Westminster Hall

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 9 June 2026

[Esther McVey in the Chair]

Water Safety

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered water safety.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Ms McVey. I thank the Minister for attending to hear the points to be made. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on water safety, and I acknowledge the support and co-operation of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), who has been campaigning with me on this issue.

The recent heatwave took many of us to the most beautiful spots in our country: rivers, beaches and lakes. Over that May bank holiday and half-term, many sought to enjoy the unusual weather. As we know, what started as days to enjoy with fun in the sunshine, has since been overshadowed by the unprecedented tragedy of new fewer than 19 deaths. I hope this debate provides a timely opportunity to explore the issues we must firmly grip: water safety education, policy interventions, public awareness campaigns, access to swimming and lifesaving skills, and many other actions that Government can and must take, alongside local authorities, emergency services and water operators, to prevent drownings.

I turn first and most importantly to the catalyst for today’s debate. Each year, on average, drowning claims the lives of more than 600 people in the UK. That is nearly 12 people every week of every year. Hon. Members who have seen such tragedies in their constituencies will know that each one is a beloved family member, friend or colleague. Each one mattered profoundly to those around them, and their deaths have caused deep pain to those left behind. Too many of them are children: 196 children drowned in open water in the past six years alone. That is a classroom full of children every year.

What we saw during the recent heatwave was particularly shocking. Many welcomed the early summer weather and went out, across the country, to make the most of it. We now know that in just over a week, 19 people were confirmed dead, the vast majority—13—of them children.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. On the subject of young children, many of them school age, there was a tragedy close to my constituency in August 2022, when two teenagers drowned. That is an example of what the hon. Member is outlining having happened recently across England. Does he agree that we need to educate young people about the real dangers that exist, even when they think there are none?

[Darren Paffey]

The hon. Member is absolutely right and makes an important point. Following a debate during drowning prevention week last year, I was pleased that it was confirmed that water safety education, including the Royal Life Saving Society’s water safety code, would be added to the national curriculum. We need to see the effect of that in time.

I hope that this will be a pivotal moment for our country to act and do more to prevent such tragedies. Those who died recently are the catalysts for today’s debate, and their names deserve to be heard in Parliament. They are: Declan Sawyer, aged just 15; Reco Puttock, 13 years old; Lillianna Tomlinson, 17 years old; Muhammad Secka, who was just 16; Phil Crow, 68 years old; Junior Slater, 12; David Tita Junior, 17; Rushabh Patel, 28 years old; Samuel Murphy, aged 14; Baltazar L’Quy, 14; Panashe Muchenje, 19 years old; Charlie Noble, 16; Chiedza Nyanjowa, 15 years old; Mackenzie Swift, the youngest at just 11 years old; Greg Howes, 44; George Cuckoo, 15; Palwasha Akbar, 13; and two women who have not yet been named, one aged 60 in Thornton-Cleveleys in Lancashire and another aged 72 who died in West Angle Bay beach in Pembrokeshire. We mourn their tragic loss here. I am sure the whole Chamber will join me in sending our deepest condolences to their families and friends, who have been left heartbroken by their deaths. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Now we must act. It is already devastating enough that in an average year about 30 children might drown in open water in the UK, but 13 in one week? What happened? In many cases, we may never fully know. We do know that, understandably, in the intense heat, it is a pleasure to go for a swim, go out with friends, take a picnic, have a laugh and try to cool down. But we also know, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said, that there are risks—hidden risks and risks that are not necessarily well known—that could have contributed to those tragedies.

Even when the air temperature is hot—we got up to 34° in parts of the country that week—water temperatures, particularly inland, open water, are still very cold, especially this early in the year. When someone jumps innocently and enthusiastically into the water, seeking relief from the heat, their body can experience cold water shock, which can cause an involuntary gasp, drawing water straight into the lungs. It can paralyse the muscles and stop the heart. Even the strongest swimmer has seconds, not minutes, to react. It is not just the physical response; it is the lack of knowledge of what to do when they get into difficulty that could have led to such an unprecedented number of drownings during that week.

Joe Abbess from my Southampton Itchen constituency drowned three years ago. He was a strong swimmer, a fit and healthy 17-year-old, swimming in a designated area of Bournemouth beach, but he was caught in a very intense and sudden rip current. His mum Vanessa, who has become an incredible campaigner on water safety since, has said that training and educating people so that they know what they might do in those circumstances can make all the difference.

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

The story the hon. Gentleman tells of his constituent echoes that of mine. In 2023, Ryan went into the sea with his friend, and they both got caught in a riptide. Ryan’s friend knew what to do in that situation—he knew to float—but Ryan did not. He was not discovered until four days later. His mum, Ren, has become a passionate advocate for making sure we teach young people not just how to swim, but what to do in emergency situations and in open water. She tours schools locally, teaching young people about the dangers of swimming even in designated bathing areas. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the strength that these families often show in the face of absolute tragedy is an incredible testament to their bravery?

[Darren Paffey]

I am so sorry to hear about that situation. I commend Ren and the many other parents who go far beyond any strength I could ever muster, were this to happen to my family. The hon. Lady is right that they are the most powerful advocates, and we must do more to ensure their voices are heard.

In Vanessa’s words,

“We live on an island; people should know the dangers. You wouldn’t cross the road without thinking about it—don’t enter the sea”—

or the river or the lake—

“without thinking about it.”

We also know that when the weather gets better, drownings sadly increase. With summer coming—temperatures are forecast to get up to 29° again this weekend—I urge the Government, all Members here and everyone watching this debate to engage with Drowning Prevention Week next week, and to tell the stories of what can go wrong and how to be safe in the summer.

Summer comes every year—it is not a surprise to us—but we have to be better prepared for what is guaranteed to happen. There are bound to be risks and the question whether individuals know what to do should not be a lottery.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. He is right; summer comes around every year. West Dorset is home to the Jurassic coast—a major tourist attraction—and our population increases by 40% over the summer months. Despite the inter-agency working of Dorset police, Dorset fire service, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the coastguard and Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance, there is no mechanism in the Government funding formula to recognise that seasonal surge in population. It puts huge strain on the emergency services and volunteers who respond to the kinds of incidents that the hon. Member rightly highlights.

[Darren Paffey]

The hon. Gentleman raises some important points about the gaps that still exist in the jigsaw of different services, support and funding; I will return to that later.

The Royal Life Saving Society is producing a report on the last six years of child drowning deaths data, which will be released next week, Drowning Prevention Week, at our APPG meeting. I encourage everyone to look at that report; it will help us to learn the lessons that we need to.

The Government must play their role in preventing further drownings. I recognise the Government’s decision to include water safety in the relationships, sex and health education guidance last summer. I was grateful that the Minister for School Standards, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), visited to meet campaigners, including Vanessa. However, as people who spend our time creating laws and guidance, we know that guidance without some sort of enforcement or support is an aspiration, not a policy.

Will the Minister and the Government accept and recognise that drowning is a preventable public health issue? It kills more than 600 people in the UK every year. It disproportionately effects children. It is demonstrably preventable.

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Darren Paffey]

I will.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I call Maya Ellis, who has just arrived.

[Maya Ellis]

A few weeks ago, 12-year-old Junior Slater tragically drowned in the River Ribble in the heart of my constituency. We will cover many things to prevent such senseless losses in this debate, but what struck me most in the village on the day that it happened was the hundreds of young people who were there from surrounding towns looking for something nice to do on a sunny day. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to prevent tragic deaths such as Junior’s, we need to ensure that there is also funding for places where young people can go and enjoy the outdoors safely, and will he join me in sending best wishes to the Slater family ahead of Junior’s funeral this Thursday?

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Before Mr Paffey replies, I should tell all Members that it is rude to join during a speech and then ask a question first thing. It is not the etiquette of the House. Please come at the start of the debate in future.

[Darren Paffey]

I absolutely share my condolences with Junior’s family. I cannot imagine what they will be feeling this week, but I hope this debate will bring forward ideas on how we can prevent drownings.

On the suggestion that my hon. Friend made about providing more for our young people to do, it is partly about that, but it also about having points of contact in addition to school, the family and public campaigns. Youth services, youth engagement and more activities will allow us to perhaps better educate our young people of the risks of drowning and how to deal with the other pressures that they face. By every measure that the NHS uses to prioritise public health action—scale, preventability, health inequalities—drowning prevention belongs on that list.

My second ask is that we take water safety as a priority at the heart of Government. The National Water Safety Forum is preparing to publish updated national drowning prevention strategies in the coming month, but there is no single lead for co-ordinating that work within the Government. Water safety is fragmented across multiple Departments and does not have a single accountable Minister in the same way as, for example, flooding or fire prevention. Ministerial responsibility for water safety and drowning prevention could be added more explicitly into existing roles, or covered by creating a new ministerial brief altogether.

I am grateful to the Minister for responding today. This is not about her as an individual, because I know that she is deeply committed to these issues—but any occupant of her role would not have specific responsibility for water safety. I therefore ask the Government to consider that proposal urgently. One of the new—or the current—Minister’s first tasks should be to convene an urgent, cross-Government roundtable this month, or certainly before the school summer holidays. I know that the National Water Safety Forum and the Royal Life Saving Society have written to the Prime Minister, and I ask the Minister to speak to No. 10 so that we get a swift response to their call.

My third ask is that we give our fire and rescue services in England a statutory responsibility for responding to water rescue emergencies. We all know that they are likely to be the ones who come out to such a 999 call, but it is not their statutory responsibility. We are asking our firefighters, who are already in the water saving lives, to do that job without giving them all the tools. That must change.

My fourth and final ask is for a public awareness campaign. We need one now. Our media, social media, schools, colleges, universities, councils, charities, landowners and water companies must all get behind it before another summer of drownings hits the country. We also need a year-round public awareness and education campaign. I will not repeat the valid points that others have made on that; we can all see the value that it would bring. I welcome the Daily Mirror’s campaign, which I am sure we will hear more about in this debate, and the way that it is bringing this issue to the public’s attention.

I want to speak directly to anyone watching the debate, because the words of the campaigns that the Royal Life Saving Society, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and others have all got behind could save a life this summer: “If someone gets into difficulty in the water, ‘Float to Live’. Fight your instinct to panic and thrash about. The advice is to roll on to your back and float—it buys you time. If you see someone else in trouble, the advice is ‘Phone, Float, Throw’: phone 999, shout to the person in the water to float, help them to stay calm and throw them anything that might help them to float—a rope, a jacket or anything else that is buoyant. ‘Float to Live’ and ‘Phone, Float, Throw’—please remember those six words this summer.”

In conclusion, I come back to the 19 victims of drowning in just one terrible week in this country. Among the many, I come back to Mackenzie Swift, who was just 11 and the youngest in that spate of drownings—younger than two of my children, and younger than the children and grandchildren of many hon. Members. The summer is just beginning. If we leave this Chamber today without a clear plan to act, we will face another debate like this one and we will read out more names. I do not want that. I know that the Minister does not want that. No one wants that. Let us agree today that drowning is preventable. The tools exist, but action must now follow.

09:49

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for his very thoughtful words. One of the young women he talked about, Palwasha Akbar, was 13, from the Bronte Girls’ secondary school in Bradford, and she died in Burnsall in my constituency. I pay tribute to her family and friends, who have spoken so eloquently about her. She died in more or less the same spot as Azaz Mohmed Chanda from Blackburn in 2024; I also put on record my thoughts for his family. In that case, there was an investigation and a coroner’s report, and it was a case of misadventure.

I support all the hon. Member’s comments about education, and the specific warnings he gave to people who are swimming in open water. The “Lonely Water” campaign of the early 1970s was very effective. I have certainly had constituents write in to ask me to represent that campaign and the stark truths it laid out.

I want to talk briefly about public bodies. The Minister has been given a series of asks by the hon. Member. I represent a large part of the Yorkshire Dales national park, which has been responsible for, rightly, promoting the countryside to ethnic minorities in Bradford and the surrounding area, and has received quite a lot of money to do so. Following the death last week, I have become increasingly concerned about an issue that has been coming up in quite a lot of the recent Government reports of grey areas between public bodies. Public bodies not meeting their responsibilities or duties is very present with national parks. They have a duty to promote themselves, but also to protect local communities, and they have duties on safety.

What came out regarding the last bank holiday weekend and Eid was that, at an operational level, the Yorkshire Dales national park had not thought about the deployment of personnel in hotspots such as Burnsall in any way that I could see, and had not really thought through its responsibility for safety. That responsibility for safety is obviously as an access authority—they are often not landowners. For the Minister’s awareness, at the weekend I looked through almost all the recent minutes, chief executive reports and risk registers, and never has any issue of water safety come up in any of those writings or meetings that I could see. When there have been two of these deaths at the same spot in the last two years, that cannot be right.

I urge the Minister to listen to the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen, but I also urge her to use whatever powers she has to speak to national parks that have large amounts of water and ask them to fulfil their duties on the safety of communities. We have heard that there are huge volumes of cars and people at peak times. National parks must now take responsibility for the volume of people they have promoted their area to and encouraged to come and visit, and must look at their duties on safety.

09:54

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. What we have heard is heartbreaking. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for leading the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for the work she has done over many years in our city. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith).

First and foremost, the Daily Mirror has done fantastic work on the Save Lives for Sam campaign, and the simple message: “Float to Live”. Sam was just 16 when he passed away in Rotherham, and his dad has shown extraordinary courage. Let me get out of the starting blocks by making a simple request of my hon. Friend the Minister: I would really welcome the Government thinking about whether the upcoming clean water Bill could be the most proximate legislative vehicle to introduce Sam’s law—a relatively simple fix that involves mandating equipment at some of these sites.

I also join those who paid tribute to Palwasha Akbar, who tragically died after going missing in the River Wharfe in North Yorkshire. No parent should have to go through that. As a dad to two young boys, I cannot imagine what it must be like to receive that knock at the door.

I express my gratitude to the emergency services and search and rescue in York. Whether they are patrolling the Ouse late at night or on the hottest day of the year, they are there when we need them the most. In particular, I am grateful to York Rescue Boat, a charity established in 2014 to protect lives on the Rivers Ouse and Foss. It takes a proactive approach to water safety by doing things like going on patrol every weekend, helping to keep residents, and of course visitors to our wonderful city, safe, but from speaking to its volunteers, a clear picture emerges: much of what they deal with is preventable.

We should be honest about something from the start: water safety has become somewhat of a class issue. I am fortunate that I can afford to take my lovely boys swimming regularly and pay for swimming lessons to make sure that they build confidence in the water right from the start of their life, but too many families cannot. Too many children are growing up without access to the very skills that could one day save their life.

Years of austerity, I am sure, have something to do with how access has been hollowed out to those essential services. Water tragedies are not just accidents; they are preventable. Swimming might be compulsory in the curriculum, but long waiting lists for lessons and the closure of pools means that that promise is too often not delivered. Too often, we talk about water safety only after a life has been lost. We really need to explore that.

I want to tell a brief story of my own. My little boy Robin, as Members will know, means the world to me. One day we were in the pool. He was splashing around, a metre and a half away from me, under my watchful eye. He was extremely close, with his float jacket on. For a split second, his face went under the water—a split second of panic. That shock is something a parent will always remember. Of course, I grabbed him, got him out of the pool and built his confidence back up. As parents, I am sure we have all had those feelings, whether at the pool, the beach or even a bath time—even when we are there watching, a metre away, ready to step in—but there will be a time when our children leave home and we cannot be there for them, just a metre away.

We teach the green cross code, stranger danger, and fire and road safety as standard yet, although water is one of the biggest killers of children, water safety is too often an afterthought. It is a compulsory part of the physical education curriculum; every child, in theory, should leave primary school able to swim 25 metres. One in three, though, unfortunately cannot. We must do more for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and ensure that children with disabilities and additional needs receive extra support in learning basic lifesaving skills.

Although it is very easy for politicians to stand up in the House of Commons and say that things should be free or expanded, I really think we need to talk about free swimming lessons for kids in deprived areas of this country. We must go beyond speaking about the curriculum. The House has legislated for seat belts, fire alarms and road crossings. As I say, it is time for Sam’s law too.

In York, we know that this is a particularly acute issue. We teach children about the history of the Minster, the city walls and the railway, but not enough about how to survive in the River Ouse. We should embed swimming and water awareness at a much earlier stage. I want to say something about us being a university city, shaped by our rivers. I did part of my graduate studies in the United States. American universities incorporate water safety in their undergraduate curricula, so I think universities have to do more. I would like to use this moment to open a conversation with Universities UK on that. In Parliament, we often put a lot of responsibility on primary school teachers, but we should look at what universities can do.

Above all, we must make sure that every child, regardless of background and household income, leaves school able to swim and to understand water safety. Is it so much to ask, in a society as rich as ours, that we have kids who can swim?

10:00

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. A big thank you to the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for highlighting this issue at such a timely moment as we begin—hopefully—to enjoy the better weather and are seeing preventable deaths, particularly of young people, in our waters. It saddens us all greatly when we hear of the unnecessary loss of life.

As we look to the summer, we look for those days of summer fun. I grew up in a different time, but I learned to swim at school, and that probably gave me an advantage. Our school had swimming classes and everybody learned to swim, and it did not do us any harm. I am reminded of the time that I went on holiday to Florida and the three boys were small—aged eight, six and four. We arrived at the villa and they were all excited to be getting into the pool, as we always are when the sun is shining. The youngest boy just walked straight on to the water. I do not know what he thought he was going to do, but he certainly was not going to walk on it. The second boy shouted to him, “Swim, Luke, swim!” but Luke was not swimming anywhere, so I dived into the pool and pulled him out. There is danger in water, wherever it may be—even in swimming pools and ponds. My five-and-a-half-year-old grandchild learned to swim this year in Portugal. The Minister does not have responsibility for education, but she will understand, as we all do, that it is really important that we all learn to swim.

My summer holidays were spent with my friends, jumping into the quarry and enjoying the cool water on a sticky day. I can probably go back further than just about anybody in the Chamber—my loss of hair and wrinkles are an indication of that. Times have changed, but the joy of cooling off and splashing with friends has remained. We would have jumped into the quarry and off the harbour at Ballywalter, down where we lived when we were younger. I am old enough to remember depth charges: you curled yourself into a ball, jumped into the water and the water splashed everywhere. It was part of the youthful exuberance that we had. We were never alone; we always had friends with us, and maybe that was one of the things that made it all right.

However, the danger appears to have been enhanced, and those simple pleasures can have deadly results. My heart goes out to every family feeling the pain of the recent losses in water. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen read out the names of those who have died. That was a very poignant moment. It focused our attention on where we need to be, and we thank him for doing it, even though it was hard to comprehend the massive loss of life. My prayers and thoughts are with all those families at this time.

In Northern Ireland, our emergency services and local authorities have been warning that open water sites have hidden life-threatening hazards. Disused quarries are exceptionally dangerous due to unpredictable depths, submerged machinery, sudden drop-offs and stagnant toxic water conditions. The water in quarries does not flow; it just gathers and gets toxic. The water might look refreshing, but jumping into it can have dire results. I understand the temptation to enjoy our beautiful local landscape when the sun comes out, but I cannot stress enough how dangerous unsupervised open water swimming can be.

Quarries, in particular, are death traps. Their water may look calm and inviting on the surface, but underneath lies intense cold that can cause immediate muscle paralysis and shock, even in the strongest swimmers. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen outlined the theory of floating in the water. That is very easy to say, but it is not easy for someone to realise that they can float, because panic sets in. Maybe one of the things that we need to be doing in schools is teaching people how to have that immediate reaction of letting themselves go completely still and float. That could save their life.

I went to the local press to urge parents to have frank conversations with their children about the risk of trespassing on industrial or abandoned sites, because peer pressure can often lead to tragic decisions. We have seen devastating tragedies across Northern Ireland in the past, and the UK mainland has seen more deaths of young boys and girls in the recent heatwave. It is devastating trying to understand the loss of life. I do not want to see one more local family heartbroken this summer. My plea is clear: “Please stick to designated supervised swimming areas, obey all the safety signage and look out for one another. A split-second decision to jump into a quarry is simply not worth your life. Enjoy the sun and water responsibly.”

More can and should be done. We should make a co-ordinated effort in schools to talk about the danger, and have a social media campaign and a television campaign about it. All those things are important, and they should come in March, April or May, as the summer months arrive and people’s minds turn to water, rather than in December—unless they are targeted at wild water swimmers, of course. I wouldn’t be swimming in December, that’s for sure.

All these tools must be utilised, because we saw 19 people lose their lives during the May heatwave in the UK, 13 of whom were children. The question must be asked: are we doing all that we can? The answer is that we could do more to prevent these deaths, and we must do more UK-wide. We need to ensure that, if residents spot individuals trespassing or swimming in prohibited high-risk areas, they report the activity to local authorities immediately to prevent potential accidents, and that there is an immediate response from a staffed police service that has the manpower to make a difference. In addition, lifesaving rubber rings should be provided in harbours and other potential swimming places. Water safety affects every constituency in the UK and the response must be greater, so that we never again have a month in which so many lives are lost and so many families are broken.

Those families who have lost loved ones are in my prayers—they are in all our prayers—but we must act to prevent more deaths, if at all possible. I look forward very much to hearing the Minister’s response. She always gives us encouragement, which helps us all to deal with difficult situations. I again thank all the Members who have participated in the debate.

10:06

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing this important debate.

My constituent Chiedza Nyanjowa was only 15 when she went to Formby beach on the bank holiday weekend with her 11-year-old cousin and her auntie—the beginning of this story is such a wholesome day out. Chiedza could not swim, so she and her cousin were playing safely on the sand with a beach volleyball. Unfortunately, the volleyball went into the sea and the girls went into the water to try to retrieve it. I think about how often I have told my own children: “Look after your things!” That was all the girls were trying to do; they were trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately, Chiedza did not make it back out of the sea in time.

Chiedza was, by all accounts, an absolutely lovely girl. She really liked helping others and her ambition was to grow up and become a nurse—an ambition that, sadly, will not be realised. That is a great loss to our community, because it sounds like she really was a deeply lovely child and a very loving Christian. She was also, by all accounts, fun; she liked taking selfies and doing all the things that teenage girls do. She liked to get flowers for her friends for their birthdays. She was extremely giving. She had recently won the local Rotary competition for cheffing.

Chiedza’s mother is the most incredible woman; meeting her was such an honour. She spoke to me at length about how grateful she was to both the off-duty doctor who spent a considerable period trying to rescue Chiedza from the water and the two off-duty nurses who spent a really long time doing their absolute best to revive Chiedza. I am sure she would also like me to say thank you to the members of New Life church; she is very grateful for their prayers for Chiedza.

Chiedza’s mother is just a great inspiration, and I feel very strongly that we must do everything we possibly can to prevent further such tragedies in our community. You cannot participate in the debate, Ms McVey, but I know that you have a lake in your constituency at which there are regularly tragedies of this kind, and I am sure that you would want us to assure everybody that we will work on a cross-party basis in Cheshire to look at this issue on a local level.

When we look at the statistics for child safety in water, we see that boys tend to die at twice the rate of girls, children in the most deprived communities die at twice the rate of more affluent children, and black children are three times more likely to die than white children. Luck should not determine whether children make it to adulthood; there are systemic problems here that we are failing to address. In my community, 39% of children with low family affluence can swim 25 metres, compared with 82% of children with high family affluence, so there is a systemic problem. Whether someone makes it to adulthood should not be an accident of birth, but at the moment it is.

We need to strengthen the school curriculum. The aim is that children should leave primary school able to swim, but a third of children cannot. It seems to me that even if a child can swim at the end of year 4, if they do not have the opportunity to practise that skill in the years that follow, the chances that they will still be able to swim 25 metres when they are 16 are negligible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen read out the terrible list of names of the many young people who died over the bank holiday weekend. Rather than regarding those as individual unfortunate accidents, we must look at what we need to change systemically when it comes to improving access to swimming for the wider community—including the availability and affordability of leisure centres and swimming lessons—and introducing greater consistency through the national curriculum so that children do not leave primary school unable to swim, and can still swim when they leave secondary school.

There are a lot of steps that we could take; I was interested to hear the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) to Sam’s law. We should absolutely look at opportunities in the clean water Bill. I know that Education Ministers have agreed to look at that, and I agree that we should be working cross-party and across Departments to ensure that we consistently prioritise our young people’s making it to adulthood.

Since I became an MP, it has shocked me to learn how many young people die by some sort of misadventure in my community. It is not only drownings, but road accidents and issues associated with mental health problems. We need a consistent approach across the country to ensuring that our young people make it to adulthood, because they are not doing so at the rate that they should be. Too many young people are dying in my community. I go to too many schools where I see whole cohorts of bereaved children. It is not just about the families of the children who have died, although it is horrific for them; it is also about the impact on all their peers.

My heart goes out so much to Chiedza’s cousin and the rest of her family. I really would like to impress upon the Minister that we must do something, systematically and urgently, about water safety. I know that she takes these issues very seriously. Given that we have so many avoidable deaths of young people, we must also look at ourselves as a society and consider whether we are committing our resources in the right places.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Order. I am mindful of the time. It might have to be four minutes each to make sure that everybody gets in.

10:12

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing this important and timely debate. My heart, warmest thoughts and love go out to all those families and friends who have felt the loss over the last few weeks, or in the past, of anyone who has drowned.

Sam, I made your dad, Simon, a promise—and I made it before I even opened my mouth to respond to him that first day I met him. I saw your eyes looking up at me from a photo that your dad had put into my hand, and I could hear the pain in his voice—a pain that no parent other than one who has lost a child could ever say they have felt. I could see in that moment how he had given every single ounce of himself, having lost you, to ensuring that no one else ever felt that heartache again. Sam, I promised your dad then—and I make that promise to you now—that you will save lives.

Sam was 15 years old, his GCSEs completed, and there was hot weather and the chance to go for some fun with friends in a reservoir. Sam never came home, and in the past few weeks, as we have heard, 19 people have not come home. Drowning kills more people per year in the UK than cyclists, fires, floods or knife crime, yet that fact does not seem to be recognised—certainly, it is not recognised enough. Well, not any more.

Minister, we have a national emergency. This is a burning platform, a ticking time bomb, that needs sorting before the next hot spell. We must react. The Government must act. We have to do something about this, and we can. We have heard that drowning is not inevitable, and the World Health Organisation recognises it as a preventable public health issue. The heartache can and must be stopped, and the Government must act to help to stop it.

I pay tribute to the Mirror for launching its Save Lives for Sam campaign, and many people have stepped forward to join the fight to Save Lives for Sam right now. Sam’s face is looking at me as I speak. I thank the Mirror for using its platform and for being there.

I also want to recognise the work of the Royal Life Saving Society UK, Swim England, the National Water Safety Forum, the Swimming Alliance, the Canal & River Trust, the National Fire Chiefs Council and all those who have been pushing for years, often long before the issue received the public attention it deserves. I also thank all the Olympians who have stepped forward to support the campaign, Rebecca Adlington, Tom Dean and Michael Gunning. Those are powerful voices out there right now, and I ask even more to come together to spread the message so that we can save lives.

Together, we are calling for the Government to launch an urgent public awareness campaign ahead of the summer holidays to target parents and children on relevant TV and social media platforms. We are calling for water companies and those in control of large, high-risk water bodies to do the right thing and provide the correct safety equipment through refreshed risk assessments. Ahead of the holidays, we are calling for compulsory lessons in schools on how to survive getting into difficulty in the water.

We are also calling for the Government to ensure that a single person has accountability for water safety, as the Governments in Wales and Scotland have, because drowning must be accepted as a preventable public health issue. Finally, and very importantly, we are calling for Sam’s law to be put in place—that was my private Member’s Water Safety Bill in the name of Sam. Contrary to what the Government say, it had full cross-party support. It would create a legal responsibility to provide, maintain and ensure easy and rapid access to safety equipment around reservoirs and water bodies; it would create a specific criminal offence of vandalising safety equipment around those water bodies; and it would expand water safety learning outcomes in the national curriculum to include a requirement to understand dangers related to swimming in open water.

The Government have already started to transform the water sector through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 and have indicated that they will go further, having included a clean water Bill in the King’s Speech. If that is to be a serious public health Bill as well as an environmental Bill, drowning prevention must be part of it. I call for the Government to include water safety as part of that Bill.

Sam’s father, Simon Haycock, is not here today. He has done something extraordinary and amazing with unimaginable grief looking over him. He has fought with dignity and determination to make sure that other families do not go through what his family have gone through. In fact, right now, he is at a school teaching children about the dangers of swimming. He has spoken to communities and campaigned for Sam’s law. He has turned loss into action. The very least this House can do is listen.

In the late 1880s, an unidentified woman, now referred to as Annie, was found in the River Seine. A mould of her face was used as the first CPR training dummy. It was a tragedy, but it resulted in millions of lives being saved since. The darkness of the tragedies of Sam and Mackenzie, who recently died in the River Don, and all those we have lost through drowning, will bring light to others. Their legacy will be that Sam saves lives.

10:18

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing this important and timely debate.

Although we have heard about the dangers of open water and the importance of water safety in the summer months, it is also important to recognise that the winter months bring their own risks. One of the ponds in my Carlisle constituency regularly freezes over during the winter months, which is important to remember. I am a cold-water swimmer, so I am very familiar with this subject. I know only too well the dangers of open water, the attendant risk of cold-water shock and the perilous after-drop that occurs when the body’s core temperature continues to fall even after exiting the water.

I mostly swim in my county’s beautiful lakes. I have, however, been known to swim in the River Eden, which runs through our great border city, and I am not alone. Tragically, this time three years ago, three young Carlisle boys got into difficulty while swimming in the River Eden. Two of the boys lost their lives. I extend my continued sympathy to their families for their heartbreaking loss. A member of the public, Luke Marwood, risked his life to rescue the third boy and was deservedly awarded a medal for his bravery. I pay tribute to Luke for his remarkable courage.

We should not need such tragedies to remind us of the dangers of water and of the importance of young people learning not only how to swim, but how to stay safe and survive in cold and dangerous water—flip, float, live. I praise the work of North Cumbria Search and Rescue, which works with groups such as the Scouts and Beavers to teach cold water and open water safety in my constituency. I also commend Cumberland council for installing throw lines at key points along our city’s three river—and, to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) about affordability, I commend the council for introducing swimming for 10p during half-terms at a number of our local swimming pools.

Key stage 2 swimming is, of course, a statutory part of the curriculum, and schools are expected to teach water safety. Nevertheless, given the relatively limited pool time available for key stage 2, I ask the Minister whether we should now be giving greater emphasis to water safety education rather than the technicalities of learning to swim, and whether a minimum statutory standard for water safety instruction could be established.

As our summers become hotter, more and more people will choose to swim in rivers and lakes and on our coastline. The RNLI estimates that almost 49 million people will visit the coast this summer. With that in mind, and given the dangers we have heard about today, I believe it would be timely and right to review the current approach to swimming and water safety education.

10:21

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on securing this important and timely debate on water safety. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for the work he has done. I also extend my condolences, on behalf of the people of Paisley and Renfrewshire South, to the families and friends of those who tragically lost their lives in water during the recent heatwave across the United Kingdom. Our thoughts are with them at this unimaginably difficult time.

Every other minute, someone in the world drowns—those lives wasted, those deaths preventable. Our country is a nation defined by its relationship with water. We are an island nation whose history, prosperity and identity have been shaped by our seas, rivers and lochs. Our proud maritime heritage connected us to the world. Our waterways powered the textile industries, which transformed Paisley in my constituency, and our lochs and coastlines provide places of outstanding natural beauty. In my constituency, the stunning surroundings of the Lochwinnoch wetlands attract visitors and local residents alike. However, our connection to water must be accompanied by a respect for its dangers. Far too often, calm waters conceal serious risks. Cold water shock, strong currents and rapidly changing conditions can turn a day of enjoyment into tragedy in moments.

Organisations such as the RNLI perform an invaluable service. I recently visited its headquarters and national training centre in Poole as part of the parliamentary knowledge scheme for frontline services. I was blown away by the breadth and depth of its work, and by the dangerous conditions in which it operates, often while coming to the help of our national Border Force. Its 7,900 lifeboat crew and shore crew volunteers, 451 lifeboats and hovercraft, most of which it designs itself, and 238 lifeboat stations create a ring of safety around the UK’s coasts. It operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, ready to answer the call to rescue and save lives. In 2024 alone, its work meant that 2,199 lives were saved, and 17,068 people were aided by RNLI lifeguards. I place on the record my sincere thanks to the thousands of volunteers who give their time and dedication to protecting others.

We cannot simply rely on charities and volunteers to shoulder this responsibility alone. Dedicated as they are, they cannot be present at every riverbank, loch side and stretch of coastline, so prevention must be at the heart of our approach. That means embedding water safety into our national culture in the same way as we have embedded fire safety and road safety awareness. Young people should learn it from an early age, but true education requires local authorities and public bodies to actively support the practical, hands-on training needed to stay safe.

Regrettably, too often we see obstacles in the way of this culture. In my own constituency, a local kayaking club, West Coast Paddlers, has repeatedly sought permission from a local arm’s length external organisation, OneRen, to use a local leisure centre pool to practise kayak rolls in a safe, controlled environment. Despite this training being commonplace and vital to prepare people for real-world conditions, its requests have been repeatedly denied over risk-averse concerns about minor damage that may be caused to the pool. If we are serious about embedding a culture of safety, we should be encouraging people to undertake training in a supervised environment before they enter open water. The cost of allowing access to a local pool is negligible compared with the tragic cost of inadequate preparation.

I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will work with local authorities and the Scottish Government on the resources needed for a true UK-wide education programme and a national awareness campaign, so that we can all play our part in helping to save more lives.

10:26

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on the way he introduced this debate, and I share my condolences with all the families who are grieving at this time.

It is a national tragedy that we come here, year after year, to raise these issues. The bank holiday heatwave must be a turning point for the Government’s approach. These lives matter, as does their legacy. I pay tribute to York Rescue Boat, which does phenomenal work in our city, as we have heard. It has saved 45 lives—as a volunteer force, that is remarkable—and attended 974 incidents in our city, responded to 447 call-outs and dedicated more than 105,000 volunteer hours. It has a simple message: educate, prevent and, when necessary, rescue.

York Rescue Boat’s education programme in York schools is phenomenal for giving young people the opportunity to hear about the risks on the River Ouse and the River Foss. Every weekend it is out protecting the night-time economy and patrolling the rivers, looking for vulnerable people, breaking into conversation with them and going into the water to rescue people. Sadly, so many people enter the water in York because of poor mental health. It is important to acknowledge that and address the issues that challenge people in our society today.

I pay tribute to the parents of Sonny Ferry, who was 19 when he died in York. His parents, Kate and Steve, raised funds for York Rescue Boat to have a fully equipped new boat to bring rescue efforts into our city. I also pay tribute to the aunt of Leah Bedford. Leah was just 16 when she entered the water in 2023. Her aunt’s petition, which attracted 1,428 signatures and which I presented to the House, called for more safety measures on the infrastructure around our rivers: signage, lighting and CCTV cameras. That would make such a difference, but our local authority does not always have the money needed for such measures. Sir Chris Whitty is leading the public health water taskforce; I say to the Minister that it would be timely to introduce drowning and water safety measures into that.

Finally, I want to raise the issue of water pollution. The water in the River Ouse often looks very inviting, but it has seen over 18,500 hours’ worth of sewage release in the last year, with 2,950 sewage releases in York Central. The water is so polluted that people in my city are becoming ill, which is another completely avoidable danger that has been introduced into our water, and another public health response is needed. We are very much hoping to introduce a lido in our city, which will allow people to enjoy the water in a safe, outdoor place, but we must address those real risks in the River Ouse and the River Foss as we move forward.

10:30

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey); I am grateful to him for taking the initiative to secure a debate on water safety. We have heard that, over the last six years, 196 children drowned in England. However, the hon. Gentleman went beyond the numbers and read, in a suitably sombre way, the list of young people who died in the heatwave last month. It really is a tragedy that we must reflect on.

Of course, people do not drown just in hot weather. Christmas day last year was a time when I, like many others, was wrapped up and getting as cosy as I could, but on the afternoon of December 25 we heard the news of a tragedy not far from us in Budleigh Salterton. Sometimes it is people with the greatest love of life who like to embrace the elements and enter the water, and that is what we heard about in Budleigh on Christmas day last year: two wild swimmers, Tom Johnson and Matthew Upham, who had entered the water on the coast of east Devon but did not return.

They were not novices or newcomers to the water; Tom, a father of two, was a physical education teacher, and Matthew, a local antiques dealer, was a regular sea swimmer; he is thought to have entered the water to help another person who was struggling. The Christmas day disaster helped us to realise that drowning is not something that simply happens somewhere else or to somebody else’s family. It can happen very close to home, and that really struck local communities hard. The sea is enormously powerful and must be treated with great respect.

I was very struck by the ask made by the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) on enabling people to learn to swim, which I think is crucial. In the area that I represent, we have one town, Cullompton, that has been campaigning for decades for a swimming pool to enable young people to get those vital life lessons in swimming, and that Cullompton swimming pool campaign goes on and on. Those of us who have observed local authority swimming pools know that maintaining them is really hard going, as many are struggling financially. In Axminster, we have the Flamingo swimming pool, which is run not by the local authority, but by the local community. They established and run the swimming pool, but they often struggle with maintenance costs. Those people who support such local pools do us all a service by educating the next generation to learn the vital life skill of swimming.

Of course, the dangers associated with swimming in the wild are additional to those associated with the relative safety of swimming in a pool. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the particular danger associated with quarries, while the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) talked about the Save Lives for Sam campaign, recounting the tale of Sam Haycock, who drowned in a reservoir on his last day of school.

Those two stories really struck a chord with me, because my friends and I got away with it. We put on our wetsuits on the last day of school and went tombstoning at a local quarry. We jumped from a 40-foot cliff face into the water below, with no heed for whether there was machinery or supermarket trolleys to entangle us at the bottom. I think now about how stupid that was, the public services that would have needed to find us and the hurt that we could have caused our families if it had gone wrong. I am not advocating for people to take no risk at all around the water—as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) pointed out, there are mental health benefits associated with cold water swimming, but it needs to be done in an educated way, and we need to have proper conversations about what is a relatively safe use of the water.

The Minister knows that my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have campaigned vehemently against sewage pollution in the rivers and seas, and one reason for that is to have cleaner waters in which to swim safely. We will maintain that campaign. We would love to see blue flag rivers—swimming spots where we can swim knowing that, of the dangers we can face while swimming, sewage pollution is not one. Nevertheless, we have to heed the dangers associated with cold water.

A yachtmaster wrote to me last week, reflecting on the deaths during the hot weather in May. It was one of those emails from a constituent that we like to receive—ones that do not just tell us about a problem, but offer a solution. He told me that he had done the Royal Yachting Association sea survival course. In a section entitled “What needs to happen”, he said that we need:

“A simpler scaled down version of the sea survival course, which explains the inherent risk of open water, inland water and open seas.”

He urged us to talk about cold water—we have already heard about cold water shock—and why we should avoid certain places at certain times of year. He wants education about tides and rip tides, and the dangers associated with wind and cold weather. Above all, he points out that those should be taught

“in a simple user friendly format and taught at school.”

From talking to the Minister’s colleagues in the Department for Education, I know that we all have a particular ask that we want to foist on to the national curriculum, but for those of us who live in rural and coastal areas, the need to teach people about the dangers of the water is particularly acute.

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen for securing this debate. I hope we can have a conversation about what can change around public education and the safe use of water.

10:38

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on securing this really important debate. He has been a staunch advocate of this issue since his election to Parliament, and I commend him on his efforts. He works closely with the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) on this issue. I pay tribute to the bravery and courage of Vanessa Abbess, the constituent of the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen; she has been a tireless campaigner on water safety since the death of her son, Joe, in a riptide current in 2023.

I also want to acknowledge the work of several third-party organisations that have done so much good and important work on this issue, including the Royal Life Saving Society UK and Swim England, whose commitment to water safety and education has been tremendous and whose good work has saved lives. I also pay tribute to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution for the work it does in saving lives at sea.

This is an emotive topic. I thank all Members who have spoken for their commitment on this issue and for the work they have done on behalf of their constituents. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen rightly advocated for better cross-Government support and a dedicated Minister. Having previously been the water Minister, I know how much of a struggle it is to pull together all Ministers with responsibility for water, so I commend and agree with the point he raised about trying to achieve better interministerial involvement. I also commend his work on raising awareness around a national campaign. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) rightly raised the important work of stakeholders such as national parks in this area. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised concerns about swimming in dangerous locations such as quarries, as well as the need for increased awareness.

The hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) gave an impassioned speech about Chiedza, a young girl from her constituency who unfortunately passed away after getting into difficulty. I commend the work the hon. Lady is doing on behalf of her constituents, advocating for swimming lessons and increased awareness. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme also gave an impassioned speech about Sam, who unfortunately passed away in the River Don. He rightly raised the concerns of Sam’s family about increasing awareness and the role of legislators in putting pressure on stakeholders, such as water companies, and on the education system. I hope the Government will consider the key points in Sam’s law, as there are critical recommendations they could take forward.

The hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) rightly mentioned challenges in winter months, as well as hot periods, and the importance of water safety. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) again raised the importance of having water safety encompassed in the curriculum and spoke about the challenges facing West Coast Paddlers in gaining access to the leisure centre. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mentioned the importance of creating safe spaces to swim outdoors; I wish her the best of luck with her lido application in York.

I have my own challenges in Keighley. There was a tragedy in the summer of 2021 when a 27-year-old man passed away after getting into difficulties at Ponden reservoir. I put on record my thanks to the Keighley Sea Cadets, who work tirelessly on behalf of constituents to raise awareness around water safety. I was lucky enough to join them recently at Ponden Mill near Stanbury to see their great work.

We have seen the terrible statistics that more than 19 people died in the water in one week during the most recent hot period. I reassure all hon. Members that we are committed to working cross-party with the Government to reduce the incidence of deaths in water, and increase the provision of swimming lessons and water safety education. We also need education for those involved in emergency situations. The figures are stark: between 2020 and 2025, more than 1,600 people died by accidental drowning, with three times as many drownings occurring during extreme heat as opposed to a typical summer’s day, and 47% occurring between May and August.

As several hon. Members rightly mentioned, education is key to preventing deaths in water, and that must start as early as possible. Under the previous Government, the Department for Education announced extra support for schools in a bid to ensure that every child could swim and be safe in and around water by the end of primary school, as part of the sporting future strategy. That was backed by £320 million through the PE and sport premium, with measures including extra lessons for children who did not meet expectations after core lessons.

Under this Government, work continues to improve water safety, such as the integration of the water safety code into new education guidance. I also welcome the additional funding put in place for this academic year for the PE and sport premium, which is used by primary schools to support swimming and water safety lessons.

There is, however, much more to be done, as all Members have noted. There remains a major issue regarding access to opportunities. A Sport England report estimates that just 74% of children now leave school able to swim 25 metres, which is down from the figure before the pandemic. That is not just a gap in ability but starkly corresponds to the demographic areas those children come from. Only 37% of children from low-income families are able to swim 25 metres compared with 76% of children from more affluent backgrounds—a point noted by the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters). The result is that children from the most deprived areas are twice as likely to drown. I would be keen to understand from the Minister what steps the Government are taking to address that inequality, not only in the curriculum but in access to swimming facilities.

Another issue is the lack of suitable facilities in which water safety and water confidence can be taught. Swim England has found that 76% of publicly accessible water space has been lost over the last two decades. This is a twofold issue: on the one hand, water safety cannot be taught without pools, and on the other hand, the lack of publicly accessible water space could drive people to swim in unsafe spaces, as Members have noted. What are the Government doing to ensure that more facilities such as swimming pools are made available to our constituents, and that they remain open?

In addition to increasing access to swimming pools and delivering swimming lessons, there is a great deal of work to do to ensure that the general public are aware of all aspects of water safety. It is about not just teaching people to swim but ensuring that they are aware of the risks presented by entering water. Cold water shock, not an inability to swim, is identified as the primary mechanism of accidental drowning in UK open water, triggered by sudden immersion in water below 15°. The RNLI and the National Water Safety Forum’s “Float to Live” campaign teaches a specific counter-response: if you fall into cold water unexpectedly, do not fight it; lean back, spread your arms and legs, and float. Investing in and supporting awareness campaigns such as “Float to Live” is vital if we are to significantly reduce the number of deaths in UK waters. I would therefore like to understand what the Government are doing to help those organisations.

I would also like to understand what more the Water Minister feels could be done to the likes of bathing water regulations. It is constantly being advocated that the title of “bathing water” alone creates the presumption that the designated area is safe to swim in, but many of those designations are in river systems and on the coast where it is not necessarily safe to swim. The designations are more about water quality than the safety of the water.

It is clear that, despite the best intentions of current and previous Governments, we are not doing enough when it comes to water safety and the prevention of drowning. Many have rightly declared drowning a silent epidemic, and we must work cross-party to ensure that there is greater preparedness among the general public when it comes to water safety. I reassure all Members that the Opposition will work with the Government on this issue on behalf of all our constituents.

10:48

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank everybody for what has been a really good debate. It shows Parliament at its best when we all try to work together for the same aim, and that is really important. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing the debate and for his powerful and moving words. I know him to be an incredibly decent and passionate man who is trying to do his best for his constituents.

With Drowning Prevention Week beginning this Saturday, there is no better moment for this House to turn its attention to keeping people safe in our waters. Next week will also be the launch of the water safety framework, which has been led by the Department for Education.

Before I respond to hon. Members on the policy substance, I extend my deepest condolences to the families and friends of all those who have lost their lives in water. I pay tribute to Sam’s family and the Mirror, who have been leading on this campaign. The fatalities we have seen during recent periods of warm weather, and the tragic deaths raised movingly in this room, underline the urgency of the issue. I pay tribute to the emergency services, volunteers and members of the public whose courage saves lives every day. I also pay tribute to organisations such as the Royal Life Saving Society, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, Swim England and the National Water Safety Forum: their tireless work in prevention, education and rescue deserves the recognition of the House.

I will respond to some of the points made by hon. Members. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) in paying tribute to Luke for his courage. I agree that learning to swim is crucial and so is learning to survive; I will ensure that the points she made on this issue are communicated to the Department for Education.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) in thanking the RNLI for its work. I am of course happy to pass on her thoughts on the education programme to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and to DFE. I share her concerns about restricting training for kayak rolling. That does not feel particularly sensible to me. We must not let concerns about minor damage get in the way of lifesaving training—I am happy to support there.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) always speaks with such authority and compassion. I join her in paying tribute to York Rescue Boat for its work, and also thank Humber Rescue for its work in my constituency. My hon. Friend is right to raise water quality as a hugely important issue. It is not just about water shock and drowning: the quality of the water can have such a detrimental impact on people’s health. It is important that we do not lose sight of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) spoke movingly about the tragic loss faced by her constituent and the importance of us all working together, and I thank her for her speech.

I know my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) has campaigned on water safety for a long time. His ten-minute rule Bill brought this matter to my attention. He has met with me before about the issue and has been completely committed to it. I will take up his points about water company safety equipment personally with water companies. We are doing some work on how to ensure that reservoirs are generally kept safe, so I am happy to take that point away personally.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) spoke caringly about Sam’s law. I am thinking of the best way to achieve that, and whether we need primary legislation or whether we can just do it. Let me take that point away and have a look at it.

In my constituency, Hull city council offers free swimming lessons during the summer for children. I hope that is something that many councils are able to offer. I have a personal frustration that Hull city council has still not opened Pickering Park pool, but I will not bring that into this debate.

[Sarah Russell]

It has been mentioned in this debate that there is great regional inequality, and that children in the most deprived areas are most likely to drown. Interventions solely focused on deprived areas concern me because there are considerable numbers of deprived children in England who do not live in deprived areas. We compound their disadvantage if we focus lifesaving decision making and resources only in those areas. I want to see deprived children across the whole country receive the assistance that they need—they should not be dying.

[Emma Hardy]

Without straying too far from the debate that we are having, the question of inequality is very interesting, especially with the news that the Conservative party wants to get rid of the public sector duty. We are actually looking at whether to expand that duty to include class as an inequality issue. Maybe if class was included in the public sector duty, we could ensure that we prioritise working-class children, who are more likely to drown, to receive the support that they need. However, that may be moving too far away from the topic of the debate.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) speaks brilliantly in every debate that we are both involved in. I agree that it is important that we all learn to swim. He is right to highlight quarries as extremely dangerous to swim in, and how we need to be aware that, even though the water looks calm on the surface, there are dangers underneath.

The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) made an important point about national parks, and gave a thoughtful contribution on how they communicate and the role that they play. I am happy to pass that on to the Nature Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), to have a look at.

Water safety touches on public safety, education, local delivery, the environment and much more. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), said, this issue is held by many different Departments. DEFRA looks at water quality. We look at bathing waters, as has been mentioned. We designate sites and monitor water quality so that people can make decisions about where to swim, but it is right to highlight that, even if somewhere is designated as bathing water, people still need to think about how safe it is to swim there. But our bathing water reforms do, for the first time, require physical safety to be explicitly considered before a site can be designated. That is a meaningful change that we brought in.

We also provide policy oversight and funding to the Canal and River Trust and the Environment Agency, which manage millions of miles of inland waterways. They look at risk assessments on high-risk locations, install lifesaving equipment where it is needed, run targeted safety campaigns, particularly during hot weather, and deliver education programmes, especially for young people. Both organisations support national campaigns such as the National Water Safety Forum’s “Respect the Water”, as well as partner campaigns such as the RNLI’s “Float to Live”, which provides simple, lifesaving advice on what someone should do if they get into difficulty in the water.

This issue is held across Government. In my time as Minister, I have found that sometimes when things are held across Government, they are owned by everybody and nobody at the same time, so I am happy to support my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen in his call to convene a meeting of all responsible Departments, to sort out which actions need to be taken by which Department to move this issue forward.

The Department of Health has responsibility for public health, and there is also the Health and Safety Executive. The Department for Transport, through the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, supports search and rescue, and contributes vital incident data to the national evidence base. Local authorities lead on frontline response and community safety. As many hon. Members mentioned, in education the national curriculum requires primary schools to teach children to swim. Then there are the prevention of future deaths reports and the powerful campaigning of families. The Secretary of State for Education has committed to strengthening water safety education.

Many different Departments need to work together, looking at what they are responsible for and making sure that they action things through their Department. I would be happy to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen in convening that meeting. It is through all these efforts, working together and backed by Government, that we reduce risk, save lives and ensure that people can continue to enjoy our waters safely.

10:57

[Darren Paffey]

Thank you, Ms McVey, for your skilful chairing and ensuring that everyone got to have their say. I thank every Member for bringing to life the devastation that drowning causes across this country. We do not and should not accept it as just something else that will rumble on. It is preventable with the right education, the right skills and the ability to swim, but there are clearly barriers holding us back that we must work together to break down. There is more to do. I appreciate the Minister’s response, and there is more to follow up on this, which I will do.

I thank every hon. Member for their contribution and appeal once again for us to tackle this as a national emergency. Let us tackle it for every victim whose name was heard in this Chamber this morning, and for the many hundreds more whose names we did not hear and yet whose families and friends have been devastated by their loss after their drowning death. Let us give drowning prevention the urgency that it deserves, and let us do it for them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered water safety.

Energy Costs

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I will call Hannah Spencer to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they need to have sought permission from the Member in charge if they wish to intervene.

11:01

[Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered energy costs.

It is a pleasure to serve with you chairing, Ms McVey, and I am grateful to colleagues who are here today. This is my first speech in Westminster Hall, and we all have a lot to say on this issue, so I will see how I manage with interventions and where we go from there, if that is all right.

Today is exactly 100 days since I first set foot in Parliament, as the MP for Gorton and Denton. Since then, one issue has come up pretty much every single day, whether I am speaking to families in Gorton, support groups in Manchester or local Denton businesses that are desperate to keep their doors open, and that issue is the unaffordable cost of energy.

One in three households in Gorton and Denton is living in fuel poverty, and across England nearly 3 million households are in that position. Behind those statistics are people—people who are finding it harder and harder to pay their bills each month, and families who are having to choose between staying warm and buying new school uniforms for their kids—kids who are playing penguins at bedtime because their parents are trying to make a game out of huddling together against the cold.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First of all, I commend the hon. Lady: in her short time here, she has made a name for herself as someone who speaks on behalf of her constituents, so well done. Power NI supplies 60% of Northern Ireland homes—a 6.2% increase—and charges £1,093 for credit meters and £1,065 for keypad meters, on top of the £200 price increase last year for every family. That is how much it costs. The squeezing of the middle class is now a vice, so does the hon. Lady agree that the Government must step in now to release that energy vice and lower the costs by any means possible? Her constituents and my constituents want the same thing.

[Hannah Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I agree that we have to do something to tackle this immediately.

Before I became an MP, I was a plumber. I spent my days going into people’s homes, and on so many occasions I saw the problem right in front of me. I remember walking into someone’s house and the air being so thick with damp that you could almost slice through it. The mum told me it was a constant battle to scrub mould off the walls. This was not an issue of ventilation, as some would try to suggest: it was a working family trying to provide for their kids and being unable to afford the basics—a warm home that is not full of damp; it was a working family handing their hard-earned cash to fossil fuel giants. Fossil fuel giants are never the ones asked to tighten their purse strings. No, it is always us who are expected to adjust our living standards, so that they can keep making excess profits.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

On that point, will the hon. Member give way?

[Hannah Spencer]

I will continue, if that is okay.

Bills have gone up by 79% since the energy crisis began in 2020. That is an extra £5,000, when our constituents’ hard-earned wages are already stretched to breaking point. Yet, from 1 July our constituents face another increase, of £221, when the next Ofgem price cap comes into effect. That is why, on my second day in Parliament, I helped to get the all-party parliamentary group on fuel poverty back up and running, and why I will join Fuel Poverty Action and other campaigners on 1 July to demand that energy costs are brought down for good.

The scale of this crisis for families is enormous. It also perfectly captures what the Green party means when we talk about rip-off Britain. While my constituents are struggling, fossil fuel giants and privatised energy companies are cashing in, and almost a quarter of energy bills are taken as profit. In the first month after the US and Israel’s initial strikes on Iran, the share value of just five North sea oil and gas companies was boosted by £73 billion—£73 billion in one month. The family owners and chairman of the private oil and gas company Perenco are worth £8 billion and are now among the top 25 richest people in the UK.

All of that has happened in a country where a million children under five live in fuel poverty, and where one in three kids in Greater Manchester lives in poverty. Working hard used to get people a decent life; now it is more likely to line the pockets of billionaires, fossil fuel companies and energy giants.

The Green party is clear that things have to change. First, people in my constituency need support immediately, not in three months’ time. The Chancellor is apparently “monitoring the situation” and will intervene if necessary, but on behalf of families dreading the months ahead, and on behalf of disabled people who have high energy use all year round to run specialist equipment, I am telling the Government that today is the day when it is definitely necessary. Does the Minister agree that the Ofgem energy price cap should be frozen to provide universal support for households now? If not, what are the Government going to do to support bill payers with rising energy costs from July and into the winter? Will they increase the warm home discount, which has not kept pace with rising bills? Shifting some policy costs off bills is positive, as are steps to separate electricity and gas prices, but all electricity levies could be paid for more fairly by progressive taxation. We need to be taxing the wealth of multimillionaires and billionaires more fairly. Providers of frontline support, such as community warm spaces—of which there are a lot in my constituency—need immediate support too. Does the Minister agree that those vital community assets should get lower energy rates?

Secondly, it is time to stamp out profiteering. Unite the Union found that UK energy companies made £30 billion in pre-tax profits in 2024 alone. While the Government’s anti-profiteering framework announced in May is welcome, what other steps is the Minister taking to stop billions being transferred from bill payers to the pockets of international shareholders? What assessment has been made of the benefits of taking the grid, which enjoys some of Britain’s highest profit margins, back into public ownership?

Thirdly, we need a fully funded, local authority-led, national home insulation scheme that people trust to insulate homes to an energy performance certificate standard of B or above, and an EPC scheme that cannot be manipulated. Our homes leak more heat than most places in western Europe—trust me, I have seen them.

Real action demands investment and stronger regulations so that every retrofit job delivers proper savings and real improvements. Next week, I hope to meet some of the victims of the Conservatives’ failed home insulation scheme. As a plumber, if I had done a botched job, I would have been forced to fix it or pay up. Why is the Minister’s Department not ensuring that every single victim of shoddy contractors receives remediation?

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

Will the hon. lady give way?

[Hannah Spencer]

I am going to continue.

Fourthly and finally, we must go further and faster on renewables. New fossil fuel extraction will not bring down bills or improve the UK’s energy security—a fact I know the Minister agrees with. Since the start of the war in Iran, wind and solar have saved the UK from gas imports worth £1.7 billion. Can the Minister provide assurance that the Government will not approve proposed drilling at Rosebank, Jackdaw or Cambo, or allow new oil and gas extraction through tiebacks to existing production facilities? How will the Department use the upcoming energy independence Bill to accelerate the roll-out of renewable energy and reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels?

I am pleased to have secured this debate on my 100th day as an MP. Last Sunday marked the 100th day of the US-Israeli war against Iran, which, as well as inflicting untold suffering and devastating in the region, has triggered the UK’s second major energy price crisis of the 2020s. I recognise all that the Government are doing to bring that international crisis to an end, and I hope the Minister will use this moment to also try to end the crisis of unaffordable energy costs for my constituents and millions of others across the country.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Hannah Spencer]

I am just about to finish.

If we do not do something, this issue will keep happening. We need to act—not in the interests of fossil fuel giants, but in the interests of the very people who sent us to this place to make their lives more liveable.

11:09

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) for securing the debate, and I congratulate her on her first Westminster Hall debate and on giving hon. Members across the Chamber the opportunity to discuss a vital issue for all our constituents.

As I draw the debate to a close, I want to be very clear about this Government’s priorities. The increase in the price cap announced by Ofgem two weeks ago is not what any of us wanted, and it is caused by the war in Iran. Two days before the conflict began, the price cap fell by 7%—a reduction that is still built into the prices being paid today. As the Prime Minister has said, this is not our war, but we are now feeling the effects of it. That is why we are very clear that the strait of Hormuz must be reopened to traffic.

[Richard Burgon]

Is it not totally outrageous that energy giants will make billions in extra profits from Trump’s war on Iran while ordinary people are hit with higher costs? Does the Minister agree that we should introduce an emergency war profits tax to ensure that they cannot make a single extra penny in super-profits from this crisis? We can use that money to fund urgent cost of living support.

[Martin McCluskey]

My hon. Friend will know that decisions about tax are for the Chancellor. We already have the windfall tax on energy profits in place—a tax opposed by the SNP and the Conservative Opposition.

I will turn to the points raised by the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) in a moment. As I was saying, it is not our war, but we are now feeling the effects, and that is why we are very clear that the strait of Hormuz must be reopened to traffic. As Members across the Chamber would expect, we are continuing to monitor the situation. We are exploring all options for future support, but we are taking action now to deal with high prices.

Let us be clear why we are doing that: we know that the pressure of high energy costs is very real for many families across the country, as the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton described. Households continue to feel the burden of bills, particularly where incomes are tight, and there is little room in their budgets for unexpected costs. We are determined to return bills to the downward path they were on before the outbreak of the war. It is important to note that energy prices in 2025 were lower than they were in 2024. We delivered a 7% reduction in energy prices in February. They were on a downward trajectory before the outbreak of war in Iran. We are doing this to tackle fuel poverty and protect people from the rollercoaster of fossil fuel markets that has left too many families exposed to volatile energy prices for too long.

[Susan Murray]

It is good to hear the Government’s intention to reduce energy prices. The hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) is right to call for more affordable energy. In France, electricity is about a third cheaper than it is here, with nuclear at the heart of the system. Does the Minister agree that ruling nuclear out or not progressing it quickly enough is wrong, and will he join me in calling for the assessment of Scotland’s nuclear potential to be published?

[Martin McCluskey]

I join the hon. Lady in those calls on nuclear energy, which is essential to our energy mix. She highlighted the example of France; one reason why its electricity cost is so low is that it carried on building nuclear through the ’50s, ’60s, ’70s and ’80s. Unlike this country, where we had a stop-start approach to nuclear energy, France has been able to keep costs low. It is disappointing that we have seen opposition to nuclear from the SNP, which will not allow it to be built in Scotland, and from the Green party, which has opposed it, including at Wylfa in north Wales, where we are creating a whole generation of new jobs around nuclear. More than 1,900 Scots move from Scotland to England each week to work on nuclear projects—people who could be working far closer to home if there was a new generation of nuclear energy in Scotland.

Turning back to the action the Government have already taken, in the autumn Budget we acted to reduce electricity costs, to the benefit of all households with a domestic electricity meter. We did that by scrapping the energy company obligation and moving 75% of the domestic costs of the renewables obligation to the Exchequer. By doing that, we have been able to provide immediate savings for households.

The average saving was around £117 within the price cap, but because it disproportionately fell on electricity—I know that the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) is interested in the cost of electricity, particularly in rural areas—the discount for rural areas and those on electricity was well over £300 within the price cap. As I said earlier, those changes are still factored into energy bills now; without that action, the July price cap would have been significantly higher.

We also announced the continuation of the warm home discount scheme until 2030-31. That will provide around 6 million eligible households with a £150 rebate on energy bills each winter; it is a significant extension of what was available under the previous Government, and it has reached far more people in the last year than it did in the past.

The main, structural reason why we find our energy bills so high is because of our exposure, in this country, to volatile international gas markets. The only answer to dealing with those high prices is to take back control of our energy through clean, home-grown power and homes that are cheaper to run. That approach is supported by our warm homes plan. The hon. Member for Gorton and Denton alluded to the need for more retrofitting and improvements to be made to housing, and that is what we are doing through the warm homes plan, which represents the biggest public investment in home upgrades in British history.

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

The Minister is making a powerful point about the investments that the Government are making in green and clean energy. In Macclesfield, families are suffering from high energy costs at the pumps or in making sure that their homes are warm when they need to be. Does he agree that tackling climate change, investing in clean energy and bringing down bills come together as a coherent argument, and that we should all be making the case for that?

[Martin McCluskey]

My hon. Friend is a champion for his constituents. He is making the argument not just for lower prices at the pump and lower costs of energy, but for doing that in a clean, green way. Those two things do go hand in hand; we can reduce energy and fuel prices while people can also make important decisions about clean energy in their own lives. That is exactly what the Government are doing.

As I was saying, the approach that we are taking is supported by our warm homes plan, which represents the biggest public investment in home upgrades in British history. It is backed by £15 billion and will help upgrade up to 5 million homes by 2030; that means real improvements to the homes people live in.

Households will benefit from solar panels, clean heat technologies and batteries, and improved insulation. Insulation is an essential part of what we are trying to do in the warm homes plan; it has always been part of Government schemes and will into the future. All that is to cut bills and improve comfort for homeowners, renters and others. It will mean a housing stock that is better prepared for the future and a country that is less vulnerable to energy price shocks.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

We are waiting for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to come up with the results of the community benefit consultation. The highlands only got £9 million of community benefit last year, and Scotland as a whole got less than £30 million. There are tens of thousands of jobs in renewables in the highlands, but they are not for locals; they are imported teams. Very often, offshore firms are doing the construction. We sell 10 times more electricity than we produce. Effectively, there is nothing in it for the people of rural Scotland to produce electricity. Does the Minister agree that the community benefit conclusion from DESNZ is crucial?

[Martin McCluskey]

The hon. Member makes a powerful point. We will come forward with the response on community benefits soon. I point him towards what we have already announced regarding a trial of free wind power for communities close to generation, which will be coming later this year. His point about workforce is also really important. That is why I am chairing a workforce taskforce with the TUC to work through those points and make sure that we have good, home-grown jobs that are unionised and pay decent wages, and that local communities are feeling the benefit of that.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) referred to retrofitting in her speech, and the Minister has talked about its importance. In Northampton, one of the biggest concerns people have about committing to retrofit is getting a dodgy builder. The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee recognise that, and we have recommended to Government that they bring forward a licensing scheme for contractors and an accreditation scheme for tradespeople. Could the Minister set out how the Government are progressing on that?

[Martin McCluskey]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We are coming forward soon with our proposals for consumer protection. I have said before in this Chamber that the first thing that landed on my desk, when I came into this role in September, was the NAO’s report into the previous Government’s energy company obligation scheme, which was shocking—awful. To answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton, my driving force behind any consumer protection work that we do is to make sure that no one faces such a situation ever again.

We are working with those affected by the problems with solid wall insulation and internal wall insulation. We are working through a process of audits to reach every single one of those homes by next year and make sure that those people get the support they need. The hon. Lady mentioned that in her remarks, and we are taking action on SWI and IWI to reach every household. In some of the hot spots for poor work, we are sending people door to door to make sure that we reach each household, audit the properties, work out what remediation is required and then remediate it. We will be able to provide a more detailed update on that work soon. Those actions and others will lift 1 million households out of fuel poverty by 2030.

The warm homes plan is an offer for everyone. For those on low incomes and in fuel poverty—those who need it most—we are providing £5 billion of direct grant support for home upgrades delivered by local authorities and social housing providers. Given where the hon. Lady’s constituency is, I pay tribute to the work that the Greater Manchester combined authority has been doing through the warm homes social housing fund and the warm homes local grant—it is leading the way in some of the work that is being done.

We are making it easier for everyone to access low and zero-interest finance for technologies that can bring bills down over time. We have a strategic partnership with the Green Finance Institute to establish low-cost loans, ideally before the end of this year, to make sure that people have access to finance and can take advantage of clean technology; we cannot have a situation, as we have had in the past, where only those people with the deepest pockets are able to access these cost-saving measures.

We are, of course, continuing to support the expanded boiler upgrade scheme available to every eligible household in England and Wales. We have also broadened the range of clean heat technologies supported by the boiler upgrade scheme and continue to work with the industry to make clean heat and home energy upgrades simpler.

As the situation in Iran has developed over the past few months, we have seen that households want the chance to generate and use their own clean electricity. That is why the Government are supporting a rooftop revolution to bring solar technology into more homes; hon. Members may have seen the increase in solar over recent months. Subject to final approvals, we are bringing an additional £100 million of funding to the warm homes social housing fund, to support the delivery of up to 57,000 solar installations in this financial year. Our plan is to make plug-in solar available in this country for the first time, opening opportunities for homes where traditional rooftop installation is harder.

We also know that, in too many cases, the people paying the price of inefficient homes are the people with the least power to change them. Around 1.6 million children in this country live in cold and damp conditions in private rented accommodation, which is frankly a disgrace. That is why, as part of the warm homes plan, we are introducing new minimum energy efficiency standards in the social and private rental sectors. Alongside what other parts of Government are doing on wider housing reforms, such as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, they will make sure that renters can benefit from warmer homes and lower bills, and that energy affordability is not reserved just for owner-occupiers.

Before I conclude, I want to turn to a couple of other points. The hon. Member for Gorton and Denton raised some issues around taxation. I have already mentioned in response to other Members the windfall tax, which remains in place, opposed by the Conservatives and the SNP. We have also recently announced increases to the energy generators levy and the encouragement to take those generators from the contracts they are on at the moment on to longer-term contracts for difference. Within the price cap is a cap on profit; the earnings before interest and taxes allowance caps profit at 1.9% and ensures that profit is there, but adequately capped.

I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to be going further and faster on the deployment of clean energy, but I draw her attention to the actions of some of her colleagues in local authorities across the country, where Green councillors have opposed clean energy that, on the latest estimate, could power 9.9 million homes. If we believe in clean power and this agenda, we must place our political will behind it to make sure that we move away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible.

The Government’s message here is straightforward: we are acting to deliver support directly to those who need it most. We have a serious, long-term plan to reduce exposure to fossil fuel price shocks, improve the homes people live in and ensure that everyone can reap the benefits of this Government’s clean power mission. Our approach is practical, fair and, above all, rooted in the everyday concerns of households. I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

11:25

Sitting suspended.

Police Service of Northern Ireland Training College

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

14:30

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland training college.

Thank you for your chairmanship, Sir Roger. It would be remiss of me not to mention, at the start of the debate, the appalling incident that happened in north Belfast last night. I am sure that hon. Members agree that we roundly condemn that serious assault. Our prayers and thoughts go out to the individual assaulted. We hope he makes a speedy recovery and we call for calm in the protests that will occur right across Northern Ireland tonight. It is up to this Government to address the serious concerns of the public.

As the Member for North Down, I rise to speak about an issue that is at once local, regional and national: the future of police training in Northern Ireland and the urgent need for the United Kingdom Government to step up and fund a modern, single-site police college as a matter of national security. It is not a luxury project; it is a core part of the critical national infrastructure. Northern Ireland police officers past and present have stood on the frontline of threats that have not been confined to Belfast, Bangor or Newry, but have reached to the hearts of London, Birmingham and Manchester, and beyond. The skills those police officers develop, the intelligence they contribute and the partnerships they underpin with UK-wide agencies all flow from the training that they receive. If we value their contribution to the safety of every citizen in the United Kingdom, we must be honest about the state of the facilities that we expect them to train in and about the scale of the investment that realistically only the UK Government can provide.

At the heart of the proposal for a new training college is a 54.8-acre site in my constituency of North Down. It is a site of sufficient scale to bring together on one campus the full spectrum of modern policing training: recruit training, specialist firearms and public order training, cyber-crime and digital forensics training, and training in road policing and marine policing, as well as leadership development and continuous professional training. On the 54.8-acre site there is space to do that properly by designing purpose-built classrooms, scenario villages, driving tracks, ranges and simulation suites that reflect the real world environments that officers face. That is the future we could and should build, but today we do not train our officers in such a place. Instead, we rely heavily on Garnerville—an ageing and constrained estate—and on a patchwork of split-site arrangements across Northern Ireland.

It is time that we were candid about what that actually means. Garnerville has served with distinction for decades. Many of our finest officers have passed through those gates, but sentiment does not mend roofs, rebuild tired accommodation blocks or magically transform 20th-century buildings into 21st-century digital training hubs. The maintenance realities at Garnerville are stark. Every year more and more of the already stretched budget of the Police Service of Northern Ireland is poured into simply keeping the lights on and the structures safe by patching up old wiring and maintaining leaky roofs, into trying to retrofit modern information and communications technology into buildings never designed for it, and into constantly working around the constraints of a campus that has quite simply reached the end of its usefulness and economic life. Engineers have been clear at best: with ongoing remedial work and ever-greater maintenance bills, the existing core facilities have perhaps 10 years of realistic lifespan left—10 years at most. That is to keep an outdated model limping on, not to deliver the standard of training that a modern UK police service facing complex, fast-moving threats truly requires.

We face a choice. Do we continue to sink millions of pounds into life-extending repairs on a site that cannot by its very nature deliver what is needed, or do we invest once in a modern, consolidated college on a 54.8-acre site that is available, appropriate and future-proofed? The truth is that the current split-level model is no longer financially or operationally defensible. Training being scattered across multiple locations leads to the duplication of facilities and staff, increased travel time and transport costs, ineffective scheduling, wasted officer hours, a fragmented culture, inconsistent training experiences and logistical complexities that pull focus away from core training qualities.

In an area in which we ask our officers to handle everything from neighbourhood disputes to international organised crime, we should not be asking them to shuttle between sites because one campus cannot meet their needs, nor should we accept a model where some specialist training must be compromised or curtailed because the facilities are not available in the right place at the right time.

A single, purpose-built college on the site in North Down would end the split-site inefficiency and bring recruits, specialists and leaders together. It would allow shared use of high-quality simulation environments—digital labs, scenario streets and lecture theatres. It would foster a genuine shared professional culture across ranks and disciplines, and crucially it would do so on a site that is large and flexible enough to evolve with the threats we know are coming over the next 30 to 40 years, and not just the next five years.

Some might say, “This is a devolved matter—let Stormont pay.” That argument simply does not stand up when we consider the nature of the work that the Police Service of Northern Ireland does and the national security dimension, which in Northern Ireland is inseparable from policing. Let us be clear: the PSNI works hand in glove with the security services, the National Crime Agency and police forces across Great Britain on counter-terrorism, serious and organised crime, cyber-threats and the protection of critical national infrastructure. Threats that are planned or incubated in Northern Ireland may be executed across other areas of the United Kingdom. Intelligence gathered on the streets of Belfast or Londonderry can keep people safe in London or Glasgow.

Northern Ireland is not a distinct, separate theatre of operations; it is an integral front in the security of the whole United Kingdom. The officers we train in Garnerville or Antrim are not just local officers; they are part of a UK-wide network of professionals protecting all of us from terrorism, paramilitary criminality, people smuggling, drug trafficking, cyber-attacks and hostile state activities exploiting our unique geographic and political context.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Does he agree that in addition to having a state-of-the-art training facility—and I agree with him on that—we need to have more police officers on the street. The police in Northern Ireland are understaffed, and we need to see more politicians, some of whom are absent today, standing with and recruiting people from all communities, so that they can be trained and serve people in Northern Ireland.

[Alex Easton]

I agree with everything the hon. Member says. We are 1,000 police officers down from what we need to deal with crime in Northern Ireland. That is a failing of Northern Ireland’s Justice Minister, who has failed to find the funding to recruit those extra officers, but even if we got those extra officers, we do not have the facilities to train them properly. It is a vicious circle. That is why we need to step up and do something about this.

Investing in a modern, secure and fully equipped police college is not a regional spending decision, but a UK national security decision. When we fund new facilities for the Metropolitan police to train their counter-terrorism officers, nobody pretends that it is merely a London issue. When we invest in specialist training centres in England, Scotland or Wales, we recognise that the benefits radiate across the borders. The same logic applies in Northern Ireland. If a police training facility serving the frontline of UK counter-terrorism and serious crime in any other part of our country had only 10 years of realistic life left and operated across a fragmented, split-site model, this House would rightly expect the UK Government to act. We would not expect a single devolved budget, already under pressure from health, education and infrastructure, to shoulder that burden alone.

Moreover, the risks of inaction are not theoretical. Allow me to spell them out. First, a failure to invest over the next decade will steadily degrade training quality. As the buildings become harder and more expensive to maintain and as technological advances become more and more out of step with operational reality, the temptation grows to do just enough training rather than the best training, and our police service in Northern Ireland deserves the very best. Secondly, split-site inefficiencies will continue to erode value for money. Every pound spent duplicating facilities or transporting officers between ageing sites is a pound not spent on actually improving our protectivity and capabilities.

Thirdly, there is a risk to morale and recruitment. We ask bright, committed young men and women to join an exceptionally demanding police service in a uniquely challenging environment. Showing them that we are prepared to invest in a world-class training facility is part of respecting that ask. Leaving them in crumbling buildings, patched-up classrooms and outdated accommodation sends the opposite message. Finally, there is a strategic risk that the UK as a whole allows one of its key security partners, the PSNI, to fall behind in capacity and capability because we are unwilling to grasp the nettle of capital funding at the right time.

This is precisely the kind of investment that the UK Government should recognise and support as part of our national security framework. It is a single-focus project that has clear outcomes: ending an inefficient split-site model, replacing facilities with at best 10 years left of life, creating a modern 54-acre campus site capable of delivering cutting-edge training for decades, and strengthening co-operation with UK-wide security partners. The people of North Down and Northern Ireland understand the local and national significance of the project. Locally, it would bring skilled employment and investment and would send a clear signal that our area is a hub of professional excellence. Nationally, it would send a signal across the United Kingdom that we are serious, not just in words but in hard infrastructure, about maintaining the safety and security of every region of our country.

My appeal to the Minister today is simply to look beyond the narrow lines of departmental spreadsheets and see this for what it is: a critical national security investment in one of the most tested, professional police services in the United Kingdom. If we can find the resources for the site in North Down, we will build not simply some new classrooms and a few training tracks; we will build confidence among officers that we are behind them and confidence among the public across all four nations of the United Kingdom that we are serious about their safety. The alternative is to limp on at Garnerville, pouring good money after bad into a site with a maximum of 10 years left and locking into an inefficient split-site model. It is just not prudent. It is a false economy and a risk to the security of all.

The choice is clear. I urge the Government to choose the future, to commit to the necessary UK funding to deliver a modern single-site police college on the North Down campus, and to do so openly in an investment in the national security of our entire United Kingdom.

14:43

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Sir Roger, for allowing me to speak. I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), my friend and colleague from many a year ago on the council and as Members of the Legislative Assembly, for his ceaseless passion to ensure that our community has the best police service possible. He has put that on the record and I congratulate him.

It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. He is a friend of Northern Ireland and he has proven that to be the case. We will now test how far his friendship goes—no, it is not fair to say that. I know that he will give us some encouragement in how we can move forward to support the hon. Member for North Down. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), in his place—he is a friend of Northern Ireland and of all of us in this House—as well as the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) who will speak for the Lib Dems.

I express my sincere gratitude and thanks to the PSNI for all it has done and does for us in Northern Ireland. I thank Chief Constable Jon Boutcher for his commitment and his actions on behalf of the PSNI. I also give special thanks to Superintendent Johnston McDowell, whom I share with the hon. Member for North Down, and all his officers for what they do. The hon. Member for North Down and I are both very committed to community policing. It is one of our good points in North Down and Strangford where we have an excellent community policing workforce.

This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Police Service of Northern Ireland training college, responsible for the delivery of the organisation’s training and development. This year’s recruitment round received more than 4,000 applications for student officer, demonstrating the willingness of people from a broad range of backgrounds to join the service and contribute to the safety of our communities.

I can cast my mind back to the introduction of the 50:50 rule, which, by its nature, stopped those who could have been good officers in the PSNI from being recruited. I will tell a story about my oldest boy Jamie who applied to join the PSNI through the 50:50 programme. It is no reflection on his best friend in Kircubbin, who also applied at the same time. It just so happened that my Jamie was a Protestant and that the other wee boy was a Roman Catholic. That does not take away from his capability, energy and commitment to the police. They did all the same recruitment tests and application forms. I know about this, because boys share stories. The wee boy, who was a good friend from Kircubbin he went to school with, did not score as highly as my Jamie, yet my Jamie did not get the job in the PSNI, but the other wee boy did.

The reason I tell that story is because of the imbalance. That young boy from Kircubbin is an excellent police officer today who has done really well. We admire him and he has all the qualities that we need, but there is something grossly unfair about a 50:50 system that stops somebody getting a job when he scored better than someone else, just because he happened to go to a different church on a Sunday. That is a disappointment. We do not have the 50:50 any more, thank the Lord. That is a good thing, because it means people will get the job they applied for because they have the capability, experience and aptitude to do it well.

In recognition of the commitment of these future officers, investment in their training should be prioritised to ensure that their willingness to serve is matched by the skills and knowledge required to police effectively. The PSNI is part of the great police forces in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for North Down hit on that point clearly. Those in the PSNI sometimes bear the weight of other public services in times of crisis. We are the only part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with a land border. That is one of the massive issues we have to recognise.

I hope when the Minister responds he will recognise the extra tasks we have on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, such as immigration. Rural theft is also a massive issue in which the PSNI has been very active recently. There is also a terrorism threat, as well as international gangs with money laundering, people trafficking and international crime. Those all add to the PSNI’s financial burden.

I like certain films, such as those starring Liam Neeson and Denzel Washington. They are the guys who can sort everything out in the 90 minutes a film takes from beginning to end. That is not how life is in the real world we live in. Life in the real world means that the PSNI has to work long and hard with the Garda Síochána in the Republic of Ireland, the police forces in mainland Scotland, Wales and England, and as far as the EU, to ensure that they catch criminals. That is real life, not the one that lasts 90 minutes, where the good person always beats the baddie, who is either dead or in prison when they have finished with them.

The training college has a demanding 22-week selection process to ensure the best for the job are selected. Due to the intensive nature of the job and the border with the Republic of Ireland, officers should be equipped physically and mentally to perform their role. That requires greater investment and tailored support services, with improved access to professional expertise from the beginning of the training programme.

Although the security situation in Northern Ireland has improved since the PSNI was established in 2001—I thank God for that—the threat of paramilitarism persists and gang warfare is also very real. The incident in North Belfast on which the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), secured an urgent question today is also an example of the things that we all have to face in this modern world that we live in. I think the Secretary of State gave us as many answers as he could today, because there is to be a PSNI conference this afternoon that will disclose some other information pertinent to the investigation.

Investment in the police training college should reflect the higher level of training required to deal effectively with the distinct risks that officers in Northern Ireland face. We still have a small but very significant threat. The PSNI indicates that through the Real IRA, or Official IRA, or whatever they call themselves now—the three letters always maintain their focus—about 200 people in Northern Ireland are involved in a terrorist campaign. Now, 200 people can keep things boiling for a long time, so there is still a relevant IRA terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland that has to be faced down.

The expertise that comes from experience cannot be overestimated, and the need for training cannot simply be a paper exercise; a mirroring image of those who are in the job is essential. The training college—the very thing that the hon. Member for North Down, I and everyone including the Minister and the shadow Minister want—offers all of that despite its budget not being fit for purpose.

Regardless of the rapidly changing needs of the training college, the PSNI budget has been cut year on year since 2011. The financial decline takes away the PSNI’s ability to recruit, train and regularly service their vehicles, along with all the things needed as part of its work, including helicopters, drones and search teams. A police force is not just the bobby walking up and down the street; it is much more than that. That is why it is so important that we keep things going.

This problem has been further compounded by the collapse of the Executive and the one-year budget settlement. I just cannot work out why we have a budget that rumbles or slumbers along and does not address the issues but instead seems to put them off for another day. Simultaneously, legacy investigations and legal action are draining the PSNI’s resources as well. There are lots of pressures from all sides on the PSNI. A dedicated and protected funding allocation for those costs would help ensure that police training and development is properly sustained and delivered to the high standard required: that of a modern police force able to deal with all the circumstances that it has to—sometimes those that come out of the blue like last night—but that is also equipped and ready for others.

That is especially needed as the demands placed on the PSNI continue to evolve with cyber-crime. That is very technical and we have spoken about it here in the Chamber on other occasions. It is really important that our PSNI can engage with the police forces in Scotland, Wales and England and ensure that those things are taken care of. It must also respond to mental health incidents. I sometimes wonder about the pressure on the young officers who are called out to see somebody who has had a domestic incident, an attempted suicide or a car accident, and the effect these things have on the police officer’s mental health. It is not just about the mental health of those they meet; it is about the mental health of the police officers. These are all the demands that are on our police officers today and it presents a really complex challenge for them.

The rewards of a policing career can be immense, but officers give a great deal in return, and we thank them sincerely for that. It is therefore essential that they enter the role as fully equipped as possible. Support must be given to the development of officers’ foundational skills to ensure that they can confidently adapt to the changing needs of the role, and to ensure that they, as police officers, can fulfil those.

I am long enough in the tooth to look back and remember the police forces back in the time of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I remember the management and people skills that those seasoned officers had and which they were able to pass on to the new officers coming in. Many of those police officers have now retired, so it is too late to take advantage of those social skills and the things that they learned from others over the years.

If we want a safe and cohesive police service, the bottom line is that it must be funded. That is what I am asking for, like the hon. Member for North Down, and it is what others will ask for shortly, too. If we want equal opportunity for all races, sexes and creeds—and we should, we must and we will—it must be an attractive job with potential for the future. If we want to guard our streets, guide our young people and keep them right and give them opportunities, we need officers who are well trained, well paid and well equipped. This starts with the funding designated by Westminster—in Westminster Hall today, in the main Chamber and in Parliament.

I look to the Minister to recognise the vital role that the PSNI training college will have over the next 25 years in society in Northern Ireland. That is why it is so important, why the hon. Gentleman raised it and why we in this House need to push hard for it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and others who will contribute. We see the need for it; let us make sure it happens.

14:56

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I also congratulate the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) on bringing forward this motion. I also join him in his comments on the horrific attack in north Belfast. Comments were also made in the House earlier today, and I reinforce the call for calm. This debate is about the PSNI training facility at Kinnegar, but it should not be forgotten that in the past, our police were the frontline and suffered many attacks and many threats. That should not be the fallout of yesterday’s attack.

As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, there are many current police training facilities around Northern Ireland. I recently visited PSNI Steeple in my constituency, which looks after canine handling. It was fantastic to visit and see at first hand the dedication in that unit—from the dog handlers to the trainers, those who look after the dogs in the kennels and the entire welfare section. They noted that Kinnegar, or PSNI Redburn as it will be known, will result in the closure of many such facilities across Northern Ireland. I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from when he talks of centralisation. It also puts pressure on those people who will not work in remote training facilities. They will have to relocate, or their jobs will be in jeopardy. That should not take away, however, from the hope of a new training facility at PSNI Redburn.

We always look back in Northern Ireland and reflect. Many years ago, there was an opportunity of a joint police and fire service college at Desertcreat. Many of my colleagues present know that that was well put forward when they were Members of the Legislative Assembly. At that stage, the police service withdrew due to capital and financial pressures, but the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service went on and developed Desertcreat into a fantastic training facility, with many of the facilities that the hon. Member for North Down talks about. It could have been bigger, and it could have delivered cross-blue-lights services, but unfortunately that did not go ahead.

The police service has purchased the land at the former barracks in Kinnegar to develop its own training site. This place should be seeking to support the development of that site at an early stage. The proposal for a new police college at Kinnegar seeks to deliver a vision first identified during the Patten reforms: a modern, purpose-built centre for police training and professional development. The acquisition of the former Kinnegar barracks site represents what we believe is the most significant step in a generation towards a new police training campus, and the development of our police officers that has been mentioned by the two previous speakers.

When we see the dedication of our current police force, which the hon. Member for Strangford also mentioned, it would be remiss of me not to comment on the current TV series in Northern Ireland, “Peelers: The PSNI for Real”. It was developed by Stephen Nolan, and I think it has brought forward the real challenges as it follows the day-to-day experiences of our police officers. If you have not viewed it yet, Sir Roger, I would recommend it to you—and to other Members and the House. When we look at the development and the challenge, they need that training. It is vital to make sure that they are properly equipped for every scenario, and that is what a centralised training college will provide.

The site will provide a substantial footprint, capable of supporting not only recruit training, but a wider range of specialist policing functions. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee heard recently from the Chief Constable and previous Chief Constables that the PSNI is unique as a police force because it has to supply most of those specialist officers itself; geographically, it does not have the ability to call in mutual aid from other forces. The proposal has evolved beyond a traditional training school and now includes plans for a broader policing and crime training campus. The PSNI sees the project as an opportunity to bring training, leadership development and specialist capabilities together in a single, modern location. As I said, the Chief Constable, Jon Boutcher, has linked the proposal directly to the long-standing ambition for a world-class police college in Northern Ireland, but the challenge is always around the financing and capital spend, where the police have always been under pressure.

The new campus, intended to support increased recruitment and help to prepare future officers for the increasingly complex demands of modern policing, would be welcome. The PSNI has incorporated the project into its long-term estates strategy and has established dedicated planning and consultation work to develop the site—it is already putting in the background work. While questions remain about funding and delivery, it is notable that the PSNI’s stated position is that Kinnegar offers a strategic opportunity to strengthen policing capability, professional standards and workforce development for decades to come. In that instance, I support the motion.

15:02

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I commend the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this debate. I support both the concept of and the need for a proper training facility of modern standards for the PSNI. As has been referred to, some years ago, there was a proposition to have the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, the Prison Service and the PSNI on a joint training site at Desertcreat. Frankly, that would have cost a lot less than the cumulative cost now facing the PSNI alongside what was spent at Desertcreat for the Fire and Rescue Service. It was, perhaps, rather short-sighted not to have proceeded with that expenditure at that time.

Policing is now a devolved matter, and the Minister will no doubt tell us today that the responsibility for it lies with the Stormont Executive. Maybe the devolving of policing, as some of us said at the time, was not such a good idea after all; if it had not been devolved, then there would be no hiding place for the Minister. There would be no batting this away and saying, “That is for Stormont.” The obligation would be—as I think it always should have been—with the Minister and the Northern Ireland Office.

We are now in a situation where the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland is bidding for £116 million but, from what I can see, there has been no positive response from the Department of Finance in Stormont. She can make as many bids as she likes, but until the money is granted, nothing is going to happen. Is something going to happen under a Sinn Féin Finance Minister, who would far rather squander money on net zero madness, needless and expensive Irish language signing, and useless north-south bodies? I would dare to say that the PSNI and its needs are pretty far down the Sinn Féin Finance Minister’s list of priorities.

It would be far better if policing had never been devolved. Then, if this need had still existed, we could have come here today and really put it to the Minister that it was his responsibility and his Government’s obligation, and that they were the ones who were failing. Instead, he can rightly say, to a significant extent, that it is Stormont that has failed to provide the policing facilities. That was one of many mistakes made in respect of devolution.

Yes, we need a training centre, but what will the training there encompass? I ask that question in light of the controversy last week in this place about the need to readjust the training directives for police officers in the United Kingdom, which had gone overboard in terms of their political correctness. Is the same thing going to happen in respect of the PSNI?

I suspect that it is, because when I look at the PSNI’s “Race and Ethnicity Action Plan 2025-2030”, I read about matters such as:

“mandatory… cultural competence training to all…officers”.

What on earth does that mean? In paragraph 3.3.2 of the plan, I read language that speaks of:

“Interacting…in an…appropriate and culturally sensitive way”.

What does that mean?

In Great Britain, we have seen training that reduced the scandal of what happened to Mr Nowak, when police arrived and, on the playing of the race card, automatically looked for the white man. That is what happened in that case. Is that what will happen in Northern Ireland under this PSNI training? If it is, we can do without it. We want policing based on training that is fundamentally fair and equal for all. Frankly, it is no comfort that this “ethnicity action plan” is to be overseen by our highly politicised and politically perverse Equality Commission. If that body has anything to do with the plan, then it will definitely head in the wrong way.

There need to be lessons learned right across this United Kingdom, including from the attack on young Mr Nowak. There need to be lessons learned about the abomination of what has become a corrupting political correctness, which is affecting training for our services. People just want policemen who act fairly, who act swiftly, who act correctly and who are not constantly looking over their shoulders and wondering whether or not, when they do the right thing, they are offending some madness in some ethnicity action plan.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I certainly agree with all that the hon. and learned Member has said with regard to ethnicity.

In relation to the police, we have to commend those young officers who go out daily and put themselves in harm’s way to protect our community. However, does the hon. and learned Member agree that there is a real disconnect with the senior leadership of the PSNI with regard to community engagement? We only have to look at the weekend event in Scarva, when political representatives had to step in and ensure that the PSNI dealt with protesters in the same way—with equality—when they were dealing with a parade that was highly political, in which people were carrying “From the river to the sea” banners, which are highly offensive and constitute a hate crime. Does he agree that the PSNI needs training around dealing with the Protestant Unionist Loyalist community, and start to listen to their concerns on the ground, and engage with them on the issues that matter to them?

[Jim Allister]

I absolutely agree. I think that Saturday at Scarva was an object lesson in how not to do public order policing, because the mentality that seemed to infect all that was to inhibit, and even to seek to provoke—what I saw seemed to be of that order—those who were legitimately exercising a peaceful protest. Even in that regard, the changing of the designation and determination of the Parades Commission on when and where a protest was held seems to me to be ultra vires of the police powers that surround that. The police need to take a long, hard look at themselves in how they conducted those public order policing matters on Saturday.

Having said all that, we do need a police force. We need those who serve our community, but we need them to serve it even-handedly—to serve everyone with equality and not to have anyone think that they are above the law or, indeed, to have anyone perpetuated in that view by a pandering to them. There are lessons there to be learned.

Let us get a proper training course and training location for our police. Let us also get our numbers to where they should be. Chris Patten told us that we were to have 7,500 police officers. Today, I think we have 6,200. That is way short, and again I think that is a failure of the devolution of policing. Certainly, as Members of Parliament we would be in a much stronger position to really hold the Minister to account if policing had never been devolved. For me, this is confirmation of the folly of that action.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Mr Robinson, I know that due to duties in the Chamber you had, entirely properly, to arrive after the start of the debate; if you wish to speak, we can accommodate you.

15:11

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

That is very kind of you, Sir. Roger. I had not planned on such a courtesy being extended. I place on record my appreciation to the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this debate. Important debate though it is, it would have had much more importance had the Boundary Commission not taken Garnerville out of my constituency and placed it in his. Indeed, had Garnerville remained in Belfast East, I would have been championing its restoration and renewal rather than the creation of PSNI Redburn in Kinnegar.

As Northern Ireland parliamentarians and Members of this Parliament, this is an important opportunity for us to consider the right way we should invest in policing. Hon. colleagues have mentioned the recent programme “Peelers” as a visual demonstration of the pressure that our police service is under and the frailty of the funding model that they face. Devolution of policing and justice in Northern Ireland is not the primary concern. The primary concern is a police service that the Minister of Justice, although accountable for it, strips of resource. She then puts that resource into those direct parts of her Department, including the prison service, legal aid, court service and the Northern Ireland judiciary.

No other part of our criminal justice system has faced the same cuts that the PSNI has. Why? Because the PSNI, rightly and politically, is non-departmental. It does not have the same accounting mechanism, and the Minister of Justice does not have the same responsibility for it. In fact, the PSNI is accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board and not the Minister of Justice. The PSNI has been failed. It has been failed by a Minister who has been ill-prepared to prioritise policing and has prioritised those aspects of her Department for which she is wholly accountable. That is wrong. That has been an injustice and a disservice to the brave members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

On Sunday, I gathered with hundreds of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross Foundation at their 24th anniversary service in Armagh. They are proud, determined people—people who sacrifice. Widows were present, as were others who have sacrificed so much of their own lives to ensure peace and stability in Northern Ireland. As they kept the legacy of the Royal Ulster Constabulary going on Sunday in Armagh, and do so every day of the week, it is incumbent on us, if we are interested in securing a legacy, to ensure the future of the police service in Northern Ireland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

I thank you, Sir Roger, for giving me the opportunity to make that short contribution. I am full of acknowledgment and praise for the hon. Member for North Down for securing the debate.

15:15

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) on securing this important debate. Before I turn to the substance of the debate, I acknowledge the deeply troubling incident in north Belfast last night, in which a man was seriously injured in a knife attack on Kinnaird Avenue. My thoughts are with the victim and his family, the members of the public who attempted to stop the attack and the PSNI officers who responded. Those officers are precisely who this debate is about, and we should all be asking whether they have the support, resources and facilities that they deserve.

As we have heard, 25 years ago the Belfast agreement promised a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland. Out of that promise came the Patten commission, which led to the establishment of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It is worth noting, as many Members have, that policing in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, with day-to-day funding allocated by Stormont’s Department of Justice. This Parliament does not set the PSNI’s budget, but the UK Government are not disinterested observers. Responsibility for national security rests with Westminster: additional security funding and paramilitary crime taskforce funding are channelled from here, and Treasury decisions—including the refusal to meet Stormont’s reserve claim for the £119 million cost of the 2023 data breach—carry direct consequences.

The police college at Garnerville sits at the centre of all this, training every officer who joins the PSNI, and it exports that expertise to forces in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland, as well as internationally. Every PSNI officer carries a personal protection firearm, including when they are off-duty—something that applies nowhere else in UK policing, fortunately. The standing authority under Patten recommendation 65 has not been withdrawn because the threat has not gone away. The terrorism threat level was reduced from severe to substantial in March 2024, having been raised to severe following the attempted murder of Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell in Omagh in February 2023. The PSNI recently told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that there is no operational difference between the two threat levels: the posture, vigilance and resource commitment remain the same. No other policing workforce in the United Kingdom has to weigh the personal security implications for them and their families when simply deciding whether to join the police force.

The latest student officer recruitment figures, released in February this year, underline the scale of the challenge. The 2026 recruitment campaign received more than 4,100 applications, but that was down from more than 4,800 last year. Of those, nearly 27% identified as Catholic, against almost 29% the year before. The current intake runs at 51 student officers per month through Garnerville, barely keeping pace with the number of police leaving at the other end. Each of those officers completes the 22-week programme at a site that Patten identified as inadequate back in 1999. The PSNI told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that the continuing terrorist threat, legacy perceptions and resource pressures are active barriers to recruitment from all communities. No training college can resolve those barriers alone, but a modern, accessible facility would at least stop them compounding.

It matters that Patten recommendation 131 remains undelivered. The Desertcreat project—a proposed shared police, fire and prison training facility in County Tyrone—was abandoned after costing more than £12 million without a building completed. As we have heard, the PSNI has since purchased the Kinnegar army base in Holywood, which it acquired from the Ministry of Defence for £4.9 million.

[Gavin Robinson]

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, because she is making a good speech with important information. She mentioned Patten recommendation 131 not being prioritised. People sometimes forget, but we should praise the fact that 1,000 members of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland wished to apply for 400 vacancies—that is a good and positive thing. However, paragraphs 15.1 and 15.2 of the Patten report, which call on political leaders, community leaders, priests, Ministers and all with positions of influence to encourage engagement with, support for and recruitment to the PSNI, have not been honoured. Does she acknowledge that, sadly, far too many people today, particularly in senior positions of public leadership, will not engage with the police, encourage their community to participate with the police, or see policing as the great career of public service that it truly is?

[Charlotte Cane]

I agree that it is vital that everyone supports the PSNI and encourages people from across Northern Ireland to engage with it positively. One would hope that a good, modern training centre would help to present it as a good organisation to join.

To develop the site at Kinnegar, investment is needed. Patten recommended a new college 26 years ago, and although the Government accepted that recommendation, the PSNI is still waiting for one. Behind the college’s infrastructure problems sits a deeper funding failure: in real terms, the PSNI has 40% fewer resources than at devolution in 2010. Officer numbers stand at approximately 6,250—the lowest since the service was established—against the Patten recommendation of 7,500, as we have heard. Since 2014, the PSNI has incurred £167 million in legacy costs, with a further £24 million anticipated this year, drawn from the same budget that funds the college and recruitment. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has recommended a dedicated, ringfenced funding stream for legacy obligations, separate from the operational policing budget that the Chief Constable has been asking for.

I have three questions for the Minister. The first is on counter-terrorism funding. ASF has been broadened to cover the same threat categories as the Home Office counter-terrorism grant, yet that grant reaches £1.2 billion in 2026-27 while ASF stands at £37.8 million. The Government may point to the Barnett formula, but Barnett allocates on population, not on threat. Even combined, Barnett and ASF do not account for a force in which every officer carries a firearm and 3,200 specialist security deployments took place in a single year. Will the Minister confirm whether ASF is allocated based on need or on population share? If it is the latter, do the Government accept that, even combined, Barnett and ASF fall short for a force with no equivalent anywhere else in the United Kingdom?

Secondly, on legacy, the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will drive legacy costs higher still, and those costs continue to be met from the same budget that funds the college and recruitment. Do the Government accept the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee’s recommendation for a dedicated, ringfenced funding system to meet those costs separately?

Thirdly, on the college itself, Kinnegar has been purchased, but its development depends on investment funding that has not yet been committed. Will the Government make a specific capital commitment to deliver a new police college for a service with training requirements that have no parallel anywhere else in the United Kingdom?

15:24

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I should say at the outset that I associate myself with the remarks made by other hon. Members about the terrible attack in north Belfast last night. Although there are still many details to emerge from the case, it is very clear that the PSNI responded quickly and very bravely to what was an incredibly dangerous situation. I am proud to say that the people of north Belfast responded very bravely in the face of lethal force.

It is very appropriate, then, that we should find ourselves debating this motion tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton). I congratulate him on securing this debate. I echo the remarks about the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s service not just to the people of Northern Ireland, but to the United Kingdom as a whole. PSNI has a national role in policing our land border, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, but it also has a central role in our national security apparatus. It is right that hon. Members from Northern Ireland and Opposition Front Benchers should be able to question Ministers on that national security element.

I have some sympathy with the remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). It is clear that the devolutionary settlement has been failing the people of Northern Ireland in policing terms, not because of any failure of the PSNI, but because of short-term, misguided decisions by some politicians in Northern Ireland. It is wrong that citizens in NI should see their police service about 1,000 officers short of where it should be, in contravention of agreements that the Conservative party made in government with counterparts in Northern Ireland.

It is unsettling to realise, when we see this situation, that there is really no lever at our disposal to right this wrong. As I have said on previous occasions, there is more of a role for central Government in ensuring that the national security and border elements of policing in particular are given appropriate resource in Northern Ireland. I have listened closely to the sensible remarks made by all hon. Members. I believe that there is a deal to be struck here. Part of the benefit will accrue to the people of Northern Ireland, and part of it will accrue to the people of the United Kingdom more widely. It is not in the Minister’s power to make a deal on his own, because it is a Treasury matter, but I am sure that, as a rising star within the Labour party, he has great friends in the Treasury and will use those friendships and connections to mark out what that arrangement might look like.

[Alex Easton]

The Labour party brought forward the Patten review and agreed to its recommendations. One recommendation was for a new policing college. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that commitment has not been fulfilled by this or previous Governments, and that this Government should honour it by providing the funding for a new policing college?

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I will turn to it in a moment.

[Jim Shannon]

When the Conservatives were in power, they committed to a review of the moneys going to Northern Ireland under the Barnett formula, but nothing happened. When the Labour party came into power, a similar commitment was made. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) sit, recommended that the Barnett formula should be reviewed. Given all the commitments made by the previous Government and this Government, and as the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is pushing for change, does the shadow Minister think that the Barnett formula needs to be reviewed and changed, to find the extra moneys to fund the police training college?

[Alex Burghart]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman makes an extremely astute observation. I suggest that we perhaps try to find the time to have a full Westminster Hall debate on the Barnett consequentials and formula with particular regard to Northern Ireland, as there are a great many technicalities that we could go into.

Returning to the point made by the hon. Member for North Down, I simply mean something along the following lines: if the Treasury was minded to honour its 1998 obligation to provide a new training college, it would only be fair to require, in return, a very solemn undertaking by the Northern Ireland Executive that, within a short and fixed term, we would make up the current deficit of 1,000 officers.

I think it would be quite wrong if a new facility were built at considerable cost—a necessary investment, in my opinion—but we were still here another 10 years down the line, with the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and people across the United Kingdom, saying, “Why are the numbers in PSNI much lower than they should be?” If the Treasury chooses to enter into such negotiations, as I very much hope it will, there will need to be some reciprocal element from the Executive to ensure that any new facility is used to its maximum extent for the benefit of people not only in Northern Ireland but across the United Kingdom.

15:31

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) on securing the debate. He has campaigned on this long-standing issue for some time, having secured a debate in November last year on police funding, and he has also asked me oral questions. He is a persistent and powerful advocate for this case. I also thank him for the kind invitation to visit the site in his constituency—I think we now have an agreed date in August, and I look forward to that.

As others have set out, we are here following the horrific and sustained knife attack on a street in north Belfast last night. Members will know that the Secretary of State addressed this matter at length in an urgent question in the House earlier today. I want to state that the Secretary of State has spoken to the Chief Constable, and I reiterate that he and his officers have our full, unwavering support as they pursue their important inquiries.

Those members of the public who stepped forward at immense risk to their own safety, intervening to protect the victim until the police arrived, deserve our gratitude for the extraordinary courage they showed. I also repeat the appeal not to share or repost the footage of the attack out of respect for the victim’s family. As others have said, we all now have a responsibility to urge calm and let the police do their job. As the Prime Minister said, there is no place for such violence on our streets.

Turning to the PSNI, we are indebted to those men and women who serve day in, day out to keep us, our families, friends and loved ones, our communities, the whole of Northern Ireland and—as the hon. Member for North Down said—the whole of the UK safe. Over the decades, Northern Ireland has been transformed into a much more peaceful society, which has radically changed policing in Northern Ireland since the PSNI was first established 25 years ago. However, we know there remains a small number who are determined to cause harm to our communities, and to our brave police officers, through acts of violence.

The risks faced by the police, as well as their bravery, were recently demonstrated to me by the attacks on Lurgan and Dunmurry police stations. I met many of those at the Dunmurry station in April, and I can only imagine the situation they faced as they selflessly helped evacuate local residents when the device exploded. However, it is not just national security threats that the police must deal with; they put themselves in harm’s way every day to protect the public. On 31 May a police officer was struck by a stolen police car in Downpatrick. As of Friday, I understand the officer remains in hospital receiving treatment for very serious injuries. My thoughts, and I am sure those of everyone in this debate, are with the officer and his family as we wish him a full and speedy recovery.

I know that we would all pay tribute to the tremendous efforts of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The importance of mental health for those who serve was mentioned earlier, and it was an important part of the conversation when I was at Dunmurry police station. For the officers, it is important to stand up and speak about the horrors they witness and how that impacts them, and I am conscious that it impacts not only them but their families. If our mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters were going out and putting themselves in harm’s way every day and contending with the horrors that our police have to contend with, our mental health would also suffer, so that was a well-made point. The Government will continue to support the efforts of the police service in keeping our communities safe and, crucially, in holding those who commit criminal acts to account.

Turning to the development of the new PSNI training college, as the hon. Member for North Down set out in his powerful speech, the Police Service of Northern Ireland purchased the site in his constituency in March last year at a cost of £4.9 million. The existing training college is located at Garnerville, in Holywood, and was originally built in the 1950s as a local catering college, officially becoming a training centre for the RUC in 1986. It was subsequently taken over by the PSNI when it was formed in 2001. I understand that the PSNI sees new training facilities as a key part of its ambition to increase officer numbers to 7,500, which I welcome, as do others in the debate. An initial business case for £13 million was approved by the Executive to fund the acquisition and essential enabling works. The PSNI is now preparing a further business case for the next steps, with an estimated cost of over £200 million and an ambition to finish the works by 2033.

The Government recognise the financial pressures the PSNI faces. However, as has been stated, funding for the PSNI is largely a devolved matter, coming from the Department of Justice as part of the block grant for Northern Ireland, which I will come to later. The next steps for the development of the new training college, including securing further funding, are therefore a matter for the PSNI, the Policing Board and the Northern Ireland Executive. I am sure they will be listening to this debate and hearing the powerful points raised. It is important for the Executive to agree and deliver a sustainable, balanced, multi-year budget.

[Alex Easton]

I thank the Minister for his speech. Does he not have concerns, as I do, that the Northern Ireland Executive cannot really agree on anything? By the time they do agree on something, 10 years will have elapsed and they will not have the training facility. Will the Minister commit to talking to the First and Deputy First Ministers and the Justice Minister in the Executive, and to the Treasury, to try to find the funding to make sure this happens?

[Matthew Patrick]

I appreciate the frustration behind the hon. Member’s words about the time it is taking to secure the budget. I hear that and I will commit to raise with the Executive the training college he is advocating for, as we continue to press the importance of securing a multi-year and sustained balanced budget.

The October budget delivered a record £18.2 billion for the Northern Ireland Executive in the last financial year. That is the largest settlement in real terms in the history of devolution. It is clearly a matter for the Executive to make decisions on the allocation of resources in line with its own priorities, and it is therefore a matter for the Department of Justice to allocate that funding to the PSNI. How it is used is clearly an operational matter for the PSNI and the Chief Constable.

It is not just the block grant that the UK Government support the PSNI with.

[Jim Shannon]

The facts of the matter are—to be fair, most people have mentioned it—that the PSNI budget has been affected by the legacy costs, which I understand are in excess of £200 million. That takes a big chunk out of the PSNI budget every year. Although we understand that the Barnett consequential and extra moneys will be given to Northern Ireland—I say this respectfully to the Minister, because I think much of him—the fact is that the PSNI is already £200 million down because of the legacy. Will he consider some other methodology for the legacy funding, which would take the burden away from the PSNI and enable it to put some of that money towards the training college?

[Matthew Patrick]

If it is okay with the hon. Member, I will come to that point later. I will definitely address it, and I invite him to intervene on me if I do not—I may live to regret that.

The PSNI was previously provided with £32 million a year in additional security funding. That had been static for almost 10 years, since the 2015-16 financial year. Upon coming into government, we increased that to £37.8 million. The UK Government are also investing £235 million in the transformation of public services in Northern Ireland.

[Robin Swann]

On the transformation funding, could the Minister clarify just how much the PSNI has got out of the pot he mentioned? I know that it has put in several bids.

[Matthew Patrick]

From the direct amount funded by the UK Government—there are separate bids that are being considered by the Executive—Justice is receiving £22.6 million. That is transforming the justice system, and I understand that it has already saved 4,000 hours of police time in the first year it has been introduced.

I will address some of the points made in the debate.

[Robin Swann]

I appreciate that it was Justice that received the money, but could the Minister clarify how much the PSNI actually received? When members of the Policing Board were in front of the Northern Affairs Committee, they informed us that they had made a number of specific bids through that pot.

[Matthew Patrick]

That is funding to the Department of Justice rather than directly to the PSNI but, as I stated, given the hours of police time saved, that investment will clearly have a benefit.

On the matter of funding for the PSNI, many Members rightly raised resources, and a few raised some specifics. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the serious issue of rural crime, which I know that he, the Ulster Farmers Union, the PSNI and many other Members take very seriously. It is not the only factor at play; as he also mentioned, the land border brings with it complexity, and makes the relationship between the PSNI and the Garda Síochána very important. That positive relationship is crucial.

I have mentioned the record settlement and the fact that the Executive must make the decision to allocate their resources. Although the PSNI is devolved and operationally independent, as we would expect, the Government remain in close contact with it and the Department of Justice. Powerful points were made. I note that Northern Ireland continues to have the highest number of police officers per head of all nations in the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned funding for legacy, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane). The previous Government put £250 million into funding legacy institutions. In addition, as announced in the joint framework, the Irish Government will contribute €25 million to support legacy mechanisms.

I mentioned the record settlement given by this Government and the increase to the additional security funding. Of course there is a requirement on the PSNI, as there is on many other UK Government Departments and agencies, to disclose information. The PSNI is no longer dealing with the caseload it had before the establishment of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.

Let me add that the Chief Constable has raised the matter directly with the Government. The Government are engaging with him and the PSNI about the resource concerns in relation to disclosure.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and others discussed the numbers and composition of our police; the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar may have rung the death knell for my career given his kind words, but I will try to address his concerns. As of 1 June this year, the PSNI has 6,341 full-time-equivalent officers. The Northern Ireland Executive’s programme for government recognises that PSNI officer numbers are low. The Executive’s commitment to grow police officer numbers to 7,500, in line with the 2020 “New Decade, New Approach” agreement, is very welcome.

A well-staffed, well-resourced and well-trained PSNI is vital to the success and stability of Northern Ireland. I am aware that the PSNI restarted recruitment in December last year; the Department of Justice got an additional £7 million in Executive funding to meet the full cost of year one of the PSNI’s workforce recovery plan. Apart from national security, policing in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter and police numbers are a matter for the Department of Justice and the Chief Constable.

I move on to parading, which was mentioned by a number of hon. Members. Determinations are rightly a matter for the independent Parades Commission, which acts independently of Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no role in that process. Determinations are legally binding, and it is important that all involved in parades and protests adhere to the rule of law and abide by any determinations made by the commission.

As others have said today, we all have a responsibility to respect the rule of law and use temperate language to reduce tensions around sensitive parades and protests. The commission continues to have the full support of the Government in its challenging role in relation to parades in Northern Ireland.

[Gavin Robinson]

I have listened carefully to what the Minister has to say. The NIO rarely ever exercises its powers when it comes to the Parades Commission—it can intervene, but it refuses to do so. The fundamental problem that arose on the weekend was that protesters could not adhere to the Parades Commission’s determination because somebody within the police decided, in their policing plan, to ensure that they blocked the very place where the commission said the protest should occur. That is the fundamental problem. If the Minister is to address this issue, as he is doing, he must give some consideration to the inability of lawful protesters to adhere to a lawful determination because of the actions of the PSNI.

[Matthew Patrick]

I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. Securing locally agreed arrangements for managing parades in Northern Ireland is the best option for sustainable, long-term reform. The UK Government are committed to continuing to work with local parties and others to secure the restoration of those institutions. Until such time as alternative, locally agreed arrangements are forthcoming, the Parades Commission remains the only legally constituted body that can adjudicate contentious parades in Northern Ireland. Ensuring that communities in Northern Ireland can peacefully celebrate and demonstrate their culture in an environment of respect and tolerance is of the utmost importance.

I will draw my remarks to a conclusion.

[Jim Allister]

Has it come to this? The Labour party-sponsored Patten report recommended 7,500 police officers and a new training centre. Do this Labour Government feel no connection or commitment to that? Are they happy to wash their hands of it?

[Matthew Patrick]

Not at all: I feel a connection and commitment. The way to deliver that commitment is to respect devolution and give a record financial settlement—more than at any time in the history of devolution—so that the Executive can make that determination. That is important, in terms of both showing respect and funding.

I again thank the hon. Member for North Down for securing the debate and all right hon. and hon. Members for how it has been conducted. This year marks 25 years since the establishment of the PSNI, following the recommendation of the Patten review of policing. That is a significant milestone for the PSNI and for Northern Ireland. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the brave men and women who have served in the PSNI for their tireless work in keeping people safe in Northern Ireland and across the UK.

It is right at this anniversary to take stock of policing in Northern Ireland and celebrate the dramatic improvement in the security situation over the past 25 years. As we do so, there is not an ounce of complacency in this room or this Government about the threat that still exists. As others have said, it is right to look back at the Patten review of policing, which was such a crucial step in realising the goals of the Good Friday agreement. Important recommendations made in the review had the commendable aim of creating a police service that could attract cross-community support and legitimacy. I understand that, according to the PSNI, around 90% of the Patten recommendations have been met.

One outstanding recommendation is the establishment of a new police training college. Progress is clearly being made in realising that goal; I suspect the hon. Member for North Down will be pushing that along each and every step of the way. Given that policing and justice are devolved—a Patten recommendation—the next steps for the establishment of the training college are for the PSNI, the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Department of Justice to determine. I am sure that they will have heard the powerful and compelling arguments in this debate about the importance of a new training college and the service it would give the PSNI in its duties to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe and do its crucial work.

Let me reiterate the importance of the Executive agreeing and delivering a sustainable, balanced, multi-year budget. The hon. Member for North Down has made a strong case for continued investment and development of the site in his constituency. Others have invited me to ask other Departments of this Government to step in. It is important to note that the money available to the Executive is a record settlement—more than at any point in the history of devolution. That gives the means to the Executive to make these decisions and to fund the Department of Justice and the PSNI as they see fit.

I believe that all the decision makers, whether the Policing Board, the Executive, the Department of Justice, the Chief Constable or the PSNI, will have heard, and not just in this debate, the calls for funding from the hon. Member for North Down and others. I am sure that we will also hear those calls in future debates.

15:53

[Alex Easton]

I thank each and every Member here today for their contributions, which are much appreciated. I particularly thank the Minister for his condemnation of the incident in Belfast last night and his praise of members of the public who stepped in to help the individual, who has a great debt of gratitude to them for their actions, as well as to the PSNI and the emergency services.

The choice is stark: the new policing college is going to cost £200 million. We have heard from the Minister that that is a responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive, the Justice Minister, the Finance Minister and so on. Let us face the uncomfortable truth: unfortunately, the Justice Minister has allowed PSNI numbers to fall well below 1,000. That has had an effect on morale and public confidence. The Department of Justice and the Executive just do not have £200 million—even if they did, the reality is that the Executive cannot agree on anything. I doubt very much whether they would agree on producing £200 million to build this college, which is much needed.

There is nothing more important than having a new police college to train the police officers we need. Without it, there will not be the proper facilities or training that are desperately needed for the challenges that we face in Northern Ireland—which, if we are totally honest, are more numerous than those in other parts of the United Kingdom. Unless the Northern Ireland Office and UK Treasury help with the funding of this vitally needed facility, I genuinely fear for the future of policing for Northern Ireland. I believe that unless there is an intervention, we could be back here in 10 years discussing this again. I do not know whether I will have been elected in 10 years’ time, but I do fear this debate will happen again.

The Minister has agreed to put pressure on the Executive, and I appreciate that, but can I make a last ask of him? Will he at least agree to set up a meeting with the Treasury, me and PSNI representation so that we can have the discussion? That does not mean that what I have asked for will happen, but will he agree to arrange a meeting as a first stage to discuss the issue and explore options?

[Matthew Patrick]

I will be happy to arrange a meeting between me, the hon. Gentleman and representatives about the issue that he just raised.

[Alex Easton]

That has made me more happy. I am now willing to wind down and thank everybody for coming today.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Before we conclude, may I thank all hon. Members here for the tone of this debate and the courtesy with which it has been conducted? I only wish that more people saw the House behave like this, as it should.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for the Police Service of Northern Ireland training college.

Sir David Attenborough: Permanent National Monument

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I shall call Johanna Baxter to move the motion. I shall then call the Minister to respond. I remind all other Members that if they wish to speak in a 30-minute debate—only one has requested to do so—they must have the consent of the Member in the charge and the Minister. For the record, I should have been notified as well, and I was not told of anybody wishing to take part in the debate. Members can, of course, intervene, but remember that this is a 15-minute each way debate, basically. There is no opportunity for the mover of the debate to wind up at the end.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of Government support for a permanent national monument for Sir David Attenborough.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Last month marked the 100th birthday of a television icon, a broadcasting legend and a true national treasure: Sir David Attenborough. Across his 70 years in television, Sir David has inspired generations to care more deeply about our natural world. A staple of Sunday evening viewing for decades, he has enthralled and inspired us in a way that no other broadcaster ever has or arguably could.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate. I can remember the time I spent with my boys watching David Attenborough on TV, and now I spend it with my grandchildren, so the tradition carries on. The information and passion are shared between generations through the timeless quality of David Attenborough’s environmental work. Does the hon. Lady agree that now is the time to recognise this national treasure and that he deserves a permanent recognition as the best of British?

[Johanna Baxter]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member’s sentiments.

It is little wonder that, in poll after poll, the British public have voted for Sir David as one of the most trusted voices in our country and one of the 100 greatest Brits. It started with a fossil. In the 1930s, Sir David found an ammonite that sparked a curiosity for the wonders of our natural world that still exists in him today. After winning a scholarship to the University of Cambridge in 1945, Sir David obtained a degree in natural sciences, before embarking on his long and remarkable career at the BBC.

When he first completed his training programme in 1952, television was a luxury for the few. Indeed, Sir David had never owned a television set when he was hired, yet by 1954, he had co-created and launched the “Zoo Quest” series, with the aim of showing animals live in their natural habitats, starting with the quest for a picathartes—a little bald African bird. That quest shifted the public’s imagination of what television could achieve and the wonders among which we live. Sir David has gone to the ends of the earth, to the depths of the ocean and into the upper atmosphere to capture those incredible images that have stunned and enthralled us all.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that David Attenborough’s brother Richard sadly passed away in 2014. I just wanted to share the last tweet that Lord Richard Attenborough put out on Twitter. He said he was very proud of his little brother, after David Attenborough received his BAFTA. I am sure that Richard Attenborough would have been very proud that my hon. Friend is having a debate about his little brother today.

[Johanna Baxter]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words.

Sir David is not just an incredible broadcaster with a passion for nature; he is an architect who shaped the landscape of British broadcasting. As the controller of BBC Two, he oversaw the introduction of colour television to the UK, beating continental Europe to the airwaves.

His eye for innovation even changed global sport. It was Sir David who noticed that traditional white tennis balls were nearly impossible for viewers to track on early colour television screens during broadcasts from Wimbledon. He personally intervened and championed the introduction of the optic yellow tennis balls that are used worldwide today. His embrace of technological advances led to him being the only person ever to win BAFTA awards for programmes across black and white, colour, high-definition, 3D and 4K television. From “The Blue Planet” and “Life on Earth” to “Galapagos” and “Frozen Planet”—I am sure everybody here today could name their favourite—each landmark production pushed human ingenuity forward.

Within the scientific community, one of the greatest compliments a person can receive is to have a species named after them. It is extraordinary, then, to think that Sir David has had over 50 species named in his honour, reflecting a staggering range of biodiversity. They range from the Euptychia attenboroughi, a black-eyed satyr butterfly found in the tropical Amazon, to the Platysaurus attenboroughi, a flat lizard native to southern Africa. Sir David is also one of very few people to have been knighted twice.

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

The hon. Lady was talking about how Sir David has had a number of species named after him. Does she agree that, going forward, we should do more to name our green spaces, such as Rotary Wood in Harrogate, which was planted by children, after legends like Sir David Attenborough?

[Johanna Baxter]

That is a lovely idea.

In more recent years, Sir David’s voice shifted from one of wonder to fierce advocacy. He transitioned from our guide through the natural world to its ultimate champion on the world stage. For his historic address to COP24, the UN climate change conference in Poland in 2018, Sir David took up the People’s Seat, standing before representatives from nearly 200 nations to act as the voice of global citizens. His message was blistering in its clarity. He told world leaders:

“Right now we are facing a man-made disaster of global scale, our greatest threat in thousands of years: climate change. If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”

He did not mince his words, nor did he hide behind diplomatic niceties. He used the trust that he had built over half a century to force the world to look into the abyss of its own inaction.

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that seeing British leadership on the world stage like that fills us with such pride? We look forward to working together on that point. Perhaps a British monument by a British artist might be something to consider as we look to celebrate Sir David’s incredible achievements?

[Johanna Baxter]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. If there is to be a monument, it should be by a British sculptor. We are filled with pride in Sir David every day.

He took his message even further in 2021, when he addressed the UN Security Council. Sir David reframed the climate crisis entirely, moving it from a scientific debate to an existential security threat. He warned the council that

“climate change is the biggest threat”

to global security

“that modern humans have ever faced.”

He told the council that if the natural systems that support us collapse, everything we take for granted—food and water security, social stability and international peace—will collapse with them. He challenged the most powerful leaders on earth to recognise that the map of the world is being rewritten by our own carbon emissions. Speaking at COP26 in Glasgow, he gave a stark warning on climate change and asked the haunting question:

“Is this how our story is due to end? A tale of the smartest species doomed by that all too human characteristic of failing to see the bigger picture in pursuit of short term goals.”

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The hon. Member is making a brilliant speech in honour of a fantastic advocate for the natural world. I have had emails from constituents about him, and I would like to share one that I received this morning, which says:

“Sir David is a titan of broadcasting and has educated, amazed and enthralled generations for decades.”

The point she is making is key: he has been an advocate not just for the natural world, but for our responsibilities to tackle the huge challenge of climate change. Sir David clearly deservers some sort of memorial—perhaps a living memorial. I thank the hon. Member for securing this tribute to him, and hope that we all agree that he deserves all the recognition and respect that we can give him.

[Johanna Baxter]

I thank the hon. Member for those words. A living monument is a fantastic idea and Sir David certainly deserves our recognition and thanks. He has taught us that humanity’s greatness is found when we act as caretakers to our environment rather than consumers of it. He showed us that true leadership lies in what we choose to protect, understand and preserve. Yet when facing a cost of living crisis, the easy temptation for some is to fall back on the status quo and focus narrowly on drilling our natural resources. There is a danger in ignoring the warnings he delivered on the global stage and here on our doorstep.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that with such division and discord across many of our communities, this initiative crosses the political spectrum? Does she agree that Sir David Attenborough’s life’s work should be celebrated by all?

[Johanna Baxter]

I absolutely agree.

Despite the sheer scale of his global contribution, there is currently no permanent national monument dedicated to Sir David in the United Kingdom’s civic landscape. That is why I have secured this important debate. I am calling on the Government to work with me to address that absence through the creation of a carefully designed sculpture that will be installed in a prominent public location.

Over recent months, I have been working on this campaign with an incredibly talented sculptor, David Mitchell, who is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith). I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing us and for working alongside me. To be clear, the proposal would be entirely privately funded, with fundraising undertaken by cultural institutions, by charitable organisations and through voluntary public contributions.

I have built support among the public and colleagues across the House. I would particularly like to thank the team at 38 Degrees, who have worked with me on the campaign. The petition I launched with them has now received more than 89,000 signatures and the support of many colleagues. I have received many welcome suggestions on how best to pay tribute to Sir David. All of them have been incredibly thoughtful, illustrating the deep affection in which he is held. I have had suggestions to rename national forests and parks, and I am entirely open to working with all Members to explore those opportunities.

It is important that we permanently recognise Sir David’s legacy in a way that truly reflects the broad national admiration for his life and work. Some may ask why we require a physical monument in an increasingly digital world. The answer lies in what our public spaces say about our collective conscience. Civic statues are the ultimate expression of a nation’s values. Who we choose to set in stone and elevate on plinths tells our children and future generations who we want them to emulate. For generations, our public squares have rightly honoured great political leaders, monarchs and military figures who have guided our nation through the tumultuous chapters of our history. Those monuments tell a vital story, but as our society evolves, so too should the stories we choose to tell in our public space.

Today, our national pride is defined not just by how we navigated history, but how we are leading the world into a more sustainable and enlightened future. To have a monument to Sir David would be to enrich our civic architecture with symbols of modern British values: our deep respect for scientific truth, our love for the natural world and our shared responsibility to our planet. It would be an honour to a giant of education and conservation.

When a child looks up at that monument, they will see our values: the defence of our natural world and the pursuit of scientific knowledge as pillars of our national character. It would stand not only as a fitting tribute to an extraordinary individual, but as a lasting, visible symbol of Britain’s enduring commitment to science, education and environmental stewardship.

For more than 70 years, Sir David has used the power of his voice to show us the breathtaking beauty and terrifying fragility of our planet. He has spent a lifetime looking out for our world; it is time this nation looked up to him.

16:14

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger, and an absolute pleasure to stand alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who made a fantastic speech. She was exactly the right person to make it: no one in this place is more of a Sir David Attenborough superfan than she is. To confirm that, all anyone need do is to look at her Twitter history, her bookshelf or her DVD collection. I cannot hope to match her wonderful, in-depth speech, so I will just take a minute or two to make a couple of points.

The UK has a long tradition and a long history of recognising those who make a great contribution to public life. If there were no curtains on the windows of this Chamber, we would be able to see some of those figures outside. There are 12 statues in Parliament Square of some outstanding people who have made massive contributions to our national life, like Millicent Fawcett with the Suffragettes, Winston Churchill, who needs no explanation, and Nelson Mandela, whose achievements likewise need no explanation.

I believe that Sir David Attenborough fits within that bracket. In his centenary year, we should be thinking, “How do we honour and recognise that?” He has made an unbelievable, perhaps irreplaceable contribution to the way we think about animals and the natural world. He has given us a greater understanding—one that we did not have before. As I say, he is irreplaceable.

Sir David has encouraged us all to play our part in stewarding the natural environment. In my constituency of North Northumberland, for example, there are estates run by the Northumberland Wildlife Trust, which is creating one of England’s largest areas for nature. I encourage people to get behind the trust’s campaign, for which it is fundraising right now.

I am delighted to be partnering with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South on this project, and I look forward to making it a success. I urge everyone across the House and across society, including the Government, to get behind this campaign to ensure that ultimately we can create a lasting and permanent memorial to Sir David Attenborough as our national treasure.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that a vote is expected at 4.30 pm.

16:17

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

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. In fact, with you in the Chair we are talking about two national treasures in this debate.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Is “dinosaurs” the word you are looking for?

[Ian Murray]

Your words, not mine, Sir Roger.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on securing a wonderful debate and making a lovely speech. My hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) says that she is the No. 1 Sir David Attenborough fangirl and, having known her for many years, I know that to be the case. These green Benches are her natural environment, as Sir David would say; she certainly deserves to be there.

Last month, of course, Sir David Attenborough had his 100th birthday—a very happy birthday to him. Alongside his 100th birthday, this year he celebrates a 70-year career as an award-winning wildlife filmmaker and broadcaster, a true national treasure and a pioneer. Sir David has been one of the most influential figures in British broadcasting and natural history storytelling, inspiring and educating generations across the world. I would like to take the opportunity to reflect on some of his contributions to British broadcasting, to telling that story and to environmental education.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South says, when we look at the career of Sir David Attenborough, we are looking at the history of modern broadcasting itself. He did not just witness the evolution of the media; he helped to shape it. As the controller of BBC2 in the 1960s, he spearheaded the introduction of regular colour broadcasts to British TV screens, and when he moved from management into production he created numerous documentaries that have captivated hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide and continue to do so. They include the groundbreaking “Life on Earth”, “Blue Planet” and most recently “Wild London”; “Wild Paisley” might be next. These contributions have helped to make the BBC the cornerstone of British broadcasting and the national institution for the public good that we know today.

Sir David’s long and successful career with the BBC is also a testament to the opportunities that the BBC provides to build careers from the early stages upward. He kick-started his career as a trainee producer at the BBC in 1952: he began by producing and presenting factual programmes, before moving through the ranks to become a senior manager and ultimately a leading television presenter and a national treasure. His career highlights the importance of the BBC and our public service broadcasters in nurturing outstanding talent in Britain and the creative sectors.

Beyond broadcasting, Sir David has had a hugely positive impact on public consciousness of nature and the urgency of climate change, as we have heard. As the climate crisis has grown, Sir David has helped people to see that the natural world is not just a matter of curiosity, but something that we must protect and secure for this generation and many to come. He has told us all that we are merely custodians of this planet, and that we need to treat it accordingly. He has educated and mobilised support and action from around the world, showing how we can work together to protect the planet while inspiring positive change.

Sir David’s contribution illuminates the pivotal role of the BBC as a light on the hill, producing and distributing educational content that protects the truth. Fact and the truth are critical for building a shared understanding of the world, and public service broadcasting is essential in arming us with the information that supports civilised debate. Sir David is truly the voice of this nation.

We must also recognise Sir David’s contribution as an innovative storyteller, and the BBC’s global reach as a potent example of British soft power. Sir David’s numerous contributions to the BBC have projected the core British value of integrity through scientific inquiry, promoting a truthful agenda and a passion for environmental stewardship to hundreds of millions of screens across the globe. That has served as an important part of British cultural diplomacy and has demonstrated our commitment to bringing people together to create positive change through truthful and impactful storytelling.

I turn to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South about commemoration. This country has a long and well-established tradition of commemorating national and local individuals through statues, memorials and monuments, which can serve as a long-lasting reminder of individuals and their efforts for this country and can help to bridge the gap between the past and the present.

As my hon. Friend will know, the Government do not routinely fund such monuments and memorials, but there is a long history of monuments and statues being funded by public subscription, and the Government support that approach wholeheartedly. For example, I am delighted to highlight the iconic bronze statue of Eric Morecambe, funded by public donations, corporate sponsorship and national lottery grants, in his hometown of Morecambe in Lancashire; a bronze bust of Sir Bruce Forsyth at the London Palladium, privately created and gifted to mark his 60th year in show business; and the statue of Sir Terry Wogan, no less, funded by Limerick city and county council, although much loved by audiences here in the United Kingdom.

Experience has shown that investors, including those from the private sector, are often happy and very willing to fund new monuments. Many public and private organisations are rightly able, subject to the relevant permissions, to freely propose, fund, develop and deliver memorials and monuments marking various incidents and historical moments in a way that they are best placed to deem appropriate and sensitive in the areas that they should be in. Many successful monuments are created by a wide range of authorities and organisations that are able to respond sensitively to the particular circumstances that they seek to commemorate, and are often driven by fanboys and fangirls.

This debate is welcome because of the positive lasting impact that Sir David Attenborough has made and will continue to make on British broadcasting and natural history. We acknowledge that, and I thank Sir David for his continued dedication to wildlife broadcasting, environmental education and addressing the urgency of the climate crisis. He has helped to shape our understanding of the natural world and tell our national story.

Ultimately, the true legacy of Sir David Attenborough cannot be measured solely by the decades he has spent on our screens, but by the light that he has shed on the natural world around us, the environmental issues that he has championed and the dedication that he has given to outstanding British broadcasting. He has inspired more than one generation. Sir David’s work serves and will continue to serve as a blueprint for the importance of high-quality British television, broadcasting and storytelling.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South for bringing this debate to the Chamber, and the hon. Members who have contributed. In Sir David’s own words:

“Is this how our story is due to end?”

I very much doubt it.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

At the risk of editorialising from the Chair, may I say that, on the mere 43rd anniversary of my election to this House, it is a real pleasure to be able to put this motion to the Chamber?

Question put and agreed to.

16:24

Sitting suspended.

Summit on Illicit Finance

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

16:27

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We are on the horns of a dilemma, because we expect a vote fairly imminently, but there is another wind-up speech to follow, so we will get started. There are likely to be three votes on the Floor of the House, then a pause before a fourth vote on Third Reading, and then possibly—sheer joy!—something after that, but let us get cracking and see how we go.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Illicit Finance Summit 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I am delighted to have secured this debate on the illicit finance summit 2026, although it might be more accurate to say that we are debating the illicit finance summit that is just about in 2026, or the illicit finance summit that will probably be in 2026 if we are not too busy. I am glad that this debate is an excellent opportunity to remind the Government that they are supposed to be hosting this summit and to break the radio silence of the past few months.

Hundreds of billions of pounds of illicit finance flow through the UK annually. This is a major drain on our economy and a driver of criminality across society. Illicit finance touches every one of us and, on a daily basis, makes our lives that little bit worse. For those who are fed up with a dying high street in their town, with an endless stream of neon-clad vape shops, illicit finance is making it worse. For those who are furious about dodgy donors ploughing money into political parties, illicit finance is making it worse. For those who are tired of hearing politicians tell them that there is no money to keep our basic services functioning, illicit finance is making it worse.

The phrase “illicit finance” might not come up much on the doorstep, but “fairness” does. When it comes to people and organisations paying taxes, it does not get much more unfair than a system that makes it trivially easy for wealth to be hidden offshore but, bafflingly, still within His Majesty’s jurisdiction. It is not just tax that we are missing; illicit finance is funding criminality around the world. That is why I find it particularly difficult that this Government have put the summit six months into the future and that they sneaked out the news on a quiet Friday after the House has risen. My first ask of the Minister today is that he commit to greater engagement and candour with Members relating to the summit from now on.

All that aside, we must now look ahead to the summit. If the Government are to delay it, they had better make sure that it is effective and delivers real change. So far, we have heard very little from them on specific aims and priorities. The Minister told the House that he was personally committed to tackling illicit finance, and I hope that in today’s debate he will get some welcome support in finding some areas to report on.

I am pleased to remind the Minister that this debate is attended by MPs across the parties with serious expertise and experience in this area. The Government can see that this is a truly cross-party effort. We are not here to score points or win votes; we are here in the belief that we can make Britain better and free it from the scourge of illicit finance once and for all. I might briefly note that I am looking carefully and there is one particular party that is not represented here, and its Members’ attendance may or may not have indicated their interest in getting dodgy money out of our country and our politics, but I will do my part in helping the Government with a few ideas as to what could constitute a successful summit—[Interruption.]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division on the Floor of the House. The sitting is suspended until 15 minutes after the start of what is likely to be the third Division in that group. Please do come back, because we think that there will be a pause between those Divisions and the vote on Third Reading.

16:31

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

17:10

On resuming—

[Steff Aquarone]

A quick recap: a gentle jibe at the Minister, a sharp poke at Reform and a commitment to doing my bit in helping the Government with a few ideas that might constitute a successful summit.

First, when many think of property in this country, they might think of the words of my predecessor as a Norfolk MP, Sir Edward Coke, about how an Englishman’s home is his castle. I am not sure whether Sir Edward foresaw so many being owned by a complex and secretive array of companies and trusts, lacking clarity about their ultimate beneficial owners.

Properties under secretive ownership are not only multimillion-pound mansions in Kensington; in fact, if many of us looked closer to home, we would be shocked by what we found. The Tax Policy Associates’ “Who secretly owns Britain?” map says that an unassuming cottage near the centre of the village of Cley next the Sea in my constituency is ultimately owned by a faceless company called Claystone Investments Ltd, registered in Switzerland. A Companies House search finds a similarly named company registered in the British Virgin Islands, which in turn gives its beneficial owner as a company registered in Panama. A search of the Panamanian company register gives no indication of who actually owns that cottage. That level of complexity and layers of ownership for a cottage in a quiet Norfolk village simply cannot be right.

This summit is a chance to call this out for being as ridiculous as it seems. The Government need to work with international partners to bring an end to anonymous property ownership. If an Englishman’s home truly is his castle, it cannot be a castle registered through multiple trusts, bouncing the legal rights halfway around the world and back again. If someone owns a property, they need to declare who they are and face the music, not hide behind shell companies and legalese.

It is also important that we get our own house in order on this. We have laws around beneficial ownership and property transparency, brought in under the last Government, with the help and hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and others. However, “Who secretly owns Britain?” indicates that rule-breaking is rife, and little seems to be being done to crack down on those flouting their obligations. I hope the Minister can assure us today that he is looking into the wealth of publicly available evidence of companies not doing what they are required to do, and will take action.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for this debate. He is absolutely right that we must aggressively pursue and prosecute the wealth managers, the lawyers and the accountants who mask dirty money through loopholes. Does he agree that, when it comes to corporate transparency, we must go as far as the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories, that we need to take an aggressive stance, and that the Minister and this Government need to follow that?

[Steff Aquarone]

I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, a past Government wrote to all those revealed by the Panama papers to ask them about their financial affairs. Might the Minister perhaps commit to doing the same for those shown not to be fully complying with beneficial ownership registration?

Speaking of getting our own house in order, naturally, I must turn to the overseas territories. When looking into opaque property ownership in my own area, I was sadly unsurprised to see that the British Virgin Islands were partly culpable for obscuring true beneficiaries. It is all well and good running a big international summit and talking a big game on transparency and fair taxation, but when we are allowing hundreds of billions in illicit finance to keep rolling through countries that fly our flag, rely on our defence and are citizens of our King, it looks as though we are not taking this issue seriously.

The overseas territories and Crown dependencies are part of our British family, but part of being a family is calling them out when they are doing wrong. So many are taking positive steps towards financial transparency, and their work will allow us to fight corruption and illicit finance more effectively, but there remain bad actors who are letting the side down. Their progress has been achingly slow, with deadlines missed, promises broken and beneficial ownership registers half delivered. The Government’s own anti-corruption champion recently said:

“I think we’re coming to the end of the road trying to do this through agreement”.

Such registers need to be free and publicly accessible. Restricting registers, or those behind payrolls with claims of legitimate interest, prevents journalists or non-governmental organisations—or even the interested public—from seeing who is truly behind these companies. We know that, in corruption and tax abuse, sunlight is the best disinfectant. For those malign actors who want to use existing secrecy to hide their ill-gotten gains, we have to smash that ability by ensuring that this information is freely available, just as is expected of anyone setting up or holding significant control in a company in this country.

I hope that the Minister can build on what Baroness Hodge has said and give a clear signal to us of the next steps that he is expecting to take if he has also, finally, run out of patience with these regimes. I can tell him and the House that most people ran out of patience long ago—hard-working, honest people who pay their way in what feels like an ever increasing tax burden. All the while, criminals, billionaires and dictators are seeing their dirty money flowing and growing, letting them live a life of luxury while we cobble together any penny that the Treasury can find to keep our public services afloat.

For those of us who are supporting the brave Ukrainians in their fight against Putin and his illegal war, we should be sickened that hundreds of private yacht transactions went on in overseas territories since the war began. Putin’s cronies, awash with blood money, are sunning themselves while Ukrainian people fight for their very future as a nation. While the Iranian regime represses protests and attacks our allies in the Gulf, the new Ayatollah has a multimillion pound mansion by Kensington Palace Gardens, just a short tube ride from here, which is one of the many ways he can launder wealth plundered from the people of Iran.

Illicit finance is a poison and cancer spreading through our country, infecting everything it touches. We have to get serious on this, and fast.

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

For most people, illicit finance is most prevalent on our high streets, when they see illegal vape shops or barbershops that do not have any trade but seem to be doing quite well. Does my hon. Friend agree that illicit finance is not necessarily always in big mansions, and can often feel very close to home?

[Steff Aquarone]

I completely agree. This issue goes two ways: fighting crime overseas and tackling illegal activity in this country are both hindered by illicit finance.

The message from Government that those benefiting from their dirty money can have another six months of fun before we hold our summit is disappointing. I hope the Minister can take steps to correct that today by setting out an ambitious, far-reaching and impactful programme of work leading up to this summit, which will culminate in international agreement.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need the international summit to crack down on fraudsters and scammers abroad? I have a constituent with disabilities who lost £70,000 to a romance fraud, with no checks having been done by the bank. Does the summit not also need to look at that issue?

[Steff Aquarone]

While there are certainly corporate victims of international illicit finance, it also affects us as taxpayers and as individuals. I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank him for raising that case.

Turning a blind eye and washing our hands of responsibility has gone on too long. Britain has been a world leader in so much, so let us step up to the plate and lead the world once again in tackling this scourge, cleaning up our financial system, making the crooks and corporations pay their fair share and delivering justice and a fairer system once and for all.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. I am looking around the room and at the time. I will not set a fixed time limit, but if hon. Members keep their speeches to under five minutes, everybody on the list who wishes to speak will get in.

17:18

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this vital debate, and on his comments about opaque property ownership. I said that this is a vital debate, but let us remind ourselves of the figures: £325 billion flows through the UK in illicit finance every year, which is more than 10% of this country’s GDP, and that figure rises to £780 billion annually when the Crown dependencies and overseas territories are included, according to the Finance Innovation Lab.

In the short amount of time available, let me say this: when the summit comes, it will be a measure of our convening power with global south countries as we look to build to chairing the G20 in 2027. It will be an opportunity to harness the private sector’s technical expertise as a leading financial services hub. It will be a chance for our law enforcement agencies to share their knowledge, whether the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office or the City of London police, who I had the pleasure of visiting in their Guildhall offices only last week. On crypto, it will be an opportunity to encourage like-minded partners to roll out sanctions packages similar to the one that the Foreign Office recently launched for the A7 in Kyrgyzstan. I must commend the Minister for his leadership on that.

Illicit finance touches more or less every facet of our lives and is a national security issue. Some £10 billion is laundered through the UK each year, by people traffickers, drug gangs and organised crime groups, and £6 billion of trade with Russia has been facilitated by UK overseas territories companies since 2022, including through sanctioned goods. It is also an economic issue, though. Let us remember that £325 billion is linked to corruption cases involving UK-connected services and that, each year, £33.4 billion is lost by the UK and almost $500 billion is lost globally to tax abuse.

Illicit finance also distorts our property market, as we have already heard. Some £11 billion of suspicious wealth has been identified in UK property, and £1.5 billion of that was linked to individuals accused of financial crime or with connections to the Kremlin. It is also a transparency issue: £190 billion-worth of property has no clearly identified beneficial owner. We heard of the Norfolk cottage, but we all have properties in our constituencies up and down the country that are affected by this issue. There are 236,500 properties across England and Wales that are held through opaque trusts, and there have been £6 billion-worth of suspicious property purchases made via overseas territories shell companies, of which more than 90% went through the British Virgin Islands. That speaks to the scale of the issue at hand.

Illicit finance damages our global reputation, too. Unless we tackle the issue both here in the UK and in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, we will not address it in the full manner that it deserves to be addressed by all of us in this Chamber in order to do the right thing by my constituents. Let us recall the figures I mentioned at the start: each year, £788 billion flows through UK-linked systems, £10 billion is laundered and £33.4 billion is lost in UK tax revenue. The Minister knows those statistics and has heard me mention them time and again, but I am repeating them to drive home just how important this summit is, both to our country and around the globe, and to reiterate how crucial it is that we get the appropriate buy-in across Departments at the very top of Government.

Therefore, set against the backdrop of a new anti-money laundering and asset recovery strategy, a new economic crime plan being published later in the year and the Crown dependencies implementing greater transparency around their company registers in the coming month, I have two asks for the Minister. What can he say to reassure me that the rescheduled illicit finance summit will be the genuine cross-Government priority it deserves to be, and that this Government will drive global leadership on the all-encompassing issue of illicit finance? Secondly, somewhat at a tangent, after some concerning reporting by Bloomberg about the potential return of golden visas, can the Minister reassure me that his Department will work with the Department for Business and Trade and the Home Office to ensure that this Government never introduce a loophole that allows oligarchs and kleptocrats to buy their way into the UK?

17:23

[Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Sir Roger, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell)—I agree with every word of his speech—and to congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), who introduced this debate, on what he had to say.

There is a feeling of all-party agreement on this issue, which is perhaps not surprising, because we will soon be celebrating the 10th anniversary of the decision made by Parliament that, unless open registers of beneficial ownership are accepted and implemented by the overseas territories, the British Government will enforce them, as is their right. It has taken nearly 10 years; I think that it was 2018 when I and others led a rebellion against our own Government to get this in, and the Government conceded. It was the right thing to do, and it is all taking far too long. The reason we have not made progress is partly a mixture of inertia, crowded agendas and vested interests, but the Government need to confront it at this summit with all possible vigour. The Minister was kind enough to call me to explain why the summit had been delayed. I completely accept his argument, but we must use the delay period to make sure that it is all the more effective.

The hon. Member for Bolton West mentioned the figure of nearly £800 billion, which shows that in Britain, when it comes to dirty money, we have a real dog in the fight. Remember what this money is: money from cyber-crime, the drugs trade and the sex trade, and money stolen from Africa and Africans. We say to the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, which are in exactly the same boat, that if they want to have the British flag, our laws and our sovereign, they must also accept our values.

The list of offenders so kindly produced by the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax’s beneficial ownership tracker is very clear: Montserrat, St Helena and in particular Gibraltar are to be congratulated on what they have done; the Cayman Islands have made some progress but are certainly not there yet; Bermuda, Anguilla and the Turks and Caicos Islands are marked as “poor”; and there at the bottom—“critically poor”—is the chief, but not the only offender, the British Virgin Islands.

These issues must be dealt with. On Guernsey and Jersey, and to a lesser extent on the Isle of Man, we need specific, time-bound commitments by the time of the British G20 summit so that we can hold our heads up. The scale of dirty money going through London, the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies is absolutely appalling, and we need to clean up our act.

Finally, I endorse the asks from the APPG: the ending of anonymous ownership of UK property, which has already been raised and is extremely important; the recovery and return of stolen assets, particularly those from Africa, which I have mentioned to the House many times in the past; and the bearing down on professional enablers. We need to ensure that such bureaucratic change as we might then introduce does not harm honest practitioners. There is work to be done on that, but in principle we should do everything we can to stop professional enablers from behaving badly in this area.

17:27

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this debate and on restricting himself to only two mentions of mansions in Kensington in his introduction.

This should be one of the progressive causes of our time. Others have covered the harms: from the links to the drugs trade and other serious organised crime, to the housing crisis and to conflict in Ukraine, Sudan and other parts of the world. I am delighted that the Government have recognised the problem and have taken action to date, including their commitment to host this summit on illicit finance.

I disagree with the hon. Member for North Norfolk; I think it was the right decision to delay the summit. Primarily, that is because it gives us time to produce a package of progress that we can show to the world, build alliances around key themes and link this summit to the UK Government’s other international leadership positions, including the G20 presidency in 2027, the presidency of the financial action taskforce from 2026 to 2028, and the chair of the Open Government Partnership. Those are all forums where we can take illicit finance and corruption initiatives and multilateralise them through other international organisations.

There is a big opportunity here. Before being elected, I spent a decade working on illicit finance and corruption. I supported the last summit on anti-corruption that we led as a country in 2016, which was hosted by Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. That summit helped to put beneficial ownership transparency on the map as a tool to remove secrecy from the anonymous companies that, on many occasions, facilitate money laundering. There is an unheralded British success here: 104 jurisdictions now have a live register, although I accept that there are varying degrees of openness. There is, of course, the glaring exception of most of the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies.

The lessons of the summit can be applied to December’s summit. First, as others have mentioned, there is the need for political leadership, from the Prime Minister down, to bring international counterparts to the UK and to link the summit to other international forums in which we are involved. Secondly, there should be strong cross-Government co-ordination, with regular ministerial meetings. Thirdly, there should be clear and specific policy commitments that other countries can join, rather than vague initiatives that will fizzle out immediately. Fourthly, we must be open to working with civil society, which can support the bringing of countries to the table and add ideas, enthusiasm and accountability to the summit. Fifthly, we must prepare our own package of reforms so that we open the summit with a strong policy offer.

We have an outsize responsibility in this area because we are the epicentre of global finance. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) has covered the stats, and I know that the Minister cares deeply about this issue. I have three brief policy proposals on which we can make progress before the summit.

The first proposal is about property, which the Government are right to make a summit priority. The goal should be a global alliance for full transparency in property ownership, so that dirty money cannot be stashed in London or in other property markets around this country and the world. In my constituency of Kensington and Bayswater, 40% of the foreign-owned property is still held in anonymous trusts. That means that approximately 4,000 properties in my constituency have hidden ownership, despite the introduction of a register of overseas-owned properties after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

There is a major loophole that is incentivising more opaque ownership structures, which have only been thrown open through leaks and investigations such as the Panama and Paradise papers investigations. Dan Neidle, a tax lawyer, found that the ultimate owners of 45,000 properties in this country—properties collectively worth £190 billion—are still hidden from view. It is time to report back on the consultation opened two years ago on trust-owned property and to take bold action. Of course, beyond property there is a need to continue Britain’s leadership on beneficial ownership, the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) has outlined. That is absolutely the right place to start with our leadership in the global jigsaw. Gibraltar has done this work with no economic harm whatever and we need to extend it.

Finally, on professional enablers, I am really glad that the Financial Services and Markets Bill was in the King’s Speech. That will extend the Financial Conduct Authority’s supervision to accountants, lawyers and other financial bodies, and introduce proper anti-money laundering supervision to them.

There must be no more anonymously owned properties, which allow dirty money to be stashed with impunity; no more tax haven secrecy, which facilitates billions in criminal and corrupt cash; and no more hiding places for professional enablers, who turn a blind eye to dirty money. Those ideas should be the basis for a summit that can show our leadership on the global stage.

17:32

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

17:44

On resuming—

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this important debate.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to hold a summit on tackling illicit financial flows, but it is essential that more political priority is given to this issue and that the UK shows more leadership in this space. If the summit is to be a success, we need to put our own house in order and play a critical role in helping to clean up the global financial system. We must also clean up the influence of dirty money, which infests our politics and the fabric of our country.

The UK plays a core part in this issue, particularly due to the role of the overseas territories and Crown dependencies in facilitating these flows. As we have already heard, if we include the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, it is calculated that £788 billion of illicit finance from financial crime, money laundering, corruption, illegal trade and tax abuse flows through the UK and its territories every single year. That is a huge problem.

I was particularly struck by the calculation from Tax Justice UK that the UK and its overseas territories and Crown dependencies are responsible for about a quarter of revenues worldwide lost due to tax abuse. That is extraordinary. We represent less than 1% of the global population. Our economy, depending on how it is measured—purchasing power parity or not—is between 2% and 3% of the global economy, yet we are facilitating 25% of global tax abuse. That is absolutely unacceptable. I welcome the commitment from Members across the Chamber today to tackling that. I very much hope that we will hear strong words, followed by strong action, from the Government today and in the summit.

It is crucial that we have full transparency over property ownership and beneficial ownership. It is crucial that registers are fully accessible to everybody and are not just, as has been suggested by some territories, accessible only to certain people at certain times—pre-qualified, with notifications being sent to owners that people are looking into their affairs. Transparency is a fundamental principle, and it is essential to prevent the abuses that we know the system of secrecy actively enables. I very much hope to see strong action from the Government on that at the upcoming summit.

It is also crucial that the summit recognises that tax abuse includes both tax evasion and tax avoidance. The UK economy loses tens of billions of pounds each year, as the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) mentioned.

[Joe Powell]

I appreciate the cross-party spirit in which this debate has been held, but it would be helpful if the Green party leader would pay his own council tax as a demonstration of leading by example.

[Dr Chowns]

I am disappointed that the hon. Member is taking the opportunity to score a cheap political point when we have been working cross-party on these issues. On that specific issue, the leader of the Green party has apologised and made clear efforts to pay any tax that he may be found to owe. As has become clear, this a complex issue that affects potentially tens of thousands of people in the UK, and we would welcome clarification on it. But that is a cheap political point to attempt to score in a debate about abuses of the tax system that are resulting in hundreds of billions of pounds of lost revenue to countries around the world.

I would like to pick up on a specific issue that I know the Government intend to address in the three priorities they have set out for the summit: the illicit gold trade. I have previously spoken in the main Chamber about the deeply concerning role of the illicit gold trade in funding and facilitating the horrors that we see in the conflict in Sudan, so it seems crucial that the UK Government do everything possible to clean up that particular mechanism for funding abuses globally.

The huge, significant role played by the UK in supporting and enabling illicit financial flows not only harms us in the UK, with the presence of illicit businesses in our high streets and villages, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk spoke about, or, as the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine highlighted, affect us through dirty Russian money embedded in our economy; it also has huge ramifications around the world. The UK’s role in facilitating flows of illicit finance actively supports the impoverishment of already impoverished countries and Governments. We have a responsibility to clean up our act in this country both because it will benefit us and improve revenues to the public Exchequer for reinvestment in public services and because we have a fundamental moral duty to ensure that we do not facilitate flows of dirty money globally.

17:50

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

It is, as always, a pleasure, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall and for his excellent speech. I agreed with all the speeches made by colleagues today, and I do not get to say that very often. We have had some fantastic contributions.

For too long, the UK has been seen not only as a victim of illicit finance, but a destination for it. Dirty money has flowed through property markets, financial institutions and networks of shell companies. We have seen widespread tax avoidance while ordinary working people continue to do the right thing and pay their taxes every month. People look at that imbalance and ask an important question: why is it that those who play by the rules are expected to shoulder the burden while others are able to hide wealth behind secrecy and weak enforcement? Every pound lost is a pound that cannot be invested in our NHS, schools, social care system and local communities. It is money that cannot be used to recruit nurses, support teachers, improve public transport or rebuild the local services that people rely on every day.

Illicit finance does not simply deprive us of important public revenue; it actively reshapes our economy in very damaging ways. Nowhere is that more visible than in the housing market. Vast quantities of suspect wealth have flowed into UK property. We have already heard about million-pound mansions in Kensington, but it extends as far as entire new apartment blocks being bought by foreign investors in shell companies, with no notion of who they are and why they are investing here in the UK. It is a vehicle within which wealth can be stored and concealed rather than places for people to live. The result is higher prices, reduced affordability and a market that too often rewards speculation over social need.

That is why transparency—an important word that has come up today—must be at the heart of our response as a Government and this upcoming summit. No individual should be able to own property in the United Kingdom without their ultimate beneficial ownership being disclosed, verified and recorded on a public register. If ownership cannot be established transparently, that asset should not be capable of being bought, sold or transferred within the UK market.

I agree with colleagues’ comments on the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. I do not want to reiterate their arguments, but our Government must establish a fully public and independently verified register of beneficial ownership covering all UK land and property, including assets held through trusts and nominee arrangements.

Companies House must be transformed from a passive registrar into an active gatekeeper with the powers and resources necessary to verify company directors, beneficial owners and corporate filings before companies can operate within our economy. The Land Registry, Companies House and the National Crime Agency should be given stronger powers to investigate opaque ownership structures and pursue wrongdoing wherever it occurs.

We know, however, that rules are not enough; enforcement matters too. Agencies tasked with tackling economic crime remain significantly outmatched by and under-resourced for the scale of the challenge they face. Long-term investment is desperately needed in specialist law enforcement and regulatory bodies. Such investment could be funded in part, perhaps, through stronger economic crime levies on major financial institutions, asset recovery and financial penalties. We should also expand the use of unexplained wealth orders and remove the legal cost barriers that have too often discouraged their use.

We must also confront those who enable financial wrongdoing. The vast majority of lawyers—I was one—accountants and financial professionals act responsibly but, if individuals facilitate illicit activity, there must be meaningful consequences. Equally, we need stronger legislation against SLAPP—strategic lawsuits against public participation—to protect journalists, researchers and campaigners who, in the public interest, expose corruption and financial misconduct. Illicit finance does not respect national borders, so the UK must lead international efforts to improve transparency, tackle offshore secrecy and strengthen co-operation between Governments, regulators and law enforcement agencies.

This issue is ultimately about the kind of country that we want to be. Do we accept an economy where secrecy, wealth and influence can buy special treatment, or do we believe that everyone should contribute fairly to the society from which they benefit? I know that everybody in this room sees society in the same way that I do, because most people understand that very simple principle. When everyone pays their fair share, we can properly fund the public services that bind us together and invest in the future of our communities.

17:56

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I join right hon. and hon. Members in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this vital and timely debate, as well as for his broader work on illicit finance. I also thank the APPG for its work.

The illicit finance summit 2026 presents a significant opportunity for the United Kingdom to demonstrate leadership in tackling corruption, money laundering and the flow of dirty money around the world. The Government’s decision to delay the summit from June to December has understandably raised concerns and is certainly disappointing. However, we now have a second chance to get it right. The additional time should not be wasted, because illicit finance is not a victimless crime. It funds organised crime, human trafficking, corruption, sanctions evasion and hostile state activity such as Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. It undermines confidence in democratic institutions and deprives countries, particularly developing nations, of resources needed for schools, hospitals and economic growth. As has been widely stated in this debate, recent analysis estimates that up to £788 billion in illicit finance flows through the UK, its overseas territories and Crown dependencies each year. That should concern every Member of the House.

As a Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee I have heard repeatedly that the challenge is now not necessarily the lack of legislation, so the priority must be implementation, enforcement and closure of the remaining loopholes that allow illicit finance to continue to flow through the global financial system. Enforcement remains a particular concern. Despite progress in freezing criminal assets, they are not being recovered at a sufficiently high rate. Current estimates suggest that only £1 in every £4 of frozen criminal assets is ultimately recovered. That is money that should be returned to the public purse, used to compensate victims and reinvested in the fight against organised crime and corruption. The summit must therefore focus on not only identifying illicit wealth, but ensuring that enforcement agencies have the powers, the resources and—importantly—the international co-operation necessary to recover it.

As several hon. Members have highlighted, beneficial ownership transparency is an area where progress is required. The Liberal Democrats support the Government’s ambition to improve transparency across the UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies. We welcome the progress already made in places such as Gibraltar, Montserrat and St Helena. However, more needs to be done. That should not be approached confrontationally. The overseas territories and Crown dependencies are valued partners. Many have taken meaningful steps forward. The role of the UK should be to engage constructively, to provide support where needed and to work together to ensure that meaningful access to beneficial ownership and corporate information is in line with international standards. That means achieving transparency that meets, at a minimum, standards comparable to those required under the EU framework. It is also important that we recognise the economic realities faced by some of those jurisdictions. Financial services play a significant role in their economies. If we want proper, lasting reform we must help to support economic diversification and resilience so that transparency and prosperity go hand in hand.

The UK will assume the G20 presidency immediately after the summit takes place. We will also take on the presidency of the Financial Action Task Force, the world’s leading anti-money laundering body. We therefore have a unique opportunity to shape the international agenda. The summit must deliver concrete commitments that include stronger international information sharing, improved asset-recovery arrangements, enhanced co-operation on cryptocurrency regulation, and greater transparency on property ownership. International co-operation will be essential if we are to tackle criminal networks that operate across borders, move assets between jurisdictions and exploit gaps between national regulatory systems.

The summit must also address the growing threat posed by cryptocurrency and other digital assets. We have already seen evidence of cryptoassets being used to evade sanctions and move money across borders beyond the reach of traditional financial controls. Criminal networks and hostile actors adapt quickly; regulators and Governments must do the same. That is another area where international co-operation is indispensable, allowing Governments, regulators and financial institutions to share intelligence rapidly and respond to emerging threats before they become entrenched. The success of the summit will be measured by whether it creates momentum that continues through the UK’s G20 presidency, our leadership of the FATF and beyond.

We must also reflect the priorities of the countries most affected by illicit finance. Too often developing countries lose billions through corruption, tax abuse and illicit financial flows, while also having the fewest resources to tackle those issues. Ultimately, this matter is about more than financial regulation; it is about national security, economic fairness and defending democracy and public trust. It is about ensuring that the United Kingdom remains a leader on the world stage.

The delay of the summit was disappointing, but the Liberal Democrats believe it has created an opportunity and a rare second chance. I hope the Government will use the months ahead wisely.

18:01

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing a debate on an issue of significant importance to the UK’s national security and economic integrity.

There is clearly broad agreement across the House that illicit finance fuels corruption, organised crime, hostile state activity and conflict around the world. Dirty money undermines the rule of law, weakens democratic institutions and threatens our security at home and abroad.

The last Conservative Government took important steps to strengthen transparency, tackle economic crime and improve international co-operation, as my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) said. Under David Cameron’s leadership as both Prime Minister and latterly as Foreign Secretary, the UK was at the forefront of the global anti-corruption agenda, convening the first of its kind anti-corruption summit in 2016, and driving greater international focus on beneficial ownership, transparency and the recovery of stolen assets.

I am proud that when in government my party strengthened sanctions enforcement following Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We introduced the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and sought to close loopholes that allowed illicit finance to flow through international financial systems. Against that backdrop, I welcome the Government’s commitment to host the illicit finance summit later this year. The Government have said that the summit will focus on global enforcement, asset recovery, illicit gold trading, property-based money laundering and the misuse of cryptoassets. Those are important priorities and areas where international co-operation is absolutely essential.

However, the success of any summit will ultimately be judged not simply by what is happening, but by the practical outcomes that it delivers. I have a number of the questions for the Minister. On Russia, what specific proposals will the Government bring forward to strengthen sanctions enforcement and close the remaining loopholes that enable sanction circumvention? What assessment has been made of the effectiveness of current enforcement mechanisms and what further action is being considered to target the networks and the intermediaries that continue to facilitate the movement of illicit Russian funds?

It is in that context that I raise concerns that the Government, in recent weeks, have quietly issued a licence allowing imports of Russian oil refined in third countries. Can the Minister explain what rationale justifies that decision when the Ukraine sanctions commissioner has directly told us that the Government’s actions

“may still generate additional revenues for Russia’s war machine”?

On Iran, illicit finance remains central to the regime’s ability to fund destabilising activities across the middle east. What discussions will take place at the summit on disrupting Iranian financial networks and strengthening international co-operation against sanctions evasion by the Iranian regime and its proxies?

The Government have rightly highlighted the importance of international partnerships. The Minister will know that the overseas territories play a vital role in supporting our economic interests and the global financial system. Can he update the House on the discussions that are taking place with the overseas territories’ Governments ahead of the summit?

Can the Minister also explain how the recent restructuring in the FCDO affects the UK’s ability to tackle illicit finance internationally? What assessment has been made of whether the FCDO currently has the resources necessary to meet the ambitions his Government have set out for the summit? Finally, what legacy does he expect this summit to leave behind? I raise that question because the 2016 anti-corruption summit and the work that followed helped to establish a framework for international action that endured well beyond the event itself. It is important that this summit has a legacy, too.

The Opposition support robust action against illicit finance and efforts to strengthen sanction enforcement, to combat corruption and protect the integrity of the international financial system. We want the UK to remain a global leader in this field, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister how his Government intend to translate the ambitions of the summit into meaningful and lasting action.

18:06

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing the debate, and all the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed. It has been a thoughtful and important discussion on an issue that goes to the heart of our national security, our prosperity and our values.

I can reassure the House that this Government are determined to tackle dirty money both at home and internationally, and that it remains a key priority. Hosting the illicit finance summit in 2026 is a central part of that commitment, which we will deliver on. We need to do that because illicit finance, as many Members have pointed out, fuels organised crime, corruption and conflict, enables kleptocrats to hide stolen wealth, undermines economic growth and weakens democratic institutions here and abroad.

Crucially, as was rightly pointed out by a number of Members, it directly affects people here in the UK, from fraud and scams to criminality on our streets, as shown so excellently by the examples given by right hon. and hon. Members in relation to their constituents. Indeed, as a global financial centre, we also have a responsibility to lead international efforts in this field to tackle this threat.

I appreciate the cross-party nature of today’s debate. Of course, one party is not here. What a surprise—Reform is absent yet again. I will let hon. Members draw their own conclusions from that.

The summit will be a major opportunity to drive international action. The aim is to bring together countries, international organisations, civil society, private sector experts, researchers and others to tackle dirty money around the world. I was asked a number of times about the objectives of the summit, which are very clear—to expose the scale and harm of illicit finance, to forge new partnerships, to share intelligence, to strengthen enforcement and, crucially, to secure concrete commitments for the future that close the gaps exploited by criminals and others who seek to undermine our society’s economies.

We will strengthen global enforcement against illicit finance through new partnerships on, for example, information sharing and asset recovery, which also came up. The summit will also help us to agree actions to tackle channels for dirty money, including money laundering in the property sector, which was rightly raised, the misuse of cryptoassets and, as was rightly referenced in relation to Sudan and other locations, trade in illicit gold.

There is no great conspiracy around the change in the date. As the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), and other colleagues know, there is often complexity when it comes to the diaries of Ministers and others whose attendance we want to secure at these summits. It will take place in December, and we will announce the exact date in due course.

It is crucial that we have a successful summit and have the right people there, and that we can demonstrate our own leadership on a number of key topics. I appreciate the welcome from many hon. Members who understand that it is better to have a summit that is successful and that has the right people than one that is, perhaps, not all it could be. That is why we took the decision; it was not taken lightly. I will keep the House updated on the preparations in due course.

I was asked a number of times what the Government are doing on this domestically, which is obviously crucial. This is not just an agenda for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; it is also for my ministerial colleagues in the Home Office, the Treasury, the Department for Business and Trade and many other agencies, as well as our law enforcement agencies. The economic crime Acts protect our open economy and strengthen the UK’s reputation as a place where legitimate business can thrive. We have built on the Acts to enable further progress. In October, the Chancellor announced that the Financial Conduct Authority will take supervision of anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing in professional services firms—another theme of the debate. That will replace a system that previously involved 22 different private sector bodies. It is better that that is brought together and focused to simplify the system and strengthen our defences. The Chancellor announced an increase to the economic crime levy rates—this was also referred to by hon. Members—which will raise an additional £110 million a year to boost law enforcement staffing and technology, and support public-private data sharing and financial intelligence to target criminal activity.

There is, of course, much more to do, and I accept that challenge. We set out further ambitions in the UK’s anti-corruption strategy, which was published in December. That important document included an additional £15 million to expand the domestic corruption unit and improve investigation—the shadow Minister asked about the resourcing across Government and agencies for that. This does not mean that we cannot do more; we will always seek to bring more effort to bear on this. It is important that this is a cross-Government and cross-Agency effort, and that it is not just one Department. We are also working on a new anti-money laundering and asset recovery strategy to strengthen our response.

We also have to focus on international co-operation. It is not within the abilities of one country alone to tackle this; it is huge, and the sums referred to by right hon. and hon. Members were staggering. We are using a range of measures on everything from sanctions to exposures of different networks that are moving money around, particularly in new technological ways; for example, by using crypto. As an example of that, colleagues will be aware that in October 2025 and March 2026 we sanctioned the Prince Group and its enablers. It is responsible for a huge network of scam centres in south-east Asia that exploit trafficked workers to defraud victims on a global scale, including on the streets here in the United Kingdom and undoubtedly in every one of our constituencies. Our sanctions froze £127 million-worth of UK property and triggered a wave of investigations and arrests across the region. We also launched the world’s first dedicated sanctions regime targeting irregular migration. And we did not stop there: at the Berlin process summit, we targeted a number of entities including criminal gangs that are driving people smuggling across the western Balkans.

We are also working through bodies such as the International Anti-Corruption Coordination Centre, which has identified and frozen billions of pounds of stolen assets globally. We are looking at every way in which evasion is going on and new networks are being used, which includes the evasion of Russian sanctions by those exploiting cryptoassets and complex financial routes. Members will have seen our announcements in recent weeks on that as well as the closing down of crypto exchanges and other means by which illicit finance is being used to fuel the war in Ukraine. That is on top of the National Crime Agency’s Operation Destabilise, which exposed and disrupted high-harm Russian money laundering networks supporting serious and organised crime around the world. That led to 84 arrests—many are already serving prison sentences—and we seized over £20 million in cash and cryptocurrency. That is tangible progress that is being made, which is important to reflect on. I pay tribute to all the law enforcement officers and experts who were involved in that.

Members have rightly raised points about the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. I have spoken about that issue on many occasions in this House, and Members will have heard what the Justice Minister and, indeed, the anti-corruption champion, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), said in relation to the Crown dependencies. As I am also Minister for overseas territories, I am glad that there was recognition of the progress made in Gibraltar, Saint Helena, Montserrat. We have legitimate interest to access registers in the Cayman Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the British Virgin Islands; progress has also been made in Anguilla. However, I recognise the serious concerns that colleagues have raised about whether some of the measures go far enough. I am in regular dialogue with the elected Governments in the overseas territories, and I have made clear the progress that we expect to make and our disappointment at some of the backsliding we have seen.

One location that came up in many right hon. and hon. Members’ speeches is the British Virgin Islands. I want to reassure colleagues that I have raised those concerns directly with the Premier and other agencies in the British Virgin Islands in recent weeks. All options remain on the table if we do not see the sort of progress that we need, because, as been rightly pointed out, this is an issue not only about financial transparency and global economic stability, but about the national security of this country and the global British family. When it comes to the threats posed by Russia, Iran and many other malevolent actors—let alone serious and organised crime—we have to adhere to the highest standards. I have conveyed that to the Premier and the authorities in BVI in the strongest terms and I will update the House in due course.

I have said a lot about the action in relation to Russia, which the shadow Minister asked me about, but she also asked about Iran. We have a range of measures in this regard: ramping up disruptions of UK-connected Iranian networks, increasing enforcement actions against Iranian organised crime and sanctions-circumvention networks and indeed dissolving companies registered in the UK for facilitating financing to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The shadow Minister also asked about the related sanctions issue. To be very clear, we are not watering down existing sanctions; we are introducing new sanctions in relation to refined oil and liquefied natural gas, but naturally with a phased-in strategy to ensure that we can wind down existing contracts and others. I can assure hon. Members that that is under regular review, and that we certainly do not want to see Putin or his regime gain any kind of bonanza from this.

We have been clear from the start that we are doing a huge amount to tackle the issue of asset recovery. In fact, in 2024-25, asset recovery from proceeds of crime was up by 31%, with £284.5 million recovered. We continue to be very ambitious in those strategies.

We are also doing a huge amount, as I said, on the enablers—that was touched on by a number of people—and that new approach by the FCA will ensure that we have the powers to take a coherent, effective and impactful approach to supervision.

In the remaining time—I am trying to work out how long I have, Sir Roger; I will keep going until you shout “Order”—the hon. Member for North Norfolk quite rightly asked what we are doing with people who fail to comply. Let me be clear on that: verification of directors and persons with significant control is mandatory. Individuals who fail to comply in this country may face financial penalties, disqualification or, indeed, criminal sanctions.

We are also clear that overseas entities on the UK register of overseas entities and register of persons with significant control must comply with our beneficial ownership requirements. We are taking every step possible. Of course, it is for enforcement agencies to follow up on these things, but we are very clear on this, and Companies House is actively identifying non-compliance and working with partners across Government and law enforcement to ensure that entities meet their obligations.

If I have not replied to any specific points, I am very happy to write to hon. Members afterwards, but, in conclusion, I want to reassure Members that this remains a major priority. This summit will happen, and it will have tangible, important announcements to make about our commitment here at home and about what we are doing overseas. We will make sure that that has a legacy that impacts into the future, particularly as we enter an important year regarding the G20. I thank everybody for their contributions.

18:17

[Steff Aquarone]

I thank the Minister for his responses, and all Members and hon. Members for their contributions. I will just reiterate what I said earlier: this is not a popular cause on the doorstep, but it is the right thing to do. I feel like I have become a recent member of a noble, long-standing cause, which I welcome, and for which I am grateful. I reiterate my offer to the Minister to support his initiatives. Lastly, I will just say, let us consider the brief, summarised conclusions of Margaret Hodge: it might be time to drop the carrot and start to use the stick.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Illicit Finance Summit 2026.

18:17

Sitting adjourned.