we have reconvened the responsible dog ownership taskforce to explore further measures. When those measures become clearer, I am sure the House will want to debate them.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Would the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Walton and Hersham football club in my constituency? They have secured promotion to the national league south for the first time in their history—an extraordinary fourth promotion in just six seasons. At a time of concern about young people’s mental health and online harms, which I know the House will debate in future, can he provide time for a debate about supporting grassroots football clubs and sports clubs? They are a diversion away from online harms and for better mental health, as Walton and Hersham show so well.
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly congratulate Walton and Hersham football club because, like other clubs across our communities, they do such important work. Such clubs are at the heart of local communities and I think they should be commended, particularly where they offer diversion activities for young people. What the hon. Member says about the importance of sport in local communities is exactly what the Government are trying to do.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Last weekend’s march saw vile racist thugs, national figures, openly fanning the flames of hatred against British Muslim communities, saying things like, “It’s time for many Muslims to leave this country” and “This is a war—we need to get ready to fight.” There were many more vulgar and dangerous statements that I am unable to repeat in this House. The incitement of hatred and violence against British Muslims in the heart of our capital should worry us all. Will the Leader of the House allow sufficient time for a proper debate to address the dangerously rising levels of Islamophobia, protections for British Muslim communities, and the consequences for those responsible?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely condemn any disorder and inappropriate language, whoever it comes from and whoever it is directed against. We do not want to see last weekend’s scenes repeated. The Government are absolutely determined to bear down on this. We are providing additional resources to protect places of worship, including mosques. New legislation in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 will address large repeated protests, as well as protests outside places of worship. My hon. Friend has been around long enough to know that if he seeks an Adjournment debate on these matters, he will be among many others who will also want to raise these concerns.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
In his business statement, the Leader of the House rightly referred to fly-tipping waste criminals. Will he allow for a debate in Government time to consider a different sort of waste perpetrated on our constituents, which is that arising from so-called energy-from-waste plants, otherwise known waste incinerators, which are more polluting than burning coal and for which the UK is already overprovisioned. We have too many of these things, they are not wanted and it is time for a moratorium. Can we have a debate on that?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will give the right hon. Gentleman a commitment that I will raise the issue with the relevant Ministers and see if we can find some time to debate these matters, should time allow.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
My constituents continue to face delays in accessing driving tests post covid. The Government’s important consultation covers tackling bot activity, bulk and speculative bookings, and improving access to genuine test slots. A driving instructor in Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney has expressed his concerns about potential booking restrictions for driving instructors and issues around examiner recruitment. Will a Transport Minister please update the House and confirm that those issues will be considered in the round?
Sir Alan Campbell
We have doubled the number of trainers for examiners, and provided 120,000 additional tests between June last year and January this year. We have also tightened up the rules on who can book and reschedule tests to avoid exploitation by online bots and re-selling, but I will draw my hon. Friend’s remarks to the attention of a Transport Minister. He can either seek a meeting with the Minister or we will get an update for the House.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
May I take this opportunity to congratulate both the SNP in Scotland on an historic fifth landslide election and Plaid Cymru on its historic win in the Welsh Senedd elections? That brings together the north of Ireland, Wales and Scotland as being represented by Governments who believe not only believe in the people, but in unlocking the nations’ potential by being independent nations in the future. The north of Ireland has a legal mandate to hold a referendum on its future. However, Scotland does not share that legal mandate. That is a glaring omission from the Scotland Act 1998, so can we have a debate on the constitutional crisis the UK now finds itself in, where Scotland has spoken with the highest ever majority for independence parties but is denied the democratic route—[Interruption] I’m sorry, but I think we are in a democratic Chamber here—to express the will of the people of Scotland?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government have no plans to change the current position. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking a constitutional crisis, it will not be of our causing —it will be of the SNP’s.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
On 26 February I raised with the Leader of the House my fears that the unreliability of the postal service might affect constituents in Glasgow West who wish to vote by post in the Scottish Parliament elections. Since then, I have been advised of a situation where a proxy vote application was received some days after the deadline, although the envelope was very clearly postmarked several days before the deadline. Will my right hon. Friend assist me in arranging a meeting with the appropriate Minister to discuss a simple amendment to the Representation of the People Bill that would grant returning officers limited discretion in such cases?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend will have heard, the Representation of the People Bill contains measures to increase the resilience of the proxy and postal voting systems. That is also a constant theme of the defending democracy taskforce. If my hon. Friend seeks a meeting with the relevant Minster, I am happy to arrange one.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
May I begin by sending my commiserations to the family and friends of Scottish rugby legend Scott Hastings, who died recently aged only 61? Scott was an inspirational figure, both on and off the pitch.
I am sure the Leader of the House shares my concern about the outbreak of Ebola that is affecting both the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda. Hundreds of people have already died. Can we have an oral statement when the House returns to hear what the UK is doing to prevent the spread of the outbreak? The UK played a pivotal role in stopping the previous serious outbreak, in Sierra Leone, and must have much to offer by way of expertise in relation to this one.
Sir Alan Campbell
I join the right hon. Gentleman in his remarks about Scott Hastings. Rugby is not my sport, but I recognise very much the contribution that Scott Hastings made. We send our condolences to his friends and family.
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important matter on the outbreak of Ebola, which the UK Government take very seriously indeed. Through the NHS, we have safe procedures in place in any such case of it coming to the UK, and specialist centres where people can be looked after. He asks what we are doing to help other countries. The Government are reacting quickly; the Foreign Secretary has announced a further £20 million to help contain the Ebola outbreak.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The levels of congestion on Wigginton Road are unacceptable. Residents’ air quality is affected, people are late for their hospital appointments and our whole city is snarled up because the hospital does not have a sufficient transport plan. Will the Leader of the House impress on the Secretaries of State for Health and Transport the need for hospital transport plans, and can we have a debate in Government time on hospital-induced congestion?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to be concerned about traffic and congestion in her constituency. Responsibility for managing traffic on local roads, including those near hospitals, rests with local authorities. However, she is right that it is about not just local authorities but ensuring that everyone who has a role to play actually plays that role. I will raise the matter with the relevant Secretaries of State, as she asks.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The national cancer plan has many ambitious and urgently needed targets, but they will only be delivered when the Government properly invest in the NHS workforce. Healthcare professionals and charities want clarity on when the Government will commit to this. Can the Leader of the House urge his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to update the House on when the workforce plan will be launched?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Member raises an important point. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that we have the workforce in place to deliver the changes in the NHS that are necessary in cancer and other areas. We are delivering record investment, and waiting lists are down by over 400,000—I think that is the biggest drop for some time. I will raise his specific concerns about when the plan will be launched with Ministers, and get a response for him.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
For years now, I have been trying to help a constituent who has been the subject of repeated identity fraud via their NHS records. Meetings with Ministers have been cancelled or refused, and questions and letters to the Home Office, Ministry of Justice and Department of Health and Social Care always result in the same response: it is not their responsibility and there is nothing they can do. This is impacting on my constituent’s daily life in so many ways. Will my right hon. Friend please use his good offices to help?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry to hear of the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent; if she lets me have the details, I will raise it with the relevant Departments and see if we can get the answers that she seeks.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I want to raise a case of gift card fraud. My constituent Nigel Bannister was recently given a gift card as a birthday present, but, by the time he came to redeem it, the money had gone. This is a rising trend, where people are taking a photograph of the cards and stealing the PIN details, and claiming them before someone else can. The cards are obviously publicly available in supermarkets. I ask for a debate in Government time on this rising trend, which caused £18.5 million of losses in 2023-34.
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this concerning matter. I will take it up with the relevant Departments to see what level of awareness there is and what they intend to do about it. Should she seek an Adjournment debate, she could also hear directly from a Minister.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
A recently elected Reform councillor in my constituency believes that the best way to regenerate Eccles, which he described as a problem area, is to turn it into the UK’s Dubai. It might surprise him to learn that the council has already brought the town centre into public hands and, during the consultation, not one single resident raised the prospect of “Dubeccles”. Our communities need regeneration led by genuine involvement of local people, like that being in delivered in Brookhouse and Peel Green through Pride in Place. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time to ensure that local people lead in the regeneration of their towns?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a great champion for regeneration in his area. His commitment stands in stark contrast to the approach of the Reform councillor he refers to. As my hon. Friend and the whole House will know, the Government are already taking action to regenerate our high streets, with £5.8 billion of Pride in Place funding to deliver for places like Eccles. I will think about whether we can find some time to debate the success of that programme.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
In February, I asked the Minister for Care about access to dentists in rural areas. He said from the Dispatch Box that he would write to me with the numbers of how many more dental treatments have been provided in my constituency and integrated care board area. I was concerned when the Minister replied that Somerset ICB delivered 5,559 fewer NHS dental treatments in the seven months to October 2025 compared with the same period before the election—that is 4% fewer dental treatments in Somerset under Labour. Will the Minister give a statement to explain why dental services in Somerset are getting worse under this Government?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am not sure the hon. Gentleman should necessarily draw that conclusion; as he will be aware, the Government are committed to improving access, but, as he will also know, it takes time to turn around the system that we inherited. He is right that if he gets information from Ministers, he should also get an update on the progress that we are making. I will ensure that he gets that from the relevant Minister.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I pay tribute to Councillor Angela Loughran, who has sadly passed away. She first represented the Manor ward in ’97, and worked tirelessly for her residents for nearly 30 years. A previous teacher, she was a true public servant, and she will be greatly missed by her friends, family and the wider Stafford community.
In a recent survey of more than 500 residents, 61% cited the return of an indoor market in Stafford as their top priority. I am campaigning with residents for that: a lively, all-day destination that draws in people from across the town and beyond, and will create local jobs. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the contribution of indoor markets to local economies in towns like Stafford?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Councillor Angela Loughran. Local figures like her truly embody the spirit of the community they serve. I also recognise the importance of the issue that my hon. Friend raises for the people of Stafford. I encourage her to apply for a Westminster Hall debate on the impact that indoor markets can have on local economies, as I am sure there will be others who share her enthusiasm and support for such markets.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
A student on a night out is stabbed multiple times with a 21 cm knife. He is lying in a pool of his own blood, literally drowning in his blood. The police come to the scene, but instead of doing everything they can to save his life, they handcuff and arrest the lad because there is an accusation of racial abuse. This is a scandal. Will the Home Secretary come to House and say what she is doing to investigate the way that the police conducted this matter, and can we have a debate on two-tier policing, which is doing so much to undermine respect for the police and the rule of law in this country?
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important and distressing matter. I assume that the police investigation is ongoing. There are ways in which the actions of the police, if they were as he describes, can be investigated. I am not going to comment on that and interfere, but I can tell him that the Home Secretary takes absolutely seriously not just the issue of knife crime but the protection of citizens, whoever they happen to be.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Last weekend, West Lothian Danceworld, founded and led by Hazel Saunders Dunn, celebrated its 40th birthday with shows at the prestigious Usher Hall in Edinburgh. Over the years, Danceworld has given thousands of young people the chance to showcase their talent, refine their dance skills, build confidence and forge lifelong friendships. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating West Lothian Danceworld, and in wishing all the students and teachers every success for the next 40 years?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating West Lothian Danceworld on its remarkable 40th anniversary. As she points out, dance is a brilliant way to support young people and build their confidence. I praise not just the students but the teachers for their commitment, and I wish them every success in the future.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
While there has been talk of the shenanigans of some minor football teams, it would be remiss of me not to mention the mighty Bromley FC, the only English football league club that is blessed with a Conservative MP and that has been crowned the champion of league two—probably as a direct result.
At one of my surgeries recently, I met Lorraine and Satvir, who are both Vodafone franchise holders and employ a lot of people in the area. They signed a contract in good faith relating to fluctuation of commission rates, so when Vodafone cut that commission rate by 50%, they were left out of pocket, and they feel that they were treated badly. Can we have a debate to discuss franchising regulations?
Sir Alan Campbell
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman seeks an Adjournment debate on the subject, because if that is happening in his constituency, it might be happening elsewhere. If so, I am sure that there will be other colleagues who want to hear directly from a Minister on what the Government intend to do about it.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the remarkable work of the Susan Vickers Foundation? Its care-experienced team is changing the lives of care-experienced families, including by providing free rail travel and cinema access, thanks to partnership with London Northwestern Railway, West Midlands Railway and Cineworld. Will he also commend Rethink Mental Illness and all the community groups involved at the Hub at Wolverhampton station, as they mark their first year helping thousands across our city?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in recognising the work of the Susan Vickers Foundation, Rethink Mental Illness and everyone involved in the Hub at Wolverhampton station. Last week was Mental Health Awareness Week, and this year’s theme was action. Charities and community organisations play a huge role in supporting those struggling with mental illness, and I thank everyone involved for their commitment and service.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Earlier this month, I was delighted to at last receive a response from the Department for Work and Pensions to a letter I wrote on 25 November last year, raising a constituent’s case. That is more than a five-month delay; the original acknowledgment said that it aimed to respond within 15 days. Such a delay is unacceptable, and this is by no means an isolated case; I have had multi-month delays in several other cases. What are the Government doing to improve departmental complaint processing times, so that constituents and MPs get a response within a reasonable timeframe?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady will know that I am keen for Departments to respond in time and fully to MPs, because that is part of their job. Of course, some Departments will find it more difficult to respond, not just because of the complexity of the issues involved, but because of the number of letters and parliamentary questions that they get. However, I will draw her remarks to the attention of not just that Department but other Departments. We constantly remind them of the need to maintain a standard.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
According to a CBI report published in 2025, the contribution of the wood panel industry to the UK economy was £1.1 billion gross value added. Given that significant contribution, will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on how the Government’s industrial strategy will support the UK timber and wood sector, including through measures to strengthen domestic supply chains, increase the use of sustainable British timber in construction, and support rural jobs and net zero ambitions?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise those matters on behalf of her constituents, and others in rural areas. I will raise them with the relevant Minister and get an update on how the Government intend to make progress on this matter.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Yesterday, the Climate Change Committee laid out in stark terms the risks that we face as a country if we do not tackle the impact of climate change; one of those was drought. That is especially pertinent in Mid Sussex and across the south-east, which is extremely water scarce. South East Water is already warning about its ability to meet the demands of a growing population. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on how the Government intend to reconcile their housing targets with the region’s finite water resources?
Sir Alan Campbell
As the hon. Lady will know, the Government intend to bring forward a water Bill in this Session. She will be able to raise her concerns directly as that legislation makes progress.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Kent Fire and Rescue Service will shortly launch a consultation on its modernisation as a result of a shortfall in funding. As a former public sector worker, I recognise the importance of reforming our emergency services to ensure that they remain effective and efficient. It is equally vital that services respond to the evolving risks faced by local communities, particularly in rural areas. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the importance of fire and rescue services, their funding, and the steps needed to protect provision in rural communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. I place on record our thanks to firefighters and fire service staff for all the work they do. He will know that the Government are committed to working with the fire sector to ensure that the funding system remains fair and responsive, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister hears his concerns.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Woking’s only brewery, Thurstons, is sadly closing down. The owner, John Mintram, said:
“It’s all getting too expensive…People are feeling the squeeze—you can’t sell £8 or £9 pints.”
Will the Government please apologise to the owners and customers of Thurstons for what they have done to the hospitality sector, and agree to a debate on ensuring that they properly support the brewing and pub sector in the future?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. The Government have done, and continue to do, a great deal to support the sector, but the hospitality sector knows, and he will know, that the best way to help the sector is to get the economy growing, so that people have money in their pockets, and can spend it in the sector. The first priority of the Government is to tackle the cost of living crisis and get the economy growing.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Hoarding disorder is a distinct mental health condition, although it is often confused with obsessive compulsive disorder. Hoarding disorder causes individuals to fill their home with items that they feel unable to discard, even when it causes danger and a risk of physical injury. It is believed that up to 3 million adults in the UK suffer from this chronic and progressive condition. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is time to have a national hoarding strategy offering a consistent, comprehensive approach to care, and prioritising early intervention and clear pathways for specialist mental health support?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter; the impact of hoarding can be severe. There are no plans for a specific hoarding strategy, but the Government have announced plans for a new mental health strategy, which will seek to provide the right support to people with a mental health condition. The call for evidence is live now, and I encourage him and others across the House to contribute.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
My young constituent Alex is paralysed after a dreadful road accident a couple of months ago. He wants to return to Loughborough University for his third-year studies as soon as possible. He has been told by the wheelchair services team that he has to have a 27 kg wheelchair to start with, before he can get a different one, as “that’s what everyone gets”, even though he will never have the strength to operate it, as it is too heavy. The staff know this, Alex knows this and his parents know it, but there seems to be no way to stop the madness and waste, and to get a wheelchair that meets his needs. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to review the NHS wheelchair policy, so that patients have appropriate equipment from the outset, rather than time and money being wasted and patients and their families being caused such unnecessary distress?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry to hear of Alex’s experience, because the Government want individuals to get the support that they need, not just generalised support. I hope that the people who make these decisions listen to what the hon. Lady has said, but I will also draw the matter to the attention of the relevant Minister and get the hon. Lady an update on what the Government are prepared to do on this.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Recently, I attended an incredibly informative special educational needs and disability roundtable organised by PEGiS—the Parent Engagement Group in Stoke-on-Trent. As we know in this place, we make our best policy when we listen to people with real, lived experienced, so will the Leader of the House please join me in recognising the incredible work of Michelle and the PEGiS team, who have worked tirelessly for many years to ensure that the voices of families are heard?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in recognising the incredible work of Michelle and the Parent Engagement Group in Stoke for their work to make sure that the voices of families are heard. The Government are absolutely committed to making sure that the SEND system works for every child, and our education for all Bill, announced in the King’s Speech, will make sure that every child is able to thrive.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Hon. Members will remember the harrowing images of three-year-old Alan Kurdi, who was found lying dead on a beach in Turkey after drowning when the boat that he and his family were on sunk. A Reform candidate at the 7 May elections, in describing that situation, blamed it on his parents’ “greed”. That candidate was very close to winning. Today, East Sussex Conservatives have done a deal that has allowed Reform to take control of East Sussex county council, despite Eastbourne voting against that. Will the Leader of the House grant an urgent debate on how we can ensure that towns like Eastbourne are governed by those they actually voted for?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am appalled to hear of the comments of the Reform candidate. As for Reform coming together with the local Conservative group to run the council, I just advise both of them: be careful who you get into bed with.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
There has been some talk about football. I think we should all be celebrating the glorious victory of Raith Rovers in the Challenge cup.
Results from a survey of Burntisland residents that I conducted suggest that 87% of people experience difficulties using Burntisland station, due to the lack of step-free access. For railway users across my constituency, including those in Cowdenbeath and Kinghorn, who face similar barriers, that is unacceptable. It makes life harder for those with mobility issues, luggage, buggies and bikes. Does the Leader of the House agree that Network Rail should prioritise accessibility upgrades at those stations, and will he make time for a debate on railway accessibility?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are absolutely committed to improving the accessibility of the railway, including through the Access for All programme, and I am sure that Network Rail will have heard my hon. Friend’s comments. The Railways Bill makes it a legal requirement that the interests of passengers, including those with accessibility needs, are at the heart of decision making on the railway. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to make her voice heard during proceedings on that Bill.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
During a recent visit to DHL in my constituency, I heard yet again about the growing financial burden of the Merseyflow bridge tolls on those travelling to work. DHL wants to expand its operation in Runcorn and double its workforce, but it is struggling to attract people. The bridge tolls have become a costly barrier to employment and economic growth. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on the economic impact of the bridge tolls in communities such as Runcorn and Helsby?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are absolutely clear that we want to see the economy grow and companies grow, and nothing should get in the way of that. I will draw the hon. Member’s remarks to the attention of the relevant Transport Minister, but she might also want to seek an Adjournment debate, in which she can hear directly from the Minister.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
For the final question, I call Laurence Turner.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In Birmingham Northfield and across the country, there are many reports of inappropriate houses in multiple occupation that prove actually to be poor-quality supported exempt accommodation. At its best, SEA can provide a valuable service, but at its worst it can be a byword for neglect, antisocial behaviour, exploitation and serious organised crime. Please can parliamentary time be found to discuss the need to bring forward proper regulation and end the unacceptable blight on the lives of many of our constituents?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising again a matter that has been raised with me on a number of occasions. Local authorities have planning powers to limit the proliferation of HMOs, but we keep regulations under review. I will consider his request for time for a debate, but I will also ensure that the relevant Minister hears his comments and gives him an update urgently.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That concludes business questions. I have a list of Members who were unsuccessful in catching my eye today, but may I ask Members to reflect on the length of their questions? With such long questions, it is really difficult to get everybody in.
Middle East: Economic Response
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call the Chancellor to make her statement, I have to say to her that Mr Speaker has checked the ministerial code, which makes it clear that important policy announcements should be made in the first instance in this House when it is sitting. This House and its Members should be the first to know what the Government are doing—not TikTok. Posting videos on social media to announce new policies before informing this House is not in line with the Government’s own rules. This is a new parliamentary Session and Ministers must do better. I call the Chancellor.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. With permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s economic response to the war in Iran and the action that we are taking to support families and businesses with rising costs.
The Government have the right economic plan. I said I would grow the economy, and last week the Office for National Statistics confirmed that Britain’s economy was the fastest-growing in the G7 for the first quarter of this year. We beat the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast in the spring, with economic growth at 0.6% in the three months to March. And because of the resilience of our economy, this week the International Monetary Fund upgraded Britain’s forecast for this year.
I said I would cut borrowing. Borrowing last year was £20 billion lower than the previous year, and the latest forecasts show it falling in every year of this Parliament. The IMF has backed our economic plan, saying that the Government’s fiscal framework strikes
“a good balance between deficit reduction and growth-friendly spending”.
I said I would cut the cost of living. Since the election, interest rates have been cut six times; real wages have continued to rise in every single month since I became Chancellor; and yesterday the ONS confirmed that inflation fell faster than expected in April, making the UK the only G7 economy where inflation fell last month.
We have the right economic plan, but the conflict in the middle east poses a significant challenge to the world’s economy, including our own. I have not shied away from my criticism of the war; I believe it to have been a mistake. Nor have I ignored the costs that it will bring to bear on the British people. I have been clear-eyed about my duty to do what I can to support families and businesses; to be responsive to a changing world, and responsible in the national interest.
Next week, Ofgem will confirm the level of the energy price cap that will apply from July. I know that any increase will be felt by families. Because of the decision I made in last year’s Budget to cut £150 from energy bills, we have lessened the impact of rising prices, and current external forecasts suggest that the cap from July will be at a similar level to the cap in April last year. We stand ready to act if market conditions worsen significantly later this year, and I have been leading cross-Government contingency work on the design of potential future targeted and temporary support.
For businesses, any support will also need to be carefully targeted at the firms most exposed to the crisis, but although many firms have been insulated from recent price rises through fixed-price contracts, there are sectors that face particular structural issues related to energy costs. That is why we have already increased support for our most energy-intensive industries through the British industry competitiveness scheme, which we have brought forward. It is also why we have built resilience in our critical infrastructure and industrial strategy sectors, where supply chains are critical for growth and security.
Following representations from my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) and for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan), and building on the good work of the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), I am today establishing a £350 million critical chemicals resilience fund to support strategically important producers. Having listened to hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), as well as workers represented by the GMB union, I am today announcing a new £120 million fund to help our historic ceramics sector, helping it to increase efficiency and drive down energy costs. We will always stand up for British industry and British jobs.
This week, the Government have also set out additional, targeted support for those businesses most exposed to rising fuel costs. We are granting hauliers a 12-month road tax holiday for heavy goods vehicles, saving the typical heavy lorry up to £912. To support farmers and the rail freight industry, I have decided to cut duty on red diesel by over a third until the end of this year, and having heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) and the trade union Unison, I can today announce a 10p per mile increase in tax-free mileage rates, backdated to April 2026. This will benefit those who need to drive for work, from care workers to plumbers.
When a country faces challenges because of higher oil and gas prices, we must ensure that those who benefit from increased prices and volatility pay their fair share. In my first Budget, I extended and increased the energy profits levy. Last year, I announced a new permanent windfall tax regime on oil and gas prices. Last month, I increased the electricity generator levy, alongside further action to weaken the link between high gas prices and electricity prices. Today, I am bringing forward specific changes to the taxation of foreign branch profits, changing how companies are taxed in relation to their overseas activities. Currently, some oil and gas groups that operate overseas through foreign branches have structured their tax affairs in a way that ensures they pay little or no corporation tax on their UK energy trading profits. Today, we are putting an end to that practice. We expect these reforms to raise hundreds of millions of pounds a year and fund the package of measures set out today, with costings certified by the OBR forecast in the usual way.
I know the pressure that family finances are under, which is why I have already taken action to provide help. I have increased the national living wage and the national minimum wage to their highest rates ever, frozen prescription charges for two years in a row, and frozen rail fares for the first time in 30 years. I have also taken £150 off energy bills, which contributed to last month’s fall in inflation. However, I want to go further, and today I am taking further action to ease the burden on family finances.
First, on fuel duty, I have already extended the 5p cut twice since the election. I can confirm today that there will be no rise in fuel duty this year, recognising the pressure that the war has put on fuel prices.
Secondly, I know that the cost of the weekly shop is often one of the biggest worries for families, so last month I met supermarkets to urge them to do all they can to keep prices low. Today I am taking action by suspending tariffs on over 100 different foods sold in supermarkets. I am clear that I expect supermarkets to pass those savings on in full to their customers.
Thirdly, I will not tolerate any company exploiting the current situation to make excess profits at consumers’ expense. As such, I am bringing forward tough new powers so that the Competition and Markets Authority and other regulators can take action when firms break the rules.
Fourthly, for many families, driving is not always an option. Buses are the most popular form of public transport in Britain, with over 4 billion journeys made last year. I have already extended the £3 bus fare cap to March 2027, and today I can confirm that bus travel across England will be free for children aged between five and 15 throughout August.
Finally, I recognise that what matters for families is not just getting by, but being able to enjoy time together without worrying about the next bill. That is why I am launching the great British summer savings scheme, to help families and to support our hospitality sector. I can today announce a temporary cut in the rate of VAT on summer attractions from 20% to 5% over the summer holidays. This will apply to ticket prices for both adults and children, covering attractions such as fairs, theme parks, zoos and museums. It will include children’s tickets for cinemas, concerts, soft play and the theatre, and it will also cut the cost of children’s meals in restaurants and cafés from 20% VAT to 5%. These changes will apply across the UK from the start of the Scottish school holidays on 25 June and will run until the end of the school holidays in England, Wales and Northern Ireland on 1 September.
This Government have the right economic plan. We promised to grow the economy, and we have. We promised to cut inflation, and we have. We promised to cut the cost of living, and we are—promises made by a Labour Government, promises delivered by a Labour Government. I commend this statement to the House.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of her statement—although the press, of course, got even more advanced sight of it.
The decision taken to cancel the increase in fuel duty is welcome—it has been a long time coming. The Conservative party has been campaigning against the fuel duty rise for months, but the Chancellor has defended that policy repeatedly, leaving motorists and businesses worried about even higher fuel prices in September. It was always obvious that the fuel duty increase would need to be cancelled—obvious to everyone except the Chancellor. Why did she fight us on fuel duty for so long? Why has she been so hellbent on raising fuel duty during an energy crisis?
Well, the inevitable U-turn has finally come, but it is astonishing to hear the Chancellor claiming that the Government can afford to help households because the forecasts have improved. Is she seriously suggesting that the economic outlook is now better than at the time of the last fiscal forecasts when we have had the Iran conflict, to which our economy is highly exposed thanks to this Government’s ruinous choices? The Chancellor has just pointed to the IMF forecast being upgraded this week. Let us be very clear about what is going on here: the IMF adjusted its growth forecast for this year up slightly to 1%, but until April it was forecasting 1.3%. Where exactly is the supposed growth dividend? Will the Chancellor directly address that point?
This is exactly the same game that the Government played last year when they U-turned on cuts to the winter fuel payment. They claimed then that they were U-turning because the economy was improving when, of course, they were doing it due to political pressure. Nobody bought it then and nobody is buying it now. Once again, we have a weak Government caving in to the inevitable after spending months defending a truly terrible decision.
The Chancellor claims that the measures announced today will be funded by a number of different tax measures, but most of the ones she mentions are already in place and baked into the OBR’s forecasts. Given that the Chancellor has not announced any measures to control Government spending, will she confirm that, in fact, the measures that she is announcing today will be funded, at least in part, by yet more Government borrowing? Will she also confirm whether fuel duty rates will still rise to the same level as previously planned after December, or will today’s announcement mean a permanent reduction in fuel duty?
Although we in the Opposition welcome some of the measures that the Chancellor has taken today, such as the increase in mileage allowances, it is all very minor compared with the inflation this Government have fuelled since coming into office and the tax rises that the Chancellor has imposed. Today’s announcements will bring little comfort to the hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their jobs, the countless businesses that have folded and the high streets that are now hollowed out. The reality is that we are in a terrible position to deal with the consequences of the latest energy crisis, thanks to the actions that this Government have taken.
The Chancellor claimed that growth is up; it is actually down. She claimed that borrowing is down; it is 75% up compared with the plans that she inherited. She claimed that she is fighting inflation; we have the highest inflation in the G7. She claimed that she is cutting energy bills; energy bills have gone up under this Labour Government. And of course, she did not mention unemployment.
On energy, this Government have made a conscious decision not to exploit our own natural resources in the North sea, weakening our economy and our energy security while importing oil from Putin’s Russia at the cost of Ukrainian lives. Families and businesses are facing rising costs and rising taxes. People are losing their jobs. The country is hurting. If the Chancellor were serious about the challenges we face, she would commit to getting spending down, tackling the benefits bill and getting taxes down to strengthen our economy. Yet thanks to the Chancellor’s mistakes and the weakness of this dying Government, today’s statement is all we get. Does the Chancellor really think that that is enough?
Rachel Reeves
Let me take the issues that the shadow Chancellor has raised. On fuel duty, when I became Chancellor of the Exchequer, the freeze in fuel duty was due to expire, under the plan set out in the Conservatives’ final Budget, within a matter of months. I have frozen fuel duty twice already and I have frozen it again today; indeed, I have frozen it with more than three months to go before the increase was due to happen, giving people plenty of time.
I have always said, since the middle east conflict began, that I would keep an eye on what was happening to oil and gas prices and set out plans ahead of the change due to come into effect in September. That is exactly what I have done. I have also gone further in three specific areas, with additional support for hauliers, additional support for red diesel—particularly helping the rail freight industry and farmers—and the higher mileage rates. The shadow chancellor says he welcomes the changes on mileage rates. It is the first time they have been increased since 2011, so if he welcomes them so much, why did the Conservatives not increase them when they had 14 years in government?
On the Iran conflict, let us remember that this is a war that the UK did not start and this Government chose not to join, whereas the Conservatives and Reform were cheering on the conflict every step of the way. The impact on the UK and global economies would be much more severe if we had heeded the pleas of Reform and the Conservatives to join that conflict.
The shadow Chancellor talks about inflation and growth. Yesterday, the numbers showed that inflation had fallen; we are the only country in the G7 where inflation fell last month. The IMF has revised up our growth forecast and we had the fastest growth of the G7 in the first quarter of this year. The shadow Chancellor asks whether that will be paid for with new borrowing. No, it will not. If he had been listening, he would have heard the changes we are making around the foreign branch exemption. That will raise hundreds of millions of pounds a year, which is why we are able to afford the package that we have announced today.
The shadow Chancellor mentioned high streets. Because of the Pride in Place money that I announced at the Budget, the banking hubs and the changes that we made to business rates, which have seen those rates for retail and hospitality come down significantly compared with the plans we inherited from the Conservative Government, we can reinvigorate our high streets.
The shadow Chancellor mentioned borrowing. Borrowing has fallen below 5% for the first time since 2019 because of the actions that I have taken as Chancellor. Borrowing is expected to fall in every year of this Parliament—very different from what happened under the Conservatives. Employment and activity remain in the top half of the OECD and the G7. The biggest benefits boom came under the last Conservative Government, when the shadow Chancellor was the Work and Pensions Secretary.
Oil and gas will play an important role in our economy for many years to come, but we also need to invest in renewable energy, which is why we announced yesterday restrictions in the number of judicial reviews, which are holding up investment in clean energy. It is a shame that the Conservatives voted against our Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 and it is a shame that the Liberal Democrats abstained on it. We are determined to get Britain building, including building the energy infrastructure we need to get bills down.
Just a couple of weeks ago, I announced changes around tie-backs to make it easier for oil and gas companies to exploit their reserves of oil and gas in the North sea. Jackdaw and Rosebank would have gone ahead if it had not been for the last Government messing up the way they legislated. We will shortly announce the decisions, which the Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero will make. I am very clear that oil and gas will play an important role in the UK for many years to come, adding to our energy security alongside investment in nuclear, small modular reactors, floating offshore wind and onshore wind and solar, opposed by the Conservative party.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It never fails to amaze me that the shadow Chancellor tries to lecture this Government on inflation when many of us were here in September 2022 when the Conservative party crashed the economy. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s interventions. I am particularly interested in the cut in VAT in the leisure sector, and I hope that she will commission a full study from the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury about the impact, because it could be a great way to fuel, promote and keep our stretched leisure and hospitality sector going. Will she commit to that?
Rachel Reeves
I agree with my hon. Friend that we will take no lessons from the Conservatives on inflation, when it reached more than 11% when they were last in office. On VAT in the leisure sector, we are making the changes from 25 June right until 1 September to help boost the hospitality sector but also, crucially, to help families during the summer. Our expectation is that this will cost taxpayers money, but it is funded through the changes that we are making around the foreign branch exemption, so companies cannot book losses overseas to avoid paying their fair share of corporation tax here in Britain.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I feel as though we are slightly through the looking glass. For six months, we Liberal Democrats have been calling for an emergency temporary VAT cut for hospitality, leisure and attractions, and our pledge was fully funded. For weeks, we have been calling for an emergency transport package, fully funded using the additional revenue from higher VAT rates and the EPL. All that time, we were told repeatedly that it was impossible to do those things and there was no additional money. Somehow, with the prospect of a by-election in Makerfield and the Prime Minister’s political life being on the line, the money has been found.
Let me ask the Chancellor two questions. First, I genuinely welcome the Government’s focus on the cost of food, which is of huge concern to the constituents of Members of all political parties. However, is there any risk that short-term gain might result in long-term pain? In looking at the tariffs, has the Chancellor had any conversations with the food manufacturing industry about whether it can remain competitive? Does removing the tariffs inadvertently risk undermining our food manufacturing sector? If there is a risk, will she look at our plans for a good food Bill and for promoting nature-friendly farming? I ask that question in the spirit of constructive opposition.
Secondly, the Chancellor and her Ministers will know that we are due to have a very hot summer. That means huge demand for outdoor attractions, because children will want to be outside in the hot weather. Indoor attractions, such as soft play centres, will not benefit so much, because there will not be much demand for them in the summer months, but there will be in the winter months. Will the Chancellor look carefully at the differences within the sector? Children are priced out of play when they need to go indoors in the winter months, but not so much in the summer months.
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Lady for those questions. I am not sure whether she welcomes the changes around the foreign branch exemption, which is what will pay for the policies announced today by ensuring that companies pay their fair share of tax in the UK. Unless we can say where the money will come from, all that results is higher inflation and interest rates in the future. That is why I have always been clear that everything I will announce will be fully costed and fully funded.
On food, the hon. Lady cannot both say that she welcomes help with the cost of living, and then be a bit uncertain about tariff reductions. We have focused the tariff reductions on food products and agrifoods that we do not produce in significant quantities in the UK. We work very closely with the Department for Business and Trade in identifying those sectors.
On indoor and outdoor summer activities, I have had enough family holidays in the UK to know that there are plenty of days when it rains. I am sure that the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), will be visiting a soft play centre soon.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on ceramics. I thank the Chancellor for today’s announcement, and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) for their support. This is a big step towards support for a sector that offers so much to this country. I thank Sharon Yates and Finbar Bowie from the GMB, as well as Rob Flello and Hannah Ault from Ceramics UK, for their leadership in this matter.
May I extract from the Chancellor a commitment that this is the next stage of a new partnership between the UK Government and UK ceramics? Today’s announcement will absolutely help us survive, but with more working together, we can thrive as a sector and do our bit to boost exports, boost growth and create well-paid, unionised jobs in this country.
Rachel Reeves
I pay genuine tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on behalf of businesses and working people in his constituency, to the other Stoke MPs, and to my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). They have made the case powerfully and convincingly. I absolutely commit to working with Ceramics UK, the GMB, the MPs and the wider sector to ensure that the ceramics industry thrives in the UK.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
On tariffs, I want to explore what the Chancellor said about “significant quantities”, because a significant quantity for a supermarket can be of a completely different scale from a significant quantity for a small South Shropshire farmer. Will the Chancellor guarantee that no South Shropshire farmers will be undercut by the measures on tariffs, and that none of the supermarkets will pass on the cost cuts to British farmers?
Rachel Reeves
It is important that we help our constituents with the cost of living. The tariff reductions that I have announced today will save the British shopper £700 million. That is a significant reduction in the cost of the weekly shop for families across our country. We have chosen the tariff lines carefully. The full details will be published, and we will consult over the next week or two to ensure that we get them exactly right, but we have worked hard to make sure that the reductions do not affect British farmers. That is why we are also helping British farmers with the changes we have made on red diesel.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, which is great news for the cafés and restaurants in my constituency, of which there are many, and for the very many showmen and women who run Scotland’s and Britain’s great fairs. I note that the Conservative party objects to all this, but it is the Conservative party that left us with debt to GDP of almost 100%. There is nothing progressive in running debt levels like that, and the Chancellor is right to focus on paying that debt off.
Many of my Glasgow East constituents rely on cars and vans to get to work and do their work. They face extortionate charging for parking in town from the SNP council, which is utterly anti-car, and regular bills for repairing their cars and vans from all the potholes. Will my right hon. Friend set out how she is helping hard-pressed car and van drivers in Glasgow?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is nothing progressive about piling up the debt that future generations will have to pay; that is why our fiscal rules are getting the debt and deficit down while enabling us to invest in our country’s infrastructure and public services. On helping people with the cost of driving, we have frozen fuel duty until the end of this year, but recognising that some people rely on their cars and vans more than others, we have also taken off the HGV tax for this year, saving HGV drivers up to just over £900 a year, and cut the duty on red diesel by more than a third. We have also increased the tax-free mileage rates to help the employed and the self-employed with the cost of fuel.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The announcement on red diesel will be welcomed by my farming constituents, who will await the details on the tariffs the Chancellor has cited with a great deal of interest and a certain amount of trepidation. Does she acknowledge that a third of the world’s fertilisers pass through the strait of Hormuz, and that the increase in the price of fertiliser is bound to have an impact on British agriculture and therefore on prices in the shops? What will she do to relieve some of that—in some cases existential—pressure on farms in the United Kingdom?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. I urge him and businesses and farmers in his constituency to look at the list of products and feed into the consultation over the next week or so. We are keen to bring the tariff reductions into effect to reduce prices in shops for all our constituents, but we want to do so in a way that is respectful of British farming. That is why we have chosen the tariff lines that we have. As he recognises, we are doing more to support farmers with the reduction in duty on red diesel.
The best way, though, that we can help all our constituents, the farming sector and others is to bring the conflict to an end and reopen the strait of Hormuz. That is why the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are working intensively with international partners to do just that, while at the same time we are working to diversify our supply of oil and gas so that fertiliser, to which the right hon. Gentleman rightly refers, is still available for our farmers.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor honestly for her statement. As she has mentioned, and as many Members of this House will be aware, I have been campaigning hard for the ceramics sector with a view to saving Denby Pottery. I thank the Ministers in the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade for their ongoing engagement through the many meetings we have had on this. I am delighted to hear about the £120 million support package. It is a clear indication that the Government are supporting and backing UK ceramics, and it will make Denby Pottery a more attractive prospect for any potential investors. Given the circumstances currently facing Denby Pottery, can the Chancellor commit to ensuring that the funding is available as soon as possible, in the hope that Denby can be saved?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for the work she does on behalf of all her constituents, particularly those impacted by what is happening at Denby. It was my privilege to come to Amber Valley with her last year to meet businesses across her constituency. We are backing UK ceramics. We want to find a future for Denby, and we will continue to work with my hon. Friend to achieve just that.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Last year, suckler beef farmers in my constituency were getting paid £7.30 per kilo for their finished product on the hook. Yesterday that was down to £5.75, and it is still falling. The price paid to dairy farmers for their milk is through the floor. Arable farmers are struggling after two catastrophically bad harvests. The red diesel duty cut is welcome, but it will not help farmers who are struggling with rocketing fertiliser prices or, indeed, those who are required to heat glasshouses. Opening the door ever wider to food imports risks undermining domestic food production. If food security genuinely is national security, surely our food producers and manufacturers should have access to the same support as other critical sectors. Will the Chancellor look again at adding food and drink to the Government’s industrial strategy, so that they can access the same support as other sectors?
Rachel Reeves
I know that, as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the right hon. Gentleman will play a key role in scrutinising what the Government are doing. The reduction of more than a third in the rate of duty on red diesel will have an immediate and important impact on the costs for farmers. I also appreciate the fact that his party, like the Government, did not support the conflict in the middle east and recognised that it was a mistake that would have an impact on businesses here at home. That is why we are doing everything within our power to reopen the strait of Hormuz, to ease these pressures on consumers and businesses, including farmers, but also in the meantime to diversify supply and open up new refining facilities in the UK, to help businesses, including farmers, during these challenging times.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Potteries welcome this statement. I have been working with local companies, the TUC, GMB and research organisations to develop proposals to support the ceramics industry to innovate, improve energy efficiency and decarbonise. I have previously called on the Government to release an industrial energy innovation fund for energy-intensive industries, with Government grants to explore process efficiency and new technologies, as well as vouchers to access shared pilot facilities. Could the Chancellor clarify whether part of the £120 million of funding announced today could be used by ceramics companies to access and invest in innovations such as AI-enabled process optimisation and energy technologies, to help reduce energy bills?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend and all the MPs involved in helping to put together this scheme of support for ceramics. Like her, I welcome the work of the TUC and GMB in this. Innovation and ensuring that the industry is sustainable and competitive for the future is absolutely essential. This is not just a sticking-plaster policy; it is about setting up the industry for the future, including investment in innovation and R&D and also the diversification of energy supplies.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The UK is losing 1,000 oil and gas jobs a month. The Chancellor is aware of that, and we have made it very clear to her that we are keen to move to the oil and gas price mechanism as soon as possible—we urge her to do that. On the foreign branch profits announcement today, have the Government modelled the job losses that may occur as a result of this change in the oil and gas taxation regime? Can she tell the House how many jobs might be lost as a result?
Rachel Reeves
As I have said in previous answers, I recognise the role of oil and gas in the UK and its importance to the UK for many years to come, which is why we have changed the rules around tiebacks and put in place a permanent mechanism for taxing windfall profits. But the hon. Lady has to answer the question: are she and her party in favour of the foreign branch profits exemption or not? If not, they cannot back the support we are giving today to help people with the cost of living and the support we are giving for ceramics. This exemption means that we are moving in line with how other countries treat foreign profits. At the moment, we have the absurd situation where losses overseas can mean that businesses avoid paying their fair share of corporation tax in the UK. This moves us in line with what other countries do. It is closing a tax loophole, and the hon. Lady and the Conservatives should welcome that.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
What a day to be a Stokie! As the Chancellor knows, my mum proudly worked in the pot banks of Tunstall and Burslem, and 10 weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister in this place what support the Government could offer our ceramic sector. The good news is that my mum is watching again right now at home, and she is clearly happy, because I have had a three-word text from her: “Nice one, duck.” How will we make sure the £120 million support package benefits ceramics companies of every size—from our Moorcrofts to our Moorlands, from our Steelites to our Churchills—so that we protect jobs, skills and the future of our economy?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I say to Mrs Williams and all those who work in the ceramics sector: I am proud to be the Chancellor who is backing British industry and British jobs.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Back in March, the Chancellor announced the £50 million crisis and resilience fund to help families with the price of heating oil, which is a big issue in rural constituencies such as mine. Does she have any plans to extend or repeat that scheme come the autumn, given that we are likely to have a similar crisis with the strait of Hormuz still shut? To what extent will the Russian oil that will come via a third country under commodity code 2710 form part of the fuel mix?
Rachel Reeves
Yesterday, we introduced the toughest set of sanctions on Russia that this country has ever had, but like the previous Government, we are phasing those in so that they do not have a disproportionate impact on industry here in the UK. That is what the previous Government did, and that is what we are doing as well.
The hon. Gentleman mentions support for people with the cost of heating oil. We were pleased to be able to introduce targeted support in areas that are particularly dependent on heating oil. We are doing a piece of work at the moment to see how much money has been used by local authorities—some have been more proactive than others in ensuring that local residents get support—and once we have completed that, we will look at whether and what further support is needed.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I welcome the statement and the action that those of us in ceramic communities have been calling for, and I thank the Chancellor for announcing it. This is a good day for all of us in north Staffordshire. As it happens, staff from a ceramics business based in Newcastle-under-Lyme are sitting in the Gallery watching this statement; I welcome them. Can the Chancellor assure us of two things: first, that the eligibility for the support in this scheme will be as wide as possible, and secondly, that it will be as easy as possible to apply for?
Rachel Reeves
I am pleased to know that staff from a business in the ceramics sector in Newcastle-under-Lyme are here today, and I say to them directly: this Government have got your back and want to work with you and the trade unions that represent people in the sector to ensure that the ceramics industry plays an important part in British life—particularly in the pottery communities —for many years to come. Of course, we will set out the details of the scheme, but like my hon. Friends who represent these communities in Stoke, Newcastle and Amber Valley, this Government are very keen to crack on with the scheme and make sure that businesses can get the support they deserve.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Will the Chancellor expand on her discussions with the supermarkets and their role in keeping prices down? When the supermarkets make special offers or reduce prices, there is always a concern that rather than absorbing the costs themselves, they pass them on directly to farmers and their suppliers, who are not in a position to absorb them because of their fixed production costs.
Rachel Reeves
The right hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. Today I have set out a number of measures that will directly help the supermarkets to reduce their costs, and it is really important that those cost reductions are passed on directly to consumers. Reducing the cost of running an HGV will have a direct impact on our supermarkets, and reducing tariffs will have a direct impact on costs for our supermarkets. The trade deal that we are looking to do with the EU to reduce the costs of importing exporting food from the EU will also have a direct impact on costs for supermarkets. I say to the supermarkets: those cost reductions must be passed on directly to consumers, who are struggling with the cost of living, given the conflict in the middle east.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement, and particularly her VAT cut on theme park tickets. I invite her and all hon. Members to join me on my annual trip to Alton Towers this summer. Erewash has many great summer events for families to enjoy, such as Long Eaton carnival, the classic car show and the Glow festival in Ilkeston, but entertaining kids during the summer months can be daunting and expensive for parents. Can the Chancellor please elaborate on how the measures that she is announcing today will support Erewash families and boost great community events?
Rachel Reeves
My only worry with this package is that it will mean children badgering their parents even more for days out over the summer—I slightly worry about what I have unleashed in my own household. I am pleased to announce today that trips to Alton Towers and other activities, whether it be soft play, funfairs, zoos or museums—if many kids want to go to them; not mine probably, sadly—will be cheaper this summer because of the action that this Government are taking.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The Chancellor’s approach to the cost of living crisis is to find small ways to subsidise people’s costs, but is not the best solution to build a strong, abundant economy by doing the hard yards of supply side reform? In that economy, there would be better jobs and higher wages, people would be richer and the state would have less bearing on their lives, yet under the Chancellor, the benefits bill is ballooning, unemployment is rising, particularly among the young, and taxes are at their highest ever level. In the spirit of giving people some relief today, will the Chancellor confirm—assuming that she intends to stay in office for the rest of this Parliament—that she will not be increasing taxes on working people at all for the rest of this Parliament?
Rachel Reeves
I will take absolutely no lessons from the man who was part of a party that took our economy to its knees—inflation at 11%, working people worse off at the end of the last Parliament than they were at the beginning, and the worst Parliament ever for living standards—or from a party that has opposed all our reforms to make it easier to get things built in Britain, to increase the wages of working people with the national living wage and the national minimum wage, and to increase the rights of working people, including through statutory sick pay from day one and by ending abusive zero-hours contracts. If we want a lesson on economics, I certainly will not be taking it from the Reform party.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Chancellor’s announcement of a £120 million support package for ceramics will of course be welcomed in Stoke-on-Trent, but also in Rugeley in my constituency, which is home to many workers at the Armitage Shanks factory in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), who is a staunch advocate for them. Does the Chancellor agree that it is only this Labour Government who are putting in the investment that firms such as Armitage Shanks need? Does she also agree that iconic British brands like this should play a central role in new homes, to boost them even further?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am pleased that people in Rugeley and people working for Armitage Shanks will also benefit from this investment. The £120 million to support our ceramics sector is a clear indication of this Government’s intention to back British jobs and British industry.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
Although I welcome some of the measures announced today, the reality is that instability in the middle east is having a direct impact on the UK economy and on the price paid by British households. Can the Chancellor therefore outline what steps her Department is taking to work across Government to ensure a stable region, including by boosting our defence spending? Will she finally commit to spending 3% of GDP in this Parliament and to working collaboratively towards reopening the strait of Hormuz?
Rachel Reeves
I do think it is a little rich for Conservative Members to talk about the instability from the middle east conflict—a conflict that they wanted Britain to join in from day one, but which our Prime Minister made the decision to keep Britain out of, because that war was a mistake and it is having an impact on British businesses and British families. I am proud to be the Chancellor who has overseen the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We are spending £270 billion during this Parliament, taking spending to 2.6% by April next year. The Conservatives said they would get to 2.5% by the end of this Parliament. They had no paid-for plans to do so; we are achieving it three years early.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
May I congratulate the Chancellor on the very welcome announcement that she has made? For people in Bradford West, the Great British summer savings scheme will go down an absolute treat. Does she agree that it will also benefit the hospitality industry, which has been struggling for years in my constituency and across the country?
Rachel Reeves
We all listened to my hon. Friend’s response to the King’s Speech last week, when we heard about the great restaurants in Bradford. I am pleased to say that VAT on children’s meals in those restaurants will fall from 20% to 5%, so all hon. Members who are looking forward to a curry in Bradford can enjoy one at Mumtaz, Aagrah and all the other great restaurants in her city.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I would like to start with the positive. I know that care workers in my constituency of North Herefordshire will really welcome the increase in mileage rates, and I welcome the measures that the Chancellor has announced that seem to be starting to tackle profit shifting, which is a key problem related to tax avoidance.
Does the Chancellor not recognise, however, that struggling families need help year round, not just short-term sticking plasters in the summer holidays? The Green party is calling for free bus travel for everybody under 22, year round. We are calling for free school meals for all children, to help all families year round. The cost of living crisis requires year-round action. This could be funded easily by taxing wealth fairly. Will she take that year-round bold action to tackle the cost of living crisis properly?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Lady for that question and for her welcome of the changes to mileage rates and the measures on profit shifting. Obviously not all parties in the House welcome them, so I appreciate the fact that hers does, but we are helping working people. The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is the biggest upgrade in the rights of renters in a generation; the Employment Rights Act 2025 is the biggest upgrade in the rights of working people for a generation. We have taken the national living wage and the national minimum wage to their highest ever levels. For working families, the 30 hours of childcare, free breakfast clubs, the extension of free school meals and getting rid of the two-child limit are all putting money in the pockets of working people. The measures that I have set out in my statement today on bus fares, fuel duties, VAT and hospitality, and more, will give further help, both in Herefordshire and around the country.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The announcement today of the £120 million fund to support the UK ceramics industry will be so welcome in my part of Staffordshire. Armitage Shanks is often not spoken of in the same breath as ceramics—partly because of the excellent advocacy of the Stokies and my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth)—but ceramics goes much further than flatware. The sanitary ware that comes out of Armitage Shanks is world class, but it is much, much more than that. It is the identity of that village, and it is an iconic British brand. The Chancellor’s support for Armitage Shanks and the rest of the ceramics industry will go down so well, not just with those workers and the GMB workers who are part of that factory, but with my community, so may I thank the Chancellor for her intervention?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is right that ceramics have a life in many parts of our economy, not just in great heritage businesses like Denby, which produces plates and other ceramics, but in sectors like defence and aerospace, where ceramics are crucial. That is why I am pleased to back them further with the £120 million package announced today.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The conflict in the middle east is not the Chancellor’s fault, but she has chosen this time to make it more expensive for my constituents to take a car from Fishbourne on the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth. Will she do the right thing and scrap the emissions trading scheme levy that she intends to introduce in July this year? It should not only be Scottish islands that are exempt.
Rachel Reeves
The measures that I have announced today will help people on the Isle of Wight. We have frozen fuel duty for the third time—in comparison, the plans that we inherited from the previous Government would have seen fuel duty go up—we are helping farmers with the cost of red diesel, we are helping the rail freight sector and we are supporting HGV drivers. Many people go to the Isle of Wight on their summer holidays and enjoy wonderful days out, and the cost of that will also be reduced, helping that sector in the Isle of Wight this summer.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chancellor for her important statement, not least because the previous Government failed to act on HMRC mileage rates for the 14 years that they were in power, watching as motoring costs went up year after year but doing absolutely nothing for the self-employed and frontline workers, like home care workers. It shows the power of a union like Unison, and it shows that we have a Chancellor who is willing to take the action needed to support working people. Ahead of the Fuller review, will the backdating of these measures support both the self-employed and employed workers alike?
Rachel Reeves
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who raised this issue in Treasury questions just a few weeks ago. I committed then to looking at this ahead of the next Budget, but given the ongoing conflict in the middle east, I thought it was right to bring those changes forward and increase the mileage rate for the first time since 2011. I assure him, home care workers, plumbers and all those who use their car for work that we will increase the mileage rate by 10p, backdated to April 2026, for employed and self-employed workers alike.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lefarydd. People are very aware that President Trump’s war with Iran is worsening the cost of living, but there are long-term measures within the gift of the Government that could improve heating costs for households. In north Wales and Merseyside, we pay the equivalent of £255 a year on standing charges, compared with £160 in London. When will the Chancellor address the structural inequality in heating costs?
Rachel Reeves
In the Budget last year, I reduced energy bills by £150, and just a few weeks ago, I put in additional money to help people with the cost of heating oil. The issue around standing charges and those allocations is for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, but I will pass on the right hon. Lady’s concerns to the relevant Ministers.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement, which is welcome for those of us who are serious about buying British, building British and backing British. Will she say a little more about how she believes the measures will help the British brickmaking sector, a subject that I know Madam Deputy Speaker will also be interested to hear about?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for always standing up for the people of Stafford, whether by supporting bringing a market back to the town or supporting the brickmaking sector. This Government are investing £120 billion more in capital spending during this Parliament, compared with the plans that I inherited from the previous Government. I am determined that that money is spent here in Britain—whether on defence, energy, transport or building schools and hospitals—creating good jobs, paying decent wages, supporting British industry and supporting British workers.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Food inflation is forecast by the Food and Drink Federation to reach at least 9% by the end of this year. Energy costs are driving up food inflation, as are a lot of the other anti-business policies put forward by this Government, including not incorporating food manufacturing in the industrial strategy. When will the Chancellor realise that announcing things like capping supermarket food prices is just like flower arranging while the roots of the flower are dying?
Rachel Reeves
The hon. Lady says that we should extend the industrial strategy, but the previous Government did not even have an industrial strategy. I would say that a £700 million tariff reduction is not exactly fiddling at the margins; supermarkets should pass on those cost savings directly to consumers to help all our constituents with the cost of living.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I congratulate the Chancellor on her summer package of savings for families—it will give relief to those families who have booked domestic holidays, and a welcome boost to our domestic leisure and entertainment industries—but will she say a little bit more about how we intend to pass on the savings made by her tariff cuts through supermarkets? Too often, they have taken a cut and a slice off the reduced cost to them, so how do we ensure that all the savings get passed on to our constituents?
Rachel Reeves
I remember that, when I was young, I used to enjoy visits to Chislehurst Caves and Eltham Palace, and I hope they will be able to benefit from the changes I have announced today. It is important that we ensure that supermarkets pass on these cost reductions to their customers. We are also making changes to HGV duty, which will reduce costs for supermarkets. It is important that Supermarkets recognise the pressure that their customers are under at the moment. We have provided additional powers to the Competition and Markets Authority to ensure that no business, whatever its size or nature, takes advantage of the conflict in the middle east to hike prices for their customers.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Youth unemployment is now at 5%. On current form, it will rise to 5.8% by next year, which will mean a very large number of young people without work. What actions can the Chancellor take to ensure that young people get access to jobs and careers, and do not have the deeply depressing experience of being unemployed when they leave school, college or university? A disproportionate number of young people rent in the private rental sector, so will she also do something about bringing in much needed rent regulation in the private rental sector?
Rachel Reeves
We have already increased the number of apprenticeships, and changes to the growth and skills levy mean that young people do not always have to have maths and English at grades A to C to get on to an apprenticeship programme. We have also introduced shorter apprenticeships to help young people to get the skills they need. On private rent, the right hon. Gentleman might have seen the changes that we made through the Renters’ Rights Act 2026, which gives renters the greatest rights they have had in a generation, including the right to challenge a rent increase and to have only one rent increase a year. If someone challenges their rent increase and takes their case to a tribunal, they will not have the rent increase during the course of the tribunal, helping to limit rent rises for hard-working families.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chancellor for this wonderful set of measures. I will go one further than my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), who is no longer in his place, and invite her across the bridge to some of the greatest attractions in the UK, ranging from the London Eye to the Southbank Centre, the London Aquarium and even the Paddington Bear Experience, which will all benefit from this wonderful VAT cut. We have been raising this issue for many months, so it is good to see action.
This morning, I visited John Ruskin primary school in Camberwell in my constituency. We might think that the impact of what is happening is not affecting young children, but it is. The children there were so articulate, raising questions on oil and gas prices and prices in the supermarket, so I thank the Chancellor for addressing the issues. How will the CMA monitor supermarkets? It is a non-ministerial organisation, but will it be providing regular updates to the Treasury, so that we can ensure that price cuts are being passed on to hard-working families?
Rachel Reeves
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the London Eye will be included. Apparently it is called an “observation attraction”—the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury and I made sure that such attractions are part of the package of measures. I totally agree with what she says about young children of primary school age having a deep understanding of the cost of living pressures faced by their families and carers at the moment. That is why it is so important that today’s measures particularly address the cost of the summer holidays for parents. I know that parents, whether in Vauxhall or in my own constituency of Leeds West and Pudsey, are not always as excited about the summer holidays as their children are because they are worried about the costs. I hope that the measures that I have announced today on the cost of children’s meals in restaurants and cafés, and to reduce the cost of days out, will go some way towards helping families to have a better summer.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement, but I ask her to look further at introducing a package of emergency measures to keep down energy bills in a number of ways, including through an essential energy guarantee for all households, a nationwide social tariff and extending the windfall tax on the energy sector’s excessive profits.
Rachel Reeves
When I became Chancellor, I extended the energy profits levy on gas and oil to 78%. We will be able to bring in money as a result of that. We have also increased the electricity generator levy by 10 percentage points to help to decouple gas and electricity prices. Because of the measures I took in my Budget last year, I was able to take £150 off people’s energy bills. I recognise the impact of the cost of living on families, pensioners and businesses, which is why I have introduced a further range of measures today, particularly targeting and helping families, energy-intensive industries, and those who drive a lot for work.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement and welcome the measures she has announced, which will have a huge impact and support many of my constituents and businesses in Battersea. She is very welcome to visit Battersea; we have wonderful hospitality there.
As we live in an increasingly unpredictable global landscape, it is vital that we work with some of our closest allies. That is why I welcome the European partnership Bill announced in the King’s Speech last week. Will the Chancellor continue to explore ways to strengthen our economic relationship with the EU as a means of promoting stability and security, particularly in the light of the current financial pressures as a result of the Iran war?
Rachel Reeves
The measures I have set out in my statement will absolutely help the hospitality and entertainment sectors in Battersea, whether zoos, cinemas or restaurants. My hon. Friend is right to point to the economic benefits—reducing inflation, and boosting jobs and growth—of a closer relationship with our nearest neighbours and trading partners in the EU. That is why we are currently negotiating an ambitious agreement to reduce the costs of bringing in agricultural, food and farming products from the EU, and increasing markets for British farmers in the EU. That is alongside a youth mobility scheme, Erasmus, and energy trading and electricity trading across the European Union.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I welcome the measures that the Chancellor has set out, particularly those that will help small businesses such as Noted Eel & Pie House in Leyton, Homies On Donkeys in the ’Stone, Bare Brew and City Place in Wanstead, and Fresh as a Daisy in South Woodford. I look forward to seeing their children’s menus, so that families can benefit from the measures she has set out. What more is she doing to support hard-pressed families in Leyton and Wanstead, particularly those who rent in the current cost of living crisis?
Rachel Reeves
I very much hope that families and businesses in Leyton and Wanstead can benefit from the changes that I have set out today. I know that the cost of renting is very high, especially in London, and the Renters’ Rights Act should give greater certainty and stability to renters and limit rent increases. In addition, families in Leyton and Wanstead will benefit from the offer of 30 hours of free childcare, the abolition of the two-child limit on universal credit and the roll-out of free breakfast clubs to primary schools. From September, straight after the summer holidays, all children whose parents or carers are on universal credit will benefit from free school meals.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
I am proud that this Government are backing British industry, from ceramics to British steel, in today’s announcement. Will my right hon. Friend look at possible measures to support the UK wood and timber sector? It is facing challenges such as price volatility, rising costs, supply chain pressures and missed targets for productive tree planting.
Rachel Reeves
The measures announced today will help ceramics and the chemicals sector, but other schemes, such as the supercharger scheme and the British industrial competitiveness scheme, will benefit other sectors across the economy. I am sure that the relevant Minister would be happy to meet my hon. Friend specifically to discuss wood and timber issues.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I declare an interest, as someone who worked for Unison immediately before coming to this place; its contribution to my campaign is included in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I worked as a trade union official for more than 20 years, representing public sector workers. One issue that came up in pay negotiations year after year was mileage rates, particularly for frontline social care workers. As the cost of living and fuel prices rose, frozen mileage rates effectively imposed a stealth cut on workers who were already delivering vital public services. On behalf of those workers and the thousands of frontline workers across Scotland, may I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s decision and announcement today? Will she confirm that she has spoken with her counterparts in the new Scottish Government to ensure that the levers of power over which they have control are similarly focused on cutting the cost of living for my constituents?
Rachel Reeves
The increase in mileage rates for employed and self-employed workers will have a material effect on those who need to use their car for work every day; it is, of course, the first increase since 2011. Alongside the Employment Rights Act, this is giving greater rights, greater certainty and greater incomes to ordinary working people. I pay tribute to the trade union Unison for its lobbying and work on this issue over many, many years.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Families in Bracknell Forest often tell me that the schools holidays can be bittersweet; the opportunity to make treasured memories and spend time with their children must be balanced against having to juggle childcare and work, as well as the cost of living pressures that come from keeping their children entertained. The measures VAT cuts for summer attractions that the Chancellor has announced today will therefore make a real difference. May I ask her to encourage people across the country to make use of the fantastic leisure facilities in Bracknell Forest, including the Look Out Discovery Centre, South Hill Park and Play World soft play, as they take advantage of this new scheme?
Rachel Reeves
I hope that families in Bracknell, whether they are enjoying a day out in Bracknell Forest or going on a summer holiday to one of the great seaside towns across our United Kingdom, will benefit from these changes. They will make lunch or dinner out as a family, and entertainment, a little bit cheaper. If parents or carers are on universal credit, when their kids go back to school in September—whether they are in nursery, primary, secondary or further education—they will benefit from free school meals.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, especially the measures to support farmers and hauliers. Banbury has a thriving logistics sector, with brilliant businesses like TWE Haulage; I visited that company last month, and I know it will really welcome the measures that she has announced. Will she and her colleagues continue to keep under review the particular pressures on the logistics sector and be open to any further measures that may be needed?
Rachel Reeves
The best way to reduce cost pressures on families and businesses is to get the strait of Hormuz reopened and those vessels carrying oil and gas flowing again, but of course in the meantime I will keep under review the support necessary to support businesses and families in Banbury and across the country.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
I welcome the tone of yesterday’s announcement at the petrol pump and today’s announcement in the House. The Government are fighting for working people every day. Is ice skating included in the measures? Alexandra Palace has the most fantastic ice skating rink. I hope that ice skating is included, so that children visiting London, as well as London children, can enjoy slightly cheaper ice skating this summer, with a lovely meal to boot.
Rachel Reeves
I will have to check about ice skating. I like to pride myself on being on top of my brief, but I do not know whether ice skating is included. I did, however, know about the London Eye.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Following a successful sale to the LB Group, chemicals firm Tioxide is planning to reopen its Greatham plant in Hartlepool. The £350 million critical chemicals resilience fund is a real boost, at exactly the right time, for that Hartlepool employer. Can the Chancellor say a little more about how the fund will promote jobs and growth in Hartlepool?
Rachel Reeves
Businesses in Hartlepool and across Teesside will be among the biggest beneficiaries of these changes around chemicals. The Minister for industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), is now in his place, and I pay tribute to him again for his help in setting out this package of measures. The Department for Business and Trade will shortly set out the details of the chemicals scheme, but I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) that it includes help with capital and day-to-day costs, with the aim of making the sector more sustainable and less energy intensive in the future. That will make it increasingly competitive. We recognise the chemical sector’s important role in the UK, and we are determined to ensure a bright future for it.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I, too, thank the Chancellor for her statement, and in particular the announcement of the £350 million chemicals resilience fund. As a consequence of the Iran war, energy price rises of 16% and food price rises of up to 7% are predicted by the Bank of England. I very much welcome the Chancellor’s addressing the cost of living crisis, and the steps to help families this summer, including with bus fares for children; that will be welcomed in Middlesbrough and Thornaby East. We will no doubt monitor and evaluate the dividends of that travel offer. Will the Chancellor consider whether the long-term free travel initiatives elsewhere in Europe have translated positively into economic engagement and growth, and whether they could be replicated here? Given the cries from the retail sector this week, can she advise on what a voluntary pricing arrangement on core items in a basket of supermarket goods, as introduced in France in 2023, might do for living standards?
Rachel Reeves
Businesses in the chemicals sector in Middlesbrough will benefit from these changes. In today’s package, a lot of the focus was on food costs, be it the cost of kids’ meals in restaurants and cafés or the reduction in tariffs, and on support for transport, whether people are travelling by car or by bus. We recognise that increases in essential costs are the ones that families fear most. We will of course monitor the impact of these measures. We expect the range of measures that I have set out today to have a cost to the Exchequer, and that is why I have also set out the foreign branch exemption changes, to ensure that all businesses pay their fair share of tax.
On supermarkets, which my hon. Friend mentioned, the Co-op announced last November, on the back of my Budget, that it was cutting the cost of 1,000 products because of the beneficial impact of the changes to business rates. Last week, the Co-op froze the price of more than 40 essential products, and it has committed to working to keep them down. I welcome those measures by the Co-op. I hope that other supermarkets heed the calls of their customers to keep prices down; and I hope that they take advantage of what I have set out today to reduce their costs, and pass those savings directly on to consumers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I will try to get all Members in, but I encourage them to ask very short questions. There are two more statements and the main business to come this afternoon, and we are getting a little tight on time.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I welcome this announcement and the Chancellor’s statement. It means that, thanks to this Labour Government, it will be cheaper for families across my community to go to theme parks, farms and soft plays this summer. I will see them there, because my children have a long list of places they want to visit. On days out, our families get to choose between eating out or taking a good old picnic. Can the Chancellor bring to life the decision that she has made today? How will it ensure that families have full tummies, as well as lots of fun and excitement, this summer?
Rachel Reeves
We are helping to keep prices down in the supermarkets, and to reduce the cost of lunch at a café or restaurant when families have a day out. Having met my hon. Friend’s kids out on the campaign trail in Aldershot, I think that a couple of days out not delivering leaflets would be very much in order.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I congratulate the Chancellor on this ambitious and comprehensive package of measures, supporting families across Bolton West. As a long-standing proponent of a fairer taxation system, I thank her for the measures she has put forward to close the tax loopholes that have been used by oil and gas firms to structure their affairs and avoid paying hundreds of millions of pounds into the Exchequer. That money will finance this package of proposals to support families. She mentioned the Competition and Markets Authority. Can she say a little more about what engagement she envisages having over the coming months to make sure that we do not see profiteering, going forwards?
Rachel Reeves
Closing tax loopholes has been a feature of the first two Budgets I have delivered as Chancellor—for example, the loophole whereby private schools did not pay VAT or business rates. I increased the energy profits levy and the tax on private jets, and there has been a range of other measures to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share of tax. The Competition and Markets Authority is already, at my behest, carrying out a review of heating oil to make sure that customers using heating oil are treated fairly. We are introducing the fuel finder to ensure that customers can always get the best deal when filling up their car with petrol.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the package of support she has announced today. She knows at first hand that hospitality is what my little town does best. My hospitality industry, fairground and constituents will be very happy today. Can she clarify, as I am not sure, whether the 15% VAT cut applies to all restaurants, café, pubs, bars and hotels serving children’s meals? Will she please keep under review the possibility of extending this welcome VAT cut to the hospitality industry as a whole?
Rachel Reeves
I have happy memories of having fish and chips with my hon. Friend in her constituency several years ago. I can confirm that the VAT for children’s meals, be they in a pub, hotel, restaurant or café, will be cut from 20% to 5% between 25 June and 1 September. We will monitor the impact of that on tax revenues, and the number of people going out for dinner. We envisage that this measure will have a cost to the taxpayer, which is why we are funding it by ending the tax loophole whereby some companies were using losses overseas to offset their corporation tax here in Britain.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Families across my constituency will be relieved to hear the measures set out by my right hon. Friend, whether that is the freezing of fuel duty, free bus travel for young people this summer or the suspension of tariffs on essential food items. All those actions will be greatly welcomed by families worried about the impact of the Iran war on household finances. Can the Chancellor set out how much she envisages these measures combined will save families in the north-east? Will she keep measures, including on energy bills, under review, ahead of the winter?
Rachel Reeves
People in more rural areas, such as some of my hon. Friend’s constituents, will particularly benefit from the freeze in fuel duty and the free bus fares for kids. We think that the changes in fuel duty have already saved people around £100 a year, and we expect the same sort of benefit thereafter. Drivers of heavy goods vehicles will benefit by up to £912 through those changes. The bus fare changes are unlimited free bus travel for five to 15-year-olds, and we can add in the savings on days out and meals out. All these things are unlimited; people can go on a bus as many times as they like, and they can take their kids out for a meal and benefit from that reduction in VAT as much as they like. We want people to have an enjoyable summer, worrying less about the costs and thinking more about making happy memories.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The plans outlined today by the Chancellor will be a massive boost for families in my constituency, but also for the hospitality and tourism sector. I am sure she will agree that Blackpool has some of the best attractions in the world, including the best theme park in the United Kingdom, Blackpool Pleasure Beach, which is today launching its record-breaking £8.7 million new ride, Aviktas. Since the Chancellor made her statement, my phone has not stopped ringing; businesses, theme parks and organisations from across the town are welcoming this news. On their behalf, as well as for my own part, may I invite the Chancellor to Blackpool this summer to see at first hand the positive difference that her policies will make in our town, and the potential that we have?
Rachel Reeves
I am really excited about what is happening in Blackpool in the lead up to the 100th anniversary of the Blackpool illuminations in three years’ time. I very much look forward to my next trip to Blackpool. I do not eat only fish and chips, but I remember a very happy meal of fish and chips in my hon. Friend’s constituency during his by-election campaign.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Parents, grandparents and carers will know that keeping children busy during the summer can feel like an expensive endurance event. Will the Chancellor assess the economic and social value of the great British summer package of savings, particularly its impact on opening up access to museums, cinemas, libraries, sports facilities, theatres, theme parks and attractions? It will build children’s cultural capital and life experiences, while also supporting local economies in Wolverhampton and Willenhall, and across the country.
Rachel Reeves
Spoken like a proper former teacher! Expanding their cultural capital is what my children want to do every weekend. Whether it is expanding cultural capital, or having fun at a theme park in Blackpool or at Alton Towers, I want children and families to be able to enjoy this summer. As a former teacher, my hon. Friend will know that although the summer holidays are a welcome relief for teachers and children, it can often be a time of worry for parents. I hope that today’s changes will make the summer holidays a bit easier for all families.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
People across the Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency work hard, and being able to enjoy time together as a family this summer is important for everyone. I know that the Chancellor’s announcements on summer savings for families—including on popular attractions—and on free bus travel for children will be warmly welcomed at home. Could she please set out how the decisions that she has taken to stabilise the economy have made it possible for the Government to fund this?
Rachel Reeves
It is important that all the policies that we have set out are fully costed and fully funded, and the change that we have made to the foreign branch exemption will fund today’s package of measures. The reduction in inflation due to the measures I set out in my Budget last year, and the strong growth that we have seen—the fastest in the G7 in the first quarter of this year—make the package affordable and sustainable. That is why we are able to set out this support today.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly welcome the Chancellor’s intervention at a time when the cost of living is increasingly putting pressure on working families in Darlington. This is a proper Labour intervention from a proper Labour Chancellor, and representation matters in this House. As I look around the Chamber, I can see Stoke and the ceramics industry supported. I can see Redcar, Middlesbrough and Stockton represented, and their industries supported. Not only has this Labour Chancellor intervened to make sure that families in my constituency can have a much better summer, but their jobs will be secure for much longer, so I thank her.
Rachel Reeves
This package was not just designed by me; it was designed by hon. and right hon. Members of this House who have made representations to me about the cost of living, but also about the specific business needs and business challenges in their constituencies. Although I am proud to be the Chancellor who has delivered today’s package, I pay tribute to all Members who have contributed to it.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I congratulate the Chancellor on her skilful management of our economy in what are extremely difficult international circumstances. Growth is up, inflation is down and borrowing is down. I particularly welcome the great British summer savings scheme, which will make a huge difference to families and business in my constituency, but families will continue to worry about their day-to-day bills. Can she reassure my constituents that the fuel duty freeze, and the reduction in tariffs on foodstuffs, will be felt directly in their pockets?
Rachel Reeves
Absolutely. The freeze in fuel duty will continue until the end of this year and we will keep it under review, depending on what happens in the middle east. It is very important that the tariff reductions and the HGV duty changes are passed on to customers. I am slightly worried that my statement has unleashed a competition between hon. Members about whose constituency has the best summer attractions, whether it is soft play, theme parks, zoos or ice skating. I am being lobbied by my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) about lemon tops in her constituency. I look forward to this continuing ahead of the introduction of VAT reductions on 25 June.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement from my right hon. Friend, particularly the suspension of import tariffs on more than 100 food and drink staples. I know that my constituents across Stourbridge, Brierley Hill and Netherton have been struggling with the cost of a weekly shop. Although we all enjoy a treat, including me, it was disappointing to see the headlines leading with biscuits and chocolate, given that we have a public health crisis with obesity and diabetes. Could the Chancellor assure the House that the Government remain committed to the healthy food standard, which encourages supermarkets to promote healthy choices, and will she work with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to ensure that efforts to tackle poor diet and obesity remain a priority, alongside the cost of living?
Rachel Reeves
A whole range of products are included in the tariff reductions, including imports of tropical fruits, bananas, olive oil and much more, but I expect that hon. and right hon. Members would be forgiven for wanting to have a chocolate biscuit after a day of work in this place.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I welcome the measures that my right hon. Friend has announced today, which will help ease the cost of living pressures on families in my constituency, and on its very many businesses and attractions—and in time for the Scottish school summer holidays. She is always welcome for award-winning fish and chips in my constituency.
Earlier this year, the Government set out welcome plans to break the link between the wholesale price of gas and the cost of electricity. Can my right hon. Friend provide an update on those plans and tell us how that will help reduce bills over the long term?
Rachel Reeves
I am sure that my hon. Friend’s constituents in Edinburgh North and Leith will benefit from being able to enjoy attractions in the Scottish school holidays. People from the other nations and regions of the UK, or from further afield, will also be able to enjoy the attractions of Edinburgh this summer.
On the specific issue of delinking gas and electricity prices, this is both a short-term and long-term measure. In the short term, we have increased the electricity generator levy by 10 percentage points to bring in more money this year. We are renegotiating contracts to move electricity prices on to contracts for difference in order to have greater certainty about electricity prices, so that the gas price does not set the electricity price so frequently, giving greater stability of energy prices to businesses and families.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Inflation is down, wages are up, interest rates are down, and growth is up. These are the reasons why the Chancellor can make today’s announcements. Those on the Opposition Benches will not say it, but I will: thank you, Chancellor.
As the Chancellor said in her statement, the British industrial competitiveness scheme offers important support for economic growth, but at the moment it excludes the vital critical minerals sector, which, as she knows, is directly relevant to my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency. Will she meet me to discuss energy support measures for the critical minerals sector?
Rachel Reeves
As my hon. Friend knows, I am absolutely committed to the critical minerals sector. We have already introduced the Kernow growth fund for Cornwall, and we have instructed the National Wealth Fund to invest more in critical minerals, including the huge opportunities in tin and lithium in Cornwall. We need more diversified supply chains for critical minerals and rare earths, and Cornwall gives us a great opportunity to achieve exactly that. I look forward to continuing to work with my hon. Friend and the other Cornwall MPs to ensure that we bring good jobs, paying decent wages, to the region.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
The news that bus travel will be free for children this summer is extremely welcome. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a golden opportunity for East Yorkshire Buses and Transdev to boost summer capacity, ensuring that children from deprived communities in Scarborough are not squeezed off the buses by tourists travelling to the coast for a great British summer?
Rachel Reeves
I would encourage bus companies to use this as an opportunity to increase the services they offer this summer as they cater for more young people on their buses. I am sure that many hon. and right hon. Members will have enjoyed days out at the aquarium in Scarborough and dinner at the Magpie in Whitby, which serves very good fish and chips.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will of course be aware that the best summer attraction is the Northwich piña colada festival, which is enjoyed by boys and girls of all ages.
I thank the Chancellor for her statement. The relief she is providing to the chemicals industry will be welcomed by sector businesses in Mid Cheshire. Their expertise and innovation contribute significantly to both local employment and national resilience. I have previously spoken about the rising input costs and regulatory challenges that these businesses face, and I look forward to hearing more about how she will consult with the industry on eligibility for the funds. Does she agree that the forthcoming summit with the EU presents an opportunity to bear down on regulation further by seeking alignment and mutual recognition on the UK and EU REACH—registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—regulations?
Rachel Reeves
I am slightly worried that someone will make a point of order about the age at which people are allowed to enjoy the Northwich piña colada festival.
Yes, we will be consulting on chemicals and ceramics to ensure that we give businesses the right support, but we do not want a long consultation to get in the way of actually getting the support to those businesses. My hon. Friend made an important point about our trading relationship with our nearest neighbours and trading partners. We are proud to be a Government who have done trade deals with the Republic of Korea, the United States, India and, yesterday, the Gulf countries. However, the biggest prize is a trade deal and improved trading relations with our nearest neighbours and trading partners in the EU, and I hope that we will make progress on that in the next few months.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Chancellor for her statement, but I am obliged to point out that, in fact, Peppa Pig World, on the edge of my constituency, is the finest attraction in the country.
Middle East
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement to update the House on the situation in Iran, the strait of Hormuz and across the wider middle east.
I would first like to use this opportunity to welcome the conclusion of negotiations on the UK-Gulf Co-operation Council free trade agreement yesterday. This is the first trade agreement that the GCC has reached with any G7 country. It is a major milestone for UK partnerships with the six countries of the GCC—Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. As well as the clear economic benefits for all sides, the agreement is a strong signal of our solidarity with our Gulf partners and our long-term commitment to working together for regional security and prosperity. Beyond the FTA, we are working closely with our Gulf partners, and the Foreign Secretary and I were delighted to welcome Foreign Ministers from the United Arab Emirates, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and the GCC secretary-general, in recent days to discuss the situation in the region.
I would also like to take this opportunity to address the shocking footage that many members will have seen yesterday of the treatment of those detained from the flotilla by Israeli Minister Mr Ben-Gvir. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we are appalled and have demanded an explanation from the Israeli Government. The Israeli chargé d’affaires was therefore summoned this morning to the Foreign Office. Our foremost responsibility is the safety and security of British nationals. Our consular staff are in contact with the families who have asked for consular support, and with a number of Members of this House. Our staff in the region are now working to help British nationals get home.
Let me also say that, while yesterday it was Europeans and others who were subjected to humiliating treatment, which has rightly caused international condemnation, we should be clear that Mr Ben-Gvir has been behaving outrageously towards Palestinians day in, day out ever since he became a Minister. That is a disgrace, and it is why the UK led an international group of our partners to impose sanctions on both Mr Ben-Gvir and Mr Smotrich in their personal capacities, as I announced from this Dispatch Box late last year.
Turning to the situation in Palestine, children in Gaza are living amid sewage, parasites and disease. The UN has reported that infestations are now affecting almost 1.5 million people. This suffering is man-made and preventable. As the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, the continued humanitarian restrictions by Israeli authorities are indefensible and they must end. We support the 20-point plan and the hugely welcome release of hostages that it delivered, but the full promise of the 20-point plan has yet to be fully realised. For Gazans, conditions are still dire. The parties must do much more to end the suffering and allow families to rebuild. That also means that Hamas must agree to disarm and decommission their weapons, and the Israel Defence Forces must withdraw from Gaza.
In Brussels, at the ad hoc liaison committee ministerial meeting, which intended to get more aid into Gaza, I spoke with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mustafa and Dr Ali Shaath, the head of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza. I was clear on British support for both of them in their urgent work. We continue to work with partners to meet immediate humanitarian needs and advance long-term peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians through a two-state solution. That is why this Government took the step that we did to recognise the state of Palestine.
In the west bank, as the House will know, settler violence and settlement expansion continue to drive Palestinians from their homes, including over the recess period. The Netanyahu Government are imposing a stranglehold on the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian economy. Yesterday I made a virtual visit to a school in Hebron. My conversations with teachers and pupils there brought into sharp focus the daily challenges facing children, teachers and families across Palestine. Movement restrictions, violence and disruption are barriers to education that no child should have to face. We have introduced sanctions and taken measures in response to the Israeli Government’s actions. I have been clear that we are prepared to take further action and will not hesitate to do so.
Turning to Lebanon, we welcome the cessation of hostilities agreed by the Governments of Lebanon and Israel. We call on all parties to comply with it fully. We have a unique opportunity, through direct dialogue between Israel and Lebanon, to bring lasting peace to both countries, including the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon in line with UN Security Council resolution 1701. I condemn the strikes by Lebanese Hezbollah on communities in northern Israel, which must stop. I saw for myself in Lebanon the impact that UK aid is having in supporting those displaced and those experiencing the consequences of violence. I made a further announcement of £20.5 million during that visit, which makes us one of Lebanon’s largest humanitarian donors. Our Prime Minister has himself set out to President Aoun of Lebanon our support for his Government, and I remain in regular touch with my counterparts.
I turn now to Iran and the strait of Hormuz. On 17 April, the Prime Minister, alongside President Macron, convened 51 countries for an international summit on reopening the strait. We came together as an international community to support freedom of navigation and to protect global economic stability and energy security. But since then, the strait has remained closed and Iran has introduced new structures to exert control that deny vessels the right of transit passage—a breach of international law. The disruption that has caused to global energy security, supply chains, and economic and financial stability must end. As the Foreign Secretary said this week, we face a global food crisis. We cannot risk tens of millions of people going hungry because Iran has hijacked a vital international shipping lane. It is crucial that international law is respected and the strait reopened without the imposition of tolls or permissions by Iran, so that transit can return to pre-war levels.
To do that, we need a lasting and workable settlement to the conflict. The Foreign Secretary and I, along with the rest of the ministerial team, have been working tirelessly to help that happen. We are in close contact with partners from across the globe to support negotiations, including Gulf partners, key regional players such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Egypt, as well as G7 allies. We have been engaging closely with the US. President Trump’s recent remarks that serious negotiations are taking place, are welcome. We share in the President’s absolute conviction that Iran must not have a nuclear weapon.
We are engaging closely with Oman, given its longstanding role supporting shipping through the strait. We are also supporting the vital work of the International Maritime Organisation, and its plan to ensure the safety of seafarers and vessels. We want to see the ceasefire hold, talks continue and a negotiated solution reached for a durable end to this conflict, one that protects the future of the strait and the principles of the law of the sea. We are working urgently to secure the unconditional, unrestricted and immediate reopening of the strait of Hormuz; not a partial reopening, but a full reopening without restrictions or tolls.
On the military side, the multinational mission announced by the Prime Minister and President Macron is gathering momentum. On 12 May, we brought together 38 nations to announce their political support to an independent and strictly defensive mission, and we are now working with military planners from those nations to turn that commitment into reality. In consultation with relevant states and the maritime industry, the mission will support civilian shipping and provide reassurance to commercial shipping operators. We have been clear that operations will only commence in a permissive environment, and in full accordance with international law and national constitutions.
The UK is leading the way on this mission and the Defence Secretary has already announced the UK’s contribution. Together with our partners, the mission will complement ongoing diplomatic engagement and de-escalation efforts, which remain the primary focus, while demonstrating a tangible commitment to the security of international trade. The Government will do all we can to support regional stability in the middle east and an enduring end to the current crisis, including through further concerted international effort in the coming days and weeks. I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The conflict and crisis in the middle east continues to be felt in Britain and overseas. The Government must use all their diplomatic leverage and economic might to pursue a path of peace and stability in the region that protects the interests of Britain, our allies and our partners.
In response to the Minister’s remarks about the situation in Israel, we expect full diplomatic and consular access to be made available to British nationals. The Minister knows that progressing the peace plan in Gaza requires productive engagement from the British Government, not just talk. The Government have no role in the board of peace, so what are the Government doing to bring to the table support for the reconstruction for civilians, the removal of Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure that we know about, and the removal of Hamas from power? Can the Minister tell the House when he or the Foreign Secretary last engaged with the leadership team of the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories and the Civil-Military Coordination Centre on aid entering Gaza for those innocent civilians? Can he confirm to the House the quantum of aid that is going to Gaza through these routes? He himself has said that the situation is desperate and we all need to see more aid going through. He must recognise that having a functioning relationship with the Government of Israel is key to advancing those important humanitarian and peace priorities.
Will the Minister tell the House what action he is taking to support the disarmament of Hezbollah, the terrorist proxy of the Iranian regime? He touched on the situation between Israel and Lebanon. That can only be sustained with the right outcomes when the threats posed by Hezbollah are dealt with. What is his assessment of the situation between Israel and Lebanon?
On Iran, we all want the ceasefire to lead to the right outcome when it comes to ending the conflict and the regional issue we are all faced with. It is vital that the war ends in such a way that works for the British national interest, but also for the western interest and that of our security allies and friends in the middle east who are on the frontline day in, day out, including the UAE which has come under fire again in recent weeks and days. What involvement have the Government had in any discussions and negotiations? Does the Minister agree that the despotic, murderous Iranian regime must de-escalate and act in a constructive way going forward?
On the Conservative Benches, we do not have intelligence on Iran’s exact nuclear programme, its capabilities or what it is doing internally in its own country, but clearly whatever remains of the existing programme must be dismantled. The enriched uranium it currently has must be removed and lessons must be learnt from where Iran exploited the 2015 agreement. Can the Minister confirm that that is the Government’s position? Clarity from the Government on that totemic issue is really important. What is the Government’s position on Iran’s ballistic and military capability?
The Government have talked a great deal about their position on the strait of Hormuz, yet we have not seen any change in the situation, or, to this day, practical measures from the United Kingdom. The strait of Hormuz cannot be treated as a bargaining tool and no country or company should be forced to line the coffers of the despicable regime in Tehran. No country should have the power to shut down a global artery of international commerce and trade. Are the British Government actually putting any pressure at all on Iran to restore freedom of navigation? At the very least, surely, there should be new sanctions to tighten the screws on this appalling regime and a total ban on regime officials who might want to flee to the UK, as well as a concerted effort to go after the regime elites who might attempt to park their wealth in London? We know about their assets and I have raised these points previously with the Minister. Given the sickening recruitment call from the Iranian embassy in recent weeks, why have the Government only summoned the ambassador for a slap on the wrist? Surely the Home Office must now intervene on the proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?
On the long overdue UK-Gulf Cooperation Council free trade agreement, which we welcome, the Minister will know that those negotiations had been under way for many, many years and that it is an important Brexit opportunity. That could be at risk with his ministerial colleagues and the Labour leadership candidates planning to take us back into the EU all over again.
Finally, the Conservatives stand firmly in support of British interests across the middle east, which must be safeguarded. We must use our important influence in the region to effectively protect Britain, but also our allies, from those who want to continue to cause harm to the United Kingdom and to our friends and allies in the middle east.
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for the constructive tone of her questions. Let me turn to the important question of consular access, which she raised at the outset. To be clear to the House, and to all right hon. and hon. Members who have constituents involved, we are seeking from the Israeli authorities both consular access to our nationals, as they would expect, and assurances about their good treatment. We understand that British nationals are expected to be deported back to the UK imminently. We are obviously following that up rapidly. If colleagues across the House have concerns, they are very welcome to raise them with me. We are, of course, as I said in the statement, in direct contact with those families who have approached the Foreign Office directly.
I can reassure the shadow Foreign Secretary that we are heavily engaged in the efforts she describes in relation to Gaza, both on reconstruction and on ensuring that adequate aid gets into Gaza. As I was clear in the statement, the amount of aid getting in remains inadequate and the restrictions remain contrary to the 20-point plan. We are pushing those points with Israeli authorities, as she would expect, and with all those with an interest in Gaza. That includes COGAT and CMCC, which she mentioned, and some of the new institutions formed under the Board of Peace—I saw High Representative Mladenov in Brussels and am in regular contact with him. It also includes the important discussions about the disarmament of Hamas. Similarly, we remain in regular discussions about the importance of demonstrating real progress in Lebanon on the disarmament of Lebanese Hezbollah. I discussed that with the Lebanese Foreign Minister just this week.
I am happy to say more about the sanctions that we have put in place already. I came to this House to announce some sanctions in October 2025. Those were precisely targeted on senior regime assets in the UK, which included significant restrictions on property ownership, which the right hon. Lady is aware of, up to a total value of £140 million. Given the serious nature of the topic, I will resist entering into discussion about Brexit. Whether or not the GCC FTA is long overdue, it was a negotiation started by Members now on the Opposition Benches, and it is a great pleasure for us to conclude it from the Government Benches.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I welcome the statement by the Minister, his reiteration of the Government’s commitment to international law, and that they are prepared to take further action—and will not hesitate to do so—when it comes to Palestine.
It has been almost two years since the International Court of Justice issued its advisory opinion on Israel and the occupied territories, calling on the Government to take action. Since then, settler violence has exploded; just this week, the UN released a report stating in no uncertain terms that the far-right Israeli Government are weaponising settler violence to carry out their stated intention of annexing the west bank.
In February, we were told that the Government wanted to respond to the advisory opinion with
“the rigour and seriousness that it deserves.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 524.]
In March, the Minister again told us that the Government would update the House on their reaction to the ICJ’s advisory opinion. My question is: when will we stop hesitating and take action to ensure that international law is respected?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for her question, which, as she says, she has put to me before. First, it is important to emphasise that we continue to take steps to ensure that international law is adhered to, and that those principles underline our response both to events in Isael-Palestine and across the wider middle east. I know the House is impatient for a fuller answer in relation to the advisory opinion, even though most of the substantive elements of policy I have addressed from the Dispatch Box.
My right hon. Friend is a learned lawyer herself, so will know that there are some horizontal implications from the advisory opinion that go beyond simply the context in the middle east, which is one reason that we have been taking our time. I will endeavour to return to the House with the speed that she demands, which I understand.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I know that many colleagues, like me, are frustrated by the Government’s lack of action to secure progress of a two-state solution. The UK is rightly committed to the disarmament of Hamas and Hezbollah. Those terror groups cannot be allowed to continue destabilising the region, but it is not clear that concrete action is being taken to deliver that. Can the Minister tell me how the Government are co-ordinating international efforts to disarm and disband both groups?
Our influence over proscribed groups is less than over a state we call an ally. That is why Liberal Democrats have been so critical of the Minister’s failure to hold the Israeli Security Cabinet to account for its extremist actions. I was disgusted by the footage of the far-right Minister, Ben-Gvir, degrading detainees from the Global Samud Flotilla. This was after celebrating his birthday with a cake emblazoned with a noose, following the passage of a death penalty law targeting Palestinians. It was right that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office called in the Israeli chargé d'affaires to register our condemnation, but it is far from sufficient.
In the west bank, settler violence and expansion accelerates. At the start of June, tenders will be delivered for the construction in the E1 area, a move that could kill the chance of a contiguous Palestinian state. In Gaza, Israeli forces push forward their yellow line, inch by inch. The entry of aid continues to be impeded by restrictive measures, while the humanitarian catastrophe only worsens and journalists are still blocked from entering. In southern Lebanon, the Israeli Defence Force demolishes Lebanese houses and entire villages—an abhorrent and illegal operation.
Across those issues, the Government’s muted response and dysfunction can be summarised in a single example: the decision to cut the FCDO’s unit for the monitoring of international law breaches across Israel and Palestine. Can the Minister set out what steps the Government will take if the E1 project continues? Will the Minister ban all UK trade with illegal settlements, reverse cuts to the FCDO’s monitoring unit and press the Israeli Government to allow journalists access to Gaza so that they can collect what evidence may remain of war crimes committed there?
Mr Falconer
I want to be clear about British leadership on those questions. As I said in the statement, before all of the events that the hon. Member describes with Mr Ben-Gvir, I had already sanctioned him from the Dispatch Box. We did so in advance of most of our key friends and allies. As I was walking to the Chamber today, I saw that some of our European friends are now considering doing what we did in August of last year. We have taken action both in company and alone, given the significance of events in the region, and we will continue to do so.
Turning to the hon. Member’s important points about some of the Foreign Office structures, I am particularly sensitive to those questions, as a proud former member of the diplomatic service myself. It is important to set out that the world is changing very rapidly, and Foreign Office structures need to change too. Whether it is some of the reports today about the Iran unit, or reports in recent weeks about the international humanitarian law assessment cell, responsibility lies with Ministers to ensure that we are properly served on advice about both Iran and international humanitarian law. I still get that advice.
It is true that there need to be some changes in the structure of the Foreign Office. Since I was in the Foreign Office in 2015, the headcount in the UK—counting both Departments—has increased by 40% over a decade. That is something that we need to address. I spent a great deal of my career overseas, and that is where I would like to see the majority of the diplomatic if possible.
We need to make changes, but to be clear, no unit—not the Iran unit and not the IHL cell—is being targeted. It is my responsibility to ensure that I am properly advised on both of those questions, and I am. What has been referred to is an offer to all staff that they can take part redundancy or voluntary redundancy if they would like to. It was not specific to the Iran unit, which does incredibly important work. I was with it this morning, and I assure the House that the Foreign Secretary and I, and the rest of Government, continue to be excellently served by the officials of the Foreign Office.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
This week we have seen two Israeli Ministers, already sanctioned by this Government, act with impunity—Ben-Gvir assaulting and mocking humanitarian aid activists, and Smotrich saying the Palestinian Authority will “get a war”. Smotrich then ordered the ethnic cleansing, an apartheid act, of the village of Khan al-Ahmar, as part of the illegal development of the E1 corridor. Khan al-Ahmar is a village that many colleagues and I visited, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) and for Ilford North (Wes Streeting).
As co-chair of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group, I ask the Minister, does he agree that our diplomacy and limited-sanctions approach is not working to arrest the ongoing genocide? Will he set out what steps he will take with Government colleagues to escalate pressure, through resourcing the enforcement of criminal law, including the application of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, updating the overseas business risk guidance, and ensuring regulatory bodies are advising their members in relation to the continued illegal trade in settlement goods and services?
Mr Falconer
I know that my hon. Friend is deeply committed to these issues. He raises a number of important points about further steps that the British Government might take. I am not in a position to go beyond what I have said in my statement at the moment, other than to reassure him—particularly in relation to the village that he mentions, which has been visited by a large number of Members, not just on the Government Benches but right across the House—that he is absolutely right to say that further development of the E1 settlement would be hugely damaging to a two-state solution. We will treat any further moves in that direction with the seriousness that they deserve.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
While the trade agreement with the GCC is obviously welcome, why does the Minister think it is possible to reach a trade agreement with the GCC but not to influence its members to play a more positive role in resolving the issues in Yemen, Sudan and elsewhere? They have a key role to play in these disputes. I know that he takes a very specific issue on Yemen. What more can he do to make the United Arab Emirates, for example, play a more positive role there and elsewhere?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to touch briefly on Yemen. Events there remain dire, and we continue to see famine right across the country. The behaviour of the Houthis is not in the interests of the Yemeni people. We have regular and fruitful discussions with all our partners on the GCC about Yemen, Sudan and a whole range of international crises facing us, and will continue to do so.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I am proud to be part of the Labour Government who took the historic decision to recognise the state of Palestine. However, the prospect of a single, unified Palestinian state is now under enormous pressure from the expansion of illegal settlements. Does the Minister agree that anyone who wishes to have a just and lasting peace in the middle east must oppose settlement expansion?
Mr Falconer
It is a great pleasure to answer a question from my hon. Friend, not least because he himself was a distinguished member of the diplomatic service. He is absolutely right.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
My constituent Antonis Vradis is a much-valued and loved professor at the University of St Andrews. He is one of a number of British citizens who have been detained by the Israeli authorities in international waters and taken to Israel for processing. I have been in touch with his family, friends, colleagues and students in recent days, who are all deeply concerned about how he will be treated and when he will be released. The video that Members have already referred to seems to confirm their worst fears. Although I am pleased to see reports of those from the Israeli embassy being summoned to meet the FCDO, and I am grateful for confirmation from the Minister on the expected processing and release, were the actual calls of the Sumud flotilla raised in the meeting with the Israeli chargé d’affaires? We need those aid routes reopened and we need aid to come into Gaza under UN oversight.
Mr Falconer
They were, as they have been in every engagement with the Israeli Government since the signature of the 20-point plan. It is vital that aid gets in at the scale and in the manner envisaged under the 20-point plan.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I commend the Government’s action on Iran; they are doing the right thing where others in this Chamber would have led us down a different and dangerous path.
I agree with the Minister’s words on Palestine and Lebanon, but we are long past the point of words being anything like enough. I served in Hebron as a human rights observer 13 years ago, and what the Minister describes as happening there today was happening then. I have also visited Khan al-Ahmar, which the Israeli Government now wish to wipe off the map. Experts say that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and working to ethnically cleanse the west bank. The Israeli Government have passed a law to hang Palestinians. The Minister is my good and hon. Friend, and he says that the Government are not hesitating to act on this issue, but that is not true. Unfortunately, for far too long, we have been hesitant to take further meaningful action. Where are the comprehensive sanctions on the people committing these human rights violations and holding up aid from entering Gaza? Why do we not yet have a ban on settlement trade? Why have we not yet banned British charities that are funnelling money to settlements?
Mr Falconer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has long been committed to these issues, both during her time in this House and before, and is, I think, the only Member of this House who has been to Gaza since the conflict began. We have taken wave after wave of sanctions action. I want to reassure her that we treat these issues with the seriousness that they deserve, and I am sure I will be returning to the House in due course to update her.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
As I am sure the Minister is realising, we are all a bit fed up with yet another gaslighting statement on Israel and Palestine. There is no ceasefire in Lebanon; we all see the killings—the double and triple-tap killings—on a daily basis. As he himself said, the situation in the west bank is worse than it has ever been, with rampaging gangs kettling Palestinians into the cities where who knows what will happen to him, yet we continue to trade with these people and support them. In Gaza, whether by accident or design, there is no progress whatsoever, and the situation continues to worsen. As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), says, can the Minister not see that when he stands up and says that the Government will not hesitate, we are all thinking that every statement is yet another hesitation in the face of an unfolding picture of savagery across the whole region?
I have one specific question for the Minister on the detainees from the flotilla in particular: if that is what Ben-Gvir and his henchmen are willing to do to British and European citizens on camera, what does he think they are doing to Palestinians off camera?
Mr Falconer
I made that very point in my statement. Of course, we can expect that what Mr Ben-Gvir is willing to do on camera to Europeans and others is just a fraction of what is being done behind closed doors. That is why I made that exact comparison in my statement, and it is why we sanctioned him well before many of our friends and partners.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
I have written to my hon. Friend to inform him that I have a constituency interest in this urgent statement. I welcome what has already been done in bringing the Israelis in this morning to discuss the concerns of both the Government and this House. Will the Minister reassure me that the Government will consider all consular and diplomatic means and access to legal advice to highlight the cruel and dehumanising impact on our constituents, who are there with other Europeans, and ensure justice for not just our constituents, but the Palestinians?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend and former colleague in the Foreign Office for her question. We are pressing for full consular rights—we made that point this morning. We understand from the Israelis that all participants on the flotilla will be deported back to their place of origin. We are urgently following up with the Israeli Government on the detail and manner of that.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Yesterday I raised a point of order on the attack on Khan al-Ahmar and the brutality of the settler forces who are destroying lives there. That is now continuing all across the west bank, where settler violence is destroying Palestinian villages. The genocide in Gaza is continuing; the occupation of the west bank in its totality is continuing. The Minister talks about sanctions against Israel, but where are the sanctions that mean anything? Why are we still supplying arms and weapons? Why are we still supplying security information to Israel? Why are we still occasioning its military attacks against the Palestinian people? If sanctions are to mean anything, they have to do something to prevent Israel’s brutality against the entirety of the Palestinian people, be they in Gaza, in the west bank, or in refugee camps in Lebanon.
Mr Falconer
It is important to be clear that we are providing no bombs and no bullets to the Israeli Government that could be used against Palestinians. That is the decision that this Government took shortly after entry into government, and we continue to stand by it. We have put in place a range of sanctions—we have talked about Mr Ben-Gvir already this afternoon, but there is also Mr Smotrich. I think any reasonable observer would think that sanctions on both a Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Finance as quite far ranging.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The challenge for the Minister is that we have come in for a statement on the middle east, but in the last few weeks alone, we have seen the treatment of detainees being flaunted on television by an Israeli Minister, who clearly has no regard for international human law, and that clearly demands a stronger response. We have seen an ongoing restriction on aid to Gaza, which the Minister himself describes as resulting in children being bitten by rats, and we have seen an ongoing escalation in violence on the west bank. How will we make the current Israeli Government understand—as we also wish the current Iranian regime to understand—that we mean business if the Minister keeps coming to the House to tell us that he will not hesitate, but hesitates to set out what he is actually going to do in response to these incidents?
Mr Falconer
I have sought to set out the action we are taking in relation to Israel and Palestine, both our publicly announced steps and the diplomatic work going on behind the scenes, and I have tried to do the same in relation to Iran. We are in no doubt about the seriousness of the situation, and we will continue to use our full diplomatic weight to try to improve it.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I have a constituent—I am not going to name him today—who has been illegally arrested in international waters, and I agree with the Minister that there should be early, indeed immediate, consular access.
Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to Egypt’s role in peacemaking in the region, particularly in seeking to bring peace and to rebuild Gaza? He mentioned the Israeli chargé d’affaires. May I counsel the Minister gently that, as the agrément progresses, whatever the choice of Israel, it should be a choice that also fits well within the United Kingdom?
I have said this before and I would like to say it again: the life of a Palestinian child is as precious as the life of an Israeli child. That is my undergirding—my starting point—in any discussions about the region. Israel’s national security Minister Ben-Gvir’s behaviour in taunting Gaza peace activists is “despicable”—that is the word of the current US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee. It is very rare that I agree with Governor Huckabee, but on this occasion he is absolutely right.
Finally, criticism of the current Israeli Government over their actions in Gaza and the west bank is not anti-Israel or antisemitic. It is not bigoted or pro-Hamas or pro-Hezbollah. It is about being a robust and candid friend to an important friend and ally. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful contribution, and I am sure he could hear the welcome that his comments received from many on the Labour Back Benches. It is a sign when those who have Israel’s long-term interests closest to their hearts make exactly some of those points. I was glad to see that he also saw the Egyptian Foreign Minister this week and was able to present to him directly the views that he just described, and which I share.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
I welcome this week’s trade agreement with the gulf countries, and I give particular thanks to the Ministers and diplomats who worked hard to deliver it. Given Iran’s belligerence towards its neighbours, however, can the Minister outline what measures we are taking to support gulf states under threat from Iran, and to help de-escalate the situation there?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words, and I am glad for the opportunity to thank the excellent officials in the Foreign Office and the Department for Business and Trade. I am glad to see that the Minister for Trade has just come back into the Chamber; he played an essential role in ensuring that the free trade agreement was concluded, and we are very grateful to him.
To my hon. Friend’s question about the gulf, we work incredibly closely with our gulf partners, and we were very glad to host the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister and the United Arab Emirates’ Foreign Minister this week. We have been working closely with them, as we will continue to do, to ensure that their countries can fully defend themselves against Iran’s reckless attacks.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for his statement, having applied for an urgent question alongside the leader of Plaid Cymru in Westminster, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), and other hon. Members.
One of my constituents, Katy Davidson, was on board the Global Sumud Flotilla and has been illegally arrested and likely subjected to the disgusting and degrading treatment that we have all seen. The Israeli Government flout international law after international law against British citizens. Does the Minister agree that it is time to ban all imports from the illegal settlements in the west bank, finally close the shameful arms export loopholes, and enforce a total arms embargo? What more do war criminals like Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir and others need to do before this Government act? More inaction will leave this Government firmly on the wrong side of history.
Mr Falconer
I think the loophole the hon. Member is referring to is the global supply chain of the F-35. I would welcome a bit more clarity from the Liberal Democrats on how they think that loophole can be closed and the F-35 supply chain maintained. We have discussed these issues in the Chamber a number of times, and they have been pressed in the courts. We continue to stand by our position, and I am sure the Liberal Democrats have thought it through.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Israel has been stepping up illegal land grabs in the occupied west bank, so this week’s threats by Minister Smotrich to forcibly evict the Palestinian community of Khan al-Ahmar is part of a wider pattern of illegal settlement expansion. There is a growing chorus calling for a ban on all settlement goods and on trade with Israel’s illegal settlements. That is what international law demands. What are the Government and the Minister waiting for?
Mr Falconer
I think I addressed those questions earlier, but let me reassure my hon. Friend that we continue to treat the situation with the seriousness that it deserves. I am not going to trail further announcements from the Dispatch Box, but we obviously keep all these matters under close review.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The behaviour of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir brings shame on all of us who consider ourselves to be friends of Israel. Given that the joint comprehensive plan of action was not working and Iran continued to advance its plans for a nuclear weapon, how would the Minister have de-fanged the regime? While he is right to claim some credit for the FTA with the gulf states, will he give credit, too, to his predecessors, who did a lot of the heavy lifting, and will he at least concede that the whole thing would not have been possible if we were still in the European Union?
Mr Falconer
It is very difficult to have one’s predecessor ask in Parliament for credit to be given to his predecessors. In the spirit of the bipartisanship we have shown this afternoon, I acknowledge that talks on the GCC FTA were indeed started under the previous Government—
Mr Falconer
But not finished, indeed. I am sure the Minister for Trade would be keen to emphasise how much heavy lifting has been required over recent months and years to get it over the line.
I will not enter into a hypothetical discussion about the approach that has been taken since 2015 to try to ensure that Iran did not have the degree of highly enriched uranium that it now has, and how that could have been avoided, because that is the situation we now face. We must have a serious diplomatic process that involves a reduction of HEU, which is such a danger not just to the region but to the world, including the UK. We take that with the seriousness that the right hon. Gentleman would expect.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Even as we debate today, Israel continues to commit genocide in Gaza and war crimes across Palestine. It is engaging in illegal land grabs, expanding illegal settlements at unprecedented levels, and illegally abducting and torturing activists simply for trying to deliver aid to starving children. Our duty under international law is not unclear; what is unclear is this Government’s courage to act. All we have heard again today from the Minister—it is becoming somewhat repetitive—is some light condemnation and a vague promise to act at some point in the future. I say this to the Minister very sincerely: even as we debate today, hundreds of Palestinian children are dying and starving. He has a moral and a legal duty to act today. Why will he not?
Mr Falconer
Yesterday, I heard from Palestinian children about the struggles that they face. I have taken steps at every stage to try to ensure that they get help and assistance, and that they can exercise their rights in relation to both their education and the dreadful situation that I described in my statement.
I reject my hon. Friend’s characterisation of my action and that of the Government; we take this with the seriousness that it requires. The condemnation that I have heard from across the House is for a man I have already sanctioned. For the first time in British history, a British Minister has sanctioned Israeli Ministers—and not just junior Ministers but very senior Ministers. We did it deliberately and we did it in advance of our partners. Others are considering repeating our actions. I accept his strength of feeling about the suffering. I do not accept his condemnation that we have done nothing.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Minister recognises that the Netanyahu Government are imposing a stranglehold on any possibility of Palestinian self-determination. The expansion of settlements and the ongoing horror in Gaza are all completely unacceptable. He said:
“I have been clear that we are prepared to take further action and will not hesitate to do so”,
but he comes to the Chamber again and again to hesitate. It is nearly two years since the ICJ judgment. We should have banned settlement trade years ago. It is nearly one year since the sanctions—that he repeatedly referred to today—came in, and what have we seen in that year? Ongoing horror in Gaza, in the west bank and in Lebanon. The time for hesitation is over. When will the Government stop repeatedly hesitating and take action?
Mr Falconer
I would take the point with more force if we were not today seeing our European partners looking to imitate things that we did some considerable time ago. I recognise the depth of feeling, which I share, about the suffering in Palestine and across the region, but it is simply not correct to suggest that the Government have done nothing. We have set out the action we have taken in relation to sanctions, arms exports and a range of other issues.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
Yet again, we have seen a flotilla taking essential aid to Gaza intercepted by Israel. Subsequently, the people who were trying to ensure that aid was delivered were subjected to violence, humiliation and abuse by Ben-Gvir. We should not be surprised, because last month the Israeli military approved the return of reservists involved in the rape of a Palestinian man in July 2024; the detention centre where he was held has become notorious for torture. That follows the dismissal of all charges against the Israeli reservists in March this year when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed the soldiers as “heroic warriors”.
What conversations has the Minister had with Israeli officials about this pattern of glorifying rapists and allowing them to serve in the Israeli military? In his statement, he said that he has been clear that he is
“prepared to take further action”.
What is that action, and when will it come?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for the question. I can hear the frustration from colleagues, which I often hear when I indicate that further action may be possible but will not trail it before the Government take it. That is for long—
Mr Falconer
Well, I have laid out the steps that we have taken so far. Let me turn to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker). She focused in particular on sexual violence, which is about the most appalling of crimes, but if she will permit me, I want to talk a bit about the wider situation in relation to justice and accountability.
British aid workers have been killed in Israeli strikes in Gaza. There is a reasonable expectation from the House, and indeed from across the world, that the Israeli Government and the Israeli justice system will ensure accountability for everyone, but particularly when foreign nationals are involved. We continue to press for further progress in relation to accountability. If the Israeli Government and the Israeli justice system cannot demonstrate that progress, international partners—including the UK—will draw adverse judgments about what that means about Israeli systems.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I almost sympathise with the Minister, because really everybody in the House is exasperated by the lack of action. I represent Dundee, which has been twinned with Nablus on the west bank for the last 45 years. The members of the Dundee-Nablus Twinning Association write to me regularly about positive things that could be done; I will give one example. Given that entirely illegal expansion of the occupied west bank is continuing—there were 34 settlements planned in April alone—the International Court of Justice has directed states not to trade with Israel in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and other European countries such as Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Ireland are taking unilateral steps to ban trade with illegal settlements. The Minister said that he does not want to put things out early, but I think these steps are already under way—why are we not doing this? There is a precedent in UK law and policy for not trading with those who have illegally occupied lands such as Crimea and other illegally occupied parts of Ukraine. Will he please stop making excuses, and outline when the Government will finally uphold their international legal obligations and ban that trade?
Mr Falconer
I am reluctant to pass comment on the deliberations of other legislatures. The hon. Member referred to a number of European Union countries; as I am sure he knows, they have not taken steps on trade, as that is a European Union competence. They are discussing whether they might review their association agreement with Israel, but they have not yet done so. I am not in a competition, but I think any reasonable observer would say that the UK has gone further than the EU on these matters.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for engaging with me and a group of my constituents, young people and cross-party faith leaders on this issue, which continues to come up with my constituents. This week, one of my constituents wrote to me about the flotilla, outlining that peaceful volunteers were seized in international waters, which is an act explicitly prohibited under international law. I therefore welcome the Minister’s condemnation of the Israeli Government’s horrific and disgraceful actions, which we have all seen. We know that staff are working really hard to get the British nationals concerned home. He is correct in saying that we would not have needed the flotilla if Israel was allowing vital humanitarian aid to get through to the Palestinians who are in so much need.
The Minister can see the frustration of hon. Members from across the House, including the right hon. Members for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), and for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), and my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). We want to help the Minister, but we are concerned that although we come back here time and again, we do not see meaningful action that says to the people perpetrating these acts, “Enough is enough.” Every life is valuable, and every life matters; we cannot sit back and watch what is happening with impunity. What more can the Minister do, through his good offices, to say: enough is enough?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for the question, and for welcoming me to her constituency recently to discuss this. We will continue to take every step we can in recognition of the seriousness of the situation.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Minister talked earlier about accountability. My constituent Chris Hill was kidnapped and held in captivity by Israeli forces this week. I raised concerns about his wellbeing in a point of order on Monday. It has taken three days for the Government to come to the House with an update, during which time people legitimately engaged in supplying humanitarian aid and bearing witness to the Israeli Government’s aid blockade in Gaza have been subjected to public humiliation and physical harm. As the Minister said, we know what happens when the doors are not closed; we can only surmise what happens when the doors are closed. Why is the Government’s reaction characterised by hesitancy?
Mr Falconer
I do not accept the characterisation, but I reassure the right hon. Member that it does not take my being stood at the Dispatch Box for us to be taking action on behalf of British nationals in distress overseas. We have been engaged in the cases of all British nationals on the flotilla since we were first alerted.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, and his condemnation of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, in particular for their horrific and appalling treatment of both Europeans and Palestinians, but does he agree that condemnation alone is not sufficient, and that Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich should be handed over to the International Criminal Court for their ongoing genocide in Gaza, and the illegal behaviour that they have demonstrated in many aspects of the war in the middle east? I welcome the Minister’s announcing that Iran should not have nuclear powers, but what gives us the right to be judge and jury on that, if we are not demanding the same from Israel? Does he agree that if no one in the middle east is to hold nuclear power, Israel needs to disarm as well?
Mr Falconer
The UK is a committed member of both the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the Rome statute, and we encourage all states to fully abide by their commitments under both, including in relation to the International Criminal Court.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. According to the United Nations, the number of violent incidents in the west bank caused by illegal settlers increased to a record level last August. It is no coincidence that that is the time of maximum harvests in the area. Will the Government continue to enact sanctions against violent settler movements, and will they also start to ban the import of settlement goods? Will the Minister sanction the politicians who are inciting the violence, and who are responsible for the insidious—disgraceful, in fact—legislation enacted against Palestinians? That includes the introduction of the death penalty, and the petty and short-sighted removal of recognition of academic degrees gained in Palestine, so that people with those degrees cannot work as teachers in Israel, or anywhere else where Israel holds sway.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I remind Members that questions need to be much shorter if we are going to get business done today.
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question. I will not go further on sanctions, for the reasons I have set out, but I am sure she is aware that I and the Foreign Secretary condemned the death penalty measures that she referred to, and we continue to do so.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I am sure my hon. Friend acknowledges the frustration that he can hear from Members from across the whole House. Let me make some suggestions on what he could do to make a difference: take action against companies bidding to build the E1 settlement of 3,400 homes on Palestinian soil; introduce a trade ban on settlement products and services; and suspend trade concessions with Israel. It is clear that criticism alone does not deter the Israeli Government. Those are not just my suggestions; they are the suggestions of 32 leading former ambassadors, who say that the UK can do this. Surely we should be able to act.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Minister to give an example of a really nice, short answer.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s coming to the House this afternoon to provide an update. I believe that he is genuinely concerned about what is happening in Gaza, but the breaches of international law by the Israeli Government continue, and the suffering in Gaza is worsening. I have just one question: will he please give some assurance that we are not still sending arms to Israel, either directly or indirectly, that are then used against the Palestinians?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I remind Members that they can cut straight to the question.
Mr Falconer
I can reassure my hon. Friend that we are selling no bombs and no bullets that could be used against the Palestinians.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will truncate my question. Israel is demonstrating a disinterest in peace and a disregard for international norms. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to put more pressure on our regional partners, with whom we have recently created a trade arrangement, so that we can achieve the outcomes that our unilateral measures are failing to deliver?
Mr Falconer
I absolutely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that we need to work with our partners across the region to have the best effect.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
In Lebanon, the Government’s contribution to the humanitarian response is welcome, but the response does not work when aid workers are being killed; 116 healthcare and rescue personnel have already died. The House is united in condemning these violations of international law, but does the Minister accept that the killing will not stop until there is accountability?
Mr Falconer
There must be accountability. I met members of the Lebanese Red Cross during my recent visit, and was appalled to see further killings of those in their brave number subsequently.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for schools, learning and assessment. I thank the Minister for his virtual visit to a school in Hebron yesterday. What did he hear directly from pupils at that school about their hopes for peace, and what more can we do to ensure that everyone in Palestine and across the world has the right to an education?
Mr Falconer
I heard from girls wanting to be doctors and teachers that they could not get to school in the morning because of restrictions. I heard that their dads could not walk them to school or pick them up at night, and that their education was regularly very significantly disrupted. We need to see progress on all those points.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The Finance Minister of Israel, Smotrich, has alleged that an arrest warrant has been issued for him. He has said that this alleged arrest warrant is “a declaration of war”, and that his first move will be to demolish the village of Khan al-Ahmar. Does my hon. Friend condemn any attempt to put pressure on the International Criminal Court, and does he condemn any attempt to punish the Palestinian people in this way? Does he agree that people should face justice for war crimes?
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Although I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, given all we have heard today, my constituents and I are concerned about the reported closure of the Conflict and Security Monitoring Project. I have seen at first hand how important its work is, and how important the projects are that it undertakes, in order to monitor human rights violations in the region. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the Foreign Office is still able to track the number of potential breaches of international law in Israel, Palestine and Lebanon, and compare that to the number this time last year?
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I declare an interest as a member of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, but I speak for myself. The actions of Minister Gvir, seen on the news last night, are an utter disgrace. As a Jewish MP, I was ashamed, for sometimes it is not easy to be a Jewish MP in this House. Does the Minister agree that the actions of certain Israeli Ministers are not the responsibility of the Anglo-Jewish population, and that there can be no excuse for the terrible epidemic of antisemitism we have seen on British streets? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Mr Falconer
I could not agree more with my hon. Friends. The actions of the Israeli Government are nothing to do with British Jewry. I was so pleased and honoured to be with members of the community on Monday, and made that very point to them. There is no excuse of any kind for antisemitism; Israel has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
That concludes the statement. I thank Members for shortening their questions, so that we could get everybody in.
Humble Address: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Government’s return to the Humble Address on Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. I will speak briefly, because I am conscious of the time.
I have today laid before the House documents that the Government have identified that the House requested in its 24 February 2026 Humble Address, covering the creation of the role of special representative for trade and investment in 2001, the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and the advice of officials and Ministers.s This has not been straightforward. Departments have changed in the intervening years and most documentation was then paper-based. In addition, we have had to be careful about not compromising the police investigation. I am glad to say that we have published 11 documents today, including: the formal appointment proposal, evidence that Ministers were content with the proposal, internal communications, and media and press briefings. The documents speak for themselves, and all hon. Members can read them as they are available in the Vote Office.
I want to assure the House that we have proceeded on the basis of maximum transparency and have only redacted material that bears no relevance to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, such as travel proposals for other members of the royal family or content that would otherwise prejudice international relations. I reiterate that the Government are fully co-operating with Thames Valley police in their investigation into potential misconduct in public office. I commend this statement to the House.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of both the long and short versions of his statement. We support the Humble Address and continue to support full transparency in this matter. I have just a few questions.
I think the Minister said that this is just the start of a full disclosure. Will he share with the House whether there will be further disclosure, or is this the final amount? If there are to be further tranches, will he give the House a clear and final timetable for when the process will be complete? Is the absence of a formal record of due diligence or any vetting process evidence that the Government raised no questions at the time about the appointment? Where, if anywhere, are the documented concerns or challenge from officials or Ministers at the time?
When will the full set of files that this House requested relating to Lord Mandelson’s role, and particularly any advice, correspondence or due diligence connected to his appointment, be released to the House? Finally, the Minister has a large trade envoy programme under his responsibility. What due diligence are the Government doing on appointees to that trade envoy programme, and do those appointees follow a code of conduct that governs their behaviour?
Chris Bryant
Yes, there was a long version but, to be honest, I would basically have been reading out the written ministerial statement that we laid at 10.30 am. Much as I love the sound of my own voice, I am not sure that the House does—I think I have united the House on that—so I thought I would go for the shorter version. The papers speak for themselves.
The hon. Lady asked whether there will be more. I suspect that there will not. I think that this is nearly everything—certainly, this is everything that we have come across so far. Of course, we will keep on looking, notwithstanding the complexity around searching in paper-based systems in multiple Departments. I give the House a guarantee that if there is more to publish, I will come back with more, but I suspect that this may be our last tranche.
The hon. Lady asked whether Ministers raised questions at the time. I have published everything that relates to that period. There is nothing else, I think, to be found. The statements that say Ministers were content is the sum total of the response. I suppose, to some degree, that is understandable, bearing in mind that the palace had made it very clear that Her late Majesty was very keen that Andrew be given a job, that Andrew was keen to take on the job, and that the job had previously been done by another member of the royal family in broadly the same terms.
I am afraid that I cannot answer the question about the Lord Mandelson papers for the simple reason that I have been trying very much to keep this Humble Address separate from the other one. We had a different set of procedures to go through. I briefed Members on the Conservative Front Bench, as I did Members on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, earlier this week, when they indicated that they would be perfectly happy if we did not make a statement or respond to an urgent question of any kind, because the papers speak for themselves.
On trade envoys, the hon. Lady makes a perfectly legitimate point. I made the point the last time around that although I understand the connection people make between the role that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor played and that of modern trade envoys, they are actually very different, partly because of the royal nature of Andrew’s role in the past, but also because all trade envoys whom we appoint at the moment are Members of either this House or the House of Lords. They are not only bound by the code of conduct of this House or the other, but bound in exactly the same way as any Minister would be in terms of the code that is expected of them. We make all that extremely clear to trade envoys. Since I have been appointed, I have gathered the trade envoys together on two or three occasions, and whenever a new one is appointed, I sit with them and go through the details.
Chris Bryant
I hear the right hon. Member’s chuntering, in his regular application process to be made a trade envoy. I am still considering his proposal.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Minister has so far given us two reasons why the statement he has just given at the Dispatch Box is different from the one that was sent, embargoed, an hour ago. If it is the same as the written statement, why was it sent out as embargoed? I should also say, dare I say it, that transparency should not be trumped by time limits in relation to the business of this House.
It has been three months since the House passed the Liberal Democrat Humble Address to release the files showing how and why Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed as a UK special representative for trade and investment, and until today the Government have published only one written statement, which told us very little. The Minister has not previously come to the Dispatch Box at all; I note the difference from the response to the Humble Address, in the name of the official Opposition, relating to Peter Mandelson.
The files that we have seen show that there was no vetting by the Government and that, even then, no questions appear to have been asked. The lack of documentation provided is itself concerning, as is the time taken to get this far. The Minister has said that he is not sure whether there are more documents. When will he be sure, and when will he release any remaining documents? The documents we do have clearly show concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest. It started with golf, but we all know what came next. Why did that not lead to any scrutiny or vetting, not just at the start but at any stage during Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s tenure as an envoy? The guardrails were not in place. The appointment came into effect more than a year after Ministers said that they were happy for it to happen, and the files also show that the then Prime Minister had been aware from the start and did nothing. There was time for the warning signs to be taken seriously. Why were no questions asked at all in that period?
In his written statement to the House today, the Minister excused the lack of vetting and oversight because Andrew was a royal replacing a royal. Does he agree that safeguards must be put in place for any future such appointments? Can he tell the House whether officials or Ministers were aware at the time of Andrew’s connection to Jeffrey Epstein, which had already been established when the appointment was made? Was this connection monitored? Finally, can the Minister confirm, given their absence from this release, that there are no documents pertaining to communications with Peter Mandelson about the appointment?
Chris Bryant
If I am honest, I am bit miffed by the attitude of Liberal Democrat Front Benchers, because I have regularly updated them ever since the Humble Address was passed. I have been as open as possible with them, and they have privately indicated to me, regularly, that they were perfectly happy with the progress we were making.
I thought there would be some difficulties for us to overcome, in particular the connection between the Humble Address and the police investigation—obviously, we do not want to do anything that might imperil the investigation. I think all hon. Members would agree that, if the police were to find evidence and felt that the Crown Prosecution Service should take forward charges of misconduct in public office, we would all support the prosecuting authorities in doing their duty. I explained all that to the hon. Lady’s hon. Friends, who indicated that they were perfectly happy with that process. I had thought that the police might ask us not to publish some of the material; in fact, they have been very co-operative and have allowed us to publish everything.
We have made some minor redactions, as I have said. Some of those relate to material that has absolutely nothing to do with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. For instance, where there is talk about the Royal Visits Committee or visits by other members of the royal family, we have redacted that material, as we have material where there are possibilities that we might upset our international allies.
The hon. Lady asked whether any more papers will be coming along. At this point, I am not aware of any. As I said earlier, I suspect that this is the sum total of what we have. She quite rightly makes the point— I think a lot of people are surprised—that, as I think we have known for some time, no vetting was done. It has been standard not to vet members of the royal family. She asked me whether we would vet anybody else who was appointed to such a role. We have no intention of appointing anybody to such a role in the future, but of course we are grateful for the support that the royal family regularly provides with international visits around the world. I think everybody, including those who disagreed with it, has accepted that His Majesty’s visit to the United States of America was a great success. I do not think we should be vetting His Majesty the King, and I do not think the hon. Lady is suggesting that either; I think she was just trying to get grumpy with me.
I have tried to answer all the hon. Lady’s questions. I reassure her that, honestly, we have moved at pace, as fast as we can. It is difficult to find some of the paperwork because it is literally paperwork, and the Government Departments have changed multiple times in the intervening years, but we have moved as fast as we can.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
May I just say for the record that I have not made any formal application to be a trade and investment envoy? I previously was a trade and investment envoy under Prime Minister Theresa May, who is now in another place. What I am concerned about is the fact that this particular programme is not cross-party. It was set up by David Cameron, now Lord Cameron, and its strength, I felt, was in the fact that it was cross-party rather than full of mostly Labour Members and Labour peers. I just wanted to put that on the record.
The Minister references the amount of paper-based documentation, but of course, we have not all gone to the cloud overnight. If he goes down to the National Archives at Kew, he will find a lot of paper records going back quite a long time, not just from the last 20 or so years.
On a more substantive point, I want to ask the Minister about the role of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. He will know, as a former Foreign Office Minister, that diplomatic telegrams are sent by embassies—often by ambassadors—back to London, and possibly even to the royal household. I wonder whether any of those have been disclosed in the papers, which I have not had time to read today because they have only just been laid.
Finally, have any of those diptels, or responses to them, made their way to the office of senior officials in the royal household? Did they know anything about the activities of the former Prince Andrew? Who did they speak to about it, and what action, if any, was taken?
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman says he has not applied for a post as a trade envoy. I do not want to show the House the text messages he sent me, but anyway, he makes a fair point. I want to make sure that the trade envoy programme is really effective and delivers around the world. I was with Lord Alderdice the other day, who is not a member of the Labour party, at the London stock exchange when the Uzbek national investment fund was being listed in the UK. His intervention in Uzbekistan has been enormously important in taking forward some of these investments into the UK and listings at the LSE. Indeed, we could see a further investment at the LSE, which would be the biggest ever listing here. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who is a Conservative Member, is also a trade envoy and does a good job.
I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman’s question about diptels. As I said earlier, we are trawling through everything we can to see whether there is anything else that is of relevance under the Humble Address terms. So far, we have published everything we have that is relevant. I can guarantee the House that if there is anything more, we will of course come forward.
I was also asked by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) whether there was any monitoring of the relationship between Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein. I did not answer that question; I apologise. I have seen absolutely nothing to that effect. If I had, I would have published it.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
May I first make it clear that I have no desire to be a trade envoy? Aberdeen is the best place on earth and I do not want to be anywhere else if I can help it.
The Minister of State said in his statement that people are still looking. Will he advise us if they stop looking? I appreciate that they might currently be actively looking because there may be boxes that they have not gone through, but will he advise us when there is definitely an end to this, unless somebody accidentally comes across something?
My second question relates to future trade envoys. I am not sure how much the process for appointing them has changed, but can he give us a reassurance that the process is much better than it used to be? If it is not, can he give us a reassurance that he will look at that, so that we can all feel comfortable that our trade envoys are the right people, or certainly not the wrong people, to be doing that job?
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the hon. Lady that she does not want to be a trade envoy. I often feel as if I am a trade envoy for Scotland, because we are often securing good deals, as we just have with the Gulf Co-operation Council, and in India. We have just done remarkably well—
Chris Bryant
I see the right hon. Lady representing Plaid Cymru shaking her head; we have just done really well for Welsh lamb farmers in the GCC deal in the Gulf.
Will I come back to the House when we stop looking? I do not think there will be any more material. Obviously, I will come back if there is more material. I will probably make a written ministerial statement rather than an oral statement just to say that we have ceased the process.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) asked about due diligence. It is a significant point; of course we do due diligence before anybody is appointed as a trade envoy under the present scheme, which, as I say, is very different from what happened in relation to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. I should also say that the Business and Trade Committee is currently doing an inquiry into some of these issues. I am very happy to talk about the present trade envoy programme with the Committee, but there are delicacies about what we can say about the past in case the police investigation could be compromised. I am very keen not to do that, and I am glad that the police have been so helpful in enabling us to publish everything that we can today.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
A Downing Street spokesperson is currently saying that a further tranche of files relating to the appointment are to be published at a future date, which is different from what the Minister is saying at the Dispatch Box. Perhaps he could clarify.
Chris Bryant
To be absolutely clear, I think this is probably the last tranche of material that we have. If I had more to publish, I would have published it today; I have not got anything more to publish. I reserve the right to publish more if there is more stuff, but to some degree we are entering into speculation. As I say, if there is more, we will publish it. All along I have instructed officials to work as fast and to be as transparent as we can. That is precisely what we will do, but as I say, at the moment, there is no more to publish. By the way, Madam Deputy Speaker, we got a great GCC deal with the Gulf yesterday.
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 68 / Noes: 242 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
The reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
For generations, the steel industry has stood at the very heart of our national story. From the furnaces of Sheffield to the docks of Port Talbot, from Scunthorpe to Redcar, steel forged not only the railways, ships, bridges and factories that powered the industrial revolution, it built communities, livelihoods and a sense of pride in Britain. Steel made in Britain built our Navy, helped to defend our freedoms in times of war and laid the foundations for modern infrastructure right around the world. When people speak of the United Kingdom becoming a great industrial nation, they speak of the skill, resilience and determination of the steelworkers who helped to shape that destiny by the fruits of their labour.
The decline of the steel industry destroyed jobs, diminished skills and damaged communities, but it never, ever diluted the pride, resilience and determination of those working people. Today, this Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill repays, in part, the debt that we owe Britain’s steel communities. Steel is integral to the key growth-driving sectors of our industrial strategy: to advanced manufacturing and the car industry; to clean energy, in our wind turbines and our grid infrastructure; and to security and defence, in fighter jets, battleships and submarines. It is essential to this Government’s growth mission to create a strong, resilient economy delivering for working people. That is why Britain’s steel sector accounts for thousands of jobs, right across the country.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
For the reasons that the Secretary of State has mentioned, the nationalisation of the steel industry is a noble endeavour, with which many of us from across the House will agree, but there are people in Wales pointing to the fact that, despite there being legislation, Port Talbot has lost thousands of jobs. Does he recognise the feelings that remain in Wales because the option of nationalisation by this Government was not on the table at the time?
Peter Kyle
As the right hon. Lady knows, I have been to Port Talbot and I have launched a steel strategy since this Government came into office. The vast majority of the decline that she describes happened under the previous Administration. We are cleaning up the mess on a whole bunch of fronts and in different areas of our public life. This Government have invested £500 million into that plant, and we have launched a steel strategy that I believe will give it a fruitful and prosperous future. We are doing what it takes to be the partner needed in these times.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The nationalisation of the steel industry explicitly links our domestic and international policies. It demonstrates the need for us to go out and champion our steel sector by filling its order books, as we have been able to do because of the wonderful trade deal created with Nigeria, which is expanding its ports and railways, that has been achieved by this Government. That is the type of work that I am doing in southern Africa, and it is the type of work that we should all be going out to do on behalf of our country and our growth agenda.
Peter Kyle
The work that my hon. Friend is doing is incredibly important to fulfilling the mission, and the possibility that the British steel sector has in the 2020s and going forward. That is the purpose of having a strategy where we invest and modernise, and then at times we need to protect as well. These are the things that we are doing to deliver a long-term, sustainable and global future for Britain’s steel industry.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I have two quick questions for the Secretary of State. First, if the Bill passes, how are the global competitors to British forged steel likely to react? Secondly, if our steel becomes more expensive than the global market norm, what choice will manufacturers in the UK be faced with about where to base their manufacturing?
Peter Kyle
I am not sure why the right hon. Gentleman would think that British steel would be more expensive as a result, but let us take one step back: if we did not protect, there would be no steel sector to export in the first place. That is why I took the decision to invest, to modernise and to protect where needed. If this Government had continued on the same trajectory that we inherited from the previous Government, I would fear for any steelworks at all being capable to export, let alone producing domestic supply as well. This is the future that we are now creating.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
Peter Kyle
I am going to make some progress because the debate has been cut short. I have taken a few interventions and I am sure I will find time for the right hon. Gentleman to intervene later in my opening remarks, but first let me make a bit of progress.
I have pledged to ensure that Britain retains its capacity and capability to manufacture steel. It is a commitment that I have made to hon. Members in this House and it is my commitment to the steel communities of this country. This House acted last year to support British Steel, which is one of the country’s most vital steel firms. We recalled Parliament to pass the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 so that the company’s blast furnaces could remain lit and its workforce could remain protected. I am grateful to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for his leadership during that time, and I am grateful to the House for supporting that vital piece of legislation.
When we intervened then, we were certain that there was a future for British Steel. Our determination now is that the future may best be served by full public ownership in the national interest, not because of ideology, but because of practical pragmatism. Public ownership would allow us to explore future opportunities for the company and to retain its vital resource as a critical piece of our national infrastructure—one that is essential to our economic resilience. I want British Steel to play its part in driving up our domestic steel production to ensure that 50% of the steel used in this country is made in this country.
Dr Murrison
In keeping open the options that the Secretary of State hints at, has he had any discussions with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence? At least for the foreseeable future, there will always be a need for virgin steel for certain defence applications.
Peter Kyle
The right hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. This Government are determined to make, produce and use more steel from the British sector in lots of different areas of the economy, and we want to ensure that we are using Government spending and procurement in driving up steel production in the UK.
I had the privilege to visit the Agratas gigafactory in Somerset. It is in a different sector, but it is using 231 tonnes of British steel in its production. That is using an amount of Government investment as well, so it has Government investment and private sector investment and is using British steel. That shows that when we align our priorities, we can drive up demand for British steel.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I want to ask the Secretary of State about the breadth of the Bill. Clause 1 makes it clear that a “steel undertaking” includes those businesses that have the “manufacture or processing” of iron or steel as part of their operations. Is there any lower threshold to that? Is a business that has only 1% of its operations in iron or steel liable to nationalisation under the Bill?
Under clause 2, the Secretary of State is entitled to determine the public interest and can nationalise if it would support
“the economy of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom.”
I have the same question: is there any lower threshold? Would the interests of one town where a steel facility is located be sufficient to justify the nationalisation of an entire company?
Peter Kyle
The public value test is a high test, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that that is the case on seeing and reading the legislation, as he has done.
I have set the bar high enough that this power would be triggered only in extraordinary circumstances. These are things that we can test in Committee in the coming days—I believe that will be next week. [Interruption.] It will be in the next sitting week, when we return from recess. Do not worry; we are not recalling Parliament again. I will address this matter a bit more in my speech. This power will not be used routinely; it is a specific power, and the test for it will be high.
Peter Kyle
I will make some progress.
To that end, we began negotiations in good faith with Jingye, the owner of British Steel, to see if a commercial sale was viable, but that did not prove to be possible. We could not agree terms that would have safeguarded simultaneously the integrity of the business and the interests of the taxpayer. That is why the Prime Minister announced the Government’s intention to bring British Steel into public ownership, subject to the public interest test being met at the time of that decision. That is why we need to pass the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill now, to give us the power to make that possible.
Let me be clear to the House. In answer to the question from the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), the powers given to the Government by the legislation cannot be exercised without due caution and proper care. These powers are bold, but they are not boundless. They can be used only where there is a clear public interest and where they will be needed to safeguard British steelmaking capability. The Bill does not nationalise British Steel in and of itself, but it grants the Government powers to do so if considered necessary. That is the scope of the legislation we are debating today.
Sir Jeremy Wright
The Secretary of State is being generous. I take him at his word as I do not think that he intends to use this legislation otherwise than appropriately. However, there is an important point to be made about the language in the Bill as it stands. As he knows, the public interest test is defined in certain ways in clause 2, which states that the test “is not limited to” the grounds listed, so there could be other grounds on which the public interest might be met. I have already pointed out one aspect in which the public interest test is relatively broad. I invite the Secretary of State to look again at the public interest test to make sure that we do not just rely on his word, which I do, but that we are confident that succeeding Secretaries of State cannot misuse this power to nationalise too broadly.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s intervention. I knew when I was bringing these powers in and working through the legislation that they would be an important part of the Bill and rightly the subject of scrutiny. There will be significant time in Committee of the whole House for Members to scrutinise the legislation. We are modelling this Bill on the Banking Act 2009, which has worked effectively. In that circumstance, the powers were used during the financial crisis in extremis, and those powers, on which we are modelling this Bill, have not been used irresponsibly since. I have been clear about my expected use of these powers, and the bar set in the legislation meets my expectations, including limiting my ability to use these powers in ways that would cause concern for Members.
For too long, the steel sector in this country has been left to fend for itself, abandoned by Government, demoralised, starved of resources and the victim of international market distortions. Crude steel production has declined by more than 50% in the past decade. Capabilities have been reduced, and communities have been let down. Previous Governments have been too reactive and not proactive. This Government will not repeat the errors of the past. We are building the future for British Steel. While the industry faces challenges today, we will do everything we can to help it modernise and grow. This legislation allows us to apply that policy to this industry. We recognise that securing the long-term future of the UK steel sector relies on public and private investment for modernisation, so that the UK can become a global leader in clean green steel, electric arc furnaces and decarbonised steel production.
We recognise that blast furnace production will need to continue in the immediate future and that a managed transition is vital to maintaining supply. We need this legislation to raise resilience, to protect businesses up and down the country that depend on Britain’s steel, to defend the workforce at British Steel and to safeguard the communities built on British steel. The significance of steel is not simply a matter of history; it is a matter of our national future. In an uncertain world, the ability to make steel remains a strategic national asset. Steel is essential for our transport networks, our energy security, our housing and our transition to a greener economy. That is why supporting the British steel industry is about more than protecting jobs, important though they are. Supporting British Steel—
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Peter Kyle
I will give way in just a moment. Supporting British Steel is about more than national pride, although we are proud of the steelworkers who help build it. Nationalising British Steel is about hope and faith in the future.
Warinder Juss
I did not mean to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but I thought this was an appropriate time to intervene. As a member of the GMB trade union executive council, I was pleased to see my union welcome the Government’s move to nationalise British Steel, which it described as a
“decisive and timely intervention by the Government which will protect one of the UK’s most important industries.”
That sentiment has been echoed throughout the trade union movement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must engage with the trade unions throughout this process and utilise their expertise in this area to secure the long-term future of British Steel?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. Workers in steel production facilities have played a really important role in shaping our policies, helping us constructively to find a way through. Members on both sides of the House were prodding me to release the steel strategy more swiftly, but there were so many moving parts at the time of developing it. There were global forces at work, different ownership models and different production facilities, with different challenges, in different parts of the steel community. I will say this again: the unions played a highly constructive role. I pay tribute to GMB, Community and others for helping us to design our policies and find a way through some really challenging strategic issues.
Together with our measures on automotives, digital technology, the life sciences, the defence industry, clean energy, ceramics and chemicals—on which we made announcements today—and advanced manufacturing, taking the power to make possible the nationalisation of British Steel heralds the new dawn of an age of British industrialisation.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Given that no UK steel producers produce the specialist grades of steel used by precision engineers such as Gibbs Gears in Stoke Mandeville, in my constituency, which supplies components for the aerospace and defence sectors, what is in this Bill for them? All they can see are incoming tariffs on the steel that they necessarily have to import because nobody makes it here.
Peter Kyle
The hon. Gentleman will know that when I took the difficult decision to introduce measures, I did so for products that compete directly with the products that we are capable of making domestically. Speciality Steel UK is going through an administration process at the moment, but when that is complete and the company is up and running properly, I need to make sure that its products and services are protected and viable domestically. Given the world in which we are living, where national resilience is so important to our nation and the economy in a way that it simply has not been for decades, the decisions that I am making to ensure that British steel production is viable and sustainable are of paramount importance.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
Peter Kyle
I am going to make a bit more progress.
While the Government are working alongside businesses to invest in, modernise and protect Britain’s manufacturing base, the amendment would deny the Bill its Second Reading. The very people who did so much to damage the steel industry in government are now trying to do so again in opposition—then as tragedy, and now as farce. As such, the House should reject the amendment. Britain’s steel industry needs an activist, interventionist Government, and it needs determination, decisiveness and delivery. It does not need a Government who have their hands tied, their room for manoeuvre blocked and their ability to act denied. Britain must have a strong domestic steel industry—now and into the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. A lot of Members with a direct constituency interest rightly want to put their remarks on the record. There will be an immediate six-minute time limit for Back-Bench speeches, but we will very swiftly move to three minutes to enable as many Members as possible to speak on this important topic. I call the shadow Minister.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill because it believes that politicians should not be running businesses; because expropriating businesses sets a precedent that will deter inward investment into other UK businesses; because the Bill exposes taxpayers to unlimited liabilities; because the powers that the Bill confers on Ministers are far wider in scope than would be required for its stated purpose; and because it fails to contain any measures that would address the issues which are currently making domestic production of steel unprofitable such as higher employment costs and policies in pursuit of net zero, such as carbon taxes and associated regulations and levies.”
Conservatives will never be neutral about the deindustrialisation of our country, but we do not believe that politicians or Whitehall bureaucrats should run businesses. Instead, we need a Government who do fewer things better, such as defending our nation, securing energy supplies and restoring the nation’s finances. We believe in British steelmaking and the importance of sovereign capabilities—not just steelworks, but the steel supply chain, critical minerals and many defence- related technologies—but that is not what this Bill does. This Bill is the Government’s attempt to break out of a mess we warned one year ago they were getting themselves into, and it fails even in the Government’s own terms. It does not keep the blast furnaces open and it does not guarantee that military needs can be met domestically.
Let us be clear what we are doing today. We are being asked to nationalise British Steel, and put the British taxpayer permanently on the hook for a business that this Government had every chance to keep in private hands, but chose not to. They ignored plans to open electric arc furnaces on Teesside, and chose to let the situation deteriorate until the only option left was the one that suited their ideology. The Prime Minister went kowtowing to China, gave it an embassy spy base and, instead of a deal on Jingye, came back with a box of fortune cookies with only a bill for the taxpayer to be found inside.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I just wish to seek some clarity from the hon. Gentleman. Is the Conservatives’ position that they would prefer British Steel in the hands of the Chinese than the British?
Andrew Griffith
That was a waste of an intervention. If the hon. Member lets me continue, I will explain exactly what the Conservative plan is for British Steel, and it is a better plan and a more sustainable plan than we have heard from the Secretary of State today. This Government did not inherit—
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
As the shadow Minister was unable to respond to the previous intervention, would he like to explain why the Conservative Government sold British Steel to the Chinese in 2019 against my specific advice?
Andrew Griffith
When it suits the hon. Gentleman, he claims to be a fan of the late Margaret Thatcher, but he seems to have forgotten that most of her time in office was spent untangling the mess of Labour’s past nationalisations. Unlike him, she did not bend with the wind or find herself in the same Lobby as a Government who have hiked taxes to record highs, driven wealth offshore and drowned business in red tape.
Members would like to know what our plan is, and our plan is to address the cause, not the symptoms. [Interruption.] Labour Members would do well to listen to this, and we might have more of a steel industry left if they do. We cannot have an industrial policy for steel without an energy policy for industry. Britain has the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, and every choice the Government are making has pushed those prices further up. This week, they voted against new licences in the North sea, choosing to import from Norway gas that could be drilled here, at a cost of 200,000 jobs and £12 billion in tax revenue.
The Secretary of State knows this and his Back Benchers know this, but the Prime Minister is too weak to stand up to his windmill-fetishist Energy Secretary. We have offered an alternative. Our cheap plan would slash energy prices and improve energy security. Why would the Government not want that? If they were genuinely interested in securing the future of steelmaking, as well as those of many other industries, they could have come here today and adopted that plan. Instead, this Bill is an indictment—
Andrew Griffith
I will happily give way, as long as the hon. Member is going to talk about our cheap energy plan.
Andrew Griffith
The only way we are going to have a sustainable steelmaking industry in this country, and the same applies to the manufacturing sector and our defence supply chain, is lower energy costs. That is the only sustainable way.
Andrew Griffith
We have a plan for sustainable steelmaking. The Government do not have a plan for sustainable steelmaking. Ministers themselves have admitted that the blast furnaces in Scunthorpe will close. They are reverting to a plan that already exists.
The Bill is an indictment of this Government’s modus operandi—a spray and pray Government who write blank cheques from the taxpayer and call that a strategy. We are doomed to relearn the hard lessons of the 1970s: if it moves, tax the hell out of it; when it stops moving, subsidise it. It was socialist idol Tony Benn who wanted to nationalise everything that moved, and one result that the Government may care to look at was the state-owned Kirkby Manufacturing and Engineering company, which simultaneously made car radiators and orange juice. When the Government last ran British Steel in the late 1970s, the company’s losses hit £1.3 billion a year. Since Labour’s botched nationalisation of just a year ago, it has already spent £500 million of taxpayers’ money—£1.3 million a day.
Where is the Government’s published, costed and scrutinised plan for what nationalised British Steel will look like in five years’ time, or even in one year’s time? I have read the Bill and there is not one. There is no provision for a proper impact assessment before the sweeping powers are used. There is no acknowledgment of the monumental decommissioning liabilities—in the billions—that will sit on the Treasury’s balance sheet. There is a sunset clause, but it can be extended indefinitely by Ministers—a sunset where the sun never sets.
The House deserves better than this. We deserve a Bill with a proper thought-through plan. The Government have turned a negotiation into a crisis, a crisis into an emergency and an emergency into this nationalisation. We know that Ministers, however well-meaning, will be unable to resist using their power to tilt the playing field in favour of steel businesses that they themselves own: no longer the referee, they will be on the pitch wearing one of the teams’ shirts. There is no better example of that than their plans on steel tariffs.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
What does the shadow Minister make of tilting the balance in favour of communities in Redcar and across Teesside, when his Government sat on their hands and saw the blast furnace go to the wall? Is that his definition of sustainability—to let those businesses and communities collapse?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Member would be better addressing that question to his own Ministers, who, notwithstanding the nationalisation, acknowledged that the blast furnaces will cease—they will go dark and close on this Government’s watch. The Bill does not protect blast furnaces and he should invite the Minister, when he winds up, to talk about the future there. There was a plan to invest in British Steel in Redcar to secure those jobs, but the Government pulled the chain—
Andrew Griffith
There was absolutely a plan before the election to open arc furnaces in Redcar—that was absolutely case—and to move Scunthorpe operations to Redcar.
I asked the Secretary of State to address the issue of tariffs. There is no better example of the folly of these plans—
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Will the shadow Minister give way?
Andrew Griffith
No, I am going to make some progress on tariffs. A number of hon. Members have raised this very important issue, shedding light on the way that the Government are tilting the playing field on tariffs. Under this Government, we have already seen a flurry of Trump-style tariffs—doubling steel tariffs and halving quotas—that elevate the interests of one firm over the automotive, aerospace, advanced manufacturing and defence sectors. Firms involved in the supply chains of AUKUS and Tempest are now looking at shifting tooling and jobs to other countries, instead of manufacturing components here.
Saqib Bhatti
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way; he is making an excellent speech. Specifically on tariffs, does he agree that the approach is illogical? Reducing quotas will decrease the supply, and increasing the tariffs will increase the cost. I listened to the Secretary of State very closely. He talked about getting domestic production here, but by the time that happens, most of the businesses will have gone to the wall. Does my hon. Friend agree that the approach is illogical?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point, and that point has been made by other hon. Members and across the manufacturing industry. We are at risk of losing critical parts of our defence, aerospace and automotive supply chains.
Kit Malthouse
Does my hon. Friend agree that although the Bill appears to be an attempt at providing a simple solution for one industry, we need to be careful what we wish for? A huge amount of steel is used in the car industry—I do not know if Members have seen the number of Chinese cars appearing on our streets. If we have elevated and protected steel markets in the UK, at a time when we have a massive global oversupply of steel, we will not stand a chance of competing with the finished goods that use all that cheap oversupply. We will end up subsidising the car industry like we did back in the 1970s. That would have a particular impact in my constituency, where firms such as Stannah Stairlifts use steel in advanced manufacturing, and face having no choice but to consider offshoring their production.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) have made exactly the right point: we need a more thoughtful approach.
I have written to the Secretary of State, as have many of my colleagues, asking that the tariffs are delayed for six months while the Department does more work; that the Government investigate more specialist grades of steel; that within the broader tariff buckets, they look again at the steel alloys used in the defence, aerospace and automotive sectors that are simply not made here today, because there are perhaps unintended consequences of the tariffs; that they be more forensic in their approach; and that they bring forward the measures the Conservatives have talked about on industrial energy costs, which are damaging not just the steel industry but many other industries’ and our basis on which to compete.
There is no point securing what the Secretary of State thinks is in the national interest for one steel manufacturer in a particular location if the foreseeable consequence, unintended or otherwise, is to ship offshore large parts of our high-end automotive manufacturing, engineering and defence industries, so that they are lost forever and conducted in other countries. I have raised that serious point with the Minister, and I ask him to address it.
Luke Myer
I am afraid that I want to give the hon. Member another chance to answer the question from my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), which was not about the prospect of a future EAF on Teesside—a prospect that I support but that the Leader of the Opposition confirmed from the Dispatch Box was not as advanced as the hon. Member claims. My hon. Friend’s question was about the crash closure of the blast furnace at Redcar in 2015, which ripped 3,000 jobs out of our region. What message does the hon. Member have for the people of Redcar, whose Government he was in when that happened?
Andrew Griffith
I am afraid that the hon. Member ought to look again at the calendar, because I was not only not in Government but not in this House—I was getting on in business trying to help grow the British economy. When the same issue arose in Port Talbot, it was the previous Government—indeed, my right hon. Friend who is now the Leader of the Opposition—who took action and were willing to back the private sector owner to secure the future of steelmaking in Wales. That was what we did in Government.
We are talking about the issue of tariffs because it is intrinsically related to the Government and the taxpayer taking ownership of one participant in a complex industry supply chain. I know that on the Government Benches, some of the truths that we share today may not be immediately popular, but past Governments failed because they were happy to do what was popular in the moment, without looking at the long-term consequences. The truth is that we should not be nationalising British Steel, and certainly not with the Bill in this form—my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East made the point about the sweeping nature of the clauses, whatever we think about the Secretary of State’s intentions.
We have demonstrated in the past, and we will again, that there are other options, such as partnering with the private sector and negotiating a better deal. The Conservatives would fix the cause, not the symptoms; we would save steelmaking in this country not through state quick fixes, but by fixing the state itself. We would not pit industries against each other, as Labour is now doing, and we would not sit idly by for a rerun of the 1970s horror show that Labour made Britain sit through the last time around.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With a six-minute time limit, I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I will be very quick, because I know that colleagues are keen to get in. I am going to speak against the amendment and in support of the Bill for the simple reason that a speech such as the one we have just heard from the shadow Minister may have just about cut the mustard five or six years ago, but it certainly does not work today in a world of weaponised interdependence. It does not work in a world where President Trump is back in the White House or where President Xi is prosecuting the sixth five-year plan, as he is. The critical point in this debate, which the Secretary of State made very well, is that we must have a sovereign capability to make steel. In today’s world, we cannot afford to have a critical steelmaker like British Steel in the hands of a Chinese firm; we cannot, as Ronald Reagan once said, be innocents abroad in a world that is frankly no longer innocent.
Regardless of those remarks, there are a couple of areas where I think the shadow Minister made some important points. I want to stress that although the Secretary of State is proposing some perhaps welcome statism, he must not forget the statecraft that is needed to make a success of this Bill. There are six areas I would like him to respond to very briefly, and I hope we will be able to strike a cross-party consensus around them.
First, it is important that the Secretary of State wills the means and not simply the ends. We have, as the shadow Minister said, already spent a lot of money on this. The transition to electric arc furnaces that the Secretary of State is proposing is not cheap—it is extremely expensive. I think we are hoping that a lot of that money will come from the National Wealth Fund, but he does not control the National Wealth Fund or the allocations that it makes. The National Wealth Fund has not said anything about guaranteeing money for the kinds of ends that the Secretary of State has in mind, and the Government have declined to explain what will happen if steel projects are not funded by the National Wealth Fund. We therefore need a bit more clarity about where the investment resources for the Secretary of State’s plans are going to come from.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is unlikely that the National Wealth Fund, or indeed anyone else, would wish to invest in British steelmaking while our electricity prices are so very high? Does he agree that there is no point in this Bill until we fix the electricity market in this country?
Liam Byrne
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point that I am about to come on to. My point, I suppose, is that there is a case for this Bill. I think it is actually quite important, and the powers that it confers are also important, but if we are to get value for money from it, there have to be five other components, which I will come on to now.
The second area is lower energy costs. The British industrial competitiveness scheme is welcome, but it does not come online until 2027. Steelmakers, like much of our manufacturing industry, are saying very clearly to the Business and Trade Committee that there is a widening gap between UK wholesale electricity prices and the prices of our peers in the wake of the Iran crisis. My question to the Minister is: what further targeted support will be available to energy-intensive industries before 2027? As the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) rightly points out, that is an essential component of the package.
The third area that the shadow Minister was right to highlight is the issue of tariffs. This is now an urgent issue. The Committee heard evidence this afternoon at our own roundtable about the need to refine the tariff structures that have been put in place. The key thing is that we get a better deal with the European Union, to which we export 80% of our steel. It is about to cut tariff-free quotas by 47%, double tariffs from 25% to 50%, and impose melt and pour requirements. Unless we can get a deal in place with the European Union before the end of July, I am afraid that many of the good intentions behind this Bill will be confounded.
The fourth area is procurement. We must ensure that there is a proper demand curve from the UK state for the things that British Steel makes. In the British economy, British state procurement makes up £1 in every £6. Right now, despite the excellent changes in the Procurement Act 2023, we do not have a sufficiently clear forward pipeline. That has to change, not least because when we talk to defence companies—which are, of course, patiently awaiting the defence investment plan—and defence contractors, they still tell us that the kind of steel that they need to make the things that keep this country safe are not made in this country. Ensuring that there are advanced market commitments alongside the defence equipment plan, along with the range of other big, long-term ambitions that I know the Secretary of State has, is very important.
The penultimate area I want to touch on is scrap supply. The Secretary of State has ultimately come to the conclusion—wisely, I suspect—that we should shift to electric arc furnaces, but that kind of industry model will work only if there is a healthy supply of scrap. I think that Ministers are being just a tiny bit too complacent about whether we have the plans in place to source all that scrap. I know that there is a roundtable proposed for later this month, but as part and parcel of ensuring that the steel strategy actually works, can we have, at the very least, a read-out for Parliament about what scrap supplies will be kept in our country, rather than exported?
The final point I wanted to flag is about consolidation. One of the virtues of this Bill is that it bestows on the Secretary of State the power to ensure that there is consolidation in the UK steel industry for the future needs of the economy. In particular, it should allow us to take assets that have gone to firms that are currently out of business, and to rationalise the industry in a way that makes sense. I would like to hear more about what the Secretary of State is proposing when it comes to consolidating the industry.
Ultimately, in the world that we are in, when there are so many visible hands in the global economy interfering with the free market in steel, we will have to have a stronger visible hand. That is what the Secretary of State is proposing through this Bill. There will be a lot more work to do in the Bill’s subsequent stages to satisfy the House that he has got right the statecraft package behind this measure of statism. I look forward to hearing some reassuring noises on that point when the Minister winds up.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Steelmaking is of vital strategic importance to the UK. We rely on steel for essential parts of our national infrastructure, including in defence, transport, clean energy generation, and advanced manufacturing. Steelmaking creates tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs across the country, helping to power our economy and boost our local communities.
However, for too long, our steel industry has been neglected. The last Conservative Government oversaw a string of near collapses and last-minute rescues. They scrapped the industrial strategy, which is so vital to our manufacturers, and erected new trade barriers, making it harder for our steel producers to do business with their biggest export market across the channel.
We have a duty to stand by this vital sector, especially as it navigates unprecedented challenges, including President Trump’s unfair steel tariffs, China’s anti-competitive state aid practices, and the transition to environmentally sustainable production methods. If we are going to foster a thriving steel industry, we cannot allow more producers to collapse and more jobs to be lost, and we cannot risk our last blast furnaces going cold.
The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome this legislation as a temporary, emergency and targeted step, aimed specifically at turning around British steel, before returning it to the private sector. It is in that spirit that British steel producers also support this measure. The Liberal Democrats are clear that our country needs a vibrant, privately run steel industry. In the long term, only private enterprise—not Government Ministers—can ensure that the sector powers forward. We will be closely scrutinising these measures, and indeed the Government’s broader steel strategy, to ensure that they move us in that direction. We need to move on from a patchwork of last-minute rescues to a long-term plan that will set the industry on a truly sustainable footing. Right from the get-go, we would have liked to see plans to find private co-investors who can help modernise the sites and create more jobs.
Putin’s barbaric war in Europe threatens our national security; Donald Trump’s reckless tariffs are undermining our economy; and the continuing conflict in the middle east threatens business supply chains. All those factors make the future of reliable domestic steel production more important than ever for whole swathes of our economy. That is why the Government should ensure that industries that rely on steel, such as defence, are represented and involved in decision making relating to this legislation. We need stronger action from the Government on improving trade with the EU, so that our steel exporters can benefit from easier access to their biggest market, and so that our manufacturers get easier and cheaper access to the materials they need. A new UK-EU customs union would be hugely beneficial in that respect.
Last but not least, we need more ambition on the use of UK-made steel in our domestic market. We welcome the Government’s target of boosting domestic production from 30% to 50% of UK steel demand, although there is no clear timeline for that, and we cannot help but note that the equivalent target in the EU is 75%. While we understand the difference between the two markets, we hope that the Government will keep the target under review in the light of uncertain supply chains, and will consider further incentives for the use of UK-made steel in private sector projects.
The Liberal Democrats know that nationalising steel producers is not the answer in the long term; I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government also view this as an interim rescue measure. What specific steps do Ministers plan to take to ensure that British Steel becomes investable for the private sector, should the legislation be triggered? As the Bill progresses through the House, the Liberal Democrats will be carefully scrutinising the use of secondary legislation, with the aim of maximising accountability. Many of the Bill’s measures will be implemented through secondary legislation subject to negative resolution procedures. I hope the Minister agrees that the affirmative procedure would offer more meaningful parliamentary engagement.
I urge the Government to ensure that there is proper transparency for Parliament about costs associated with the legislation. Clauses 53 and 54 set out the process for the valuation of relevant businesses and the calculation of any compensation that might be paid to previous owners. While we understand that valuations will depend on factors specific to each business, the Government should publish detailed information about the criteria taken into account, and must ensure that Parliament is given the opportunity to scrutinise proposed valuations and compensation amounts. Have the Government considered granting powers to the Business and Trade Committee to scrutinise spending on these measures? Lastly, will the Minister update the House on whether and to what extent the Bill will affect employee pension schemes? What conversations have been had with the Pensions Regulator to that effect?
Looking at the broader state of the steel sector, from 1 July the Government’s new UK steel and trade measure will impose tariffs on imported steel. While we understand the need to bring in such protections temporarily, due to the disruption caused by US steel tariffs and cheap, subsidised Chinese exports, the measure will have a significant impact on manufacturers who depend on steel as a key business input. In Business and Trade questions this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) mentioned Dynamic Metals, a firm in her constituency that is facing about a £3 million bill to import the specialist steel grades it requires for its services. While I welcome the Government’s aim of encouraging domestic production and the purchase of steel from UK steel companies, some specific grades of steel are not domestically produced, so the Government are harming the purchasing power of UK businesses. Will the Government commit to re-examining the application of tariffs on certain grades of steel to ensure that they do not inadvertently damage domestic buyers?
The Bill’s measures are subject to a public interest test, but there are limited details about what that test will involve. Will the Government allow Parliament to scrutinise the criteria for the test, and publish a detailed report setting out why they believe they have been met? How will the Minister ensure that the aim of protecting the vital infrastructure and manufacturing sectors is balanced with sustainable energy commitments? Will he confirm that when compensation is calculated, Jingye will be financially responsible for any environmental damage caused? What consideration will be given to the affected workforce, and to ensuring that jobs and skills are protected?
The Government are right to take action to protect British steel, but nationalisation must be a temporary step, taken in order to rescue businesses before they are returned to the private sector. We are supportive of the Government’s pace and urgency of action to assist the steel industry, but we need more details on the longer-term vision. I would be grateful if the Minister gave, in his response, the reassurances that I have asked for. How will the Government ensure that the steel industry becomes investable for the private sector, following nationalisation? How will Parliament have oversight, once the powers in the Bill are triggered? How will Parliament be provided with transparency regarding the costs associated with nationalisation?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With a five-minute time limit, I call Jessica Morden.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Bill, which gives the Government new powers to intervene in the steel industry when doing so is in the public interest. I do so because I, alongside many other steel MPs over many years, have relentlessly made the point that the steel industry is of the utmost strategic importance to the country’s economy and security, and that we must do all that we can to protect and cherish it. While the focus of the legislation is the future of British Steel—I very much pay tribute to the efforts and fantastic advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin)—the Bill also sends a clear signal about the Government’s commitment to the industry and workers more widely.
As Ministers know, steel is important to my constituency, both at Tata’s Llanwern works and at 7 Steel. I know that the steel Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald)—met representatives from Llanwern this week. I also pay tribute to the steel unions —in particular, Community and GMB, which I am a member of—and Reg Gutteridge, the newly elected national chair of Community union, who I know will be an excellent advocate.
I completely understand that significant funding was necessary to help keep British Steel in Scunthorpe open, but it is really important that producers and steelworkers in Wales, at sites such as Llanwern, get their share of the Government’s billions of pounds of investment through the National Wealth Fund. It is also important that Ministers urge Tata to follow through on the future investments that it has talked about previously, including in Llanwern.
I really welcome the steel strategy; it is the first time we have had one. The Conservative party had 14 years to set one up and did not. We had a revolving door of steel Ministers, and I am afraid that the Conservatives’ woeful approach continues with their reasoned amendment today. Our approach is a real road map for the future. I welcome the new import quota and tariff levels to cut the amount of foreign-made steel that comes in, and to protect us from global oversupply. However, as others have mentioned, there are concerns at downstream plants that the import quotas for galvanised steel and hollow sections allow too much leniency for highly subsidised products from non-EU countries to come into the UK market and undercut manufacturers at sites such as Llanwern. Will the Minister look at that?
Ministers will be aware of the industry’s concern about the timing and design of the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism. I am keen to hear more about that. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) said, we are doing great work on procurement, and it is a big part of the steel strategy, but I am aware from 7 Steel, which has proved over and over again that it can supply high-quality products for High Speed 2, that some contracts are still being made for foreign-made steel. Will the Minister please check that and raise it with HS2? Energy is always an issue, and our underlying costs are still far greater than those of our European rivals, so I join others in asking the Minister to look further at more targeted support.
Those are a few of my asks, but I very much welcome the Bill and the Government’s clear direction of travel on steel. I will end by acknowledging the deep industry expertise and knowledge that the steel Minister brings to the job. It is recognised in our plants, and it is hugely refreshing after the last Government.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I do not support this Bill, and I believe that the reasoned amendment is the right way forward. I will set out clearly the devastating impact that the Bill is about to have, in real time, in my constituency.
We have a great local business called Amodil. It is a British family-run business that started with a couple of people in 1976 in Cleobury Mortimer, South Shropshire. I recently went to Cleobury to meet Paul, Chris, Ben and the team, as well as Rob Cooper from the British Stainless Steel Association. The business was founded by Paul Slingsby, who at 75 still works in it today. It is the UK’s largest privately owned supplier and stockholder of stainless steel long products, with more than 1,200 customers—about 20% of the UK market.
The people who run Amodil know what they are on about, and they were completely blindsided by the announcement on tariffs. They had not been told, and none of their customers or suppliers, or the people they were involved with, knew anything about it, so they came straight to me. I have written to the Minister multiple times and had one response. He needs to sit down with the largest British business in this industry and have a serious conversation.
The big issue that Amodil faces is the tariffs on the stainless steel products it brings in that cannot be made in the UK in the required quantity or type. The Government want to protect the steel industry as an industry of vital strategic importance—I get that—and they want to protect jobs, but for the almost 1,000 jobs they will save, many thousands more will be lost, and I will say exactly where.
The UK cannot meet domestic market demand, and a huge gap will be created. Businesses such as Amodil will be forced to import, and tariffs will drive up costs by 50%. There is not the cash across the industry to absorb those extra costs without mass redundancies. The costs will be passed on, meaning that manufacturers’ costs will go up. What will happen then? The customer will buy the finished product from manufacturers overseas at a lower price, and those products are not subject to tariffs. That does not level the playing field for us.
The UK does not produce enough stainless steel of the right type or quality to meet demand. Amodil currently has 5,000 tonnes of stainless steel in stock, 2,000 tonnes of which cannot be, and is not, made in the UK. It could take up to 15 years to get some of the skills right. Large-diameter bars of a certain grade are not made in the UK and those bars are vital to key industries, such as aerospace, defence, pharmaceuticals, oil, automative, general engineering and many more. If the tariffs are put on these businesses—Amodil is the largest British business in the field in the UK and there are many others—they will be priced out of the industry. I really hope the Secretary of State can see the importance of this matter.
Peter Kyle
I will save the hon. Gentleman from driving home the point even more, because I understand the passion with which he speaks. With regard to Amodil, I will look into that company personally. The intention with the measures that I have brought in is to protect domestic production and the possibility of domestic production. It is not to prevent goods that we do not make here, and do not intend to have the capacity to make here, from suffering. If there is a specific issue, I will look into that, because I do not want negative impacts downstream when we do not have the capacity to produce here. The Trade Minister said earlier today that he would look into that as well. We, as a team, will look into these issues.
Stuart Anderson
I thank the Secretary of State for saying that. I will follow up personally with him and with Amodil to see if we can talk about a way forward. I said to Amodil, “I believe that this is an unintended consequence of what the Government are trying to do, and once I point this out clearly, there will be a way forward to look at it.” The long and the short of it— I will put my speech to one side—is that there is a certain size of rod that only the UK can make. I watched it at Amodil’s facility a few weeks ago. When it gets past that size, it is not made in this country, but it is needed by so many of those critical industries.
Looking at steel as a whole, this matter is just one part of the stainless steel industry. If the Secretary of State, or one of the Ministers, will sit with me and the team at Amodil, they will be able to see, within a matter of minutes, where the gap is and how to plug it. It is along the blanket grading for all the bars. I request a pause for, say, just six months—or if we can talk with Amodil in a matter of days—so we can sit down and look at this, because there is a massive knock-on impact that will seriously hurt the stainless steel industry, and one of the largest employers in my constituency will be massively hurt too.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I am setting a three-minute time limit, which will allow most Members to get in, but not all.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Bill and the action that the Government are taking to protect Britain’s steel industry. I congratulate the Minister for Industry on his sterling work to bring this legislation before the House. Steel manufacturing is a strategic national asset; it underpins our infrastructure, transport system, energy, security, defence capability and industrial future. It is too important to be left entirely to the private sector.
For many of us who represent industrial communities, this debate is deeply personal. On Teesside, iron and steel built towns, livelihoods and identities from the early 19th century onwards. Generations of skilled workers helped forge modern Britain with Teesside steel, and as Chris Rea said:
“The ships and bridges they were all delivered
From Sydney harbour to the Cisco bay”.
Over the decades, however, those industries were systematically weakened. The deindustrialisation of the 1980s and 1990s hollowed out communities across the north and across Britain. Then, in 2015, the Conservative Government allowed the Redcar steelworks to close, with devastating consequences for 3,000 workers, families and a further 6,000 in the wider Teesside economy. Whereas with ILVA’s Taranto plant the Italians intervened to save that, and the French did the same for Florange, the previous UK Government sat on their hands. The truth is that a different choice could have been made in Redcar, just as a different choice is being made now. The Government could have intervened back then to preserve strategy industrial capability.
The Bill signals something important: a Government once again willing to play an active role in shaping industry and growing the economy, and doing so pragmatically. It will create a framework for the state to step in when markets fail to protect industries of strategic national importance. It will allow intervention, including public ownership where necessary, when the loss of industrial capacity would damage the national interest. It is common sense: people understand that there are sectors in which the public interest must come before narrow private gain. We have already seen this Government adopt new models of public intervention elsewhere.
We need a serious strategy for reindustrialisation and growth. That means backing British business through a strong public procurement strategy and delivering a long-term pipeline of orders. If public money is funding railways, schools, hospitals and so on, then wherever possible the steel for those projects should be made here, in Britain, by British workers.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I start this contribution on a positive note for the steel industry. Last week I visited Kiernan Steel’s fabrication workshop in Llandrindod, Wales. Kiernan Steel is a tremendously successful Irish company that has brought much-needed jobs to Radnorshire, and its success shows how the rural economy can prosper if our businesses are encouraged and enabled to locate there. One thing there is no shortage of in mid-Wales is land, and if we make that land available to businesses that need it, they will create the jobs that our region and economy need.
The steel industry is critical to our wider economy—it is virtually impossible to build anything without steel. However, the steel industry requires a skilled workforce. I was encouraged by some of the Secretary of State’s comments about the skills shortages, because we have serious skills shortages. There are thousands of vacancies for welders alone, and their pay is shooting up as a result. Skills shortages throughout the steel industry are pushing up the price of building anything, particularly infrastructure. That is why the health of our steel industry matters. If we do not look after it, the costs for projects such as HS2 and the cost of delivering all the housing we need will continue to mount.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I was interested in the hon. Gentleman’s comment about the shortage of welders. Does he agree that the Government’s plan for construction colleges of excellence, including the one in Bury St Edmunds, will be crucial for the provision of welders?
David Chadwick
There are at least 6,000 vacancies for welders, so we absolutely need a lot more of them.
The skills shortages present opportunities to get future generations into well-paid and secure trades. Artificial intelligence cannot do welding yet, because it does not have any arms—yet. Our education system is not producing the skills that our economy needs, and our economy is suffering from that failure. Steel is strategic. It is part of our sovereign capability and part of British power. That is why steel matters.
As has been mentioned, the steel industry is affected by the geopolitical tensions that are so rampant across the world. Our steel industry has been hammered by the Chinese, who have flooded the international market with cheap Chinese steel and have run one of our biggest companies into the ground. China has wiped out our steel industry intentionally, yet today the Conservatives seem to be saying that they do not think the Government should do anything about it. Just yesterday they were complaining about our lack of defence readiness. Well, what do they think tanks and ships are made from?
Today, this Government ask Parliament to move heaven and earth to save steel in Scunthorpe. It is right to act—of course the Government should have the proposed powers—but people in Wales are asking one simple question today: where was this Bill in July 2024, when the blast furnaces at Port Talbot were switched off for the last time? When Welsh communities were crying out for help, Westminster shrugged its shoulders. That was despite Welsh Labour MPs and candidates, in the months prior to the general election, lining up in front of giant election posters that read, “Save our steel.” They said they had a £2.5 billion fund to spend on steel. Given that the Government have admitted to spending £1.3 million a day to keep the Scunthorpe plant going, how much of that fund is left to spend in Wales?
If protecting primary steel production is so important, why did they allow the biggest steelworks in Britain to be turned off? Welsh workers were told that nothing could be done. People in my constituency have lost their jobs because of this. When 2,800 jobs were wiped out in Port Talbot, there was no emergency Saturday sitting, no recall of Parliament, no emergency legislation and no sudden declaration that steel was a vital national—
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my northern Lincolnshire neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), who is a long-time champion and campaigner for protecting and securing the future of Scunthorpe steelworks, which is essential to the fabric of the town and a critical part of its identity.
The Government are right to take the steps needed to bring British Steel back into public ownership. Having our own sovereign steelmaking capacity is crucial to ensuring the UK’s defence and infrastructure security. Jingye has failed as custodians of British Steel in Scunthorpe. It has the opportunity to do the decent thing and come to an agreement before the Government are forced to use the powers in this Bill, and we will wait to see whether it does that.
I know that the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), has a deep understanding of iron and steelmaking. I am sure he will agree that resolving the ownership issue for British Steel will allow an ambitious future for the business to be realised and a plan to be brought forward that will attract investment.
The UK management and workforce at British Steel have been working in an impossible situation while the Government have been negotiating with the current owners. I hope the current leadership will be empowered by the Government to make the necessary decisions to deliver the positive future for the business that the town deserves.
The trade unions Community, Unite and GMB have worked consistently hard to keep steelmaking in the UK. Could the Minister confirm that the action the Government are taking will enable both management and trade unions to deliver the positive future that everybody wants to see for steelmaking in the UK?
Scunthorpe is home to one of the last very large pieces of industrial land in the UK. The proper development of that land could benefit not just Scunthorpe and my constituency, but the whole of the UK. Can the Minister set out what plans he has to work with North Lincolnshire local authority and other partners to make the most of these opportunities? We do not want to see a first come, first served situation where the best users and custodians of that land are not given the opportunity to take it on. It has to be the right company, which will ensure that the proud history of manufacturing in northern Lincolnshire continues long into the future. Will the Minister confirm that that will be his approach?
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
It is exactly seven years since I started calling for British Steel at Scunthorpe to be taken into public ownership. The Conservatives rejected my splendid advice, and the chaos we have seen is a result of that. In opposing this Bill, they show that they do not care about the sovereign nature and importance of steelmaking, they do not care about the thousands of highly-skilled jobs, and they do not care about the communities and families around them—they have no understanding of its importance.
I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister for Industry on bringing forward this Bill—the first from the King’s Speech to be debated on Second Reading. I told the Secretary of State’s predecessor that he should show some cojones and get on with it, and I think that is what we are now seeing. Alongside this support from the Secretary of State, we now need to see the vision and the plan for the long term. I am concerned that there is an attitude of, “We’ll quietly let the blast furnaces go cold and disappear, and then replace them with electric arc furnaces.” We need a big, bold vision to renew, reline and rebuild at least one blast furnace.
Around the world, 50% of all new steelmaking capacity in the last five years has come from blast furnaces. It is the strongest, most robust primary steel. I know that the Minister of State is a great fan of direct reduced iron, and he has a point there; nevertheless, we should not expose ourselves by putting all our bets on electric arc furnaces, when we know that the price of electricity is at a crisis high. We need diversity in this, rather like when my late grandmother would look at the desserts available for Sunday lunch and say, “Grandson, have a little bit of each.” When it comes to steelmaking, let us have a little bit of each. Let us have a bit of primary steel and a little bit of electric arc furnace steel, to ensure that we always retain those skills and recognise the importance of our sovereign steelmaking capability.
I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will produce that vision and plan over the coming weeks, so that we can have confidence in those jobs and so that the communities can have confidence that steelmaking will be retained and invested in for the long term.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I represent a constituency built around steel and manufacturing that is now home to Tata Steel’s processing and distribution centre, the largest in the UK. In Wolverhampton and Willenhall, steel is our history and our identity. With the actions taken by this Government, I sincerely believe it will continue to be our future, too.
The Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill marks a serious and necessary step towards safeguarding the long-term future of the UK steel industry. It gives the Government the power to bring steel companies, including British Steel, into public ownership where it is in the public interest to do so. This is safeguarding Britain’s steel capability and capacity, which is firmly in the national interest, protecting jobs and our communities. That matters profoundly to places like mine. I am calling for British procurement as well, so that British-made steel is used to build our railways, infrastructure and wind turbines, so that national renewal runs through communities such as Wolverhampton North East, through the skills of our workers, the strength of our industries and a future based on good, secure jobs and apprenticeships.
I also sincerely believe that this decisive action would not have been taken under the previous Conservative Government. Since 2010, we have seen a litany of missed chances and, in my opinion, moral failures. That is why it is welcome that the Bill reflects the seriousness with which we should treat domestic steel production and the communities that depend on it. That certainty is being recognised by the industry. As UK Steel has said, it provides a vital reassurance for workers, customers and supply chains at a critical moment, recognising steel as a strategic national asset that is essential to economic growth, national security and resilience.
I also support the Government’s ambition to boost domestic production from 30% to 50%. However, I would ask the Minister to look at tariffs on imported steel, using evidence based on specific codes, and to engage with downstream firms that are concerned about the measures. In Wolverhampton and Willenhall, and across the Black Country, we understand what steel represents. We understand the value of secure, well-paid, skilled work. For our workers, our apprentices and our supply chains, and for the long-term strength of the United Kingdom, I support the Bill and commend it to the House.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
In March, the Government released their steel strategy, which talked about taking bold steps to help to grow the industry. The bold steps that we have before us include granting powers to nationalise the industry and introducing a 50% tariff in six weeks’ time on the import of steel products that can also be made in the UK—I come back to this because it is a really important point. Protecting British Steel does sound admirable, and I completely understand it, but the decision has been made without consultation with the industry.
If the Government had consulted with the industry, I would not have had to meet with my constituent Alex Bailey last week, who felt absolute desperation about the future prospects of his business, which employs 70 people and has a £35 million turnover. He owns Dynamic Metals, one of the UK’s largest independent stockists of aerospace high-grade metals, which are specialist steels tested to high standards to be suitable for use in aircraft. The issue that he faces deals with three product types—12A, 14 and 27—but I will spare hon. Members with further details.
The Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty's Household (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
I would like to know more.
Sarah Bool
I will be sure to write to the Minister with more details.
First, none of this steel can realistically be made in the UK. The Government have provided a list of potential suppliers, but the majority, including British Steel, only make commercial not aerospace-grade steel, and the only company that might, Speciality Steel UK, is currently in liquidation.
Secondly, as Alex explained to me, the drafting of the legislation is such that there is no way customs will be able to differentiate between a generic steel and a specialist steel as they use the same harmonised system codes upon import. That needs to be revisited.
Thirdly, the quota has been set far too low. Product 12A is subject to a 31% reduction in the quota allowance and now a tiny quota will be introduced for products 14 and 27, where there was no quota before. All in all, to be able to meet his order book requirements, Alex has no option but to incur the tariffs. The additional burden that he will have to pick up on 1 July amounts to £3.2 million. He will be bankrupt within six months if this measure goes ahead. As we have heard, he is not alone, because hundreds of businesses are in the same position. As Alex said:
“This is a classic example of legislation that has been written with noble intentions—to save the UK steel industry—but due to a lack of consultation with industry, lack of industry knowledge by the authors and a total misunderstanding of the knock-on effects, this single piece of legislation will kill stockholding and manufacturing in the UK.”
When the Secretary of State is looking into the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), will he also meet with Dynamic Metals? Without prompt action now, the Government will run into much more significant issues down the line come 1 July.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Government’s decision to move towards the nationalisation of British Steel. It is the right decision for our economy, our industrial communities and Britain’s national security. I say that as somebody who believes in the value of enterprise, competition and a strong private sector, but there are clear cases where privatisation has failed the national interest and where Government have not only the right to intervene but the duty to do so, particularly where foundational industries are now foreign-owned. I was stunned that when the shadow Minister was asked a straight question about whether the Conservatives would prefer British steel to be in the hands of the Chinese or the British, he could not simply answer “the British”. He avoided the question. That shows a staggering disregard for our country’s national security.
Steel is not just another commodity—it is fundamental to our national sovereignty. It underpins our defence industry, infrastructure, energy sector and manufacturing base. A nation that cannot produce its own steel leaves itself vulnerable, dependent on the decisions, priorities and interests of others. We have moved into a different era, although if we listened to some of the contributions from Opposition Members, we could believe that we are still in the 1990s. Globalisation is dead and, to be honest, I welcome its death, because all it ever did was leave working-class communities such as mine behind, ripping out the heart of industrial communities like Hartlepool.
The tragedy is that in this country we still import 68% of our steel needs. We must fix that tragedy. If British taxpayer money is to be spent, then British industry must benefit. If we are building British warships, British steel should be used. If Britain is building offshore wind farms, then British steel should be used. If we are building new nuclear reactors, as we are in Hartlepool thanks to the deal that we struck last September, then British steel should be used. My biggest plea to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench is that we radically reform procurement policy in this country.
I welcome the steel tariffs being put in place and the assurances given by the Secretary of State that he will look carefully at the individual cases that have been mentioned, but we must put our country first. This Bill is critical to doing that and to protecting the working-class communities I represent.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It probably will not come as a surprise to Labour Members, but I fundamentally disagree with the last speaker, although I appreciated his passion. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is getting a bit excited; I will come to him in a minute on the issue of tariffs. I am proud that we are the only party in this House objecting to the Bill, and for the right reasons.
The Secretary of State repeatedly talks about making this country stronger, but I do not think this Bill does that by nationalising. I just do not think that Governments can run businesses. I certainly mean no disrespect to Ministers on the Front Bench, but they will create inefficiencies and push up prices, and the taxpayer will end up stomaching the cost. That does not make us stronger; it makes us weaker.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), who spoke before me, said that we are still in the 1990s, but I think this Government are taking us back to the 1970s by pushing up costs and lumbering the taxpayer. A future Conservative Government will have to unwind some of the real harm that will come to fruition. No Labour Members can tell us where the nationalisation will stop. Will it be ceramics tomorrow? What will happen? Which industries will the Government pick and choose?
In the limited time that I have, let me come on to the issue of tariffs. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and all my hon. Friends who have raised this point, I have been visited by a constituent. His name was Peter Watson, of Davicon. I have written to the Secretary of State about this issue, although that was only last week; I respect the fact that he may not have had time to come back to me, but I hope he does.
Davicon is the UK’s leading mezzanine manufacturer. The briefing that Peter put in front of me was a result of the tariffs and the quota reduction. There is a reduction of almost 97% on merchant bars and an increase in quotas of 50%. For all the Secretary of State’s best intentions and whatever he wants to achieve, the reality is that industry and markets do not work to the whims of Government. They will not move quickly enough to do that, which will push up prices. In the briefing I saw, that would mean a doubling of the quota for per-tonnage steel by 1 July. That cost will have to be borne by industry and taxpayers. If we are talking about nuclear power plant creation or HS2, we know that those taxpayer-funded projects will have to bear those costs.
I was listening to the Prime Minister yesterday during Prime Minister’s questions, and it is clear the Government recognise that an issue is coming down the tracks. I argue that that should have been anticipated before the tariffs came into place, but we are where we are. I have written to the Secretary of State, and I would really welcome some serious action on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) made a really eloquent argument about a delay in the introduction. If that is not going to happen—
Saqib Bhatti
The Secretary of State is shaking his head. If that is not going to happen, let us look at the HS codes. He needs to recognise that there will be a serious impact on the steel industry and the peripheral industries that rely on steel manufacturing in this country.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Steel is to the UK what Yorkshire tea and Yorkshire puds are to God’s own county, what the hotpot is to Lancashire and what black cabs are to London. It is to the UK what the St Leger is to Doncaster and what the hood is to Haxey. It is about us. It is about what makes us and drives us. It is about pride.
British Steel is at the heart of the UK’s industrial heritage. It was the backbone of the industrial revolution, driving global infrastructure and enabling military pre-eminence. It was key to our rail, maritime, defence and major capital infrastructure. Someone said to me this week, “There is history that has been made, but, more importantly, there is history that we can still make.” We need to make it right here, right now, with British Steel.
The future of British Steel matters not only to my neighbouring area of Scunthorpe, but to communities across north Lincolnshire, South Yorkshire and beyond, including people in my own constituency, some of whom work at Scunthorpe and all of whom are deeply affected by the fortunes of a major local industry. The steelworkers at Scunthorpe are doing work that is essential to this country. It is highly skilled, technical and sometimes dangerous work. They deserve respect for what they do, and they deserve certainty about the future of the industry that they have helped to sustain. That is why the Bill before the House is so important.
While my interest is local, the issue is absolutely national. By nationalising steel, we can ensure that the UK does not become the only G7 country incapable of producing its own primary steel, and stop reliance on foreign imports. This is not about nostalgia for the past or keeping an industry going just for sentimental reasons; it is about recognising that steel is a strategic national asset.
If Britain is to build the homes, railways, energy infrastructure and defence capability that we need, Britain needs steel. If we are serious about industrial resilience, national security and economic growth, we cannot be indifferent about whether we retain the capacity to make steel here at home. The steelworks at Scunthorpe are not just another private asset on a balance sheet; they are a vital part of our industrial base. Once that capacity is lost, it is not easily rebuilt. Once those skills are gone, they are not easily recovered.
The Government are right to bring forward legislation that gives the Secretary of State the powers needed to act where the public interest requires it.
Public ownership should never be treated lightly, but nor should it be ruled out when a vital national industry is at risk. The test here is straightforward: does Britain need steel? Yes. Does Britain need the skills and capacity represented at Scunthorpe? Yes. Would it be in the national interest to allow that capacity to disappear? No. That is why intervention is justified. For the workers at Scunthorpe, for the communities in my constituency that depend on those jobs and for the future strength and resilience of our country, the Bill deserves the support of this House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
This has been an interesting debate, because it has brought out the strategic love of nationalisation for the sake of nationalisation among Government Members. With our reasoned amendment we have tried to put out a different approach. We also heard clearly from Reform that it is in favour of nationalisation for the sake of nationalisation. This Bill will satisfy neither our camp nor their camp. With this Bill, we have a chaotic, unplanned, non-strategic journey that will end up burning through taxpayers’ money at every stage. We can see that the decisions that the Government have taken since they came to power have delivered the worst of all possible worlds for this crucial industry.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I promised Madam Deputy Speaker that, in the interests of time, I would not take any interventions. This Bill is an emergency intervention with mounting public costs that have no clear limits for the taxpayer. This legislation will certainly not put things on a secure footing.
We were told this time last year, when we were brought in on a Saturday for the first time since the Falklands war, that nationalisation was not the plan. The Prime Minister went to China with the Secretary of State and failed to secure a deal for British Steel, so we have this Bill. It does not resolve any underlying issues. Instead, it just opens the door to an indefinite and infinite bill for the taxpayer, and that is not all. It has a sunset clause that, would the House believe it, can be extended indefinitely.
There are far too many unchecked powers in this Bill. It does not address, as the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee mentioned, that Britain has the highest energy prices in the developed world. We cannot have an industrial policy for steel unless there is an energy policy for industry. In addition to the Chair of the Select Committee, we had an interesting speech from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). She spoke about how we could turn this Bill into temporary, emergency legislation and about the path to returning British Steel to the private sector.
We also had powerful interventions from Opposition Members, including from my hon. Friends the Members for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti). They spoke up for the businesses in their constituencies that will be so badly affected by the inflationary 50% tariff on imported steel as of 1 June.
This afternoon is a chance for the Minister to answer some questions. Why were the Government unable to strike a deal with the Chinese owners? When exactly did the Government decide that nationalisation was the right path? Did they decide that before the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 was introduced? If so, why was the House not told that at the time? Why should the taxpayer be the one who foots this bill? How is this value for money for the taxpayer? Do we even know what the total cost to the taxpayer will be from these ongoing losses, the capital investment and the enormous liabilities? This Bill commits the taxpayer to ownership of an asset that loses hundreds of millions of pounds each year. What assessment has the Minister made of the chilling impact that the measures in this Bill will have on other inward investors into the United Kingdom, and what is his exit strategy, if he has one?
If the Government propose to nationalise a steel company on the basis that it meets the public interest test, can the Minister explain how the same asset could ever be returned to private ownership without contradicting their own public interest assessment that it is in the national interest? Or is the reality that once the threshold is crossed, the British taxpayer is locked into permanently underwriting a loss-making asset, with no timetable for it to return?
Why is there no requirement in this Bill for a proper impact or value-for-money assessment before the Secretary of State exercises the powers? Why have the Government not taken us up on our cheap power plan, which addresses one of the root causes of this sector’s difficulties? Can the Minister—I think I heard him say it from a sedentary position, but I would like to hear him say it again—urgently commit to look at the impact of the 50% steel tariffs on our steel manufacturing sector?
This House should not be required to sign a blank cheque. We cannot and will not support legislation that appears to be nationalisation in search of a rationale. I urge all colleagues to support our reasoned amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
As I was preparing for today’s debate, it struck me that 60 years ago this summer, this House was debating steel nationalisation and the England team went on to win the world cup. We are back here discussing steel nationalisation again, so I have high hopes for the summer.
Sometimes it is informative to learn from the past. Going back to the steel nationalisation of 1966, the Minister of Power opened the debate and said that
“there is no manufacturing industry of such basic importance to the British economy.”—[Official Report, 25 July 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1224.]
Of course, he was right then, and it is true now. However, the steel industry is so good that we have not nationalised it twice; we have nationalised it thrice, because the steel industry was also partly nationalised in 1948. The Minister of Supply said:
“Without steel the life of Britain would collapse.”—[Official Report, 15 November 1948; Vol. 458, c. 53.]
That is absolutely true, as we have heard from Members of the House today.
As the Minister for Industry, part of my mission is to increase the productive capacity of our industry. What we have seen in the steel industry, particularly during 14 years of the Tories, is productive decline. They presided over the loss of great steel plants and a reduction in the productive capacity of those steel plants. The thing is, the decline in market share—from 80% to 30%—was not inevitable. It was a choice born out of inaction and out of a lack of industrial policy.
The reason that this Bill is so important is exactly the same as the reason it was important in 1966: there has been a great technological shift in the industry. Back then, it was continuous casting; now, it is electric arc furnaces. The industry has been de-capitalised by years of under-investment, and it needs to be re-capitalised. Productivity fell off a cliff under the previous Government. It fell repeatedly following the closure of the Redcar blast furnace, and productivity must be improved. These are not the words of someone who is wedded to a socialist principle of nationalisation. They are the words of someone who has spent his life in the steel industry, who ran a business in the steel industry, and who is dedicated to improving productivity in our industry.
I heard the words of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), when he opened the debate, and I was quite disappointed. He and I met earlier this week, and my colleagues sitting behind me might be surprised to learn that he was thoughtful and probing in the questions that he asked me. He made some really interesting points, and we had a good discussion. I thought about his points afterwards, and I found it really interesting that he had thought about the things that we will have to bear in mind when we pass this legislation. But what has he done? He has fallen into the Conservatives’ usual trap of presenting this as an ideological debate, instead of a debate about the function of an industry that is vital to this country. That is how they have prosecuted this debate.
I learned something when I was working in the industry. Two years ago, I was running a business in the steel industry. Twenty years ago, I was working at the Scunthorpe steelworks. More than 30 years ago—the House will not believe it—I left school and got a job in the steel industry. There were a lot of changes over that time. Sometimes I stayed in the same job, but the company and the badge on my hard hat changed. When it changed from British Steel to Corus, that was a big blow to how people felt about it, but I will tell the House one thing that I recognised: ownership matters, and it makes a difference. Strategy matters, and it matters where the head office of a business is. People care about the area where they work, and those things are important. The workers care, communities care and we care, but the Conservatives do not care—that is quite clear to me.
Andrew Griffith
I will be very brief. I thank the Minister for his remarks. One ideological difference he has not mentioned once is the huge gulf between those on our side and his party on energy, and the Government are not going to have a sustainable steel industry due to energy.
Chris McDonald
Yes, the hon. Member is right. There is a gulf there: the Conservatives were in favour of some of the highest industrial energy prices in the world. We have delivered an increase in the supercharger benefit from 60% to 90% and introduced the British industrial competitiveness scheme. Through our investments in chemicals, ceramics and, of course, steel, we are supporting British industry with its operating costs on energy and its capital costs to improve its productivity as well.
In steel communities, they are proud people. They are people who can stand on their own two feet, and they want to; they do not want subsidies. They have pride and they have dignity in their work, and when I went to the Corby steelworks recently, I saw the sacrifice of individuals and communities with their hard and dangerous labour.
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
The Minister knows the sacrifices that have been made by my constituents at Dalzell plate mill in Motherwell. Will he confirm that this plate mill remains at the heart of the UK steel strategy, and that the Bill we have debated today provides a potential safety net for the future of Dalzell?
Chris McDonald
While the Government are minded to nationalise British Steel, we do not have any other nationalisations in mind. However, we do recognise the importance of the Dalzell plate mill, and I am concerned to ensure that it gets back up and running, and delivers its steel ship plate orders. I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she has been doing in championing that.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball)—she is sitting behind me—who has supported me throughout the preparation of this Bill, but cannot speak because of her position in the House. Likewise, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), who is also supporting the passage of this Bill, but again cannot speak because of his position. I also thank the Chief Whip, who of course did so much work in advance of this Bill coming forward.
Let me give at least one or two minutes to the amendment. Fundamentally, there is a contradiction in the Opposition’s position in that, if we do not pass this Bill, British Steel is trapped in the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act. The Conservatives supported that legislation, so they do not want to allow British Steel to break out of that. However, I would point out to Conservative Members—and certainly those who feel that the Bill gives too many powers to the Secretary of State—that this Bill has been modelled on the Banking Act. At the time the Banking Act was being passed, a fellow sitting on the Opposition Front Bench called George Osborne—I understand he is popular in Tory circles—said, “I will do everything I can to help this Bill on to the statute book.” I think what we are hearing is that that is good enough for the bankers, but it is not good enough for the steelworkers.
To move on, I am as concerned as the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), and the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), to get in private sector investment. We have carried out a very careful balance with this Bill to ensure that the steel industry is fully informed, understands our intentions and is supportive—and it is supportive. Just in the last couple of weeks, 7 Steel has announced a £100 million private sector investment in the steel industry in the UK, so there is no chilling effect from this. In fact, this will be a spur to, or a boost for, private sector investment.
Let me mention some of the speeches. The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee mentioned a number of things, but I think he was the only person to raise scrap. We have launched a scrap working group, which will be dealing with that issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) rightly raised the importance of the Llanwern steel plant, and she mentioned import penetration in relation to rebar. My near constituency neighbours, my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), could not have been clearer about how the Tories abandoned the steel communities in Teesside and the difference that this Labour Government are making.
A number of Opposition Members mentioned tariffs. There are no tariffs in this Bill. However, as we heard from the Trade Minister at the Dispatch Box this morning and from the Secretary of State this afternoon, there is an open door for companies to come in and discuss those issues.
Finally, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and I have had many exchanges about steel. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we do not agree, but we always have a good discussion. He raised the importance of DRI blast furnaces as well as electric arc furnaces, and he and I will certainly have the opportunity to discuss that much further.
I think it is quite clear that the British Government are not and should not be neutral when it comes to British business, and we are on the side of business. We are unashamedly on the side of British business, and we are unashamedly on the side of the steel industry and steel communities. That is the difference between us and the Opposition, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
First day | |
Clauses 1 to 51; new Clauses relating to Part 1; new Schedules relating to Part 1. | The moment of interruption on the first day. |
Second day | |
Clauses 52 to 57; new Clauses relating to Part 2; new Schedules relating to Part 2; Clauses 58 to 60; new Clauses relating to Part 3; new Schedules relating to Part 3; Clauses 61 to 64; new Clauses relating to Part 4; new Schedules relating to Part 4; remaining proceedings in Committee on the Bill. | One hour before the moment of interruption on the second day. |
Business without Debate
Imprisonment of Craig and Lindsay Foreman in Iran
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
Just over 500 days ago, Lindsay and Craig Foreman, the mother and stepfather of one of my constituents, were on the trip of a lifetime: a motorcycle journey across the world. During their travels, Lindsay, who is a positive psychologist and life coach, planned to research along the way the elements of what makes a good life. She wanted to ask people in all the different countries they travelled through what happiness, fulfilment and purpose meant to them.
In January 2025, they entered Iran with visas and with an approved tour company. The Iranian authorities claimed that, simply by speaking to people about what makes a good life, the Foremans were conducting espionage and attempting to overthrow the Iranian regime—a totally baseless and utterly absurd allegation. The obvious truth was that they were innocent tourists.
The Foremans were arrested in Iran in January 2025 and later convicted of espionage in a trial that fell well short of international standards. In February this year they were sentenced to 10 years in prison. Their case was heard by the notorious revolutionary court, and by an Iranian judge who has himself been sanctioned by the UK, the US and the EU. That judge relied on so-called confessions of Lindsay and Craig that resulted from Lindsay being forced to sign documents in Farsi without interpretation and to fingerprint blank pieces of paper. Those documents were obtained after the Foremans being subjected to severe psychological pressure and inhuman treatment.
That treatment has included solitary confinement for 56 days without justification, and while in solitary confinement Lindsay was interrogated for 30 consecutive days and Craig for 14 days. They were blindfolded to, from and during those interrogations. Craig was walked into walls deliberately. Aggressive questioning was used, with language designed to cause maximum psychological distress.
For all of the interrogations, Craig and Lindsay had no legal representation at all, despite repeatedly requesting a lawyer. There were countless other due process violations —not seeing evidence, false evidence, not having the opportunity to challenge evidence, and being taken into court without any warning—and UK officials were not even permitted to attend this so-called trial.
Since August and October last year respectively, Craig and Lindsay have been held in extremely harsh conditions in Evin prison, which is widely regarded as one of the most notorious prisons in Iran.
I would like to put on record my sincere thanks, on behalf of my constituent Joe Bennett, who sits bravely in the Public Gallery, and the whole Foreman family, for the welfare support given by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Minister and the Foreign Secretary to Lindsay and Craig and their family. I thank them for everything that they are doing in very difficult diplomatic circumstances. I also welcome the Government’s acceptance that the Foremans are simply innocent tourists whose convictions and sentences are unjustifiable and appalling.
However, Craig and Lindsay’s family would like the British Government to go further and to act with more urgency.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
My hon. and learned Friend is making a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents. On the point of monitoring the welfare and health of the Foremans, with diplomatic relations as they are at the moment, does he agree that we must implore the Minister to use all channels and actions possible to check on their welfare?
Tony Vaughan
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. Craig and Lindsay are currently undertaking a hunger strike, which is essentially the only way they feel that they can protest against their treatment, after their phone cards were taken away and they were denied contact with their family. I will discuss their welfare later in my speech, but I agree that the Government need to explain what measures they are taking to monitor their health in these very difficult circumstances, including, if necessary, by using third-party allies.
Ultimately, I want to set out four things that the family are calling for, on which I would be grateful for the Minister’s views. First, the British Government should say loudly and clearly that Lindsay and Craig are not spies, and that their detention is politically motivated and arbitrary in international law. I say that because this case follows a well-documented line of cases where Iran has taken innocent British citizens and those of other nations as bargaining chips for their own purposes. If the Government accept that Lindsay and Craig are innocent and are not spies, and that the trial that they were subjected to in Iran was grossly unfair and provides no basis at all for their detentions, they must have a view about why the Iranians are doing this.
My constituent Joe does not believe that it is in Craig and Lindsay’s interest to shy away from calling a spade a spade here. These are obviously trumped-up false charges from a kangaroo court that Iran is pursuing for its own ends. In other words, Craig and Lindsay Foreman are hostages, they are being held for political purposes, and we should be prepared to say so openly and to calibrate our response accordingly.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
The hon. and learned Gentleman is making absolutely the right points. So far the Government have limited themselves to saying that Craig and Lindsay were innocent tourists, but they have not said categorically that they are not spies, despite promising to do so. They have also refused to say that they are being arbitrarily detained. We are dealing with a terrorist state. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is no reason for the Government to hold back in their rhetoric? Iran is a terrorist state with a record of holding people hostage for political leverage. If we are not willing to do so in this situation, when would we ever do so when it comes to allies, or those who purport to be our friends, holding British citizens hostage?
Tony Vaughan
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is right that we need to call a spade a spade here. There is no basis for these convictions and no basis for this detention—that is the hallmark of an arbitrary detention in international law. If we can accept that, we can move to the next stage to take the appropriate measures to deal with this very serious abuse of British citizens in Iran.
A number of our international partners have not shied away from such clear language. For example, France and Australia have explicitly rejected the espionage convictions of their nationals in Iran in similar situations as baseless and politically motivated. They have described those detentions of their nationals as arbitrary detention, and have used such language not to close down diplomacy, but to strengthen it. My constituent Joe and his family ask: why should the British Government be more cautious about the truth than others have been in similar situations?
Secondly, what consideration has been given to providing diplomatic protection to Lindsay and Craig Foreman? That is an established way of converting an individual grievance into an interstate dispute. Craig and Lindsay are our citizens, so the Government must do all they can to protect them. That should include, at the very least, a serious and transparent assessment of whether conferring diplomatic protection on them would enhance our ability to bring them home. If not, why not?
Thirdly, what consideration has been given to how the International Court of Justice mechanism and other international legal forums could be used by the UK to exert pressure on Iran? The ICJ is where the UK could argue that politically motivated arbitrary detentions of our nationals do breach international legal obligations; France has done exactly that with its nationals. What is the Government’s view about that mechanism in the Foremans’ case? Does the Ministers accept in principle that the pattern of conduct is not just unjustifiable, but arbitrary and unlawful under international law?
Fourthly—this is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan)—given that Craig is in the 13th day of his hunger strike and Lindsay is on her fourth, will the Minister assure the family that appropriate steps are being taken to monitor their health in prison, including, if necessary, with the assistance of an ally?
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on securing the debate and thank him for the cross-party nature of his approach. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group on arbitrary detention and hostage affairs for its work on the concerning case of Craig and Lindsay Foreman.
This is a crucial moment for the UK Government and hon. Members in the Chamber to ascertain whether the support given to Craig and Lindsay is satisfactory. The tourists Craig and Lindsay were formerly my constituents. Joe and the family are living in deeply challenging times, and they want to know that that welfare and protection is roundly being given.
Tony Vaughan
The hon. Member is absolutely right. Contributions in this Chamber and the response to the early-day motion that I tabled some months ago— I think around 70 parliamentarians signed it, which is a good number, given that many people do not sign such motions—show that there is cross-party support for more robust action in the case of the Foremans, and I will continue with colleagues, in this Chamber and outside it, to press for that.
Over 500 days into this terrible nightmare, Lindsay and Craig, my constituent Joe Bennett and their family are desperately in need of hope. They see the French bring home their nationals from Iran, as Australia did—and as the UK eventually did in the cases of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori. I thank Richard Ratcliffe, who is in the Gallery and has been a source of great support to the family at this very difficult time, in spite of his own and Nazanin’s terrible ordeal. France and Australia have explicitly rejected espionage convictions as baseless and politically motivated, and Joe wants to understand why the UK cannot take a similar approach in relation to his parents.
The family are not asking for miracles; they are asking for clarity of language, for maximum use of the legal and diplomatic tools available to our country, and for an approach that treats Craig and Lindsay appropriately: as innocent British citizens who have been taken from their usual lives and their families, and must urgently be brought home.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), both for securing the debate and for his support for Craig, Lindsay and their family. I acknowledge the family’s presence, and join my hon. and learned Friend in recognising their remarkable determination; they have shown great courage in truly difficult circumstances.
This is a truly terrible case, and my thoughts are with the couple and their family at this incredibly difficult time. The Foreign Secretary and I are doing all we can to support them, and to press for Craig and Lindsay’s release. I am grateful for the thoughtful contributions of Members on both sides of the House, and will do my best to respond to the points that have been raised.
The couple have been detained in Iran since January last year, and are being held in Evin Prison in Tehran. Recent developments have only added to the family’s distress. I spoke with Joe, who is with us today, and with Warren, Craig’s brother, on Monday. They told me that telephone contact between the couple and their family ceased almost two weeks ago, and that there are serious concerns for their health, now that they have both begun a hunger strike. My hon. and learned Friend asked whether I can provide an assurance that they are having adequate health monitoring. I cannot provide that assurance. The consular officials have not had access to the couple in some time, but we continue to press for that assurance and for access, very regularly, and I was discussing this matter with our ambassador to Iran just earlier today.
Alicia Kearns
I thank the Minister for saying that he is pressing on the matter, and that he has been talking to our ambassador, but can he tell the House when he last spoke to his Iranian counterpart, and how many times in the past three months he has raised the case with his Iranian counterpart? With all due respect, getting the couple home requires Government-to-Government negotiation.
Mr Falconer
I raised the case with the Iranian ambassador very recently—whenever I last saw him—and I have raised it in every single interaction I have had with him, but I reassure the hon. Lady that, as she knows, our ambassador to Tehran is a fully empowered representative of the British Government, and talks to the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the consular issues very regularly, to ensure that they are raised. This case has been raised at every single level, not just by me but by the Foreign Secretary with the Iranian Foreign Minister within the past fortnight, so there is no doubt in the Iranian Government’s mind about how seriously we take it.
Supporting British nationals overseas is of course a fundamental part of what we do, and we have been seeking to support Craig, Lindsay and their family throughout. I think my meeting on Monday was my seventh with the Foreman family, and the Foreign Secretary has met them twice. We will continue to provide consular assistance, and officials remain in close and very regular contact with Warren and Joe, to ensure that the family are kept informed and supported. We want to ensure that their concerns are understood and reflected in our approach. As I said to Joe and Warren earlier this week, I remain available to speak with them at any time. As I just said, we have repeatedly and consistently raised Craig and Lindsay’s case with the Iranian authorities at every appropriate level.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
This House has heard, sadly, the comments that the Minister has made about the Government pressing this case. He will know that it was pressure from this House, and from the families, that caused the release of the other hostages in Iran. Will he undertake, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) suggested, to contact his counterpart at the end of this debate and ensure that the family get proper access to Craig and Lindsay Foreman? We will repeat their names in this House until they are released.
Mr Falconer
As I just said, we have and we will continue to raise this as regularly as possible with the Iranian authorities, both on some of the consular grounds that have been discussed, and in respect of the wider elements of the case. As the House knows, I cover many very difficult consular cases, and we have discussed others in this Chamber. It is not always public pressure that is most effective in securing releases. We have seen a range of releases across my wider area of responsibility during my time as Minister. Those releases are effected in a wide variety of ways, so I will always give families, and their constituency MPs when they are authorised to speak on their behalf, my best advice. It will not always be the case that public pressure is the best way to secure releases. I regret to say that the Iranian authorities appear to use detentions as a way to try to secure public, as well as private, leverage, and it is not always my advice that people should go public in response.
Mims Davies
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. Will he confirm on the Floor of the House that Craig and Lindsay Foreman are not spies?
Mr Falconer
I have said before that they are innocent tourists, and we stand by that position.
To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), I see from my notes that the last time the Foreign Secretary raised this case was with the Iranian Foreign Minister on 8 May. I reassure her that Ministers are raising it very regularly at the highest level, despite the press of other business. As well as the ministerial level, there is the official level; officials will continue to work intensively on this, and raise the case at every opportunity with their Iranian counterparts. Although it is true that our embassy in Tehran remains temporarily closed because of the situation there, it continues to operate remotely. I reassure the House that we continue to raise this matter, despite that temporary closure. As I said earlier, our ambassador has pressed the Iranian authorities to restore telephone contact with the family, to allow Craig and Lindsay to see one another, and to ensure access to appropriate medical care and essential welfare items.
As I know my hon. Friends will recognise, and as we have discussed privately, cases of this nature are complex and highly sensitive. When British nationals are detained overseas, they are, of course, subject to the legal system of the country in which they are held. However, we consistently advocate for fair treatment, due process and respect for the international obligations set out in the UN minimum standards, often known as the Mandela rules. As I have said, in Iran, engagement must be handled with particular care. We are balancing private engagement and public channels to ensure that we do not inadvertently make the situation more difficult for Craig and Lindsay.
Mr Falconer
I will, once I have made a little more progress. These cases rarely move quickly or predictably. Progress is often incremental, and requires sustained and patient engagement, and I assure the House that we are persistent and determined in our efforts.
Mr Falconer
I think I probably have to take turns, so I will give way to the hon. Lady and then to my hon. and learned Friend.
Alicia Kearns
The Minister has made the point about public versus private, and what works. The French approach of declaring their person arbitrarily detained worked; they are home. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), given that the Minister has just recognised that Iranian law does not provide for a fair trial, and that we cannot recognise due process to have been followed, will the Minister at least declare on the Floor of the House that Craig and Lindsay are being arbitrarily detained?
Mr Falconer
I will try to make a little progress before I take the intervention from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. I am always reluctant, when at the Dispatch Box, to compare our diplomacy with that of our friends, partners and allies, but I say gently to the hon. Lady that the French case to which I think she is referring involved four years of detention in conditions that no one would want to see Craig and Lindsay in. I understand the point that she is making, but comparisons between cases are not easily made, and we have to use our best judgment and give our best advice to the families.
I recognise that the family have called for stronger public action, including a range of steps, some of which were outlined very clearly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. As I have tried to make clear throughout my speech, we will give the family our best advice. It also falls to us to give our best judgment about what is in Craig and Lindsay’s interest. That is at the heart of our approach.
Tony Vaughan
Does the Minister agree that it is precisely because of the complexity of these cases, which potentially involve numerous different Government Departments, that we need an envoy for complex consular cases, who has not just the resources, but the authority to bring the Government together, and to act proactively to get such cases moving? Can he update the House on where that proposal is at, and whether there will be the framework and the powers to bring these sorts of cases forward? The Minister will be aware of matters that potentially concern other Government Departments in this case, and it may help if an individual has the authority, resources and powers to bring these sorts of cases forward. What are his thoughts on that?
Mr Falconer
I can confirm to my hon. and learned Friend and to the House that we are progressing the appointment of an envoy. One of the issues we have sought to navigate in the appointment of an envoy is that the Government and I recognise the responsibilities that the Foreign Secretary and I have to this House and to other Members, who will wish to represent their constituents appropriately in public, just as we are doing as we speak. There is therefore a balance to be struck in appointing an envoy with the ability to do all the things that my hon. Friend describes while not taking away from parliamentary accountability, which is a central pillar of our system. We are bringing forward that appointment, and I look forward to returning to the House with further details about it, and about the individual who I hope will take up that post.
I recognise that even during this short exchange, there have been differing views about the most effective ways to secure progress. That is entirely understandable in the circumstances. However, I wish to reassure my hon. and learned Friend and the family in the Gallery that every decision we take is guided by what we judge to be in Craig and Lindsay’s best interests. Our objective is clear: to work towards their return to their loved ones, and, until then, to ensure improvements in their welfare.
I remain deeply concerned for Craig and Lindsay Foreman, particularly in the light of recent developments affecting their health. We are working, and will continue to work, intensively through all appropriate channels to support Craig and Lindsay, improve their conditions and pursue their swift release.
Question put and agreed to.
Baldies Field
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Women’s Health and Wellbeing: Online Censorship
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the censorship of women’s health and wellbeing content online.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I want to flag at the beginning of this debate that I will be using a selection of words that big tech deems too sexual for its platforms. I hope everyone in this room can hold their composure and not get too flustered when I mention “sexual” terms such as vaginal atrophy and pelvic prolapse. To reassure the Chair, the precedent has already been set in the House for most of these terms. “Vagina” was first used in the House in 1961; “labia minora” in 1983; “orgasm” in 1974; “clitoris” in 1971; and “vulva” goes all the way back to the 1880s.
I must make a point about the historical use of the word “orgasm”. My team had a really interesting time searching Hansard for this debate. As they trawled through it, they found really interesting examples of “orgasm” being used, which I find quite entertaining. In 1978 the former Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch spoke passionately in favour of the creation of the Defence Select Committee, saying:
“I am firmly convinced that to discuss defence in the House in the traditional way is merely to give everyone the chance of an emotional orgasm.”—[Official Report, 3 April 1978; Vol. 947, c. 144.]
In 1982 the former Member for Grimsby spoke against the horrors of what would happen if cable television became the norm, warning that
“We shall finish up with wall-to-wall orgasm”
and
“constant pornography”.—[Official Report, 2 December 1982; Vol. 33, c. 471.]
With the country totally fed up with politics, I find it refreshing to remember that we in this House have the ability to discuss with passion what most of the country would find very dull. For millions of women and girls today, social media is where they learn about things like menopause, endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, fibroids, vaginismus, dysmenorrhoea, bacterial vaginosis—are we all managing to control ourselves hearing these terms?—and countless other aspects of women’s health. If social media had been prevalent when I was desperately trying to figure out why my periods hurt more than giving birth, I am sure I would have been able to advocate for myself with my GP and receive my adenomyosis diagnosis far earlier than I did.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on an important topic. She is very kind to give way. Does she agree with me that social media and the internet are great tools for people who suffer from unusual conditions or are a part of small communities? It is important that tech platforms do not penalise those communities by letting their algorithms stop those topics being discussed.
Emily Darlington
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. He makes a really important point. It is so ingrained in us to go first to the internet to search for information. We have agreed ways to make sure health information is proper health information and that we are not getting bad science, but even when using the ticks that are supplied by various platforms, advice is still being shadow-banned. The online world is where women ask questions when they are often too embarrassed to ask elsewhere about period pain, discharge, lactation, or how to use a tampon safely.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
I speak as a recently departed member of the ministerial team that delivered the women’s health strategy and a former Minister responsible for digital health. Of course we must protect people from harmful content, but does my hon. Friend agree with me that at a time when medical misogyny is alive and thriving and women’s health outcomes are worse than men’s, we should think about how we can more responsibly leverage the algorithms to generate discussion, not silence it, about reproductive rights, cancer awareness, menstruation, menopause and everything else that she has mentioned?
Emily Darlington
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I met some survivors of vulval cancer this morning. Even though they included a former midwife, a health advocate and other people who were well-informed, they told me about their struggle they experienced when advocating for themselves and to be taken seriously by their GP. They knew something was wrong with their vulvas, but they could not get through to their GP. Luckily, they all did; they are all doing well and have responded to their cancer treatment, but they might have been able to advocate effectively sooner had they been able to access more information than they found online. There are more women out there in exactly the same situation.
Words such as “tampon” are being suppressed by big tech platforms. “Shadow-banning” is the term for when users can still technically post but their visibility is secretly throttled. Their posts stop appearing in feeds, their reach collapses, their engagement disappears and their followers cannot find them. In the examples I have seen, the user is never clearly informed about it. That is censorship without accountability, which is harming education, charities and businesses, reinforcing stigma and, in some cases, putting women’s lives at risk. We need to call that what it is: algorithmic sexism.
Meta, the company that owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, has removed or restricted dozens of accounts belonging to abortion providers, women’s health campaigners and reproductive health organisations across the world. These takedowns began last October and have affected more than 50 organisations globally, some of which support tens of thousands of women. Repro Uncensored, a non-governmental organisation that tracks digital censorship focused on gender, health and justice, documented 210 instances of account removal and severe restriction this year, compared with 81 last year. That is not random moderation, it is escalation.
The Sex Talk Arabic, a UK-based Arabic-language sexual health platform, says it receives warnings from Meta almost weekly. The organisation’s former director, Fatma Ibrahim, said that Meta repeatedly informed it that posts about sexuality, reproductive health and sex education would not be recommended to others because they supposedly violated the platform’s rules. Then the warnings escalated, and Meta began to simply remove its posts.
Examining Meta’s community guidelines allows us to understand why these organisations are so alarmed. Meta says that it allows nudity for “educational”, “medical” and “awareness-raising content”, but that is clearly not what is happening in practice. Under its policies relating to “adult sexual activity”, which it supposedly bans outright, Meta includes “menstruation” alongside “dismemberment”, “cannibalism” and “bestiality”. Something that every woman does monthly—an involuntary biological process connected to the menstrual cycle that is experienced by billions of women—is grouped alongside acts of violence and abuse. What does that tell women about their bodies and how they are being understood by these systems?
This morning, I met representatives of the Eve Appeal, the UK’s leading gynaecological cancer charity, who handed me a letter that they wrote to Meta after attempts to reach it by other avenues failed. They told me that they are extremely concerned about the suppression of some of their content. Last month, The Eve Appeal shared a medically accurate illustration of vulval anatomy on Instagram. It was not pornography or explicit material, but a labelled, educational diagram intended to help people understand their vulva, recognise changes in their cervix and identify symptoms of vulval cancer. The post had a Patient Information Forum tick, the gold standard for health information content. The Eve Appeal has posted the same content three or four times over the last five years, but last month, Instagram removed the post for alleged “nudity or sexual activity”. The Eve Appeal’s account received a warning and its appeal was rejected. Eventually, the post was reinstated, but it was hidden under a “sensitive content” screen, warning users that the image “may be upsetting”. I have seen the image, and it is literally a line drawing. The Eve Appeal received no explanation, and the sensitive content warning has stifled engagement on its post.
One of the Eve Appeal advocates, Zoe, told me,
“When I was diagnosed with vulva cancer, I was clueless. Why? Because I was taught the whole thing was a vagina. The use of pictures with labels of anatomy and names would have been a great help. Penis, prostate, balls, breasts, ovaries, cervix and womb are not taboo, however vulva and vagina, the two rarest of the gynaecological cancers, are being censored and dismissed.”
The Eve Appeal’s educational posts are designed to save lives. Hiding women’s anatomy behind “sensitive content” warnings does not protect women; it silences them.
Such policies can even put lives at risk. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who could not make it here today, has been raising awareness of another extraordinary case involving Thames Valley Air Ambulance. The charity launched a campaign highlighting that one in three women suffering cardiac arrest do not receive CPR before emergency crews arrive. Why? Because bystanders are often hesitant to touch women’s chests, remove bras, expose nipples or remove clothing in an emergency. Thames Valley Air Ambulance created an educational content video using a female CPR mannequin to demonstrate how to apply defibrillator pads correctly. Facebook removed the post and Instagram temporarily deleted it. The reason? The female mannequin breached community standards. Again, after appeal the content was restored with a blurred sensitivity warning. The charity responded:
“If we can’t even share an image of an educational use manikin online without it being deemed ‘inappropriate’, how are we expected to normalise removing a real person’s bra to…save their life?”
As you can imagine, similar content with a male mannequin is never removed or shadow-banned.
Education campaigns like those save lives, yet the algorithms of big tech treat them as indecent. While charities are struggling to share lifesaving information, women’s health businesses are also being throttled. The global femtech market is projected to exceed $97 billion by 2030. It should be one of the great growth sectors of the future; instead, female-led health businesses are facing relentless moderation barriers.
Bodyform’s Vagina Uncensored campaign was censored 22 times in one month across Meta, TikTok, Instagram and X. One advert containing the words “menstrual cycle” and showing a sanitary towel with blood was rejected by Meta unless it carried an 18-plus warning. To remind people, periods start much younger than 18 years old and the questions start even earlier than that. Apparently, period products are considered inappropriate for under-18s despite the fact that the vast majority of girls begin menstruating well before that age.
Sixty-four per cent. of women’s health businesses have lost revenue because of those restrictions. Some businesses report losses of half a million pounds a year. One company said their app downloads collapsed from 250 per week to just 50. Another said years of content creation vanished overnight. Smaller femtech start-ups are the hardest hit. Hanx, a women’s sexual wellness company, said nine out of 10 of its adverts were rejected in the early days, and even now 34% of all its adverts are rejected. Meanwhile, treatments for erectile dysfunction are explicitly permitted under Meta’s advertising rules; women’s libido products are not.
Tommy’s, the pregnancy and baby charity, had a video flagged as inappropriate because it included the word vagina. The video featured a researcher studying the vaginal microbiome to better understand infections linked to premature birth and miscarriage. Again, educational, evidence-based medical information was treated as inappropriate content.
Ordinary women are seeing this happen every day. Influencer Charlotte Emily has more than 90,000 Instagram followers—something I think every politician in this room would like. She said that posts about periods, body image, menopause and women’s health perform dramatically worse than her fashion or lifestyle content. She said that simply using the word “period” instead of euphemisms like “Aunt Flo” reduces visibility. Think about the message that sends to young girls online: that medically accurate language about their own body is unacceptable and that they should hide behind euphemisms and embarrassment.
This is not accidental. Words connected to women’s healthcare are treated as suspect content when they should be treated as healthcare education. That is the same prejudice that women have faced for centuries, simply translated into code. Victorian doctors dismissed women’s suffering as hysteria; today’s algorithms suppress the words that women search when they need to find out whether what is happening to their body is normal. The technology has changed, but the sexism has not.
This censorship has consequences far beyond embarrassment or inconvenience. When trusted information is hidden, misinformation flourishes. The Government have now acknowledged that poor-quality online health information harms women’s outcomes—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) for his work on that—particularly around reproductive health, contraception, miscarriage, menstruation, menopause and infertility. I am glad to see us acknowledging that, but tackling misinformation means nothing if accurate information is suppressed in the first place. If charities are hidden, educators are shadow-banned, doctors are down-ranked and medically approved content about the uterus, cervix, vulva and vagina is blurred, conspiracy theorists and grifters fill the vacuum and women suffer.
I am coming to the end of my speech, but I want to mention that Essity surveyed about 4,000 adults and found that two thirds look online for health advice, while half rely on social media for health and wellbeing information. Among young people, that number is even higher. Overwhelmingly, the public reject this censorship. Nearly eight out of 10 adults said that words such as “vagina”, “period”, “boobs” and “menopause” should not be restricted when used educationally. The public understand what platforms apparently do not: women’s anatomy is not obscene, women’s health is not inappropriate and education is not pornography.
So what must happen now? First, big tech companies must stop hiding behind opaque moderation systems. They must explain how their algorithms operate, why women’s health content is disproportionately targeted and how appeals are reviewed. Secondly, the Government must stop allowing this issue to fall between policy silos. This is simultaneously a health issue, a women’s equality issue, an online safety issue and a digital regulation issue. It requires co-ordinated action between departments, regulators and the affected organisations. Thirdly, platforms should work directly with clinicians, educators and trusted charities to establish verified pathways for evidence-based health content. Finally, we need a cultural shift. Women and girls deserve to talk openly about periods, menopause, infertility, miscarriage, sex, orgasms, puberty and breastfeeding and every other aspect of their health without shame. They deserve medically accurate information without censorship.
Ultimately, this debate is not only about algorithms. It is about power: who gets heard, who gets visibility, whose bodies are treated as acceptable and whose health is considered legitimate. Right now, the message that many women receive online is this: “Your body is inappropriate. Your anatomy is shameful. Your health is controversial.” It is also about autonomy. If we can make informed choices, we have autonomy, but until big tech changes course, women will continue to pay the price in lost education, lost opportunity, lost trust and, in some cases, lost lives. The technology companies have the money and they have the ability; what they lack is the will. It is about time they found it.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I strongly back this Government’s commitment to tackling online gender-based harms. I am pleased by the progress that has been made, which includes making intimate image abuse, cyber-flashing and choking priority offences under the Online Safety Act and fast-tracking legislation to ban the creation of non-consensual intimate deepfakes.
Recognising the growing threat of technology-enabled abuse is vital for the Government’s targets to halve violence against women and girls during the next decade, but we must ensure that these efforts do not lead to unintended consequences that could undermine the safety and wellbeing of women and girls in other ways. The shadow-banning of medically accurate, evidence-based women’s health content can seriously restrict women’s ability to speak out and find information about their bodies online.
I recently led a Westminster Hall debate considering the e-petition on statutory menstrual leave for people with endometriosis and adenomyosis, which affects 1.5 million women in Britain. In the lead-up to the debate, I spoke to campaigners including Michelle Dewar, who organised the petition. For her and many others, social media is a tool to spread awareness, educate and campaign. Indeed, it was on social media that Michelle was able to encourage signatures for the e-petition, which eventually led to the debate in Parliament.
Like many other women’s health conditions, endometriosis and adenomyosis face serious social stigma. Social media can offer the space to help overcome that, establishing support networks where women can connect and feel understood. However, the unrefined and blanket approaches that many social media platforms take to address broader online harms often lead to the suppression of women’s health content. That can include restrictions on certain words associated with women’s health, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) referred to, and the banning of paid-for ads, including for women’s health and sexual wellbeing products.
This has real implications for women. It can seriously impact the reach of content online, reducing access to potentially lifesaving information or vital support networks. It also has economic implications; research by CensHERship indicates that 64% of women’s health businesses have experienced lost revenue as a result of these types of barrier. Once there is a shadow ban, it can be very difficult to resolve and can lead to loss of revenue and other long-term issues.
Social media platforms such as Instagram and Facebook have failed to properly engage with the issue. There remains a lack of transparency about how shadow-banning operates. That is particularly concerning because although content around women’s menstrual and sexual health often faces removal, the same cannot be said for men’s health content and the language used to describe male bodies. We must join the calls by Essity and other campaign groups for meaningful action to change this. Cross-Government working groups to examine how platform moderation practices affect women’s access to health information, and alignment between the women’s health strategy and wider digital and online safety frameworks, can ensure that women’s access to health information is treated as a priority.
Women must be allowed to own the narrative around their own bodies. It is therefore time to ban the ban.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for securing this important debate.
Getting accurate health information is essential, and it is a fact that most people go online to get it. Some 48% of UK adults have used online health information, including from social media, to self-diagnose at least once in a year, according to a 2024 study by AXA. The same study found that 30% of young adults have turned to social media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram to access health information.
Machine-learning tools such as ChatGPT are now, according to a 2026 study by AXA, the first source for symptom-checking for 36% of people—twice the number who would first go to the NHS website. That is worrying in and of itself, given how entirely inaccurate machine-learning tools such as ChatGPT can be. They do not necessarily give accurate information; what they do is build plausible sentences, but that is a debate for another day.
We have already heard how medically accurate women’s health information is being systematically removed or downgraded by the algorithm. This is also known as shadow-banning. Content creators quite often do not know that it is even happening. We have also seen products removed from sales platforms, including Amazon, with adverts or posts being blocked for using words such as “vagina”, “period”, “menopause”, “pregnancy” or “fertility”. At the same time, adverts for erectile dysfunction or testosterone products remain visible. That is just one example. Advertisements for at-home fertility testing kits were automatically rejected by Amazon because they contained the word “vagina”, although the word “semen” was allowed. For context, the word “vagina” was contained in safety advice that said, “It’s not safe for you to use this product if you’ve had vaginal or cervical surgery within the last three months.” That is a safety implication, never mind anything else.
A recurring pattern in reports and research is that algorithms and moderation systems appear to interpret women’s anatomy and women’s reproductive language as adult or sexual in nature, in a way that comparable men’s health content simply is not. A vacuum of information is being created by medically accurate language being removed or downgraded. What happens in this vacuum? What fills this vacuum? Misinformation.
Unfortunately, the health and wellbeing advice online is quite often entirely without scientific basis. It often appeals to language like “natural”, “gentle” or “traditional”, or uses the accurate chemical names of everyday products or food to make them sound scary or unhealthy. That is easy to do. Take the chemical dihydrogen monoxide. That sounds like a very scary chemical, doesn’t it? That is water. It is easy to make things sound unhealthy and unsafe.
We see this pattern again and again: good, anatomically and medically accurate information is buried while nonsense is peddled by grifters—sorry, “influencers”—who usually have their own supplements to sell, funnily enough, or are being paid to promote things that they simply do not understand. The shadow-banning of certain words—the removal of anatomically accurate terms—means that content providers who do know what they are talking about, such as medics and scientists, are drowned out. As a result, women are left with a sea of misinformation, bad advice and often poor health.
What should we do about it? I recognise that some of these problems can come as an inadvertent and unintended consequence of important action to make online spaces safer, particularly for children. But children are not harmed by hearing medically accurate words or understanding how adult bodies work. As a parent, I make a point of using the correct anatomical terms. I am not going to lie: occasionally that has led to a bit of public embarrassment, especially when you have toddlers, but it means that my kids can now understand and find information about their own bodies.
I ask that social media and online sales platforms work with campaigners and Government to figure out how to keep people safe online while not restricting vital, medically accurate content. That work needs to be done across different Departments, and it needs to include regulators. We need to align the very welcome women’s health strategy with wider digital online safety frameworks so that women’s access to accurate health information is treated as a shared priority.
We need to find successful ways to disseminate valid, scientifically based women’s health information. That would involve the active testing of possible solutions, such as trusted expert accreditation, co-designed with clinicians, women’s health organisations and the platforms themselves. There is wider work to do on general health and scientific literacy in the population and the content creator space. I am sure that many of the people peddling nonsense do not know what they are doing because they do not have the critical thinking skills or the simple baseline knowledge to know what it is that they are selling.
In conclusion, women must be able to get medically and scientifically accurate information about their health—and we must work together to deliver it.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I apologise for running late, Mr Stringer; I had an emergency constituent issue.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) not only for securing this vital debate on the censorship of women’s health and wellbeing content online, but for her ongoing campaigning on this issue. I was delighted to join her roundtable on the subject with Essity. We need strong voices in this place and, my word, I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s strong voice on this issue.
We are here to talk about women’s health, so I will focus on that, but I want to make it clear that we are all fierce advocates for men’s health as well. It is clear that women’s health is being pushed to the edges of the internet by systems that fail to distinguish between pornography and public health. Posts about periods, endometriosis, fertility, pregnancy loss, pelvic pain and menopause—ordinary facts about ordinary bodies—are down-ranked, age-gated or quietly buried, while explicit content remains only a tap away. This is not a harmless quirk: it reflects design choices made by tech companies, often heavily influenced by men, the male lens and the male view of the world.
As founder of Labour: Women in Tech, I have been campaigning for years to get more women into the industry and creating tech that is made to serve more people. More recently, I have launched a campaign for age-appropriate, inclusive and lifelong sex education with Cindy Gallop of MakeLoveNotPorn and the MakeLoveNotPorn Academy, a platform for creating the Google of sex education. Talking of tech, I know she is watching this debate live online—so hello, Cindy Gallop.
We want to take the shame, guilt and embarrassment—all of which are perpetuated by shadow banning—out of talking about sex. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) mentioned some embarrassing things that can happen in public, and she is a fierce advocate for giving parts of the body their proper anatomical names.
I will focus on the huge role that sexual wellbeing plays in our health and happiness. We cannot rest on our laurels and assume that everyone had relationships and sex education in school. In fact, completing formal education at 16—RSE is not mandatory to 18—does not mean that the relationships and sex education provided to a student was adequate. A recent Youth Select Committee report found that relationships and sex education in UK schools is woefully lacking, particularly for LGBTQ young people. Like many adults, young people therefore turn to the internet and social media to fill the gaps.
When the online classroom censors the syllabus, we fail people twice: first by not teaching them enough, and then by hiding the very information they seek. These failures play out across a lifetime. After cancer treatment, for example, a woman may experience significant changes, such as early menopause, pain, vaginal dryness and changes in desire. She may look for practical, compassionate advice, but find it flagged as “sexual content”. That delivers not support but silence.
When it comes to pregnancy and the months after birth, evidence-based guidance on pelvic floor recovery or painful sex is frequently hidden behind warnings, while myths about “bouncing back” flow freely, leaving new mothers to stitch together care in the dark. Content on perimenopause and the menopause, an experience that will touch half the population, explaining brain fog, joint pain, dyspareunia—genital pain before, during or after sex—and the role of hormone replacement therapy is throttled by filters that bury the very help that women need.
Censorship compounds existing inequalities. Disabled people receive very little support around having a healthy sex life. Even straightforward, evidence-based facts about masturbation helping some people to relieve menstrual cramps are too often treated as indecent rather than educational. On top of that, creators and clinicians feel compelled to contort language to avoid suppression, writing “seggs” instead of “sex”, or “b00bs” instead of “breasts”. This is not merely absurd; for some neurodivergent people, misspelled language is confusing and exclusionary, making essential health information harder to understand and access.
We should also acknowledge the pressures on the very people trying to provide education. Some sex educators on mainstream platforms, especially TikTok and Instagram, feel forced to use coded or alternative language to get any reach at all.
Milly Evans, who has nearly half a million followers on TikTok, told me she never knows what rules might be imposed from one day to the next. She has had her account suspended; had stretches where algorithms would allow her to reach only existing followers, therefore not expanding her reach; and had periods of outright shadow banning, meaning that no one saw what she posted. When educators must choose between clarity and visibility, the public loses. This is especially true for those who rely on free, accessible information.
There is a gendered double standard that we must confront: women are penalised for posting clinically accurate information that men can share with far fewer consequences. Cindy Gallop’s “Fairness in the Feed” campaign on LinkedIn highlighted this starkly, with women who changed their profile gender to male seeing their posts reach further. When the same message travels differently depending on who says it, bias is no longer incidental: it is embedded in the system. Of course, LinkedIn denies it, but I say look at the actions, not the words.
The knock-on effects are not only personal but are economic. Women’s health companies, start-ups, clinics, apps and retailers struggle to reach the very people they exist to serve because their content and advertising are throttled. Lucy Litwack is the owner and CEO of Coco de Mer, a company that helps women with desire and sexual pleasure, which are central to health and wellbeing. She said that she cannot even run promotions for her lingerie on Facebook because her company also happens to sell sex toys. That is not just a ban on the promotion of sex toys, which is questionable in itself—I do not see why that should be banned—but a blanket block on lingerie because of association.
If responsible brands cannot speak to consenting adults about lawful products, innovation is chilled and growth is starved. The founders then walk into investor rooms and are told, “Sorry, your reach is too small and your traction is too thin.” The system is creating problems and then punishing those who try to solve them.
Shadow banning is especially corrosive because it is deniable. There is no clear refusal, only diminishing visibility, fewer views and a creeping signal that plain speech about women’s bodies is unwelcome. The predictable result is self-censorship: creators soften terms, clinicians dilute clarity, charities tiptoe, and the space left in respect of accuracy is quickly filled by misinformation and predatory products.
All that is why, alongside Cindy, I have launched a public consultation alongside our campaign for lifelong sex education. It is not a fixed blueprint but a genuine invitation for contributors to share their evidence and lived experience. We are asking people to tell us what is working well, what needs to change and where they would like the agenda to land.
In the spirit of listening, I will outline some ideas that people might suggest we explore together. People might call for greater transparency from and due process for platforms, including through clear rules for sexual and reproductive health content. That would mean having explanations when posts are limited and timely, and human-reviewed appeals so that educational material is not swept up by blunt filters and biased enforcement.
People might propose a mechanism to recognise verified educational and clinical content, thereby allowing NHS bodies, registered charities and qualified clinicians to label health education so that it is not misclassified as adult content, while still meeting robust safety standards.
People might ask for independent scrutiny and measurement so that we can track the visibility of sexual health content for women and men, LGBTQ communities, neurodivergent people and disabled people. That would allow us to compare enforcement patterns across genders and communities, audit algorithms and training data for bias, test whether changes actually help people to find the information that they need, and help responsible women’s health companies and educators to reach them.
People might also recommend partnerships that place trusted resources where people already are, such as GP surgeries, workplaces, community centres, schools and the large public platforms. That would make accurate guidance available at key life stages such as puberty, when making decisions about consent and contraception, pregnancy and postpartum recovery, illness and treatment, and the menopause transition.
What I have outlined are not conclusions; they are suggestions. They are invitations to shape a programme that is built with the public, rather than being handed down to them. Yet whatever solutions emerge will succeed only if the channels that carry our information stop choking on the words that we need to use.
Censorship by algorithm is still censorship, and when it hides women’s health, it harms half the country—quietly, cumulatively and needlessly. We should not accept an internet where it is easier to encounter pornography than to find clinically sound advice about pelvic pain, menopause, cancer recovery or accessible sexual wellbeing for disabled or neurodivergent people. We should not accept rules that police women’s language while allowing men to say the same things more frequently, nor a market that punishes health founders and educators for trying to solve the very problems that the system creates.
The consultation is open and we want people to share what already works, identify the gaps and point us to changes that would make the greatest difference. Together, we can bring women’s health out of the algorithmic shadows and into the light.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) on securing this timely and important debate, and I thank the hon. Members for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), for Colne Valley (Paul Davies), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for their contributions.
Women’s health has been under-represented, under- discussed and under-researched throughout human history. As a result, women in my constituency, across the country and around the world are suffering needlessly. We are here today to discuss and highlight the fact that the online world has not changed that for the better, and that there is evidence that social media and tech giants are censoring women’s health issues, while men’s issues seem to be posted, shared and discussed with relative ease. That doubles down on centuries of health inequality, and it needs to stop.
There is, of course, a balance to be struck in identifying what is and is not appropriate to be shared with an increasingly wide audience online and on social media platforms—indeed, there is an active and growing discussion of that issue—but the censoring of accurate and lifesaving health information or of the promotion of effective products cannot be allowed. Social media companies are systematically censoring content relating to menstruation, fertility, menopause and postpartum recovery by classifying it as adult content.
At the same time, algorithms continue to push extreme material every single day. Violence, misogyny and racism proliferate online with alarming ease, yet educational and medical content about women’s bodies is apparently where tech companies choose to draw the line.
Meta introduced new health advertising categories earlier this year and rolled out additional restrictions designed to prevent advertisers from sharing what it classifies as sensitive health data. In practice, that has led many femtech and women’s health companies to claim that they are being disproportionately censored. We have seen reports of adverts for egg testing being removed, while sperm testing adverts remain. Educational posts are taken down for using medically accurate language. Charities such as Tommy’s have reportedly had research content flagged as inappropriate simply for containing the word “vagina”.
A 2023 campaign by Bodyform highlighted more than 40 banned or restricted words, including “cervix”, “PCOS”, “infertility” and “menopause”. That is shocking and idiotic. Words associated with normal biological functions and serious medical conditions are being treated as taboo.
The campaign group CensHERship found that 95% of women’s health creators experienced censorship in the past year, and more than half said that they now self-censor their own language to avoid having content removed. That should concern us all. The Removing or restricting medical and educational information does not protect people from dangerous content; it limits discussion and learning on subjects that are already not talked about enough, and the consequences are serious.
Medical misogyny, systematic under-research and poor education around women’s health are already deeply embedded in society. Only about 2% of UK public research funding is spent on female reproductive health. Against that backdrop, unnecessary restrictions risk further exacerbating inequalities and leaving women and girls without access to information that could genuinely improve and, in some cases, save their lives.
It is frankly ridiculous that women are increasingly forced to use euphemisms online to discuss medically accurate terms such as “vagina”, to avoid censorship. What message does that send to young women and girls? What message does that send to our children? I grew up in the ’90s—in an age when talking about women’s heath was too often shameful and euphemisms were normal. I remember TV adverts extoling the possibilities of rollerblading along a California beach in hot pants, and mystery blue liquids were used to demonstrate the absorbent qualities of the latest sanitary towel.
Things have changed. I have noticed that my local supermarket no longer has the obscurely named “feminine hygiene” aisle, and that the blue liquid on TV adverts is now red. Things have got better in the last 30 years, but the internet is the not-so-new frontier where we must continue to make the case that these subjects are not shameful and that women should not feel embarrassed about their own bodies and health. Shame and stigma stop women from coming forward with their problems, which delays diagnoses and worsens outcomes, as when patients present later the consequences can be devastating.
Of course, there are legitimate concerns about medical misinformation online, and the Government must absolutely continue to tackle harmful information, but the systematic restriction of women’s health content is not the answer. Social media and the internet are now central conduits of knowledge and learning, particularly for younger generations. They have enormous untapped potential as tools for public health education and awareness.
I am afraid the Government’s recent women’s health strategy was a missed opportunity to begin to address the issue, but at the very least the Government should bring tech companies, campaigners, clinicians and women’s health organisations around the table to establish a workable and transparent solution. Women should not have to fight algorithms simply to access accurate health information, and in 2026 medically accurate discussions about women’s bodies should not be treated as inappropriate, shameful or obscene. It is time for us to stop allowing technology to reinforce existing inequality, and instead use it as a force for good.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. As we are discussing health, I should declare that I am a former NHS doctor and my wife is an NHS doctor.
I thank the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for her detailed and highly researched speech, as well as all other Members who have spoken. This has been a most concerning debate in relation to the systemic impact of health promotion, and it has thrown up bigger, more fundamental challenges that we, as a society, must start to grapple with. I will come to that later in my remarks.
My first job in the psychiatric training scheme—and my first consultant job—was on a women’s ward in south-east London. That was one of the most amazing jobs I have ever done: looking after very poorly women and doing my bit to deal with complex physical health issues and to promote women’s health. I totally appreciate and agree about the importance of reducing what is—let us face it—ridiculous stigma and social taboo around women’s health issues, but I come at this as a doctor, so I have a particular perspective.
Equally, I am mindful that my perspective—how I look at society—has changed during my 44 years. If someone had asked the Ben of 20 years ago, “Do you think we live in a society that is equal for men and women?” he would have said, “Yes, of course we do.” In the past 15 years, I have come to know that that is completely wrong, things are nowhere near where they should be and we still have a huge amount of work to do. Sadly, what we have heard in this debate, and the list of de-promoted words that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central handed to me, are further evidence of the challenges that we must tackle. She is 100% right to raise this topic, among others, and to call out what has been happening.
But—and there is a “but”—this issue is not simply about access to information. This is not just a question of whether the information should or should not be accessible—in my view, it absolutely should be—or of how to determine the threshold between adult content and factual material. The debate also relates to decisions made by private companies to impose limits on what they permit or promote on their sites. That is the nub of the issue: should companies be allowed to make those decisions, or should it be the role of Government to regulate those choices or actions?
To be clear, I do not believe that this debate is about the scope of the Online Safety Act, which does not restrict companies in the publication of factual health information. At no point does that Act says that information on breasts, vaginas, fertility, menstruation or menopause, or on any other body part, condition or medical term, should be restricted or classified as adult material. The way that that information or imagery is presented may indeed come within the scope of the Act, but its existence does not. Inappropriate adult content should not be accessible to children—that is right—but factual and educational material should not meet that criterion. It is also worth bearing in mind that, in some ways, this is not a new issue. I am sure that, just as people looked at information in anatomy textbooks for educational purposes before the internet, plenty of people looked at it for other purposes—but, again, that is not a matter for Parliament or the Online Safety Act.
Under our current legal framework, private companies have the right to choose what information they permit on their websites. That is a commercial decision, and if we are not happy with such a decision—my very strong view is that we should not support the restriction of information relating to women’s health—we should call them out and persuade them to change their position. Algorithmic transparency is important, but it is also critical, given the evidence that we have heard in this debate, that companies are not able to hide behind the Online Safety Act.
A bigger problem that we will have to tackle or process at some point is the status of social media in our society. Is it private or is it something bigger? Should it be regulated, like news outlets? That would be a huge change in our position, creating such regulatory burdens as to make the UK wholly uncompetitive in the market and having an extreme impact on people’s access to information. It would also be counterproductive, because it is nigh-on impossible to do.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister, whom I welcome to his place. This is the first time I have had the pleasure of being opposite him at the Dispatch Box. I reiterate the Opposition’s strong support for what Members from both sides of the House have said about the importance of destigmatising these matters. I hate even using the word “destigmatise” because I worry that that is stigmatising in itself—it is ridiculous, in some ways, that we have to have this debate in the modern age, but we are where we are. We must ensure that everyone has access to sensible and appropriate information, without the biases that have been mentioned in the debate.
Finally, as a former NHS mental health doctor, I point out that social media is not the only online source of health information. I signpost people who have questions to the NHS website, where there is plenty of stuff on all health areas—I looked it up on my phone during the debate. We do not have to rely on big-tech social media; we have plenty of services in which other information is available.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr James Frith)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for securing this debate, and all Members who have spoken.
As ever, my hon. Friend made a powerful and compelling argument. She is a compelling advocate for the people she argues for and the case she makes. That is met with deep appreciation and understanding. I think I understand most of the very helpful list that she provided, which I have handed to my officials, but I do not know whether I can pronounce every word on it. She made her point brilliantly, as did so many Members in their own speeches. My hon. Friend is right to challenge platforms that arbitrarily remove legal health content or engage in the practice of shadow-banning people, particularly where people struggle to appeal those unfair decisions.
I will set out the Government’s position clearly. First, we believe it is crucial that every woman and girl can access trusted health information online. Secondly, the Online Safety Act does not prevent adults or children from accessing legal content about women’s health. Thirdly, the Online Safety Act will require the largest user-to-user platforms—designated by Ofcom as category 1 services—to have clear, accessible terms of service. Those must explain what legal content for adults they do and do not allow, and when a user may be banned or suspended. Category 1 services will also need effective routes for users to challenge content being wrongly taken down. Their complaints processes must be clearly set out in their terms of service, and platforms will be expected to act appropriately when complaints are made.
Ofcom is due to publish the register of categorised services in July of this year, alongside a consultation on these additional duties, including strengthened terms of service requirements. Ofcom will consult over the summer and aims to publish final policy statements and guidance in 2027. Once those duties are in force, the largest platforms will have much clearer and stronger appeal mechanisms, and expectations on them, for users whose content has been removed inappropriately. Ofcom will be required to send out annual notices to categorised services, which may require them to disclose information about the design and operation of their algorithms.
As the online safety regulator, Ofcom published guidance in November 2025 setting out practical steps that technology firms can take to make their platforms a safer and more inclusive place for women and girls online. The guidance is clear that safeguards for freedom of expression must remain in place, including routes for users to challenge wrongly moderated content. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is working closely with Ofcom to support the effective implementation of those measures.
In March 2026, the Secretary of State held a roundtable with social media firms and set clear expectations that firms should implement Ofcom’s guidance by the end of this year. I hear the call from the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for a repeat roundtable with all parties, and I absolutely agree that that is a way forward. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), is absolutely right to say that this is about dialogue first—we agree on that. Where required, we must call out, but calling in is a good start.
The Online Safety Act also requires Ofcom to raise awareness and understanding of misinformation and harmful content, especially when vulnerable groups are affected. As part of that requirement, Ofcom must publish a media literacy strategy every three years. The first focuses on research, evidence and evaluation, and on engaging with platforms, people and partnerships, which includes the delivery of targeted media literacy interventions for priority groups.
DSIT is ensuring a more joined-up approach to media literacy across Government, aligning policy, education and communications. We are working to ensure that every person can access trusted health information online. That is why our media literacy action plan, published in March this year, highlights the central role that online sources play in helping people to learn about important topics such as health. It is also aimed at supporting parents in building their children’s resilience to the creeping-in of misleading content.
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology continues to work with the Department of Health and Social Care on ensuring that people have access to safe and trusted health information online. Social media companies must realise the role that they play in women and girls accessing accurate information about their health. The Government agree that social media companies must do more to enable women and girls to access accurate health information.
Ofcom has set out clear guidance on what companies must do to make the online world a safer and more inclusive place for women, and the Government have been clear that platforms need to implement this guidance by year-end. The Online Safety Act does not prevent adults or children from accessing legal content about women’s health. Safeguards for freedom of expression are built into the framework of the Act, which places duties on platforms to protect users’ right to freedom of expression when introducing safety measures.
The largest services regulated by the Act will have additional duties: they cannot arbitrarily remove content; they must be clear what content is acceptable for their adult users; and they must enforce the rules consistently. Users will have access to effective complaints procedures to appeal when content is unduly taken down.
On the specific points that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central raised about the Eve Appeal’s letter, the Government acknowledge that censorship of terms and diagrams relating to women’s anatomy is a problem, especially when such material can help to increase awareness about the spread and risk of cancer. In April 2026, the Department of Health and Social Care published a renewed health strategy. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) is no longer in his place, but I commend him for the work he did on that strategy and for the powerful statement of intent that it is a Government priority, alongside the strategy to halve violence against women and girls in this Parliament.
The strategy represents a decisive shift towards addressing long-standing failings in women’s health outcomes, experiences and access to care. It applies the Government’s 10-year health plan to women’s health, aiming for faster and more equitable improvements through fundamental reform rather than incremental changes. It aims to tackle medical misogyny and rebalance power within the healthcare system, to ensure that women’s voices and choices are prioritised.
Central to the strategy is improving women’s and girls’ awareness of and access to services, and driving research that will benefit women’s health. Alongside this, the strategy recognises the need to tackle misinformation about women’s healthcare. That is why it focuses on making credible health information easy to find.
I will now address a few specific issues mentioned in today’s debate. The renewed women’s health strategy has committed to invest £1.5 million in femtech, via the femtech healthcare challenge. Health information is critical. The sophisticated algorithms that we all experience as they target us with adverts should—indeed, must—be used to identify health-based information to ensure that women and children do not miss out on crucial health information.
The role of the NHS social media team is to make credible health information easy to find, understand and trust, in the places where people already spend their time. It is using channels such as YouTube, Instagram and Facebook to explain topics including menstrual health, contraception and conditions such as endometriosis. The team also uses audience insight and social listening to understand how people talk about these topics, what they are worried about and where they have gaps in their understanding. That helps us to make content that is clearer, more empathetic and genuinely useful.
Finally, the Government agree that platforms need to do more to address how they moderate content. We will continue to engage closely with platforms and with Ofcom to understand better how enforcement is being conducted. We all agree that we want to see women and girls being able to access trusted health information, and we must remain vigilant on this issue.
I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central for securing this critical debate.
Emily Darlington
I thank everyone who joined us for the debate. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said, it is one that we needed to have because so many people do not know about this issue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) for reaffirming that this Government recognise medical misogyny.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for reminding us about health advice. We both participated in a debate about endometriosis and adenomyosis not too long ago. In that debate, I said that periods can be uncomfortable but should not be painful, and Members from across the House came up to me afterwards to ask, “Is that true?” Yes, it is true. Periods should not be painful. That shows how we all lack advice on women’s health.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) talked about her children creating embarrassing situations, which I recognise, too. My daughter had a conversation with her friend at the school gates, alongside many other mums and school- children, about her favourite word. She declared, very proudly, that “vulva” was her favourite word. She had learned it at school as appropriate. She knew the difference and told me proudly that I must not misuse “vagina” for “vulva”.
That raises an important point about child abuse, which is a little outside the scope of this debate, but not entirely, because we have to use the correct terms. Police find it extremely frustrating, and it does not meet legal thresholds, when children say, “He touched my cookie,” or, “He touched my ginny.” They need the child to say the right word in order to proceed, and it is another angle in this debate that we must not forget. Using the correct medical terminology allows us to crack down on paedophiles and groomers.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), whose embarrassment threshold is even lower than mine, which is hard, talked about important post-birth advice and how shadow-banning is particularly problematic because it is deniable. What it says to women, doctors, gynaecologists and femtech entrepreneurs is, “You are just creating content that is not interesting. That is why it does not do well.” Actually, they are creating content that is being deliberately suppressed.
I appreciate what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), said about the difference between this and adult content, violent misogyny and racist language. All of that is allowed, yet these terms are not. It shows the power that these platforms have: they say that they cannot suppress these words, but they can. Terms like “rape” or horrible terms that are racist, antisemitic or anti-Islam could be in the same position as women’s health terms, yet they choose for them not to be. I loved her mention of blue liquid. We all remember the blue liquid, and we all remember being surprised, if we were told beforehand, when it was not blue liquid. I imagine that many men were quite surprised, when they got married or entered a relationship, to find that it was not blue. And we certainly were not all out rollerblading.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, asked an important question: should Government dictate what platforms publish? He is right, and the OSA does not say that women’s health information cannot be published. Where I have a bit of an issue with his argument is that, although he is right that it is a commercial decision, it is also a commercial decision that allows the platforms to continue to push pornography, violent material and misogynistic material. If they want to make money off people in this country, we need to make sure they are not doing damage to this country.
Dr Ben Spencer
I appreciate where the hon. Lady is coming from, but unless I am wrong, those examples are all within the auspices of the OSA.
Emily Darlington
Yes, they would be. I am trying to say that the OSA does not limit this, but it does limit some of the other material. It is important that there is a place for the Government to say what platforms should or should not be able to publish, but they should not micromanage. I agree on that. It should not be like the Lord Chamberlain saying, “Here are the words that you are allowed to use”, or, “The Queen does not approve of those phrases”, but we should be clear that we limit free speech where it has a real, negative impact on individuals or on society, and that we are protecting people because of their age, gender or other protected characteristics.
The shadow Minister raised an important discussion about publishers, plurality and biases that are already in the system. The systems are designed by men and the content, for the most part, focuses on men—not completely, but the algorithms are traditionally designed by men and therefore feed what they think men want, or not even what they want, but what will keep them on the platform the longest. That is their business model.
I appreciate the Minister reiterating the Government’s position that we believe that women should have access to accurate medical information. There are two sides to that: making sure that we suppress inaccurate medical information; and making sure that we have the mechanisms to show what is medically accurate with a tick. We should then make sure that that is the material that people see.
I appreciate what you said about appeal mechanisms, but it is difficult to appeal against shadow-banning, so we need to talk further about that. Again, that is about transparency on algorithms, which you were talking about, and about our dialogue with social media platforms. We need to ask them, what is more damaging? Is it the sexualised content, the misogynistic content or the health advice? We need to have that serious discussion with them.
We also need to think much wider than the four big social media companies. That is not always where people go for such advice. We have heard of experiences on LinkedIn and many other platforms that show that this is a widespread issue. Finally, you are absolutely right about media literacy, so that we know what is good health content and what is based on rubbish science. That is part of how we get through this. [Interruption.] I thank everyone for attending.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I did not want to interrupt the hon. Lady in what has been an interesting debate, but I remind hon. Members that if you say “you”, that is me—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I did not want to interrupt the debate, but it is worth remembering for future debates.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of the censorship of women’s health and wellbeing content online.
Family Justice System: Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered domestic abuse and safeguarding within the family justice system.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. The family courts make some of the most important decisions that any institution can make. They determine where children will live, how they will maintain relationships with their parents, and how families rebuild their lives after separation. At their best, they provide protection, stability and justice, but far too many survivors of domestic abuse do not experience the family court as a place of safety. Instead, many describe it as a continuation of abuse through legal processes, repeated trauma and unsafe decision making.
Today’s debate is vital because there is now substantial evidence from survivors, frontline organisations, legal professionals and independent reviews that domestic abuse is too often minimised, misunderstood or inadequately recognised in family court proceedings. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report “Everyday business”, published in 2025, found evidence of domestic abuse in around 87% of the family court cases that it examined. Yet the report concluded that abuse was frequently not treated as an active safeguarding issue. How can that be right? That finding should concern everyone in this House. If abuse is present in the overwhelming majority of cases but is not consistently recognised in decisions about children and contact arrangements, there is clearly a systemic problem that requires urgent attention.
It is important to understand the nature of domestic abuse in this context. Abuse is not always physical violence; it can involve coercive control, intimidation, economic abuse, emotional manipulation, stalking, harassment, and patterns of behaviour designed to dominate and undermine another person. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 rightly recognised coercive and controlling behaviour in law, yet many survivors continue to report that coercive control and post-separation abuse remain poorly understood in family court proceedings. For many perpetrators, separation does not end abuse. Instead, the family court can become another avenue of control through unnecessary litigation, manipulation of child contact arrangements and prolonged interaction with an abusive former partner.
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that perpetrators should not be rewarded through the court process with reduced sentences when they change their plea to guilty at the last minute? It is just a continuation of the coercive and controlling behaviour that they have already displayed.
Clive Jones
The hon. Member is absolutely right: somebody should not be rewarded when they have been difficult for months and months—probably years—and then at the last minute change their mind to get a reduced sentence. The judge probably sees them as being helpful, but they have not been helpful for a long time. The hon. Member makes a really good point.
Some have described the family courts process as very traumatising. We must recognise sophisticated tactics like DARVO—deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender—where perpetrators deny the abuse, attack the credibility of the survivor and then present themselves as the true victim. A survivor may therefore find themselves portrayed as hostile, manipulative or obstructive, and genuine attempts to protect children can be reframed by perpetrators as attempts to alienate a child from the other parent. That is one reason why specialist expertise in the courts is so important.
In a child custody case, a constituent of mine was told by a judge to stop making reports of domestic abuse against the ex-partner as it had no relevance to the case, despite their being presented with police reports. The ex-partner also used manipulative DARVO tactics and eventually gained custody of the child. Intimidated by the process, my constituent’s experience highlights the urgent need for stronger protection and specialist expertise in court.
I also want to address concerns surrounding the recent removal of the presumption of parental involvement in cases involving abuse. While many survivors and safeguarding organisations welcomed the reform, there is concern that some perpetrators may increasingly attempt to weaponise allegations against survivors by claiming that they themselves are the victims of abuse, or by claiming parental alienation in response to genuine safeguarding concerns. Domestic abuse specialists like Kaleidoscopic UK have long warned that allegations of so-called parental alienation can be used to discredit survivors and shift attention away from abuse allegations.
The charity Right to Equality undertook a survey on child removals and found that 81% of mothers who had their child removed were accused of parental alienation. It is a strategy routinely weaponised by abusers and often backed by unregulated experts who have no place in the courtroom. These bogus allegations can often lead to a child being removed from a safe parent and transferred to an abusive one. That is precisely why independent domestic violence advisers and the newly created children’s domestic abuse advocates are needed as experts. They can help courts to distinguish genuine safeguarding concerns from manipulative litigation tactics and identify patterns of coercive and post-separation abuse that might otherwise be missed.
At the centre of all of this is children. Children are not passive witnesses to domestic abuse. We know from extensive evidence that exposure to abuse and an environment of fear and instability can have profound, lifelong effects on emotional wellbeing, mental health, educational attainment and future relationships. The consequences of unsafe decisions in the family courts can be devastating. Women’s Aid has documented 67 child deaths over the last 30 years linked to abusive contact arrangements. We are not talking about abstract statistics, but children whose safety should have been paramount and families left with unimaginable grief.
Every one of those cases demands that we ask difficult questions about whether the system is adequately equipped to identify risk and respond appropriately. We must also acknowledge the wider human cost of domestic abuse. Home Office data recorded 98 suspected suicides following domestic abuse in the year to March 2024. Behind each figure is a life lost and a family devastated. The statistics remind us that domestic abuse is not a private matter; it is a serious public protection issue.
I pay tribute to the work of survivor-led organisations such as Kaleidoscopic UK, whose representatives are in the Gallery. Its members have campaigned tirelessly for reform in this area, and support adults and children affected by domestic abuse. Many of those involved with Kaleidoscopic are themselves survivors of abuse and have first-hand experience of navigating the family court system. Policymakers and justice institutions should listen carefully to those experiences when considering how the family court system can better protect vulnerable families.
I want to be clear that there are many dedicated professionals within the family justice system who are committed to safeguarding children and supporting families under immense pressure. This debate is not about criticising individuals; it is about asking whether the system as a whole is sufficiently equipped to deal with the complex realities of domestic abuse. I believe there is a strong case for the mandatory involvement of independent domestic violence advisers as specialist domestic abuse experts within the family court process. IDVAs understand patterns of coercive control, risk escalation, post-separation abuse, and the barriers that victims and children face in disclosing abuse. They possess specialist expertise that can help to identify risks that might otherwise be overlooked.
At present, however, access to specialist domestic abuse expertise within the family courts is very inconsistent. That inconsistency can lead to inconsistent outcomes and an unacceptable postcode lottery for survivors and children. Independent domestic abuse experts could help courts to identify patterns of abuse that are not immediately visible; strengthen safeguarding assessments by ensuring that risk assessments fully account for the realities of post-separation abuse; and improve consistency across the system and survivors’ confidence in the family justice process.
Importantly, this is not about undermining judicial independence. Judges must of course remain the ultimate decision makers, but they should have access to the best expertise available when dealing with complex safeguarding matters involving domestic abuse and child welfare. Sadly, several of my constituents have experienced being undermined and ignored in court by a judge who has had complaints made against them for overlooking their allegations of abuse and refusing to recognise abusive tactics in court. Having an expert present in this setting would provide my constituents, and all victims, with much more protection and understanding.
This House has already recognised the seriousness of domestic abuse through landmark legislation and policy reforms. The Domestic Abuse Act was a significant step forward. The recent removal of the presumption of parental involvement in cases involving abuse was also welcome and necessary, but legislation alone is not enough if implementation within systems and institutions does not reflect the realities that survivors face. In most cases, relationships between children and parents are important and beneficial, but where abuse is present, safety must always come first. The welfare of a child must remain the court’s paramount consideration, not simply the continuation of contact in principle.
There is also the broader issue of the culture in the family justice system. Survivors and advocacy organisations have raised concerns about myths and misconceptions surrounding domestic abuse, including assumptions about why victims remain in abusive relationships, expectations around perfect victim behaviour, and misunderstandings about post-separation abuse. Specialist domestic abuse expertise can help challenge those misconceptions and ensure that decisions are grounded in evidence and understanding.
I acknowledge the important work carried out by organisations supporting survivors every day: Women’s Aid, Refuge, Rights of Women, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Kaleidoscopic UK and many others have consistently highlighted these issues and advocated for reform. Their work has brought forward evidence that this House cannot ignore. Members across the House will know from their constituency casework that these concerns are not isolated incidents, and will have heard from constituents who feel failed by a system that was supposed to protect them and their children. Those experiences deserve to be heard.
This debate is about recognising the complexities of domestic abuse and that improving safeguarding within the family courts is both necessary and achievable. Family court decisions shape lives for years—sometimes generations—so I urge the Government to embed domestic abuse experts more effectively within the family justice system, to ensure that survivors and children are truly protected throughout court proceedings and beyond. Above all, we must build a family justice system that survivors can trust, that properly understands domestic abuse and that places the safety and welfare of children at the heart of every decision.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members to bob if they wish to be called.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on bringing this topic to the Chamber, where it belongs. We need to keep the pressure on to ensure that survivors have an improved sense of trust in the system.
I have experience of this issue as an MP. I would not say that I have been inundated, but many amazing women have shared their stories with me in my constituency surgeries. I pay tribute to and thank them for being brave enough to come forward. Without wanting to disclose characteristics or anything identifiable, I will share a flavour of what I have been told, which I am sure will not be unheard of for either the Minister or other Members.
For example, one mother and her children lived under coercive control, financial abuse and violence for many years. After separation, the abuse did not stop but simply changed form—the hon. Member for Wokingham described a similar case. The perpetrator continued to exert control through child contact arrangements, intimidation and financial manipulation, the children required to attend overnight contact despite repeatedly expressing fear and distress to professionals, including to their school. Critically, the abuse has never been tested in court. The survivor was discouraged from seeking a fact-finding hearing and had no access to legal services advice at that stage. As a result, her experience was minimised as “conflict” rather than recognised as abuse.
Coercive control and abuse are still not fully tested in court. Abuse is often reframed as conflict rather than what it actually it is, which leads to significant delays in therapy and support for children and a continuation of harm. The Home Office harm panel’s 2025 research on family courts found systematic failures, including the minimisation of domestic abuse. Having IDVAs or those that specialise in domestic abuse within the court system is a good suggestion, and one that I also call for. The court process is incredibly traumatic for families, and children’s voices are not listened to within it. Many survivors have reported to me unsafe contact orders that often allow public and unsupervised contact. In north Kent, there is a lack of supervised contact centres.
Children’s voices are being silenced—the voices of children with special educational needs are missing in this space. Within the court system, a lack of education and expertise means that people do not always understand why children’s behaviour changes when they are distressed, especially when they are unable to communicate verbally in the traditional way. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister about the special educational needs aspect of this issue.
We have a new supervised contact centre in Gravesham, which is welcome news for many families, whether they have gone through court or not. It will be housed at the Maltings Child Contact Centre at the City Praise Centre and will provide a safe, structured environment for well-behaved parents who should have contact with their children. The contact centre is one of only 340 centres nationally to be accredited by the National Association of Child Contact Centres. Given that there are 650 MPs, that is not even one per constituency. That needs to change.
We need people to speak up and come forward when they are experiencing harm and abuse, and we need to make sure that the system, including the court system, backs them and protects our children and survivors.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this vital debate. I know that, since his election almost two years ago, he has spent much of his parliamentary time raising the issue of cancer and getting investment into cancer services. Now he is speaking about domestic abuse; no one can accuse him of not having his heart in the right place. I thank him for leading the debate.
As the MP for Woking, I have spent much of my time protecting vulnerable children, and I know that the Government do great work in tackling domestic violence and protecting families, women and children. Last week, I visited Surrey’s Steps to Change hub, which is based in my constituency of Woking and was established back in 2023, thanks to a £1 million grant from the Home Office. It brings together services, such as the local authority, the police and domestic abuse charities, such as Woking’s amazing Your Sanctuary women’s refuge, to ensure that they work together holistically.
Tragically, the hub is one of only two in the country. It supports those who have experienced, or are experiencing, domestic abuse, and separately it supports children impacted by what their family has gone through. Vitally, the hub also works with those who have committed domestic abuse, or those likely to do so, to encourage them to change their behaviour to prevent future abuse. It was really eye-opening to spend time with the volunteers and, above all, with some of those who have received the support that this amazing organisation provides.
I am pleased to welcome the new Safeguarding Minister to her place. Surrey and only one other county have one of these hubs; I ask the Minister to draw attention to us as an example of best practice, but we should not be the only ones. Will she ensure that such support is rolled out across the country? It is saving and improving lives in my constituency and my county of Surrey. That is fortunate for me and my constituents, but it is far too rare and it should be rolled out nationwide.
I am concerned about the local government reorganisation in my area next year and that Surrey’s police and crime commissioner will be abolished in 2029 but not replaced by a directly elected Mayor, in which case the funding and convening power for the hub could go. I am pleased that the commissioner is going and that we will have new local authorities, but the risk of the transformation is that it could reduce the protection for families and children in my constituency. That would be unacceptable. Will the Minister meet me to ensure that the funding is maintained over this uncertain period?
As I said, the Government centrally and the whole public sector have done so much good to help survivors of domestic abuse recover and to protect them, and to ensure that such abuse does not happen in the first place. But all too often that fails catastrophically, with unthinkable consequences for some of the most vulnerable people. My 10-year-old constituent, Sara Sharif, was abused, tortured and murdered by her father and stepmother. She was failed from the day she was born, including on the day before she was murdered. She was failed by Surrey county council children’s services and by the family court system. That is why I echo the calls of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham for reform.
When Sara was born and before she was even one year old, Surrey county council children’s services wanted to take her away from what they knew to be an abusive father. Tragically, they changed their mind and the family court did not say, “Surrey, are you sure? Surely you want to do that.” The day before Sara was murdered, Surrey county council children’s services tried to visit her home, because they were concerned, but they went to the wrong house and they did not try to go back.
Previously, I have urged the Government to put Surrey county council children’s services into special measures, but thankfully they are being abolished next year. I would urge the Safeguarding Minister to ensure that that appalling culture at Surrey county council is not transferred to the new East Surrey and West Surrey councils. Sadly, other children’s services are failing in this country, and I know that other areas across the country are going to have local government reorganisation. Will she ensure that this Government see local government reorganisation as an opportunity to change such a culture and to put vulnerable people first, to change child protection?
Sadly, Sara’s is not the only child protection case I have had in my constituency. Judith is another constituent. She and her children suffered years of domestic abuse from her former partner and she feared for her children’s safety. The family court eventually gave her full custody and no visitation rights for the dad. Surrey county council recently insisted that the father be reintroduced to the children, to see if it is safe for the family to court to give access. I hope that the Minister agrees that that is an appalling use of child protection rules and family court processes. I wholeheartedly welcome the ending of the presumption of parental contact, but that is a whole-system failure, and I hope that the Minister makes it a priority to tackle it in her new role.
I echo the calls of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham for domestic abuse experts to be embedded in the family court system. I am incredibly disappointed that reform of the family court system and investment in, and changes to, the child protection process were not in the King’s Speech. Does the Minister not find that shameful? Will she ensure that it becomes a priority in other legislation and that the Government look favourably on amendments proposed to the legislation that was in the King’s Speech?
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on securing this important debate and on his excellent opening speech.
There are countless amazing organisations across the country that support victims of domestic abuse. I pay tribute to Independent Domestic Abuse Services, the largest specialist charity in Yorkshire, which does sterling work to support my constituents in Scarborough and Whitby.
It is clear that our family justice system needs urgent reform to ensure that children are at the heart of proceedings. That was made incredibly clear to me earlier this week when I chaired a roundtable with charities, legal professionals and women with lived experience about improving outcomes for children in domestic abuse cases. Everyone on the panel agreed that children’s voices are lost in the system.
One of the many inspirational speakers was Julia Margo, co-founder of the charity Fair Hearing. After experiencing the unimaginable—discovering that her partner, the father of her two children, was a convicted child sex offender—her ordeal was continued by the family court system, as her ex-partner claimed legal aid and took her to court 37 times over the next eight years to demand access to their children. About the process, she said:
“The lawyers, magistrates and judges seemed to look on me as a hysteric, whose claims of trauma were exaggerated…The courts were more worried about ‘parental alienation’—that I should turn our sons against their father—than about two little boys being left alone with a paedophile.”
Since being elected to Parliament, I have been motivated by a brave constituent to work on reforming the family courts so that abusive partners cannot claim parental alienation to undermine and silence survivors and influence child contact arrangements. In recent years, there has been a rise in the use of experts to “prove” alienation—a pseudoscientific concept with no basis in law or medicine. A perpetrator of abuse will allege that a child’s refusal of contact or reluctance towards it is due to the survivor parent alienating the child from them. That has led to survivors having their children removed from them, which is against the interests of the child and the mother.
The non-profit Right to Equality conducted a large-scale survey of mothers whose children were removed from their care in private law proceedings. The survey reveals concerning patterns around child removal, including the role of parental alienation allegations, limited fact finding on abuse and the influence of expert recommendations. In total, the 217 mothers had 342 children removed from their care. That is clearly not in the best interests of those children and is deeply traumatic for the mothers.
I welcome the fact that the Government are rolling out child-focused courts nationally, which will put children at the centre of proceedings and will resolve cases more quickly, saving children months of trauma. Repealing the presumption of parental involvement—a long-overdue correction to a pro-contact culture that has failed to put children first—is a brilliant step forward. However, there is still a gap in legislation that risks the wellbeing of children in private family law proceedings. It simply does not address the question of what happens when a child resists or refuses contact with a party against whom abuse is alleged. What evidential weight does the court give to the child’s response?
I am currently drafting an amendment to the Courts and Tribunals Bill that aims to stop counter-allegations of alienation being used to undermine or distract from reports of domestic abuse. It would ensure that the child’s evidence has the weight that it deserves. It would ensure that a child’s resistance towards an abusive parent is treated not as evidence of manipulation, but as evidence of harm. When a child is reluctant or refuses to spend time with a person against whom allegations of domestic abuse have been made, it should be regarded as reasonable and justified. As the Government move forward with putting children at the heart of the family justice system, will the Minister commit to working with Parliament on changes to ensure that a child’s resistance to contact with an abusive parent is treated as credible evidence of harm and not of manipulation?
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on securing this important debate. May I also congratulate the Minister? This is my first opportunity to speak in a debate to which she is replying. Perhaps I should be congratulating the Government on her appointment, since I know she will do an excellent job.
Victims and survivors of domestic abuse who are separating from their abuser will often be involved in proceedings in the family court, for example to obtain a non-molestation or occupation order, divide assets following divorce or determine arrangements for children where these are in dispute. Sadly, perpetrators of domestic abuse often use proceedings in the family court as a means of coercive control and abuse post separation.
In the case of private law children proceedings, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s office, which gathered and analysed data from three court sites in England and Wales throughout 2024, found overwhelming evidence of domestic abuse, identifying it in 73% of the hearings observed. As I think the hon. Member for Wokingham said earlier, 87% in the sample of cases reviewed had reference to domestic abuse, which has led the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Dame Nicole Jacobs, to describe domestic abuse as
“the everyday business of the family courts”.
There are very significant numbers of these cases. In 2025 alone, more than 55,000 private law children cases started. Clearly a great number of people, including children, are affected.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Like all Members of this House, I have had people coming to my constituency surgeries having suffered from domestic abuse. If my hon. Friend will allow me, I want to place on the record the fantastic work that Glasgow Women’s Aid has done to support my constituents and people across the city in this most difficult of circumstances.
Andy Slaughter
I am grateful for that intervention. Many Members here will have local organisations that they help to signpost, champion and try to obtain funding for. What I am arguing for is something that is comprehensive and reliable, in terms of funding and support. In addition to the excellent work that Members may do, we need a better structure to support the family court system and victims in it.
Just to review where we have got to so far, the June 2020 publication of the harm panel report, which has been mentioned, began a series of significant policy and legislative developments relating to domestic abuse and the family courts. Following extensive evidence gathering, the panel found that domestic abuse allegations and related risks were not taken sufficiently into account by the family court, due to “deep-seated and systemic” failings.
Many of the report’s recommendations were brought in by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. For example, section 1 gives legal recognition to different forms of domestic abuse, including economic abuse and coercive control, and section 3 gives recognition to children who see, hear or experience domestic abuse as victims. The Act also requires that victims and survivors be provided with special measures to reduce the traumatising nature of proceedings and enable them to give their best evidence, such as the use of screens and the provision of separate entrances, exits and waiting rooms. Furthermore, it prevents unrepresented perpetrators or alleged perpetrators of abuse from cross-examining their victims or alleged victims during proceedings.
In response to the harm panel’s recommendation that the voice of the child should be enhanced during proceedings, the previous Government piloted child-focused courts, then referred to as private law pathfinder courts. The pilot, which began in north Wales and Dorset in 2022, was designed to test a less adversarial problem-solving approach. At the outset of a case, the risks posed to children from domestic abuse allegations are identified and specialist support is provided where needed. The results of the pilot indicated faster resolution of cases, children’s voices being placed at the foreground in proceedings and a transformed experience for domestic abuse victims.
Last year, the Justice Committee, which I chair, examined the effectiveness of these recent reforms. We heard from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, the chief executive of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and the then president of the family division, Sir Andrew McFarlane. We were keen to understand, five years on from the publication of the harm panel report, what progress the family court had made on reforming its approach to domestic abuse in the cases before it.
One of our key findings was that there is wide approval and enthusiasm for the work and outcomes of child-focused courts, which our witnesses said should be rolled out across England and Wales with urgency. We are extremely pleased that that is now under way, with a substantial investment promised by the Government in this financial year.
However, a note of caution was sounded that I wish to highlight to the Minister. The model places much greater pressure on CAFCASS and other specialist support providers, particularly at the outset of a case, so they need to be resourced accordingly. In the words of one witness to our inquiry:
“If you are going to have specialist domestic abuse provision supporting the courts, then it needs to be baked into the budget and resource that are coming down the line. It is not the model of the court that will sort the experience of children and victims out; it is the quality of the risk assessment that goes on to present advice to the court.”
Our witnesses also reported on the success of the family, drug and alcohol court, which takes a problem-solving approach to care proceedings for parents with complex needs, including experiences of domestic abuse and substance misuse. I highlight to the Minister the great potential of that approach.
The former president of the family division was a great proponent of FDAC in domestic abuse cases. In his evidence to the then Committee in April 2024, he said that
“there is a domestic abuse component”
in every case dealt with by FDAC, and that FDAC had
“found a way of supporting that victim to deal with the fact that they may have a series of abusive relationships that they have gone through and to break the cycle.”
Despite this, FDAC provision is patchy, to say the least. There are currently FDAC teams supporting families in about 39 local authorities and 24 family courts. They are in an uncertain position, though, with Newcastle having lost its FDAC in the last year and with provision in the midlands looking precarious. Our witnesses pointed out that despite the strong evidence base demonstrating its success, the FDAC
“depends on small pots of funding year to year”,
usually from local authorities and dedicated individuals who understand its potential and cobble money together.
I therefore urge the Minister to consider the expansion of FDAC, which would enable courts hearing public law proceedings to respond more effectively to domestic abuse, in the same way that child-focused courts are doing in private law proceedings. FDAC must be looked at across Government, and I hope that the Government’s forthcoming family justice strategy will consider it. The Ministry of Justice is involved in providing the courtroom and the judge, but the Home Office, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education also have an interest in its beneficial outcomes.
Finally, in line with the recommendations of the harm panel, the Courts and Tribunals Bill will repeal the presumption of parental involvement in the Children Act 1989, ensuring a child-centred approach when deciding what contact a child should have with their parents. I hope that we will see the Bill returning to the House soon—I would be grateful if the Minister indicated today when that might happen, as there is a lot in the Bill that we would like to see more of—so that this important safeguard can be implemented without further delay.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this really important debate. I congratulate him on his excellent speech. I also welcome the new Safeguarding Minister to her place.
I thank the hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), who reiterated calls for domestic abuse specialists to be embedded in our family courts. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) spoke movingly about the case of his constituent Sara Sharif, and about how the family court in that case did not question children’s services and the appalling culture that was described. I thank the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), who described the case of a paedophile and an abuser accessing legal aid to use the court system against his ex-partner and effectively continue that abuse. I also thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), who highlighted the value of the FDAC’s role in domestic abuse cases and the way it proactively supports victims to break cycles of abuse, but also the fact that it needs expansion and long-term and more secure funding.
As many Members have pointed out, the family courts are in serious need of reform. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Dame Nicole Jacobs, has worked tirelessly to ensure that children are recognised and understood as victims in their own right. The statistics alone are staggering. The crime survey for England and Wales for the year ending March 2025 estimated that in the past year alone around 3.8 million people in England and Wales experienced domestic abuse. At the same time, one in five children in the UK experienced domestic abuse, with only one in 10 child victims receiving any support, according to Women’s Aid.
That reinforces wider findings that despite the introduction of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, children are too often overlooked as victims of domestic abuse by police, social care and health services. As other hon. Members have set out, perpetrators continue to manipulate loopholes in the Child Maintenance Service system to further coerce and control victims emotionally, economically and physically.
I entirely support colleagues calling for urgent reshaping of the CMS system and for the Ministry of Justice to fully implement the findings of its own 2020 harm panel report. That report identified harmful practices including a pro-contact culture, adversarial court processes, resource constraints and siloed working between agencies, all of which allowed abuse to go unnoticed or even continue through the system itself, as we heard earlier.
I wish to focus on economic abuse, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham highlighted so well. Research by Surviving Economic Abuse has found that a third of UK women with a child under 18 have had child maintenance payments deliberately blocked or manipulated by an ex-partner, despite that ex-partner being able to afford those payments. Meanwhile, the National Audit Office estimates that CMS arrears could reach £1 billion within five years. That is only one example of where change is urgently needed. The Government’s child poverty strategy promised an overhaul of the system, yet there is still no clear timeline for implementation, and our children are the ones suffering.
We Liberal Democrats welcome the continued roll-out of child-focused courts, which have shown reductions in case length and therefore in the re-traumatisation of victims who are forced through drawn-out proceedings. I sincerely hope that the Government fulfil their promise to expand those courts nationally.
I also recognise the important steps that have been taken in recent months, on which I will take this opportunity to congratulate the Government. The removal of the long-criticised presumption of contact established under the Children Act 1989 finally places children’s voices and experiences back at the centre of decisions that affect them. However, survivors now need clarity on its implementation. When will the repeal come into force?
Before the Minister claims that some of these matters fall outside her direct remit, I would like to make it clear that I and organisations including Surviving Economic Abuse, Rights of Women, Women’s Aid and Refuge have jointly written to her to underline the urgent need for a practical, cross-departmental action plan to protect and support victims of domestic abuse. The violence against women and girls strategy must be matched by that cross-Government delivery.
Economic abuse frequently involves perpetrators controlling finances, restricting access to income and withholding key documents. As a result, many victims are unable to provide the evidence required under the legal aid system, and are therefore excluded from support precisely when they need it the most. That heavily ties into the safeguarding aspect of today’s debate. Victims feel completely at a loss and deserted by the justice system.
There is also a significant cliff edge for working victims of domestic abuse. Many individuals earning slightly above the eligibility threshold are deemed to be ineligible for legal aid, yet cannot realistically afford legal representation without sacrificing substantial portions of their income. That gap risks deterring victims from pursuing protection, or even from resolving cases safely through the courts.
Even when the grant of legal aid is technically possible and victims make the means test cut, access to justice is again undermined by the severe shortage of family law legal aid solicitors. In rural communities such as mine, the legal aid deserts are among the worst in the country. I would welcome further discussions with the Minister and the Justice Minister responsible for legal aid, the hon. and learned Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), on increasing legal aid fee rates in line with inflation, similar to the increases that we have already welcomed for immigration and housing law. Only then will we attract more legal aid solicitors to where they are most needed. That is particularly important given that legal aid was mentioned only fleetingly in the Government’s 2025 violence against women and girls strategy, despite legal representation often being one of the most important protections that victims have when facing their abusers in court. The Law Society and the Legal Aid Practitioners Group have long called for urgent improvement in this area.
From my constituency casework, I know that many victims face severe bias once they enter the family court system, even when they are represented. I therefore echo Women’s Aid in calling for all family court professionals, including judges and court staff, to receive high-quality, mandatory and regularly updated domestic abuse training.
This issue cuts across every aspect of domestic abuse within the justice system. Around 75% of child arrangement cases in the family courts involve allegations of domestic abuse. Although much of the issue falls within the remit of the Ministry of Justice, I must take the opportunity to reinforce Refuge’s demand that the VAWG strategy should explicitly reflect plans to improve the response of the family justice system to domestic abuse. As we have heard, too many victims still feel that the courts minimise their experiences and fail to understand the realities of coercive and controlling behaviour. We cannot continue with a system where victims are forced to act as litigants in person because they cannot access or afford legal representation. I therefore share the disappointment expressed by many VAWG charities and organisations regarding the lack of substantive focus in the recent King’s Speech on protecting women and girls in practice.
Warm words are not enough. Victims deserve a justice system that protects them, listens to them and enables them to access safety without traumatisation and without financial ruin. I urge the Minister to ensure that this year’s violence against women and girls strategy is accompanied by meaningful cross-departmental implementation, including vital action on legal aid, family court reform, judicial training and economic abuse.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing this debate on domestic abuse and safeguarding within the family justice system. Members in the Chamber will not be alone in having regularly encountered this issue in constituency casework. I expect all MPs across the House have constituents who are struggling with these issues, and perhaps even they are in their private lives.
This subject demands seriousness, sensitivity and honesty from all of us. Behind every statistic in this debate are children living in fear, survivors trying to rebuild their lives and families navigating court processes at moments of enormous stress and vulnerability. For too many people, the family justice system is not an abstract institution; it is the place they have to go to where decisions are made that will shape their safety, their relationships with their children and often the trajectory of their lives for years to come. That is why getting the system right matters so much.
As we have heard, domestic abuse is present in 73% of active family court proceedings and 87% of closed cases. One in five children in the UK experience some form of domestic abuse, and 78% of those children are directly harmed by the perpetrator. Those are sobering figures, and they remind us that domestic abuse is not something that exists separately from family justice proceedings.
We also know that children are too often affected directly by failures of the system. According to Women’s Aid, over the last 30 years 67 child deaths have been linked to unsafe contact arrangements, with 19 having occurred since 2016. When we discuss safeguarding in family courts, we are discussing not peripheral procedural matters, but the core responsibility of the state to protect vulnerable people—women, children and also men.
I want to acknowledge the work of survivors, campaigners and charities who have driven progress in this area through their extraordinary courage and persistence. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wokingham for bringing representatives from Kaleidoscopic UK, who I understand are attending the debate. I would be grateful to catch up with them afterwards, if that is possible. Many other groups and individuals work in this area. For example, I recently worked with Paula and Tony Hudgell and their MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), to secure the establishment of the child cruelty register, so that parents and other individuals who commit child cruelty offences are monitored and tracked in the same way that child sex offenders are.
The Opposition also supported the Government’s measures to restrict the parental responsibility of serious child sex offenders. During the passage of that legislation, we successfully argued, alongside others, that the provisions should go further than was originally proposed. They would only have applied to parents who perpetrated offences against their own children, but with Members across the House, we persuaded the Government to change that to those who commit offences against all children. We agreed that, on balance, a threshold of “serious offences” was the suitable way to go, but that if that worked well and was effective, we should consider lowering that threshold. Why should anyone who commits any sort of offence against a child not automatically have to argue for their own parental responsibility?
It is important to recognise the work that was undertaken by the previous Government, which others have mentioned. In particular, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 recognised as victims in their own right children who see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse. Dame Nicole Jabobs and others long advocated for those changes, and the Act made victims automatically eligible for special measures in court. Those changes and others reflect society’s growing understanding in recent decades of the importance of confronting and tackling domestic abuse and abuse of children.
The previous Government also commissioned the harm panel review in 2020, which was an expert-led review into how family courts handle domestic abuse and serious offences. We launched a review into the presumption of parental contact, and we piloted the pathfinder model, now the child-focused model, to improve information sharing, increase judicial continuity and ensure that children’s voices are heard more effectively throughout proceedings. Alongside that, we invested £3.3 million in the mediation voucher scheme, helping thousands of families to resolve disputes outside the courtroom where it is appropriate and safe to do so. There is still room for mediation and other measures to reduce the burden on our courts and save them for the most complicated and difficult cases.
Last year, the independent “Everyday Business” review painted a deeply worrying picture of how survivors often experience family court proceedings. Survivors described feeling that their abuse was minimised or treated as secondary to maintaining contact arrangements. Judges and magistrates identified serious pressures on them arising from limited court time, delays and lack of continuity. Only 21% of cases reportedly had judicial continuity—a striking figure that shows that even when cases as complex as these go through the court process, we cannot rely on a single judge seeing them through from start to finish.
The report also highlighted siloed working between different parts of the system. In many cases, there are overlapping criminal and family proceedings, yet delays and backlogs can mean that family courts proceed before criminal matters are resolved. That can have a huge impact. If an individual subsequently receives a criminal conviction, that may well unpick and call into question the original rulings.
These are not easy issues to solve. I recognise all of the work done and the arguments made by campaigners, but legislating in this area is incredibly challenging because the dynamics of families, particularly those experiencing breakdown, are very complex. There are also strongly held views in different organisations on, for example, the presumption of parental involvement and how family courts should approach contact arrangements.
Many campaigners argue that abuse has historically been minimised in decision making. In too many cases that is true, but whatever view people take, there should be broad agreement on one central principle: safeguarding and child welfare must come first. That includes ensuring that professionals throughout the system are properly trained to understand the dynamics of domestic abuse. Women’s Aid has argued that we need not just legislative reform but a wider cultural shift across the family justice system. There is real substance to that argument, because even the best legislation will fall short if victims feel that they are not listened to, believed, or welcomed and facilitated to participate. I will be grateful if the Minister says more about how the Government intend to deliver cultural change in practice.
I also want to talk about accountability. We have heard discussion of the Sara Sharif case. I have mentioned in the House before that I first encountered these issues as an MP through an amazing lady, a constituent of mine, who was fostering a young girl who had been removed from her family on a temporary basis. The wider family did not want that young girl to be given back contact with her immediate family, the foster carer did not think it was a good idea, and social services did not think it was a good idea—but the judge awarded custody back to her parents.
That young girl is now in a wheelchair. She is highly dependent and severely disabled. The exceptional individual I mentioned went on to adopt her in those circumstances, which is one of the most noble things I have ever seen anybody do. She approached me because she was aware of all the mechanisms of accountability that everybody else in the system has to go through, particularly teachers and social services. She simply wanted to know what accountability was available for the judge. I wrote to the Lady Chief Justice and said, “Obviously, you can’t comment on this case, but what are the systems, for a case like this where things have gone badly wrong, for a judge to have to account for the decisions they have taken?” There are none, outside of complaints about extreme behaviour, which none of us would consider to really test the issues, or if the judge makes a legal error, for which the threshold is, again, really high.
I think we have a lot to do. Certainly, in the Conservative party we are working on how we can introduce much more accountability in the judiciary—not to make them accountable to the Government, because the separation of the judiciary and the Government is very important. I draw on my experience as a doctor; we have done loads to improve the accountability of highly trained, highly specialist medical professionals who we would not want the state interfering with. It is simply about ensuring they are not a law unto themselves when it comes to making poor decisions. Previously, the test was pretty much whether a doctor had made a decision that any other doctor thought was reasonable. Now, the test is much more about whether that decision was objectively reasonable.
I also want to touch on the pathfinder courts. As we have heard, 10 of 43 courts have now been implemented. I would like to understand the Government’s timetable for the very welcome decision to roll them out more widely. The Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), talked about the interdependencies around access to specialist services to make that a reality. I think requesting a timetable is not asking too much of the Minister.
Those are important things that we are all in agreement on, but at the same time this Government are taking what I think are catastrophic decisions in relation to the justice system. The Government have legislated for perpetrators of domestic abuse as serious as rape, child abuse, stalking and harassment—very many offences—to get out of prison earlier. Right now, there are people in prison for the rape of their partner, or sexual offences against their own children, who will get out of prison earlier because of the steps that this Government have taken. I will continue to press that matter with them, whatever else they are doing that is positive. People go to the court system because they want justice, and seeing rapists being let out early is not justice. That is something the Government should continue to reflect on.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Catherine Atkinson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I am honoured to speak in my first Westminster Hall debate as the Minister for Victims and Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls, particularly given how important this topic is. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for securing the debate. He and many Members, including the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), clearly set out the concerns around family courts enabling the continuity of abuse. The hon. Member for North Cornwall also set out concerns in relation to economic abuse; I would welcome further work with him on that.
The Government have a clear commitment to halving violence against women and girls within a decade, and I want to begin by making it clear that ensuring that victims of domestic abuse are protected in the family court is a core part of the work that we are undertaking to achieve that aim. The courts must deliver safe outcomes for the children and families involved in proceedings, many of whom are among the most vulnerable in our society.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) set out the additional concerns that can be raised when there are further vulnerabilities or special educational needs. There is mandatory training for His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff, and the judiciary is supported by the “Equal Treatment Bench Book” to enable that effective participation in proceedings. Importantly, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service must always consider the impact of protected characteristics, including additional needs or neurodiversity, in relation to a child’s ability to engage. However, there is always more that needs to be done to ensure that the most vulnerable have their voices heard.
I reassure Members that the family courts have a range of measures available to them to protect victims and stop perpetrators. The Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), who has incredible experience, set out some of the special measures that already exist, which include allowing someone to give evidence via video link or from behind a screen. Members also raised the importance of independent domestic violence advisers and independent sexual violence advisers, who are permitted to accompany parties in proceedings in order to provide them with support.
I am also aware that, in some instances, abusers seek to use repeated and vexatious applications to the family courts as a method of furthering their abuse. That is clearly unacceptable. There are means to stop perpetrators when they attempt to make vexatious applications, including making orders under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 to prohibit further applications. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick set out, the courts can prohibit in-person cross examination by alleged abusers and appoint a qualified legal representative to undertake cross-examination instead.
While those measures represent important protections, we are committed to going much further, both in relation to safeguarding victims and reforming the family courts. It cannot be warm words; there needs to be action. A core part of our work to reform the family courts is the child-focused model, which is a new approach to certain private law cases relating to children that is designed to improve the experience and participation of children and families in proceedings. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham and others mentioned the harm panel, which has hugely informed the work of child-focused courts.
Under the child-focused model, families benefit from a streamlined problem-solving approach, which brings forward a holistic assessment of needs and risks, and enables the court to make safe decisions without delay. The model ensures that victims of domestic abuse and other harms receive specialist support from independent domestic violence advisers, who also undertake a risk assessment to provide the court with expert insight into the risk of domestic abuse within the case.
Critically, under the child-focused model, the voice of the child is made central to the case, with the percentage of children seen by social workers more than doubling. Evidence from areas where the model is in place shows that it is working. Cases are being resolved up to seven and a half months faster, and the backlog has fallen by over 50%. That is why, in March, the Deputy Prime Minister committed to rolling out child-focused courts nationally over the next three years, along with an investment of £17 million in 2026-27 to support the next expansion to a further eight court areas across the north-west, the north-east and the midlands.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick also talked about the effectiveness and impact of FDAC courts. I am conscious of how important they have been in many areas and would welcome further engagement on that.
Beyond the new model of child-focused courts, we are committed to a significant legislative package to ensure that victims of domestic abuse can have confidence in the family courts. Through the Courts and Tribunals Bill, we have introduced to Parliament the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement. Alongside our wider changes, that sends a clear signal that the welfare of children must remain paramount. Courts will adopt an open-minded inquiry into what is in the child’s best interests, rather than starting from the assumption that the involvement of parents will be appropriate.
I pay tribute to the Family Justice Young People’s Board and a number of organisations, including Women’s Aid, as well as the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner. I also pay tribute to Claire Throssell, whose sons were killed. She has been campaigning for years on this issue. The repeal of the presumption of parental involvement must be dedicated to her and her sons, Jack and Paul.
Through the Victims and Courts Act 2026, we have legislated to automatically restrict the exercise of an offender’s parental responsibility where they have been sentenced to four years or more for a serious child sex abuse offence committed against any child, or where rape has led to the birth of a child. That is in addition to Jade’s law, passed in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which will provide for the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility where one parent kills the other. Baroness Levitt has made it clear that the Government will implement it by the end of this year.
We are also working with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to limit the instruction of unregulated experts, including unregulated “parental alienation” experts, because we know that allegations of parental alienation can be made in response to allegations of domestic abuse, often when a perpetrator is seeking to deflect attention from their own behaviour. The hon. Member for Wokingham and my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) both raised the issue really powerfully, and I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has undertaken in this area.
The Family Procedure Rule Committee approved changes to the family procedure rules in April, and the intention is that those changes will be introduced through a statutory instrument in the summer. Once implemented, the rule changes will require any expert instructed in children’s proceedings, subject to limited exceptions, to be regulated by a UK statutory body or by an approved regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007, or be on a register accredited by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care.
Taken together, these measures will protect thousands of children every year. I understand the point that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), raised in relation to accountability. The training that the Judicial College provides is essential to ensuring we have the consistency and expertise that we need.
Dr Mullan
It is all very well to send people on training. As a doctor, I have sat in on training sessions. People can be in a training seminar together, and some will pay attention and some will not. Some will take it seriously, and some will not. If there is not a system of accountability at the other end, training can become a tick-box exercise if we are not careful.
Catherine Atkinson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Of course, as he set out, we always need to be mindful of long-established principles of judicial independence in these matters. However, ensuring that we have the right training in place will go a long way towards ensuring that we have the family courts that we need, and towards ensuring that we have effective systems in place.
Collectively, these reforms represent a large body of work. We want to make sure there is clarity on what we are doing, which is why the Ministry of Justice is working with the Department for Education and partners across the family justice system to draft the family justice strategy. The strategy will be published later this year, and it will set out the Government’s plans to improve the family justice system, reduce court delays and ensure that all families get the support and the outcomes they need.
Alongside that, we must ensure that we support all victims of abuse to recover and rebuild their lives. Over £1 billion is being invested over the next three years to support victims of violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse survivors. That includes funding for safe accommodation, advocacy, counselling and specialist services. In particular, my Department is increasing funding for victim support services, year on year, from 2026 to 2029, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressures of delivery.
Dr Mullan
I have asked the Minister about this before, and she did not answer. Maybe I will get an answer this time. One thing she might set those additional support services to do is let people know when perpetrators will get out of prison earlier because of the Government’s decisions. Can she at least commit to writing to victims to let them know in advance that their perpetrator is going to be let out of prison earlier?
Catherine Atkinson
Communication is absolutely essential, and a huge amount of work is being done to ensure it is in place. I am proud to be building on the work of my predecessor in that space. In relation to victim support services, it is important that, in total, the Ministry of Justice will invest £550 million in support services over the next three years of the spending review.
Many hon. Members raised the incredible and essential work that so many support services do. I thank Kaleidoscopic UK for being here, and for its work. Many other services were mentioned, including Your Sanctuary, IDAS, Glasgow Women’s Aid and Women’s Aid more broadly, Rights of Women and Refuge. I pay tribute to the work they do and the difference they make to people’s lives.
I hope my remarks have reassured the hon. Member for Wokingham and all hon. Members who spoke in this vital debate. I thank him for securing a debate on such an important subject. We all share a deep commitment to safeguarding victims of domestic abuse, to ensuring that they are fully protected and supported, and to making sure that the family courts cannot be used as an arena for perpetrators to continue their horrific acts.
The Government will continue to press forward with our reforms to the family courts. We will continue to work with operational partners, the courts and all the many groups that do vital work to support victims and protect children and families, and to make those important changes. The hon. Member said that children are at the centre of this, and I agree. They must be our focus, and they always will be.
Clive Jones
I start by apologising to the Minister for not welcoming her to her new position. I am pleased that she reiterated the Government’s commitment to halving domestic abuse in 10 years, which I am sure we all want to see.
I have a couple of questions that came up in the debate. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) spoke about the lack of expertise in working with children with special needs. Will the Minister write to all of us who have contributed to the debate on what the Government might be able to do about that specifically? The hon. Member for Wokingham—
Clive Jones
It is so easy to make that mistake. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) spoke about the good work of lots of local organisations, but he has real concerns that council changes over the next few years will put the funding for the work of those organisations in jeopardy. Could the Minister tell us what she may be able to do about that? My hon. Friend also spoke about the need for IDVAs, as I and several others did. Is that something the Minister could support over the next year or so?
The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) said that children’s voices are not heard in the family court system. How can we, as MPs, and the Minister make sure they are heard over the next few years? My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) spoke about domestic abuse training for everybody in the family courts. Is that something the Minister will champion over the next few years? The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) talked about how important it is to get it right and about the need for a cultural shift. I am sure the Minister has lots of ideas, and I know her predecessor did. It would be nice to hear about them.
Finally, I thank the Minister for coming, and for confirming that the welfare of children must always be paramount.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered domestic abuse and safeguarding within the family justice system.
Written Correction
Other Correction
David Smith
Getting Britain Working Again
The following extract is from the debate entitled “Getting Britain Working Again” on 14 May 2026.
David Smith
The Labour mission was never simply to get on in life, but for all of us to share in prosperity and common endeavour. Nye Bevan once said:
“We have to build a party that is capable of expressing the desires of the people who sent us here—not just their immediate desires, but their deeper longings for a just and generous society.”
The task is to build on this King’s Speech and create both a story and programme that speaks to these longings in work, welfare and energy.
[Official Report, 14 May 2026; Vol. 786, c. 192.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith):
David Smith
The Labour mission was never simply to get on in life, but for all of us to share in prosperity and common endeavour. The task is to build on this King’s Speech and create both a story and programme that speaks to these longings in work, welfare and energy.
Written Statements
Ceramics and Chemicals Industries
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
This statement provides an update on the Government’s support to ceramics and critical chemical producers, two of the foundational sectors underpinning our industrial strategy.
The Government are today announcing the launch of the ceramics industry support scheme of £120 million to support the transition of the ceramics sector to a more cost effective and less carbon intensive means of production. Supporting this transition continues to deliver on our mission to decarbonise the economy, helping businesses to invest and grow across the country.
The ceramics industry has a rich cultural heritage, notably in the Potteries in the Stoke-on-Trent area, and it remains a large source of employment in Staffordshire and neighbouring Derbyshire, as well as in areas across the UK from Devon to Dumfries.
However, in recent years the sector has faced a number of difficulties, including a challenging global trading environment, and the cost of reliance on volatile fossil fuels, which have seen costs increase significantly since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. These challenges have led to a pattern of decline and resulted in the closure of historic sites such as Johnson Tiles, Moorcroft Pottery, the liquidation of Royal Stafford, loss of jobs at Armitage Shanks, and the recent administration at Denby pottery.
This Government are clear that industrial decarbonisation must not be achieved by deindustrialisation, and reducing operating costs for businesses will support a successful transition to more efficient and cost-effective forms of production. However, we recognise the challenges faced by ceramics producers, and that Government support will be necessary to help the sector.
That is why the ceramics industry support scheme is being introduced: £60 million of this funding will support capital investment from ceramics firms into more efficient and decarbonised means of production, including electrification of relevant processes. This will both attract business investment in efficient new technologies, and enhance our energy security by reducing our reliance on volatile fossil fuels. This fund will be delivered on a competitive basis, with successful companies demonstrating corresponding co-investment of their own. The expectation is that the package will support a small number of high capital projects, likely from larger companies, as well as smaller projects from established trading SMEs.
To ensure that all eligible companies are able to effectively take advantage of this support in practice and invest in the future of this industry, the ceramics industry support scheme will include an additional £60 million to support operational costs for firms that make successful capital bids but demonstrably need additional support to manage the transition.
We will continue to engage with the sector and explore both fiscal and non-fiscal policy options that can continue to support and sustain a modern, thriving ceramics sector. This includes ensuring that our trade remedies regime works appropriately to protect the sector from injury as a result of unfair foreign trading practices. I strongly encourage industry to engage the Trade Remedies Authority and share new evidence to make sure we have the right trade protections in place.
Secondly, the Government are also announcing today the development of a £350 million critical chemical resilience fund to support our chemicals industry. This fund will be available to the UK’s most strategically important chemical producers who underpin our most critical sectors and essential services.
The UK chemicals sector is crucial for UK manufacturing, with chemicals products embedded in the vast majority of manufactured goods. However, like the ceramics sector, the chemicals sector has also faced significant headwinds in recent years with reduced output and recent plant closures raising concerns about its long-term resilience. This Government recognise the scale and depth of those challenges, and we are standing firm, alongside industry, to provide robust support to ensure the sector has a prosperous future in this country.
We have already acted urgently to support and safeguard vital chemical production and jobs at INEOS in Grangemouth, and are restarting production at Ensus in order to protect supply of CO2.
Today we are taking further action. The fund will seek to address the most acute pressures by offering support to critical chemical companies in key clusters that need help to put themselves on a sustainable footing. This will ensure these companies can continue to supply our essential services, boost the resilience of our supply chains, and protect critical UK sectors like food production, water and healthcare.
This is just a first step, and we will work together with industry to ensure we continue to make the critical inputs our economy requires in the UK. The fund will be developed in collaboration with independent experts and industry representatives, and further details will be communicated in due course.
The Government will continue to work hand-in- hand with industry to ensure broader policy delivers decarbonisation and not deindustrialisation. We are committed to tackling unfair foreign trade practices, and Ministers will urgently convene the chemicals industry to explore potential trade defence action.
The Government are also committed to driving down regulatory costs faced by the industry. We have already cut back the need for UK businesses to buy expensive and unnecessary data, cutting transition costs while maintaining health and environmental protections. We will work with the industry to identify where the UK can go further to reduce regulatory costs and remove duplicative procedures for businesses.
This Government recognise the importance of the chemicals sector, its contribution to society and our economy, and the jobs and communities it supports. The fund supports the delivery of our industrial strategy, which identifies chemicals as a vital foundational sector that underpins the UK’s high-growth industries like defence and advanced manufacturing by producing the materials they all depend on and are essential to many supply chains. Chemicals are also essential to delivering our ambitions in our clean energy mission. Action today will ensure the sector can play its part in strengthening our industrial capability and boosting resilience for the UK’s future.
The Government will continue to work with the sector and experts as the ceramics industry support scheme and critical chemicals resilience fund are being developed, including on eligibility criteria and delivery mechanisms as they are progressed. Further detail will be published in due course, and we are aiming to open both funds to applications later this summer.
The support being announced today is in addition to our support for the chemicals sector through the industrial strategy. In particular, the targeted support to bring down energy costs, through the British industrial competitiveness scheme, will benefit over 10,000 businesses, including many chemical companies, reducing electricity costs by up to £40 per megawatt hour.
This is a long-term industrial intervention designed to address persistent competitiveness challenges facing the chemicals sector. This will help chemical companies remain competitive and resilient through periods of volatility, supporting supply chain security through global supply shocks.
Time and again we have stepped in to support our resilience: from keeping the blast furnaces running at Scunthorpe and restarting production at Ensus to safeguard the UK’s supply of CO2, to this intervention today. This is the difference an active and strategic state makes.
Together, these measures demonstrate our continued commitment to heavy industry, which underpins our economy, industrial strategy growth sectors, and our national resilience.
[HCWS61]
Humble Address: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
I have today laid before the House documents the Government have identified that the House required in the 24 February 2026 Humble Address seeking all papers relating to the creation of the role of special representative for trade and investment in 2001, the appointment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and the advice of officials and Ministers on his suitability and due diligence and vetting conducted.
This statement explains the Government’s approach to finding these historic documents, provides an overview of what has been found, explains the approach taken in releasing information and answers the House’s specific questions on due diligence and national security vetting.
It has not been a straightforward task to identify the historic documents requested by the House. Twenty-five years ago, Government Departments were largely operating paper-based record keeping systems. We have had to track down files that might potentially contain relevant information, recall these from storage and search files manually.
An added complication lies in changes to the machinery of Government. In the period under consideration, the Government’s work to support trade and investment was led by British Trade International, headed by chief executive Sir David Wright. BTI reported to a board chaired by the Minister of State for International Trade and Investment, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, and was accountable both to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
A committee of senior officials, the Royal Visits Committee, provided advice to Ministers and the sovereign on inward and outward official overseas visits by members of the royal family. At the time this was chaired by the Cabinet Secretary.
The search focused on files from 1999 to 2001 held by the most relevant Departments—the Department for Business and Trade, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Ministry of Defence, and Cabinet Office.
Today, The Government have published 11 documents that show how the role was created and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was appointed. These include:
the formal appointment proposal to Ministers;
evidence that Ministers were content with the proposal;
internal communications to all trade staff about the role;
media and press briefing and question and answer materials.
From 1976 to 2001, the Duke of Kent served as vice-chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board and then British Trade International, undertaking more than 60 overseas visits in support of British exports. As he approached retirement from that role in 2001, consideration was given to how best to continue the engagement of the royal family in trade and investment promotion work.
In February 2000, Sir David Wright put a formal appointment proposal to Ministers, explaining that the Duke of Kent intended to withdraw from his role supporting trade promotion overseas and it was Her late Majesty’s wish that the Duke of York should succeed him. He set out a proposed role encompassing two or three trade promotion visits overseas per year, visits to UK regions and receiving prominent overseas trade visitors in the UK.
The documents show that officials and Ministers had been considering expanding the role of the Duke of York for some time prior to the formal proposal. In January 2000, the then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, agreed that greater use should be made of the then Duke of York.
Media reporting indicates that the Palace announced in December 2000 that the Duke of Kent was stepping down and that the Duke of York would assume his role.
Internal BTI papers illustrate how the proposed role was developed and communicated to staff and to the media, and record that an initial familiarisation programme ran from April 2001, with the role formally announced in October 2001. Documents confirm the role was unpaid, with costs associated with official duties met through standard departmental arrangements and that systems were put in place to oversee the role. Officials established formal processes to assess and approve engagements, taking account of strategic trade and investment priorities, cost, and other Government priorities.
It is a long-standing practice across successive Administrations that when the Government respond to a Humble Address motion they have a responsibility to consider whether it is in the public interest to place information into the public domain. This is done using the principles of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and in line with the ministerial code and the resolutions on ministerial accountability, passed by both Houses in 1997.
In line with this, we have redacted documents to remove the bare minimum of personal information and information whose release would prejudice international relations. We have consulted the police to ensure that the release of information does not prejudice their investigation. We have also considered carefully the redaction of information relating to royal communications, mindful of the long-standing convention of confidentiality, which is codified under the Freedom of Information Act, in relation to communications with and on behalf of the sovereign. In this exceptional circumstance, the Government are releasing royal communications about the former Duke of York’s appointment as special representative. Communications with the royal household on unrelated topics have been redacted.
I can assure the House that we have proceeded on the basis of the maximum transparency, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Humble Address.
We have found no evidence that a formal due diligence or vetting process was undertaken. There is also no evidence that this was considered. This is understandable since this new appointment was a continuation of the royal family’s involvement in trade and investment promotion work following the Duke of Kent’s decision to relinquish his duties as vice-chairman of the Overseas Trade Board.
The Government are co-operating fully with Thames Valley Police on their investigation into Andrew Mountbatten- Windsor and possible misconduct in public office.
[HCWS57]
Senior Civil Service
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
I am today announcing the Government’s decision to accept, in part, the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body on pay for the senior civil service for 2026-27. This is being laid in Parliament today and published on gov.uk.
This Government greatly value the independent expertise and insight of the SSRB and broadly accept its recommendations for the SCS for the 2026-27 pay round.
In January this year, I set out the need to reward the doers, not the talkers, in the civil service and my intention to award higher, but fewer, bonuses to those exceptional senior civil servants who go above and beyond, in order to incentivise faster delivery and innovation.
Following this, the Government received the SSRB’s 2026 report on 6 March. The SSRB recommended:
That all members of the senior civil service should receive a 3.5% consolidated increase to base pay from 1 April 2026, setting the following changes to the SCS pay ranges from 1 April 2026:
SCS pay band 1: £86,000 to £117,800.
SCS pay band 2: £105,000 to £162,500.
SCS pay band 3: £135,000 to £208,100;
and a central pot, comprising 1.0% of the total SCS pay bill, is allocated for the introduction of pay progression for the SCS from 1 April 2026, supporting our commitment to incentivise and reward the highest levels of performance.
The Government have very carefully considered the advice provided by the independent SSRB and fully understand the justifications by the SSRB for reaching its recommendations. Improving the pay system for the SCS is an important and long-standing objective and the Government are grateful for the SSRB’s work and recommendations.
This is just the start of improving our pay system. It represents an important milestone in modernising a framework to foster a dynamic and innovative civil service. Alongside the changes I announced to the bonus scheme in January, I am proud to announce that for the first time ever, we are introducing performance-based pay progression for the senior civil service—with those who deliver for the public being rewarded with salary increases. This is one of the many steps I am taking to power up the system to make sure words are turned into action and what happens in Westminster is followed through to the streets, schools and livelihoods of people in every part of the country.
In the light of the overall constraints posed by the current affordability context, as well as fairness across the wider public sector, the first recommendation on consolidated increases to pay is only partially accepted. The Government have decided that the total increase in SCS pay should be 3.5%. This means that base pay increases for all members of the SCS will be limited to a 2.5% increase in base pay, as well as the 1% of the SCS pay bill designated to the introduction of pay progression. The Government accept all other recommendations in full.
In addition, as outlined in the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s letter to the SSRB Chair of 22 July 2025, recommendations made by the SSRB in relation to the Permanent Secretary group will be additionally considered by the Permanent Secretary Remuneration Committee.
The Government are also publishing their civil service pay remit guidance, which includes the introduction of a voluntary pay compression framework to allow Departments to address pay compression affecting the lowest paid.
This Government value the leadership role that senior civil servants play in driving their ambitions on public sector modernisation and delivery. After years of cuts to public investment, and lack of support for innovation, the public sector has become disjointed, overworked and often resourced in the wrong places.
The implementation of these recommendations will support the ambition for a modernised and simplified pay structure that is driven by increased performance and delivery. Through shorter pay ranges and the introduction of performance-based pay progression, these recommendations enable the Government to drive a more productive, and incentivised senior workforce to lead the country through increasingly complex challenges—so that together, we can build a Britain that is richer, fairer and stronger.
I am grateful to the chair and members for their report.
[HCWS64]
Transport Taxation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
In March, the Government announced a review of mileage rates for employees using their own vehicle for work and the self-employed who use the simplified expenses rates.
In recognition of the pressures facing drivers as a result of the effects of the Iran war, the Government are today announcing the first uprating of mileage rates in 15 years, backdated to April, to provide immediate support to both groups.
Mileage rates will increase for 2026-27 from 45p to 55p for the first 10,000 miles, and 25p thereafter, with effect from 6 April 2026.
This will represent the largest ever increase to these mileage rates, benefiting around 2 million employees and 1 million self-employed individuals, saving over £120 a year for a worker doing 6,000 business miles.
The Government will legislate retrospectively for this change at the earliest opportunity. In the interim, HMRC will exercise its discretion and will not seek to collect any income tax or national insurance contributions that may otherwise arise on payments made before the legislation takes effect.
Looking ahead beyond 2026-27, the Government have already committed to a review of these rates and will set this out at the Budget.
This announcement is one part of a package of support for households and businesses announced today.
[HCWS62]
Children’s Social Care Reform
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
Transforming children’s social care is central to this Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity for all children. It is fundamental to ensuring that every child grows up safe, supported and able to thrive, and is key to putting our public services and our public finances on a sustainable long-term footing.
In November 2024, this Government published “Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive”, which set out a clear and ambitious vision for reform to support more children to remain safely with their families, to strengthen wider family networks where children cannot live at home, and to ensure that those who need care receive stable, enduring relationships.
We have laid strong foundations for whole-system reform through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, which is the most significant overhaul of children’s social care legislation in a generation. This Act strengthens multi-agency safeguarding, oversight and accountability across the system. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 has further strengthened our response to child sexual abuse and criminal exploitation, with tougher offences, modernised enforcement powers and a clearer focus on protecting victims. Our reforms to children’s social care are also backed by sustained investment, including £2.4 billion for the families first partnership programme.
Today we are publishing an implementation plan to support local partners to deliver reform. This plan builds on activity to reset the system, through prioritising intensive, earlier family help, renewing the focus on family-based care, strengthening child protection, and reforming the care market and workforce. It also follows recent work to update the children’s social care national framework, Working Together To Safeguard Children, and the families first partnership programme guide. As we drive forward delivery of reform, we will focus on three areas.
First, by 2026-27, every local authority will be embedding a single, seamless family help offer, ending the divide between early help and child-in-need services. Safeguarding partnerships will establish multi-agency child protection teams, bringing together social workers, health professionals, police and education, while new statutory duties on family group decision making will ensure that families are involved earlier and in decisions about their children. Alongside this, we will strengthen kinship care, recognising that children do best when cared for by people who know and love them. From 2026, every local authority will publish a clear local kinship offer underpinned by national standards, alongside targeted investment through kinship zones and pilot programmes to address practical and financial barriers for carers. We are also improving the evidence base through new data, robust evaluation, and the first Government-led study of kinship care.
Secondly, we are placing a renewed emphasis on the importance of stable, lifelong relationships for children in care and care leavers. We will expand foster care capacity from 2026 by strengthening support and financial stability for foster carers and simplifying fostering standards by autumn 2026 to ensure a greater supply of high-quality placements. In parallel, we will scale regional care co-operatives from spring 2026 onwards to deliver more homes, improve commissioning and enhance forecasting. This will be underpinned by enhanced financial oversight of the children’s homes market, including the introduction of the first provider oversight scheme for groups of children’s homes, targeted capital investment to build provision in the right locations, and tighter regulation of unregistered homes. Care leavers will continue to benefit from support through Staying Put, while Staying Close will become a national offer in spring 2029. In addition, new corporate parenting responsibilities for Government Departments and relevant public bodies will be introduced from autumn 2027, ensuring a more consistent and joined-up approach to supporting young people as they move into adulthood.
Thirdly, adoption support is a key element of reform. We will continue to provide vital therapeutic support through the adoption and special guardianship support fund, to consult on the fund’s longer-term future, and to introduce a new universal parenting offer from autumn 2026 to support families and children as they transition to secondary school. Adoption England will also work with local authorities and regional adoption agencies to improve adoption practice, Ofsted will undertake a thematic review of regional adoption agencies, and we will strengthen adoption record retention by establishing a consistent 100-year standard.
Finally, supporting the whole workforce is a central aim of this programme. Our plan sets out a comprehensive package of actions to strengthen capability, stability and professional standards. This includes enhancing training and standards for children’s homes staff from spring 2026, streamlining Ofsted registration processes for children’s home managers, and investing in the early career development of social workers. Alongside this, we will work in partnership with local authorities to embed a strengthened professional development offer for social workers, underpinned by clear and consistent standards. We will also take steps to improve workforce stability by strengthening the regulatory framework for agency workers from spring 2028, supporting more expert practice for children and families.
I am also pleased to inform Parliament that Foundations—What Works Centre for Children & Families, is today publishing an implementation framework for designing and delivering services for children and families. The framework supports the implementation plan published by the Government today, and sets out a clear, consistent and evidence-based framework to support local authorities and their partners to map local systems, identify strengths, convene key stakeholders, and follow defined steps to design and deliver evidence-informed children’s services.
By reforming children’s social care, we are investing in children’s futures. I would like to thank all those across children’s social care, policing, health, education and wider public services who are working tirelessly alongside the Government to bring the change that our children need and deserve.
I will deposit copies of the implementation plan in the Library of each House.
[HCWS54]
Ebola: Democratic Republic of the Congo
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for International Development and Africa (the right hon. Baroness Chapman of Darlington) has today made the following statement:
I would like to update the House on the Ebola outbreak in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the United Kingdom’s response.
On 15 May, the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo declared an Ebola outbreak following confirmation of the Bundibugyo strain. Uganda also confirmed a case on the same day. On 17 May, the World Health Organization subsequently designated this a Public Health Emergency of international concern, reflecting the seriousness of the situation and the risk of wider regional spread. The outbreak is centred in Ituri province in eastern DRC, with 51 confirmed cases and 4 deaths reported as of 19 May, alongside over 500 suspected cases. This remains a fast-moving situation.
The outbreak is taking place in a highly complex humanitarian and security environment. Eastern DRC already faces significant humanitarian and health challenges, with high levels of displacement, fragile health systems and limited access to care. These conditions increase the risk of further transmission and complicate response efforts.
The United Kingdom is working closely with international partners and the Government of DRC to support a coordinated and effective response. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care co-chaired a cross-Government ministerial meeting to coordinate the UK’s response. The UK is already a leading donor in the response, and has now allocated up to £21 million to help contain the outbreak. This funding will support a DRC-led response and help the World Health Organization, UN, international and NGO partners to strengthen surveillance, support frontline health workers, improve infection prevention and control, and support access to essential care.
The UK is also playing a leading role in coordinating the international response in DRC. Through our embassy in Kinshasa, we are continuing to convene partners to mobilise resources, align support behind the Government of DRC’s response plan, and ensure delivery is effective and coordinated on the ground.
Alongside this, UK humanitarian programmes in eastern DRC are being adapted to respond to the outbreak, including through support for water, sanitation and hygiene, provision of personal protective equipment, and strengthened Ebola containment measures. The UK is also working to protect vulnerable groups, including maintaining access to maternal health services and mitigating risks of increased gender-based violence during the outbreak.
Next week, I will visit the region for the African Development Bank annual meetings in Brazzaville in the Republic of Congo. I will meet partner organisations and ministerial counterparts from the DRC and the wider region to discuss the evolving situation and explore further areas of UK support to the response.
While this is a serious outbreak, the risk to the UK public remains low. The UK Health Security Agency is closely monitoring the situation and working across Government to assess any potential risks. UKHSA and the NHS have robust procedures and specialist facilities in place to assess and manage any potential cases safely. The UKHSA returning workers scheme has also been activated to monitor and support individuals travelling to or from affected areas for their work. The UK public health rapid support team is in contact with affected countries and international partners and stands ready to provide technical support if requested.
The Government keep travel advice under constant review. We have updated advice for the DRC and Uganda to reflect the outbreak. Existing advice already advises against all travel to eastern DRC, including Ituri, Goma and Bunia, due to insecurity and instability. British nationals in affected countries are advised to follow FCDO travel advice and local public health guidance. We are providing consular support where required.
The Government will continue to monitor the situation closely and work with international partners to limit the outbreak. Rapid containment remains the most effective way to protect regional and global health security.
[HCWS60]
Dental Quality and Payment Reform
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I wish to update the House on the implementation of the quality and payment reforms to the NHS dentistry contract. This follows the Government’s 2025 public consultation on proposals to address some of the pressing issues that dental teams face and support them to spend more time on patients with the greatest need. The first set of regulatory amendments to accompany these reforms came into force on the 1 April 2026. Today, we have laid the second set of regulatory amendments to the National Health Service (General Dental Services Contracts) Regulations 2005, the National Health Service (Personal Dental Services Agreements) Regulations 2005, and the National Health Service (Dental Charges) Regulations 2005, to support these reforms. These amendments will come into force on 23 June 2026 and will
create new long-term care pathways for patients with significant dental decay and/or significant gum disease, with improved payments to cover the costs and labour involved for dentists, and more effective, joined up care for patients, with a single patient charge;
introduce a new add-on payment for denture modifications, relining and repairs, to more fairly remunerate dentists delivering these treatments to patients;
remove existing regulatory barriers to enable an electronic prescription service in dentistry.
These reforms build on the April regulatory changes to improve access to urgent NHS dental care and support greater use of cost-effective, evidence-based prevention for children.
In addition to these regulatory changes, we have introduced a new funded quality improvement programme and are providing funding towards annual appraisals for associate dentists, dental therapists and dental hygienists delivering NHS care.
These reforms are an important step towards fundamental reform, but not the end point, and we will continue to go further before the end of this Parliament.
[HCWS63]
NHS Pension Scheme: McCloud Implementation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
On 11 December 2025, I issued a written statement on the implementation of the McCloud remedy for affected NHS pension scheme members. I updated on progress in planning for the delivery of the remedy and reaffirmed my commitment to deliver the remedy to the coalition Government’s discrimination. I also committed to keeping the House informed of progress.
The NHS Business Services Authority has now developed and aligned its plans for the delivery of the McCloud remedy. An independent review, led by Lisa Tennant, has considered those plans and the NHSBSA’s capacity, capability and functions to deliver the remedy. Lisa Tennant is now preparing a final report, which I intend to publish in due course.
The independent review has found that significant progress has been made in the NHSBSA’s planning for the remedy, including the comprehensive analysis of steps that will need to be taken to provide each individual member with their remedy choice and to enact it. Given the level of complexities in the membership of the NHS pension scheme, this has been a substantial undertaking. The review also highlights a number of dependencies that are critical to delivering the remedy. These include:
Procuring external suppliers to bolster NHSBSA’s capacity to manually calculate remediable service statements for some members;
The release of software to automate statements as far as possible, enabling future retirees to make their remedy choice at the point of retirement, and to further automate calculations for members who are already retired.
I remain committed to setting deadlines that prioritise the delivery of the remedy to members who are likely to be facing financial detriment as a consequence of the discrimination identified by the McCloud judgment. The deadlines must be realistic and achievable. They must also ensure that the scheme’s ongoing performance is maintained and protected alongside the delivery of the remedy. I expect these dependencies will have advanced sufficiently, or been appropriately mitigated, to enable me to issue new statutory deadlines with confidence before summer recess.
Subject to the dependencies outlined above, the NHSBSA’s plans currently forecast that:
Retired members whose remedy period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2022 benefits are still affected by the discrimination identified by the McCloud judgment—in that some or all of the accrual for that period is 2015 scheme accrual—should receive their remedy choice by the end of December 2027;
Retired members whose remedy period benefits are no longer affected by this discrimination—in that all of their accrual for the period is 1995 to 2008 scheme accrual—should receive their remedy choice by the end of June 2030;
All active and deferred members who are due a remedial pension saving statement should have received this by the end of March 2027.
I have asked the NHSBSA to take steps to communicate to members when they can expect to receive their remedy choice, and which deadlines, when issued, will apply to them.
The NHSBSA continues to issue remediable service statements and remedial pension saving statements in line with its delivery plans. To date, 10,462 remediable service statements have been issued to retired members who are most likely to be facing financial detriment. Of those, 5,804 have been returned and 5,368 decisions have been enacted. A further 11,457 have been calculated and are scheduled to be issued in alignment with the NHSBSA’s delivery plan. In addition, a remediable pension savings statement has been issued to 121,824 members, and 19,952 are outstanding.
[HCWS55]
Senior NHS Workforce Pay
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I am pleased to announce that we are publishing our response to the recommendations made by the independent Senior Salaries Review Body for the 2026-27 financial year.
I hugely appreciate the incredible work of talented staff across our NHS, and that is why I am formally accepting the headline pay recommendation of 3.0% for senior leaders across the NHS in England, to give them a well-deserved pay rise. This award relates to:
Over 3,200 very senior managers (VSMs)
Over 400 executive senior managers (ESMs)
These awards mean that the Government are delivering a well-deserved pay rise, on top of those in preceding years, underlining the extent to which we value our senior leaders. Eligibility for pay awards for VSMs is linked to their organisation’s performance as determined by the NHS oversight framework segment to which they are assigned: https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/nhs-oversight-framework/
I am grateful to the Chair and members of the SSRB for their thoughtful consideration of the evidence presented to them. Their report recognises the vital contribution that NHS leaders make to our country. The SSRB has examined the economic picture and evidence on recruitment, retention, motivation and morale to reach their recommendations.
The SSRB made a further two recommendations, which are not directly related to headline pay. I recognise the challenge of recruiting those at the top of the Agenda for Change pay scale into VSM roles. To help address this, I am therefore pleased to accept the recommendation to deliver training and support knowledge-sharing for remuneration committees and chief people officers. However, we will do this over a longer timeframe than envisaged by the SSRB, to allow sufficient engagement with relevant stakeholders in the design and delivery of the training. Following engagement with stakeholders, we will deliver this training within this financial year.
I can also confirm that I am accepting, in principle, the recommendation to withdraw the very out-of-date executive senior managers pay framework. It is not feasible to withdraw and replace the framework ahead of April 2027. Any changes to ESM pay setting and reward will need to be carefully sequenced and considered alongside the ongoing DHSC/NHSE transformation.
We will continue to implement commitments to improve the support NHS staff receive and their experience at work. Ensuring the NHS is a great place to work is fundamental to improving patient experience: from reducing the backlog in elective care to ensuring timely access to GP appointments.
Next steps
We have listened to the workforce and understand the difficulties they face when pay awards are not delivered on time. I am pleased to be announcing the pay awards earlier than the previous year. We will continue work across Government to keep bringing forward the pay round for all public sector staff.
The SSRB report will be presented to Parliament and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS66]
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: Appointed Person Report
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 appointed person report covering England and Wales for the period 2024 to 2025 has today been laid before Parliament. The appointed person is independent of Government and scrutinises the circumstances and manner in which search and seizure powers conferred by the Act are exercised without prior judicial approval and where no property is seized or property is seized for less than 48 hours.
I am pleased that we are now able to publish the appointed person’s latest report. The report details that POCA search and seizure powers were used on seven occasions in a way that required notification of the appointed person.
The appointed person has confirmed in the report that he is satisfied that the criteria required for justifying the searches without prior judicial approval were met and that the powers of search were exercised appropriately. This would indicate that the powers are being used reasonably and appropriately, in accordance with the Act. We will continue to monitor the way that the powers are used closely. The appointed person recommended that the standard template be used in all reports sent to them and that the sections of POCA used for search and seizure should be clearly indicated in those reports. Guidance will be updated to reflect these recommendations.
Copies of the report will be available in the Vote Office. It will also be published on gov.uk.
[HCWS58]
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026: Commencement
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
When elected mayors were first established by the Local Government Act 2000, they were elected using the supplementary vote system. This system, which is suitable for the election of single executive office holders, such as mayors ensures a broader level of support for the person elected.
This voting system for mayoral elections was changed following the Elections Act 2022, which removed the supplementary vote system and replaced this with a simple majority—first past the post—system. This Government have always been clear that supplementary vote is the more appropriate system for electing mayors.
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, which received Royal Assent on 29 April 2026, reintroduces the supplementary vote system for mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections. It was the clear intention of the Government, as stated during parliamentary passage of the Act, that this return to supplementary vote would be implemented ahead of any future relevant elections after May 2026. The Government are conscious that there is now a possible scenario in which a mayoral election may need to be held in Greater Manchester in the coming months, subject to the outcome of the parliamentary by-election in the Makerfield constituency.
We are therefore taking action to seek parliamentary approval to deliver that change in all scenarios. I have today laid the legislation necessary to support the implementation of these measures for combined authority mayors and combined county authority mayors. The Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2026, which makes the required changes to conduct rules, ballot papers, postal voting statements, and guidance and instructions to voters, will now be considered by Parliament under the affirmative procedure. Relevant changes to the secondary legislation governing conduct of elections for local authority mayors, the Mayor of London and police and crime commissioners will be brought forward as soon as possible later this year.
The Government’s intention, subject to the approval of Parliament, is for the secondary legislation to be in force by 19 June 2026.
We will work with the Electoral Commission and local authorities to support implementation of this change, to ensure all rules are clear and understood, and to support clear communications with electors.
[HCWS65]
Neighbourhoods and Public Services
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
Since the election, this Government have taken steps to support local renewal, including investment through the Pride in Place programme, fairer local government funding, publication of the northern growth strategy, and further progress on fiscal devolution and community empowerment. Today I’m announcing a new programme of reform to further restore people’s pride in their areas and communities, and help deliver effective local public services centred on communities and users.
We will take further action to address excessive profiteering in children’s social care, where the market is failing users and taxpayers. We are already reforming the placements market to put children first, and we have legislated for powers to enforce a cap on profits in children’s social care. We will monitor the market carefully, including learning early lessons from our expansion of regional care cooperatives, but—based on our assessment and subject to consultation—we will not flinch from capping the profits of private providers placing vulnerable children in care.
We are giving local councils stronger tools to shape and improve their high streets. We have already brought forward gambling impact assessments to allow councils to limit the number of gambling premises in their areas. And now we are giving councils new powers to restrict certain shops on the high street, take over empty shops, and use the spaces to run services or activities or businesses. We are also setting up a new high street organised crime unit in the Home Office to take out organised crime on our high streets, and we will give the police new powers to close down those that do nothing about antisocial behaviour. We also recognise that councils need funding to build the high streets of the future, which is why we are committing £300 million for high streets innovation.
We will set out a neighbourhood guarantee to set clear expectations of local, regional and national Government, to bring real change that can be seen and felt in every town, city and village. This will include basic public service provision, cleaner streets, better-maintained public spaces and a stronger sense of local safety and pride. We will publish an easily accessible digital tool showing progress, so that residents can see how their neighbourhood is performing and hold the relevant bodies to account for delivery.
We will put more power in the hands of the nations’ mayors. Our new English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 means that mayors can request the new powers and funding they need. As part of the first round of that new right-to-request process, we are now signing off on a series of new power transfers. As previously announced by the Transport Secretary, we will devolve decisions on Transport and Works Act orders to mayors, with a consultation to be launched in the autumn to consider the scope of powers to be devolved. This will provide mayors more tools to get on with building public transport, like tram networks. We will also go further on the devolution of public services. We have already announced plans for Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire to pilot a deputy mayor for health. We will now work in partnership with the Mayor of the Liverpool City Region to drive up attainment and standards in local schools. In the run up to autumn Budget, we will also work with mayors to explore further devolution, as we know it means better local services for our communities.
We will soon be launching a new programme of community power pilots which will support councils, community groups and local residents to co-design solutions to local problems, explore longer term models of community involvement in service delivery, and help build neighbourhood and community capacity for the future.
Finally, we want to give social housing tenants greater control of their homes and communities. Our Renters’ Rights Act 2025 has already given tenants greater control and our leasehold reforms will do the same for homeowners. We are committed to social tenants’ right to manage, and we are reviewing how the existing process works, so we can make it as easy as possible for more tenants to take on management duties, with effective support and oversight.
[HCWS59]
Judicial Workforce
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
I am today announcing my decision on pay for the judiciary.
I value the Senior Salaries Review Body’s expertise and independent advice in recommending a judicial pay award which reflects the important role that the judiciary play across the justice system. When making my decision, I have carefully considered the SSRB’s advice alongside the financial implications for my Department.
The SSRB recommended a pay award of 3.8% for all judicial office holders within the remit group for 2026-27. I have decided to reject this recommendation, and instead a 3.5% judicial pay award will be applied equally to all judicial office holders for whom I have responsibility, from April 2026. I highly value the important work carried out by the judiciary in upholding the rule of law. I have therefore prioritised funding to provide an award 1.5% higher than the 2% affordability set out in published evidence, but this has required tough choices within the Department’s spending plans. This approach carefully weighs the SSRB’s recommendations against the affordability constraints of my Department, as well as the wider pressures on public finances.
The SSRB highlighted their concern over the persistent recruitment and retention issues affecting parts of the judiciary when making this recommendation. I share these concerns. The major review of the judicial salary structure is the right place to address these issues through targeted reform, and presents better value than the flat rate pay uplift of the annual pay review. I look forward to continuing to work with the SSRB on the major review and receiving its report later this year.
I am committed to strengthening our world-class judiciary. I have already announced in December a record investment in sitting days, court buildings, technology and legal professionals. I hope this increase reflects the high value I place on their independence and commitment to the delivery of justice and the rule of law.
The SSRB’s report will be presented to Parliament and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS53]
Equality Act 2010: Draft Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
The Equality and Human Rights Commission is the independent equality regulator and ensures compliance with the Equality Act 2010. Its code of practice on services, public functions and associations covers all nine protected characteristics and the steps the EHRC considers service providers should take into account when ascertaining how to comply with the law. We share the EHRC’s commitment to ensuring duty bearers and service users have accurate and up-to-date guidance on the Equality Act 2010 including in the light of recent court rulings.
We are grateful to the EHRC for its work on the draft code. The EHRC has rightly focused on ensuring the draft code is accessible and provides a wide range of examples for duty bearers.
The Equality Act 2006 states that before issuing a code of practice, the EHRC shall submit a draft to the Secretary of State to make a decision whether to approve it; and then if it is approved, the Secretary of State lays the draft before Parliament. Earlier in this process, as required, I consulted the Scottish and Welsh Governments.
I have approved the draft code submitted on 4 September 2025 and as updated by the EHRC in April 2026 following engagement with Government and their consideration of consultation responses and further legal analysis.
The current code was produced in 2011, and there have been significant developments since then, including the Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland, resulting in the EHRC wanting to update the code.
Following last year’s Supreme Court ruling, the draft code’s content on sex and gender reassignment has changed substantially from the 2011 version. The ruling made it clear that sex means biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 and that trans people are still protected by the Act under the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment”.
A number of other changes were made as part of updating the 2011 code across all protected characteristics, including highlighting protections for disabled people, and advice on pregnancy and maternity discrimination as well as age discrimination. The draft code now before Parliament more accurately reflects the position on all protected characteristics. This includes protections for women whose menopause has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their everyday life, as well as updates to reflect legislative changes on same-sex marriage.
This Government are proud of the Equality Act 2010 and will protect and uphold it. This code is an important step in ensuring that organisations across Great Britain have clear guidance regarding its implementation, protecting people’s rights across our country.
The draft code will be laid before Parliament in both Houses for a 40-day period, in line with the Equality Act 2006. If neither House disapproves the draft within this time period, the code currently in force will be revoked by means of a negative procedure statutory instrument and the new code will be commenced by a separate statutory instrument.
I have therefore laid the “Equality Act 2010: draft code of practice for services, public functions and associations” in Parliament today, with an explanatory memorandum, in line with the Equality Act 2006.
[HCWS67]
Fit Note Reform Pilot Schemes
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, I am today announcing a series of pilots to test a new approach to managing sickness absence in England.
We have known for some time that the fit note is not working as intended. Over 11 million fit notes were issued last year, with around 93% being issued as “not fit for work”. Far too often, employees are not receiving the advice that might help them return to work earlier, and employers are not being offered advice on how to support their employees in the workplace.
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/fit-notes-issued-by-gp-practices
In April 2024, the previous Government launched a call for evidence seeking views from a wide range of stakeholders on the fit note process. Today I have published its findings, which reveal several challenges with the fit note process. Many healthcare professionals do not feel sufficiently equipped to bridge the barriers between a patient’s work and health. Employers, meanwhile, expressed concerns that “may be fit for work” fit notes lack sufficient detail and also report the need for a greater understanding of workplace contexts. Although patients appreciated the simplicity, accessibility and legitimacy of the current system, they also supported the need for more detailed work and health discussions.
That is why, from July 2026, we will begin pilots in four areas across England to test reforms to the traditional fit note. The pilots will offer up to 100,000 appointments and move away from a system focused primarily on sickness certification and instead offer personalised work and health support.
In participating areas, new community work and health teams will work with patients and their employers to develop workability plans that support them to remain in work or return sustainably. These plans are focused on what people can do, the support they may need, and when time away from work is right. Crucially, this model is designed to keep people connected to their workplace from day one of absence. This shift will enable earlier, more tailored support for individuals, while freeing GPs from administrative processes so that they can focus more on care.
The pilots will be backed by £3 million of funding in their first year and will be delivered in partnership with the NHS and employers. They will operate initially in four integrated care board areas: Birmingham and Solihull; Cornwall and Isles of Scilly; Coventry and Warwickshire; and Lancashire and South Cumbria.
These pilots are the first step in the Government’s ambition for radical fit note reform, moving towards a more holistic and partnership-based approach to supporting sickness absence. Designed in collaboration with patients, employers and GPs, we will take a “test and learn” approach, with findings shaping future legislation and implementation as we scale what works.
This sits alongside wider action that we are taking to drive change across the work and health system, such as clearing the Access to Work backlog, to ensure people receive timely and effective support to stay in work. In parallel, Sir Charlie Mayfield’s “Keep Britain Working” programme is convening Vanguard employers to test new employer-led approaches and develop a healthy workplace standard.
[HCWS56]