Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Local Government Reform
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered local government reform.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I would particularly like to thank Mr Speaker for granting me exceptional permission to speak from the Back Benches on an issue that many of my constituents feel very strongly about.
One day, not long after the new Labour Government came into office, they suddenly announced that they were going to abolish every district and borough council in this country and also change the boundaries of many cities. Following that, a proposal was swiftly put forward by the Labour Mayor of Leicester to expand the boundaries of the city, to swallow up many surrounding areas. All of this came completely out of the blue—it had not been mentioned in the general election—and the Government did not start by asking people what they might want; instead, they simply told them what was going to happen.
Right from the start, it was clear to me from speaking to people in Leicestershire that there was very strong opposition to this plan. Right from the start, I have said to Ministers on the Floor of the Commons, “If you believe this is the right thing, and if you believe this is what local people want, why don’t you let us have a vote on it? Why don’t you give people a say?” But Ministers treated the idea of giving people a vote as ridiculous—“What an absurd idea! Why would we ask people what they want?”—and said no to allowing us a local referendum. Because the Government will not give people a vote, I have given my constituents a vote. Over recent weeks, I have been balloting people in the affected area about whether they want to be part of the city of Leicester. I sent every household in the area a ballot paper asking, in a completely neutral way, “Do you want to become part of the city or not?”
The result has been surprising and overwhelming. I knew that people felt very strongly. It turns out they feel very, very strongly about this issue. I sent a ballot paper to all 22,000 households in Oadby and Wigston, and 10,774 have responded—about half, which is an incredible response to an informal local referendum. Of those who have voted, almost all are opposed to Oadby and Wigston being swallowed up by the city. In fact, 97% of people—10,410—voted against it, so it could not be clearer that people in Oadby and Wigston do not want to be swallowed up by the city.
But that is not all. The plan put forward by the Mayor of Leicester would see him taking over other areas as well, such as part of the Harborough district including Great Glen, Newton Harcourt and the area around the Strettons. The bid he has put into Government would see him swallowing up all of the Harborough district, including Market Harborough. We have no idea how the Government will respond to that.
We know that the mayor definitely wants to take over the area around Great Glen, but people there are also very strongly opposed to this. I sent out 2,000 ballot papers there. Around that area, 1,035 people voted, of whom 1,013 voted against being part of the city—98% of people do not want to join the city. If we take all those together—Oadby and Wigston and the area around Great Glen—that is 11,423 people who have voted against joining the city, which is an incredible number in quite a small area.
I have not balloted other places nearby in quite the same detail, but I suspect that if I gave a vote to people in Kibworth, Burton Overy, Gaulby or King’s Norton, they would say exactly the same. People do not want to be part of the city, yet so far the Labour Government have refused to listen and have not wanted to give people a say. They must now start listening to the wishes of the people. Next month, we will find out what the Government have decided to do. If the Minister decides to push ahead with plans to expand the city, Ministers must know that they are doing so in the face of total and overwhelming local opposition.
When I talk to local people, they give me different reasons why they do not want to be part of the city. One factor is higher council tax. A typical band D property in the city pays £122 more than a property in Oadby and Wigston, and £139 more than a property in Harborough. Obviously, a bigger property pays even more: a band H property pays £244 more in the city than in Oadby and Wigston, and £278 more than in Harborough.
But it is not just the cost that is driving the opposition; people do not want to lose local accountability and their local identity. All these places have their own strong local character. Oadby and Wigston have always been separate from the city of Leicester. Wigston is in the Domesday Book—in fact, it had been around for about 500 years even then. It has two beautiful medieval churches and is known for their two spires. South Wigston is very different. It is a Victorian model town, built by a visionary industrialist called Orson Wright, who built the whole place with his own brickworks. That red brick character can still be seen driving up the Blaby Road.
Oadby, as the name implies—there are lots of “by’s” around Leicestershire—has Viking origins. It has its own quirks and history, too. For example, of the 114 livery companies in this country, all are in the City of London apart from one, which is in Oadby, in the beautiful hall and alms-houses created by the Framework Knitters.
I could go on and on. Great Glen has its own history. It has a beautiful church, which was quite badly damaged by parliamentarians who were camping there during the civil war—I suppose that, as a parliamentarian myself, I should apologise for that. These are places with their own strong history, and their desire to hold on to that local accountability and identity is seen as ridiculous by local officials.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a really important point about local identity and about how important it is that Ministers listen. We have a Minister here today listening. I want to talk about the local government reorganisation in Kent, an area that has an incredibly strong historic identity. It is actually England’s oldest county, with a history going back more than 2,000 years—it was the Kingdom of Kent—yet under this local government reorganisation, Kent is due to be broken up, and it is not even getting a mayor. It will be fragmented into multiple parts. The population between Kent and Medway is over 2 million. At the moment, Kent has an identity and a voice. It is set to lose both through this local government reorganisation, and the case for substantial savings simply is not there. The local government reorganisation needs to be looked at again, and I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that, at the moment, the proposals are a shambles.
Neil O’Brien
I am very sorry to hear that. I was just about to make that point: as well as the loss of local accountability and identity, the argument is just wrong. Ministers believe that big is always better—that big is beautiful—but the evidence does not support that. If big were beautiful, Birmingham city council, which is the biggest unitary in the country, would be our best council. Is it our best council? No, it is not; we have bins piling up in the streets.
It is not just that one anecdote; the point can be expressed in lots of different ways. The Local Councils Network found that, for mega-councils with populations of over half a million, which was the Government’s original target for this reorganisation, the average council tax is £2,009, but for councils below that size, it is £250 a year cheaper. If mega-councils are so efficient and wonderful, why are they much more expensive? Why are local residents not feeling the benefit of the efficiency? The truth is, of course, that the gains are not there. The reorganisation, and the chaos that will come with all this, will actually cost us lots of money, and we will end up with something that is remote but not more efficient.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is very clear from my hon. Friend’s powerful speech that his constituents in Leicestershire do not want local government reform, and my constituents in Rayleigh and Wickford in Essex do not want it either. Has he seen the letter from 16 council leaders from the County Council Network giving a whole host of reasons why it is a bad idea? I would add that it is a Trojan horse that Labour is using to try to cover our green fields in concrete. There is no demand for this. People do not want it. They want to protect their existing local identities. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should take the hint and drop the whole barmy plan?
Neil O’Brien
My right hon. Friend is quite right, and he has also pre-empted something I was about to say. The Government are pressing on with “big is beautiful”—they have expanded Norwich, Ipswich, Portsmouth, Southampton, and so forth—but we can see that bigger councils are not more efficient.
One motive on the part of officials is the belief that making those cities bigger will cause more housing to be built. I do not think that is right, but the logic is this: a bigger council will be more remote from people, so will be less likely to listen to local opposition and more able to ride roughshod over it. In particular for Labour, there is a belief that expanding cities makes it easier for those often Labour-run urban councils to move the housing need on to the outskirts, and not to have to ruffle any feathers in the city. I can see why Labour politicians find that idea attractive but it is wrong, particularly in Leicestershire.
In Manchester, the places that were derelict mills when I was a teenager are now trendy flats and coffee bars with flat whites, and it is all very cool. In Leicester, all those derelict mills are still just derelict mills. The city is in desperate need of urban regeneration and needs new life and younger people to move in, but that is not being generated. Instead, there is a desire— not just with this proposal, but with prior moves by the mayor—to dump housing need into areas around him and not do the difficult things to fix the city itself.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case against the reorganisation in principle, but does he agree that if it is to go ahead, the Government should stick to the guidelines they provided to councils? In Oxfordshire, a Labour city proposal for a similar expansion of the boundaries of the city violates many of the principles set out, such as that it should be bounded by the existing district boundaries and, as far as possible, avoid breaking up service provision. Does he agree that, if this is to go ahead, the Government should stick to clear criteria when making decisions?
Neil O’Brien
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. The local nature of local government is critical.
The other problem with these giant councils is how remote they will be. In Oadby and Wigston at the moment, everyone can walk to the council offices, or take a maximum five-minute drive. Harborough is a little bigger, but is still very local. If we get a giant council, my constituents will have to drive 40 minutes up the M1 motorway to see council officers. The whole thing will feel more remote and local government will be less local. The point of local government is to be truly local and to care about the things that a big, remote authority will not necessarily care about.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent argument for councils to be more accountable to local residents by being closer. The Government responded to Sussex’s proposals by redrawing the red lines they had originally set and putting forward a third proposal. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that just throws communities into total disarray? They thought they had responded to a consultation that was going to form the next council, but now they have been told, “Oh, actually, you can’t have either of those things. We’re going to come up with a new solution for you.”
Neil O’Brien
I am very sorry to hear that. It is bad when people feel that the goalposts are being moved because it erodes trust in the process even further.
Crucially, nobody asked for this. People email me every day about all kinds of things they want sorted out locally, but nobody ever emailed me to say they wanted their councils to be abolished and replaced with something bigger and more remote. No one emailed me to say they wanted to be part of the city of Leicester. It is a bad idea, being done for the wrong reasons and in an undemocratic way.
I can see why the Mayor of Leicester wants to expand. He wants a bigger city and will get all the council tax and business rate revenues from the areas moved in. He would have a place to dump all the housing need without ruffling any feathers in the city. I can see the upside for him, but I cannot see what is in it for my constituents, and nor can they. They do not want this, as is clear and indisputable. The Government cannot pretend for a second that this is in any sense what local people want. The Minister here today does not live in our area, which is not her fault, but she has asked people what they think. Now that she has heard, I hope she will start to listen to local people as she makes her decisions.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on his success in securing this important debate. He has set out how this is the answer to a question that no one asked. Whatever anyone thinks about local government reform, the Government have made it clear that they will impose it, and if we and councils do not engage with it, it will simply be done to us.
I was very clear from the outset that if the Government were fixed on local government reorganisation and reform, there were certain conditions that, at a very minimum, had to be met. I made it very clear that what emerged should not move local services further away from local communities or local accountability, and that as part of the process there should be a genuine listening exercise not just with upper-tier and lower-tier authorities, but with parish councils and, most importantly, local representatives and residents of affected areas.
Similar to my hon. Friend, there are very real concerns among my constituents and genuine anger about what may happen. I have a few questions for the Minister. I know her of old, and she is extremely diligent. I know she will do her best to answer the questions, in anticipation of which I am grateful.
Will the Minister confirm that when she, or the Secretary of State on her advice, makes a decision, it will be based on the proposals that have been presented, not on a proposal that was never presented or on a merging of proposals by civil servants in her Department? There are three different proposals before her, from the borough and district councils, from the county council and from the mayor and city of Leicester. The mayor’s proposal does not, at this stage, take in all the areas of my patch that are very worried about it. There are very real concerns in places like Syston, Thurmaston and the villages. Notwithstanding that, the Minister’s officials could still recommend that a line be drawn on a map to expand the city of Leicester to take in those villages and towns.
Councillors Poland, Bradshaw, Seaton, Jackson, Braker and Lowe have been campaigning very hard to make sure that local voices are heard. My constituents in those areas are strongly opposed to a land grab by the mayor that would take into the city areas that are, historically and in every sense of their identity, communities and economy, very much of the county.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston set out their concerns very clearly. They know they would end up paying more if they were absorbed into the city. They worry that reform is simply a reason to enable the mayor to build on greenfield sites outside the city boundaries that do not want that extra burden. They are already taking an awful lot more housing, and the communities I have just mentioned have taken an incredible amount of development in recent years. The communities worry about their sense of identity. The Minister knows that every community, even a village community, has a very strong sense of identity compared with the next village, let alone of being a county village as opposed to being part of the city.
My worry is that the pillars on which the Mayor of Leicester is pushing and advocating for an expansion of the city no longer stand up to scrutiny. First, the idea that the city needs to expand to be able to absorb more housing to meet its unmet housing targets is already being dealt with by agreement between the city and the boroughs and districts, which are already voluntarily taking a chunk of the housing that the mayor seems incapable of delivering within the city boundaries. That is already being addressed.
Secondly, the mayor has previously argued that the city’s finances need to be more sustainable and that it can come only from an expansion of the city boundaries, which he bases on the city’s previous financial position. We saw quite a generous local government finance settlement for the city of Leicester, and I am sure those in the city will be very grateful to the Minister. It was a little less generous for the county of Leicestershire, but the city now has its finances in a more sustainable place. I would argue that the city needs to do a lot more to spend that money wisely and efficiently, but the Minister has, to a degree, addressed that problem for it, too. I worry that the arguments no longer hold water. I also worry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston set out so ably, that the ideology of “bigger is better” sadly does not reflect the reality of service delivery.
I have known the Minister a very long time, and I know she is very diligent and genuinely cares both about her brief and about communities up and down this country. Will she please listen to the people who have responded to the consultation, and to Members of Parliament today? Do not impose what people do not want by endorsing a city land grab of our counties, towns and villages. Please do not change the rules of the game midway through by adopting a proposal that was not consulted on and was not included in the initial consultation, and please instead focus on what works and delivers for local people to improve local services.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for securing this debate.
Obviously, the Minister is not responsible for local government reorganisation in Northern Ireland, but I want to caution against the approach that has been put forward today, because the shortfalls of what we have done in Northern Ireland will undoubtedly be replicated here on the mainland.
It is nice to see the Minister in her place. She will know some of the things I have said in the past, including in my questions to her in the Chamber. We have done a local government review and reorganisation in Northern Ireland and it did not quite work out, so perhaps a cautionary approach should be taken, learning from the promises that were made and ultimately not delivered for us in Northern Ireland.
I note the optimistic projections before us. The House was told that this grand restructuring will streamline services and save an estimated £2.9 billion over five years. That is to be welcomed, if those words turn into reality. I wish I could say it is the reality of what happened in Northern Ireland, but it is not because the promises were not realised at all. From our distinct experience in Northern Ireland, I must therefore issue a strong note of caution to the Government.
We had reform of all councils in Northern Ireland, reducing their number from 26 to 11. Massive savings were promised due to less duplication, with no need to have so many middle staff because one departmental head could look after two sections, and no need to have buildings in all the council areas. Lots of savings were promised, and unfortunately they were not realised.
I served on a council for some 26 years from 1985 right through to 2010, so there is a very special place in my heart for local government. I know at first hand the real and tangible benefit of local councils making local decisions for the people who live there. Indeed, some of the best days I had were on the council. I love bread-and-butter issues, and councillors get their hands dirty with that sort of stuff.
I know that any Member who has served at local council level will agree that the general public having access to their council must be protected at every single level. Unfortunately, I suspect that will not happen with these reforms. We know the importance of that level of representation and advocacy. I look back with fondness on my 26 years of apprenticeship. For a short period of three months, I served as a councillor, a Member of the Legislative Assembly and an MP at the same time. I gave an undertaking to resign from the other two places to take up my position here, and I did.
The systematic removal of face-to-face access for people in our towns and villages caused by aggressive centralisation can never be acceptable. We have seen this movie before. It is like a less funny “Groundhog Day”. It happened to us in Northern Ireland, and it is going to happen here again—except when we wake up this time, it will not be so much fun.
Northern Ireland is now a decade on from our own major reform of local authorities, which reduced the number of councils from 26 to 11. The promises made then mirror the promises made today. A 2024 Department for Communities report concluded that it is still too early to determine if those reforms have been cost-effective. Crucially, the report also revealed that the new, larger councils are actually spending more than their 26 predecessors combined—wow. The promises were never realised. Indeed, they went the other way. As has already been said, bigger does not automatically mean cheaper. Centralisation does not inherently guarantee efficiency.
The Minister is an honourable lady who does her best for us all in this Chamber. Looking to Northern Ireland, has she and her Department fully taken into account the findings of that DFC report and the deep financial uncertainties that it highlighted? What iron-clad guarantees can she offer to ensure that we are not promising billions in theoretical savings, when the reality might mean taking more hard-earned cash from the pockets of local taxpayers and ratepayers? That is what this means, as that is who pays for it all at the end of the day.
We must not allow structural change to become an expensive, box-ticking exercise that leaves hard-working families picking up the tab at a particularly difficult time.
Jess Brown-Fuller
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about local government finances. My constituency currently sits in two different district councils. The Government’s proposals would mean that my residents in Pagham and Bersted will end up in a coastal authority that will be bankrupt on day one; the rest of my constituents will be in an authority that should be on a sound financial footing. What will happen to my residents in Pagham and Bersted? Their council tax bills will go up overnight to manage the debt that is currently held in Adur and Worthing, when their current council is on a sound financial footing. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is an unacceptable position for my residents to be put in, when they did not ask for this?
Jim Shannon
That intervention sums up my comments, and it provides further evidence. When Ards borough council, on which I served for 26 years, was partnered with North Down council, we took on North Down’s debt, while we had been prudent—very Ulster Scottish—and had made sure that our moneys were well managed. That is not a bad reflection on North Down council, but it illustrates the issue. The hon. Lady has illustrated it incredibly well with her comments.
I am all for making efficiencies, but throwing areas together that have little in common, as the hon. Lady just said, and removing the face-to-face contact points, centralising to an inaccessible hub and doing all of that with no savings to show over 10 years must be a warning to all. Sometimes financial projections do not meet the reality. We must all be aware of the myriad difficulties presented. I gave the example of Ards borough council and the changes in Northern Ireland. It did not work for us. Will it work here?
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Colleagues will note the number of Members who are interested in speaking and the time available. I will call the Front Benchers from 10.30 am, so please do the maths.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on securing this important debate. I place on the record my thanks to Grace Thomas from my office for the notes associated with my speech today.
The Minister was in front of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee yesterday and gave us some strong answers, which is typical of her style. Today, I want to try a slightly different tack. It is on the record that I am not a fan of unitaries. I was a councillor for many years, at parish, district and county level. I know the strengths and weaknesses associated with that model, and I would argue that it is a lot better and more efficient than unitary authorities. As I said to the Minister yesterday, in my experience, the proposed savings from moving to the unitary model never come to fruition. If it is not broken, why change it? Others have already spoken about the debt levels associated with some authorities. There is an inherent unfairness in taking on someone else’s debt and being forced to pay for it.
However, my focus today is volunteers and the voluntary sector. Last week was Volunteers’ Week, which provided us with an opportunity to recognise the extraordinary contribution made by volunteers and charities across South West Hertfordshire. To mark the occasion, I visited a number of outstanding community organisations whose work is made possible by the dedication of volunteers and charitable support. Those organisations provide vital services to local residents and strengthen the fabric of our communities, but many of them rely heavily on local government funding streams and commissioning arrangements to sustain their work. For example, the citizens advice bureau in South Oxhey highlighted that the proposals for local government reform have created huge uncertainty, and that there are concerns about how changes will affect its ability to continue supporting the 20,000 clients it assists each year.
When I met the medium-sized charity Community Action Dacorum in Kings Langley, Simon spoke about how it is reliant on commissioned contracts from local authorities to provide support in the community. The charity stressed the importance of MPs’ understanding the impact of LGR on the funding and operation of charities, describing it as a
“significant risk to the voluntary and community sector”.
Many charities like CAD are concerned that the transition to new unitary structures could disrupt existing commissioning arrangements and funding streams, creating financial instability.
There is also concern about unintended consequences. Charities report increasing pressure to align with Government priorities because of fears that failing to do so could affect future commissioning and funding opportunities. Charities and community organisations should be focused on delivering vital services to local residents, not managing uncertainty over future funding and governance arrangements. The disruption of established funding mechanisms and commissioning structures risks undermining the sustainability of essential local services and the support networks that my communities depend on.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I preface my remarks by saying that I have a high personal regard for the Minister and I am sure that she would never personally wish to do anything unfair or politically partisan. However, there are very good reasons why, when changes are made to anything to do with constituency arrangements or democratic arrangements, they are normally carried out under the authority of an impartial body. I believe, as I suspect my Conservative colleagues believe, that if a body such as the Boundary Commission had been in charge of this operation, the results would have been very different. A coach and horses has been driven through anything to do with local, cultural or historical, as well as, shall we say, orientation among communities—all those ideas have been totally disregarded.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on securing the debate, but I must say to him and to you, Dr Murrison, that we would need a much longer debate if we were to do justice to the enormity of what has been proposed. My hon. Friend laid out the fact that totally inappropriate areas will be subsumed under and swallowed up by the city of Leicester. That is exactly what is happening in the city of Southampton, with the naked land-grab of huge areas of the New Forest East constituency—wards known collectively as the Waterside—coupled with another land-grab of wards from Test Valley borough council that are contained in the Romsey and Southampton North constituency.
I must emphasise that the changes were first proposed long after the general election and were not in Labour’s general election manifesto. Labour rightly thought it proper to put in its manifesto the fact that there would be elected mayors and strategic authorities, but the abolition and merging of historic borough councils, district councils and county councils was nowhere flagged up in advance of anybody’s vote.
The Government like to trumpet the fact that they are strongly in favour of the devolution of political power and of listening to what local people want. Well, I have some data for the Government. Ever since this outrageous proposition that Southampton should take over vast areas of my constituency—splitting the constituency and the New Forest apart and tearing the Waterside away from the New Forest, which Waterside inhabitants have for hundreds of years viewed as part of their community—an online petition has been gathering signatures. This issue is relatively local to a part of the south of Hampshire, so we might think that, if we were lucky, the petition might get 5,000 or 6,000 signatures. I checked at exactly 10 o’clock this morning and there are 22,812 signatures so far, and I am sure that the total is well over 25,000 with paper signatures taken into account. What sort of issue must there be for 25,000 people in a local area to say that they utterly reject the tearing apart of the New Forest in this way and its takeover by the city of Southampton, which, as we have heard is the case in other scenarios, is in a far worse financial position than the people who live at present under the aegis of New Forest district council are accustomed to being in?
I have many more points that I would like to make, but, out of consideration for my colleagues, I am not going to make them. I will make just one final point. We have tried—we really have—to engage in a sincere way with the Government. When the original Minister, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), wrote to us, he set out what appeared to be reassuring criteria: there would be no unnecessary duplication or fragmentation, and the building blocks of the new unitary authorities would be the areas covered by the existing borough and district councils unless—as an exception—there was a very strong reason for interfering with boundaries. However, the only reasons given have been vague comments about maximising economic prosperity or something, which could be said in justification of any change, no matter how politically outrageous.
I am sure that if this Minister had full strategic authority—to make a bad pun—over this policy, we would not be experiencing what we are experiencing. There is total outrage about this matter. It needs to be put right, and I hope the Government can be persuaded to think again.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for securing this important debate.
It was also a pleasure to hear from everybody’s honourable friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It is not the first time he has come here and said, “I know that Northern Ireland is not covered by this, Minister, but perhaps our experience can be instructive,” but boy was he right today. There are two key questions, and he highlighted the importance of the first: “Why do this at all?” With all the attention it needs, it will take away from other priorities, at a time, in particular, when we are about to have huge changes to the system for special educational needs and disability. There are also the costs involved. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) said, it is a question that literally no one was asking, and the answer was not in the Labour manifesto.
Even if we accept that there can be reorganisation, we must ask: “On what basis?” In East Hampshire, this plan will break up communities, take away local identities and put people into new artifices. It will take the people of Horndean, Clanfield and Rowlands Castle and put them into a new super-council area centred on Portsmouth, with the rest of East Hampshire going to a vast area called the Mid Hampshire unitary authority, all for an uncertain and quite likely negative return. In plain English, that means that local people will end up paying more.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) mentioned, the Government set out clear criteria for reorganisation, which included a focus on sustainability of high-quality services and a minimum scale of 500,000—that number did not come out of nowhere; it came from a serious piece of work by PricewaterhouseCoopers about the minimum scale needed to deliver services—and, crucially, that the building blocks of the new organisation should be existing districts and boroughs. It was on that basis that local leaders engaged in the process. They were not clamouring for it—leaders in Hampshire were not knocking down the door of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government saying, “Please reorganise us!”—but they engaged in good faith in the process.
Nick Adams-King, the leader of Hampshire county council, set out a summary of conditions for change, including that any new structure must be sustainable financially, operationally and democratically. He said:
“It must be capable of delivering high-quality services”
and
“resilient enough to manage demand in adult social care, children’s services and SEND.”
Crucially, he said, it must have “a balanced tax base” and “reflect real communities”, and
“not create winners and losers by stripping growth, infrastructure and income from area to shore up another.”
I do not think I could put it any better than that, but that is not what has happened. There were three different options in Hampshire, with different rationales for them. In theory, the fewer the unitary councils, the bigger the cost savings, but Hampshire county council and my district council in East Hampshire preferred the middle option, which was to have four authorities—a balance between delivering savings and reducing risk.
There has been a big disagreement about the analysis of those different options by different people looking at them. Crucially, we do not know the Government’s own analysis of the different options for carving up Hampshire and why they chose the one they did. We do know that, of the different local authorities, two on the mainland are smaller than the 500,000 minimum. Of course, the Isle of Wight is smaller again, although there are unique circumstances there.
We know that there are substantial costs. Although there will be some economies of scale in things moving from district level to unitary level, there will also be diseconomies of scale in things moving from county level to unitary level, and those are the things with the biggest cost pressures in our system. People worry what this will mean for housing. All the local plan work was done on the basis of the existing district councils; now, that will not work. People worry about the loss of local knowledge. Parish councils are concerned about the implications for them.
Crucially, there is the question of identity and cohesion. I already mentioned Horndean, Rowlands Castle and Clanfield being split off into Portsmouth, and this is also a concern, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East said, for parts of the New Forest, for Test Valley and for Winchester. The Minister has spoken of how identities grow over time. These are entities that have been in place for at least 50 years, around which other organisations have organised themselves. Charities and other public sector organisations organise themselves around district and borough boundaries, and these changes will inconvenience them.
If the Government insist on proceeding, the process will need time and sober assessment, and for local authorities to come together to find consensus on the way forward. This is not a trivial question; it is about some of the most important things in our lives, such as the care for our ageing mums and dads and for the children with the highest needs and vulnerabilities. It is a long-term decision. This will not have an effect for three or five years; it will have an effect for decades.
We need to start by knowing on what basis the Government made their decision. We cannot very easily argue with it if we do not know what it is. The letter from the 16 council leaders mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) makes a very reasonable ask: that we should know the Department’s own analysis and feasibility assessment. I say to the Minister simply: please, show us your workings.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on bringing this important debate before us today and on the passion with which he spoke. I wish to focus on the one issue that has filled my inbox since the proposal was first announced: the Government’s approach to reorganisation in Leicester and Leicestershire.
Reorganisation must be done with the consent of local residents, which is a point that many of my Conservative colleagues have made today. Unfortunately, the Government, who are so enthusiastic about consultation, appear to be unwilling to give the final say to the very people who matter the most—the people who sent us to this place. Some Government Members may believe that change to local government boundaries is small fry, even inconsequential. They should look at our constituents’ strength of feeling on this issue. The people of Mid Leicestershire certainly do not believe that it is trivial.
Many constituents from villages such as Birstall tell me that they left Leicester city precisely because they wanted to be part of a village community away from the hustle and bustle of city life. They say they no longer felt safe in a city increasingly associated with crime and decline. They wanted their children to grow up where they could walk safely in the streets and feel part of a close-knit community. They simply do not want to be back within the Leicester city area.
Similarly, residents in Glenfield, and particularly those who live beside the former Western Park golf course, a picturesque and ecologically diverse and rich reserve, fear that the expanded Leicester city council would concrete over it in an attempt to push development still further out into Glenfield’s green and pleasant land, rather than repurposing the abundance of brownfield sites already within the existing city council area.
Furthermore, my constituents in Leicester Forest East and Kirby Muxloe tell me that they fear that their rural priorities will simply be overlooked in an urban-focused administration if they are absorbed into the city. Frankly, who can blame them? Perhaps most damaging of all, a constituent from Braunstone Town, who already lives beside the city’s boundaries, told me that they had seen at first hand the decline of the city and want nothing to do with it.
My constituents should be under no illusion: I will not accept, under any circumstances, an attempt by the Government to force our beautiful villages into the Leicester city council area. That is why Leicestershire Conservatives, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston mentioned, launched a petition on that matter. Indeed, he and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) presented that petition with more than 10,000 signatories from the villages surrounding the Leicester city council area, showing the strength of feeling across our communities.
That is also why I tabled an amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 to ensure that, before any local government reorganisation takes place, residents must be consulted via referendum. That was not taken up by the Government. I did that because decisions about local government boundaries should be made by local communities, not by Ministers or civil servants in Whitehall who have very little understanding of the character and identities of our local communities.
Let me be absolutely clear: if this Government seek to place any of the villages that I represent under the remit of Leicester city council, I will fight tooth and nail to oppose that. While other parties not here today are silent on the matter, I want my constituents to know that I am on their side on this immensely important issue.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on securing this important debate.
Like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I served for 26 years as a local councillor, 14 of them were on the former Grimsby borough council. I then served for another 12 years on what became North East Lincolnshire unitary authority. I tend to favour unitary councils on the whole, and I have some sympathy with elected mayors—I can see the value of them in the big cities—but how we balance their powers and look after the interests of provincial towns and larger rural counties is open to debate. I am not yet convinced of the need to have a mayor for a vast rural county such as Lincolnshire.
The Minister will know that the Government, in proposing any form of local government reform, are opening a can of worms of local rivalries—civil war within the Labour party, I am sure, and other issues. The Minister is too young to remember the local government reorganisation of 1973-74; I think I am probably the only one who can remember it but, in many respects, it turned out to be a disaster.
My former Grimsby council was pushed into Humberside county. County Humberside was a complete and utter disaster. The identities north and south of the river are completely different. If Humberside is mentioned on the streets of Grimsby nowadays, the response is—shall we say—not polite, to say no stronger than that. It was a complete and utter disaster. The previous Government tried to create a Humber local enterprise partnership, which failed because it was cross-river. We still have Humberside police and Humberside fire authorities and so on, but even now I would say to leave those well alone.
We all tend to favour devolution because it means that local people are making decisions. That is good but, of course, it leads to a postcode lottery, because different councils will make different decisions. My appeal to the Minister is about local government finance. When I was first elected, way back in 1980, local government was still a really powerful force in the local community and could embark on some very important projects of great benefit; but over the years I have seen the powers and responsibilities whittled away, and local authorities, to a great extent, are tools of central Government. That will always be the case to some degree, because central Government relies on local authorities to deliver many essential services, but local pride and local identity play their part.
I keep talking about Grimsby—I only have one ward of Grimsby in my new constituency, but I am a resident there, and that gives me some right to speak about it. We have had a mayor since 1201, apart from a few months when Grimsby was abolished and we merged into North East Lincolnshire, and we had a chairman. Thankfully, we got a new royal charter and ended up with a mayor, because local identity is important. People like the mayor turning up in the red robes and chains of office to open the church bazaar and those sorts of things. It creates identity, something that is sadly lacking. If we go into any northern town and look around the central square, we will see vast town halls and great civic buildings, mostly constructed in Victorian and Edwardian times. They knew how to project local identity, power and responsibility, and I would like to see something of a return to that.
My particular plea is on the financial basis of local authorities. Many are in debt, and unless local government reorganisation is linked to reform of local government finance, we are in desperate straits. Many authorities have already issued section 114 notices, and others are teetering on the edge. As the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), who is no longer in her place, mentioned earlier, many of the new authorities do not have a financial foundation on which to build. We urgently need local government finance reform. The poll tax—community charge—from the 1980s now frightens us. It was a mistake, but the fear of reorganising the finances lingers on. Unless there is a firm financial foundation, new authorities, as well as some of the existing ones, will flounder.
North Lincolnshire council has an excellent Conservative-run administration. North East Lincolnshire council sadly now has a Reform leader, but that is hopefully only temporary. My plea to the Minister is this: “Please leave Lincolnshire as it is for the moment and look at the finance of local authorities.”
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Last but by no means least, I call Lewis Cocking.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. May I congratulate you on the 25th anniversary of your election to this House, which happened a few days ago? I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on securing this important debate.
For the past few months, I have worked closely with the local election candidates in my constituency, and I am pleased to say that their hard work paid off: they were elected on to Broxbourne district council and it remained under Conservative control, with no change to our majority. During that campaign, I spoke to hundreds of local residents, and not one person said to me that they wanted to see Broxbourne council abolished. If they were aware of the Government’s plans to do just that and force us into a large unitary authority stretching 40 miles from top to bottom, they wanted to know what I was doing to stop it.
I suspect that when the Minister replies to the debate, we will be told that local councils were knocking down the door of MHCLG, saying, “We want to reorganise. We want to go into large unitary councils.” Well, I have seen the letter that the Government sent to my council, and councils had no alternative but to reply to that letter. This is forced local government reorganisation, no matter what people say.
The people of Broxbourne instinctively understand what Ministers continue to deny: that large councils are remote from the people they serve, with decision makers naturally less concerned about towns and villages that they have no connection to. Moreover, the big new authorities will cost towns and villages money, not save it. There will be no savings from reorganisation. I am yet to see any evidence that unitary councils provide better government than the two-tier system that we have in place. I am yet to see those councils that have been through reorganisation—whether North Yorkshire or Somerset—come forward and say, “D’you know what? We’re awash with cash. We’ve got so much money now that we’ve saved so much through reorganisation.” I have not seen that.
In fact, when Somerset council went through reorganisation to become a single, large unitary council that the Government accepted, it increased council tax by 10%. There were no savings. If the Government are hellbent on doing this and want to move forward with it, they should show us the evidence that that type of council serves its residents the best, is cheaper and provides better services.
Last year we learned that the Department did not even carry out its own cost analysis of the reorganisation. Do not get me wrong—Broxbourne council is not perfect, nor is any district council—but, given its reasonable size and proximity to residents it at least has a chance to make a positive difference, if run well. It is no secret why Broxbourne residents voted to keep the council the same, as they do year after year. Council tax is lower than anywhere else, while services such as waste collection and leisure centres are run better than in neighbouring councils that charge more council tax. We all know that, when reorganisation comes, the new authority will provide the bare minimum in services and hit residents with the highest rates that it can get away with. From day one residents in the new authority, which my constituents will be forced into, will pay more in council tax but get less back. For those reasons, I fundamentally oppose the reorganisation.
The process we have seen so far should also make us doubt the Government’s ability to achieve what they have promised. As already mentioned, just last week the County Councils Network sent a damning letter to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, pointing out that the top-down imposition of local government reorganisation, as we have seen in Sussex, goes against the wishes of local councils without the evidence to back it up.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have made this point, but I too say, “Please show us the evidence. Show us where big unitary councils cost less and deliver better for residents, then we can at least understand and argue about the nuances of what the Government want to achieve.” It is difficult to do that when I have sat in a number of debates on this issue—I was on the Bill Committee for the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026—and not seen one shred of evidence that the new authorities will deliver better services and charge less in council tax. The majority of councils in Hertfordshire, including Broxbourne, support the proposal to create four unitary councils, rather than two or three, as they know that councils operating as close to the people as possible serve their residents better.
When it comes to making future decisions on reorganisation—and let me be crystal clear for the avoidance of doubt, though it will be no surprise to the Minister, I do not want any local government reorganisation in Hertfordshire—I hope that the Department will listen to what councils are saying and act on that. I urge the Minister, as I do every time in such debates, “Please review the policy, please make sure that future decisions are made with our constituents in mind and please ensure that whatever system is forced upon us will deliver outstanding local services and cheaper council tax.”
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for securing this important debate. It is obvious that LGR is the Government running before they can walk. On so many issues, we Liberal Democrats push the Government to go further and faster—but not on this. Even McLaren, from my constituency, would think that the Government are going too fast and too furious.
Local government reorganisation has charged ahead without listening to councils and while ignoring residents. A layer of our local democracy is being removed and silenced. It very much feels as if Labour is reorganising local government for the sake of it, without rhyme or reason. Severe funding pressures are pushing local services to the brink. Vulnerable children, the elderly and the safety of our roads are suffering because of years of Conservative mismanagement and neglect, but rebranding and changing the face of the problem does not affect the way that something works—or, more importantly, the way it does not work. The Liberal Democrats believe that we need to fix our public services first and involve local people before we even think about redrawing lines on the map.
Of course, we still do not know why the Government have chosen to push ahead with LGR. Organisations, whether charities or businesses, always have a fully costed business case; they do not change the way they do things without one. I sit on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and it was clear from yesterday’s meeting that the Labour Government simply have not outlined their business case.
What we have here is an overly ambitious plan to reform all local government by 2028. There seem to be no reason other than creating “efficiencies”. In the meeting yesterday, when I asked the Minister how much money reorganisation would save, she said, “It is challenging to answer that question,” and, “Unitary councils tend to be more effective. I can’t give a direct answer.” I was surprised to hear that. That was the answer for a flagship Labour policy that would involve the largest change to local government for over half a century.
Lewis Cocking
I, too, sit on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason the Government are struggling to answer that question is that local government reorganisation will not save a single penny?
Mr Forster
We missed the hon. Gentleman at yesterday’s meeting. I agree; I fear that it will not save any money. The lack of evidence and a business case is a concern for me and the Liberal Democrats, and we expressed that at the Committee yesterday. I am sure he will be able to do the same next week when he joins us.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
Would the hon. Gentleman like to continue with the rest of what I said?
Mr Forster
I can do, but obviously I am going to pass over to the Minister in a bit.
If there are to be such monumental changes to the way we operate and run our society, we need to consult local people. Repeatedly, through this entire process, local views have been disregarded. Back in April, hundreds of people staged a protest against plans that would split the New Forest area into two mega-councils, as has already been referred to. More than 13,000 unhappy residents signed a petition calling for New Forest district council to take legal advice and pursue a judicial review. Local government reorganisation should be driven by councils and local areas, not dictated to by London. We are told that LGR is about efficiency and a fresh start, but the reality on the ground looks like absolute chaos. If anything, it is a setback.
We need look no further than Woking. Surrey county council was planning to make Arnold Road and Eve Road in Maybury safer and nicer, but the scheme has been kicked into the long grass and the council will not engage with me or the local residents it consulted about the plans. It has been palmed off on West Surrey council, which is being created next year. That is shocking. The situation is a prime example of how local government plans are grinding to a halt. Essential infrastructure is on pause as Ministers and civil servants reshuffle the system. LGR is causing delays and frustrating the lives of local people, who should not have to watch their community services decline while councils try to guess the future. That is all happening with no leadership or direction from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
The issues are rife elsewhere too. Shropshire council spends 80% of its budget on social care. It is a prime example of the financial pressure facing local services. Alongside underfunding, it has also had its funding cut. Care for the elderly is such a huge burden, because 25% of its population is over 65, and the lack of transport and other local services makes the provision of social care even harder.
The Government’s LGR is making it more difficult for areas to build homes, as councils are having to concentrate on LGR rather than the national housing crisis. My local authority, Wokingham borough council, has just started to draft a new local plan where local people get to decide where we build the homes we need. But next year it will be abolished. Labour’s manifesto pledged to build 1.5 million homes. Now it is making it more difficult for local areas to build and risk reneging on that manifesto promise.
Alongside the local plan, since coming to power in Woking, the Liberal Democrats have been trying to fix the mess left by others. Last year I helped secure a £500 million debt write-off from Woking’s debt that we inherited from the Conservatives.
Mr Forster
Half a billion pounds. We have had that debt write-off and we have also had exceptional financial support—known as EFS. The lack of understanding of that issue was apparent in yesterday’s Select Committee. The Minister says that they want to get through the fair funding review so that they have a better idea of what money local councils need, to fully enable local authorities to have multi-year funding settlements. I am fine with that, but it does not get rid of the need for cash and being aware of the lack of it. Referring to my earlier point that the Minister did not know how much money could be saved from reorganisation, it has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) that the Government do not have an assessment of how much this will save. That is not acceptable.
Councils need money, but we cannot put the money we save from local government reform back into services if we do not know how much will be saved in the first place. Councils have not been properly supported for the transition and, try as they may, they are without leadership from London, mainly because, as the Minister says, Labour is not in full possession of the information that it needs to make a success of it.
In Surrey we are the canary in the coalmine. The elderly, vulnerable and children are already suffering and Surrey county council is refusing requests under the guise of LGR. The whole system is breaking. The Minister and Government are making all this effort with these changes, yet are not actually addressing the problem. Ministers do not know how much to invest or what the savings will be. That is not solving a problem; it is creating new ones.
I understand that they have their work cut out—it is a big job and it is never easy. However, in that discussion yesterday, there are critical questions that needed answers. Looking ahead, addressing those challenges will be essential for anyone hoping to secure a role under Andy Burnham. If the Mayor of Greater Manchester becomes Prime Minister, he will be looking for a Local Government Minister who can answer these questions. I was disappointed with the Minister’s answers yesterday, but we still do not have an answer on how much money local government reorganisation will save, or why the Government have bulldozed through local democracy. I wonder if the Minister will tell Parliament the answers to those questions right now.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also share my congratulations with my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) on securing today’s debate. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) on his appointment as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department. We all know that he has been a champion for local government and we all recognise that his constituents—like mine—benefited from an enormous vote of confidence in their local Conservative council at the recent elections. I am sure that he will be once again sharing the insights of benefiting from that in his role at the Department.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), my right hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), my right hon. Friends the Members for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) all shared valuable insights about the impact that the local government reorganisation process is having on the communities that they represent. A lot of those frustrations reflect the simple fact that at the start of this process, the Government—perhaps because it was not in their manifesto—did not ask what, in their view, local government is for.
Essentially, this is an instruction to do what is being done at the moment, but a bit less of it, at lower quality and at a higher rate of tax. That is certainly something borne out in the local government reorganisations in places like Somerset, which a number of Members used as a reference point for the concerns that their constituents have.
As a country we already have the fewest elected representatives for our constituents of any major democracy. Our constituents have less elected representation in the decisions that affect their lives than their counterparts in the United States, France, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Yet we have a Government bent on a path of reducing that local democratic voice even further.
Just last week the Government announced that, in a planning system where 98% of decisions are already made under delegated powers, even fewer of those decisions will hear the community’s voice, whether local councillors, planning committees or a public forum where people can express concerns—as Members have proudly expressed today—about the impact on towns of overspill and concreting over green spaces. They will further lose the opportunity to share those concerns.
That is based on a policy that is underpinned by no independent financial analysis. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire referred to the PricewaterhouseCoopers report commissioned by the County Councils Network to support its case for county-based devolution. That was an entirely reasonable exercise to undertake. One would expect that central Government would then say, “If that is the case being made by one side, let’s see what the case is for unitarisation, for district-based and for reorganisation along some other lines.” None of that has happened, which is perhaps why there is a high level of concern in places such as Leicestershire that the impact will be higher taxes, poorer quality of services and less ability for local people to share their concerns.
In a moment I will put specific questions that I know the Minister will want to consider, but let us reflect on where we are. The streets of Belfast are on fire and last week there was a massive rise in community tension in Southampton. Last year, my local authority of Hillingdon had to deal with a murder on the street of a local individual walking his dog, by an asylum seeker housed in the local area. The ability of credible local leadership to respond to those challenges is critical at such moments. We are all learning the significance of that.
This is not purely about the administrative convenience of Whitehall. This is not, in the words of a former Local Government Minister, about councils as a delivery mechanism for central Government policy. It is about the leaders of those communities and neighbourhoods having a powerful and credible voice locally and the ability genuinely to affect the decisions that make a difference in that area. By failing to ask what local councils are for, the Government are setting up the new authorities to fail.
As a number of Members highlighted, housing is one of the most obvious examples. The Government have set a target of 1.5 million new homes to be delivered over the course of the Parliament. Those 1.5 million new homes already have planning permission. Local authorities have been granting those consents over many years. In Broxbourne, Leicester and South West Hertfordshire there are sites ready to go. They have been designed, laid out, and discussions have been had with utility companies. Yet the economic conditions created by the Government mean that that development is simply not happening.
Rather than addressing those economic conditions, the focus is on removing a bit more local democracy from the planning system. That risks a situation, highlighted by the impact of the expansion of Leicester and Southampton, where many treasured green fields will have planning permission for unbuilt homes, while old mills in city centres remain undeveloped. That is due to a failure of leadership by a local Labour city mayor and a Government not creating the economic conditions for housing development to happen. When there are so many challenges, to which local government delivering on average 800 different services to local residents could be the answer, whether in public health, education, housing, transport and the environment, the fact that we have what is essentially a reductive exercise about how can we do this, but a bit worse at a higher cost, is simply not the answer.
I will conclude with these questions. At the heart of much of this debate has been the fact that elections were promised and cancelled, and mayors committed to and their elections deferred. It would certainly help us all to understand the decision making in the Department if the Government were willing to release the correspondence between the Secretary of State and the local authorities about the cancellation of elections. That has been the subject of freedom of information requests and questions in the House. The Minister, who I know is committed to local democracy, will understand that it would build confidence if the Government were willing to share how the Secretary of State gave local government leaders a steer in that controversial process.
Secondly, will the Minister commit to a full and independent financial analysis of the impact of the reorganisation process? That analysis should not simply rely on something written specifically to support reorganisation, but should be independent and say what is in the interests of the whole country. Will she tell us why it is not appropriate, in her view, for local residents to have a say at any point in the process? There will be debate about whether this is a matter for referendum, local election or mayoral election—there are various ways for it to happen—but a number of Members have shared the sense of frustration felt by local people about the absence of a route by which they can have their say.
Sir Julian Lewis
There is one point that I should perhaps have mentioned to emphasise how united the community is. When I wrote initially to the Minister’s predecessor, the letter was co-signed by the leaders not just of the Conservative group on New Forest district council, but of the Lib Dem group, the independent group and the Green group. When there was a vote on supporting the New Forest Together campaign, every single member, including the sole Labour member of New Forest district council, voted in favour. This is a unified community howl of protest against what is being imposed on us.
David Simmonds
My experience, unlike that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham, does not go as far back as the Redcliffe-Maud report, but what has been described over the years, as we have just heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East, is people’s frustration about things being done to rather than with them. This is not about local community leadership growing up from those neighbourhoods; it is about administrative convenience in Whitehall.
I will finish with a question at the heart of building a sense of community confidence. Residents in Leicestershire and Hampshire feel that this is about enabling cities to dump their housing targets—which they have failed to achieve within their own boundaries—in the neighbouring area. We have seen that issue around the fringes of London, historically in south-west Hertfordshire in places such as St Albans. That has been the subject of legal action and Government intervention in the past. We need absolute transparency from the outset.
What do the Government want the new councils to do? When they go to the ballot box, and when they engage in consultation and talk to their Members of Parliament, residents need to know that the new councils will exercise the functions that they are there for, and they need to know what it will cost them and what it will mean for their neighbourhood. It is not too late for the Government to pause the process, listen to the concerns that have been expressed powerfully today, including by the Minister’s own Back Benchers, and look at how lessons can be learned, so that we have a local government system fit for the future.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
It is, as ever, a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and I add my own congratulations on your important anniversary. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) for securing this debate on local government reorganisation. I know that he has strongly held views on the future of his constituency, as we have heard today. For reasons of time, I will not repeat the names of all those who have spoken, but it has been a joy to hear so many Members describe their communities.
I say to all Members that I know we disagree on this topic. The point of this House is disagreement, so our disagreement is not only expected but welcome. However, someone listening to hon. Members might think, “There is no problem in local government and everything is okay—if only we were not proceeding with local government reorganisation!” I simply say to Members that the problems in local government, particularly those related to finance, have arisen because of the age of our population, the burden on local government in adult social care and other things, and a suite of failing policy areas, including special educational needs and disabilities, homelessness, adult social care and children’s care, which have meant that local government has carried the can for policy failure in this place. It now falls to those of us in this House to try to put that right.
Alison McGovern
I will make some progress.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) mentioned £0.5 billion of debt write-off for his community. The words he was looking for were, “Thank you”. He is perfectly at liberty to quote me selectively, as is any Member of the House, but selectively quoting a Minister is not an argument—it is not a case to be made. This Government put £5.6 billion of grant funding into local government at the spending review. We have committed £4 billion to SEND as part of the White Paper. We are investing in local government to try to get it out of this situation.
As I did yesterday, let me repeat what I have said before to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds): although the Department’s analysis of the finances of this change is important, given the high and spiking costs that local government currently faces, the priority must be to deal with those cases. I challenge anyone to come up with a perfect cost-benefit analysis in this environment. That is what I said yesterday, and I repeat it again for clarification.
That said, I will do as a number of colleagues have asked by setting out why we are ending the two-tier system of local government. In two-tier areas, services and functions are split across county and district councils. That slows down decisions as different councils try to agree, and it leads to fragmented public services, meaning that it is unclear who does what and who is responsible. In Leicestershire, the area of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, the county council reported that 140,000 people called the wrong council when trying to get help and support.
The Government are committed to local government reorganisation, for clarity and other reasons that I will set out, and to the timetable that we have set out. We want stronger local councils, equipped to work with strong mayors and strategic authorities, for the purposes of economic growth, improved public services and empowered communities. That is the point of reorganisation: councils that match the real economic footprint of our cities and towns, rather than lines drawn on a map 50 years ago.
I might not have been alive in 1974, but I was born in 1980 into the relatively newly created area of the Wirral. At the time, it was part of the county of Merseyside. We subsequently became part of the Liverpool city region. Of course, administrative boundaries change, as Members know, but the identity of the place I am from—the village of Bebington, where I was born in hospital, and the village of Bromborough—is still as strong as it ever was, and we take part in the Liverpool city region with all the benefits that it brings.
Edward Argar
Can the Minister confirm that only the three proposals for Leicestershire—from the boroughs and districts, the county and the city—will be considered, and that no new fourth proposal that has not been put forward locally will emerge from officials?
Alison McGovern
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but I cannot respond directly on Leicestershire because the decision has not yet been taken. To clarify, the Secretary of State can modify submissions or reject them entirely, and he can invite proposals for councils, which is what we have done, but he does not have the power to draw up completely new proposals from scratch. I am happy to engage with the right hon. Gentleman to make that absolutely clear, but that is the position.
Local government can help councils to play a much clearer and stronger role in building our economy and ensuring that everywhere and everyone is part of our national growth story. Reorganisation will speed up house building, get vital infrastructure projects moving and attract new investment. It also has social and public services benefits. Most of the Government’s key objectives, whether to get more young people into work or lift children out of poverty, rely on co-operation and integration between our public services. I have heard from hon. Members about how the split in the two-tier system is preventing their councils from working together on homelessness, for example. That is why we want to bring services such as housing, public health and social care under one roof, with one council able to see the full picture and spot problems early—for example, supporting a family in need of housing and then supporting the children to stay in school.
I am pleased with our progress so far. Decisions on councils for five areas have been announced and elections have been held for the new councils in Surrey. On the Leicestershire council areas of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, we remain on course to announce decisions before the summer recess in July. We are on track for the councils to go live in April 2028, as planned. That applies to all areas awaiting an announcement.
I listened to the debate with interest, as I always do. Members have put their views on local government reorganisation in their areas on the record, and I will try to answer their questions, but I am conscious that I have little time, so I ask them to bear with me.
The shadow Minister asked about local consultation and listening to people. We do that. Members should consider this debate to be part of the consultation process; I will ensure that the Department is aware of their concerns. The shadow Minister also asked about considering the interests of the whole country. He will know that the previous Conservative Administration introduced the Office for Budget Responsibility for the purposes of transparency on related matters. We take decisions based on the evidence in front of us. He will also know how advice given to Ministers in that way is treated by all Governments for the purposes of FOI and other things.
Hon. Members were keen to ensure that their constituents have the opportunity to participate in the consultation. I reassure them that decisions on the appropriate option for each area will be judgments in the round, having regard to the criteria and the statutory guidance.
Some hon. Members made a point about bigger being better. There are good councils of various sizes, and the evidence we have is that the primary factors in council failure are governance, leadership and culture. It is not the case that bigger is always better; councils of various sizes can perform well or less well.
We are confident that the decisions we announced before the Easter recess will enable strong, sustainable local government that is connected to the community it serves. I accept that reasonable people can and will disagree on our decisions; I also recognise the work that is now required to ensure that the transition to new councils is done safely, especially in those key social care services on which some of our constituents rely. I reassure hon. Members that the Department is working very hard, in lockstep with councils, to ensure that the transition goes well.
I will have to leave it there, but I know that hon. Members will be in touch with me directly on further issues.
Neil O’Brien
Thank you for your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The irony of all this is that the Minister’s only argument is that we must avoid a two-tier system, but what the Government want is to replace one two-tier system with a completely different two-tier system that has a mayor and unitary authority. It is an exercise in the utmost futility.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Child Contact Arrangements
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
I will call Alison Hume to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered children in child contact arrangements.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and to lead a debate on putting children first in child contact arrangements, an issue that is of great importance to me, to my constituents and to other Members of this House.
When parents have separated and children are involved, they often turn to the family court. Family courts are at the centre of a child’s right to safe family arrangements. However, so many are not functioning in the child’s best interests. Allegations of domestic abuse are estimated to occur in up to 62% of private law cases under the Children Act 1989 in family courts in England and Wales, and counterclaims of parental alienation are increasingly being made in response to allegations of abuse.
So-called parental alienation syndrome is when one parent undermines or destroys the child’s relationship to the other parent through a pattern of manipulative behaviour. It is a pseudoscientific concept with no basis in law or medicine. However, accusations of parental alienation have been made on multiple occasions by unregulated experts appointed to assess the family and provide recommendations to the court.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate on a very complex issue. There were elements of the Courts and Tribunals Bill that were impossible to support, but it also sought to address the issue of a child’s consent in contact arrangements and, importantly, the need for the child’s opinion to be a consideration that is given weight. Does she agree that the child’s desires must be considered, not simply overlooked, and that the Government must make these changes outside the Bill if it falls?
Alison Hume
I completely agree that the child’s voice must be heard and is too often overlooked.
Some of these so-called experts lack proper qualifications and are not regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council. Changes proposed in 2025 to address the issue of unregulated psychologists have been criticised as too weak and do not affect experts who are registered with the HCPC. HCPC regulation is also limited, with complaints taking up to seven years, during which experts can continue to practise. The proposed changes will not do anything to address parental alienation experts who are successfully registered and regulated. I am concerned that if any reviews or reform focus only on unregulated experts, all that will do is drive more business into the hands and pockets of experts.
If parents do file a complaint, that in itself can be used as evidence against the parent alleged to be practising parental alienation, as proof that they are entrenched and unable to accept professional opinions that do not align with theirs.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this debate to the House and for mentioning the so-called experts. We know that accusations of so-called parental alienation are too often used against mothers who are trying to protect their children, but because so few family law cases are publicly available, we do not know the true extent of the problem. The campaigns led by Right to Equality, Women’s Aid and Hague Mothers are important, but does my hon. Friend agree that when a mother says, “My child is not safe,” the court should hear her and believe her rather than using the guise of parental alienation to dismiss her?
Alison Hume
I thank my hon. Friend for her work on the issue. I completely agree that unfortunately we are seeing far, far too many mothers who are disbelieved and have had their children removed from them without any basis for doing so at all. Lives are being destroyed.
If a parent complains, there is a very significant risk that that will be used against them. Ultimately, it should not matter whether an expert is regulated or unregulated if regulated and unregulated experts both rely on the same harmful pseudoscience and inflict equally devastating consequences, particularly on mothers and their children. The advice provided by experts can have a significant influence on the judge’s decision about child contact arrangements: the Ministry of Justice’s 2020 harm report highlighted the fact that allegations of parental alienation are often accepted by the family court without robust scrutiny. Evidence from survivors continues to show that counter-allegations of parental alienation are taken more seriously than those of domestic abuse. In many cases, claims of alienation can lead to the child being removed from the survivor parent, despite existing evidence of abuse. A constituent of mine had her children removed in an alienation case when the theory was introduced after she alleged domestic abuse.
The non-profit Right to Equality has conducted a large-scale survey of mothers whose children were removed from their care in private law proceedings. The survey reveals concerning patterns around child removal, including the role of parental alienation allegations, limited fact-finding on abuse and the influence of expert recommendations. In total, the 217 mothers had 342 children removed from their care. That is quite clearly not in the best interests of those children and is deeply traumatic for their mothers.
I have heard countless seriously concerning stories about children put into high-risk arrangements by the family court. Julia Margo, the co-founder of the charity Fair Hearing, with which I have been working closely, had a traumatic experience with the family justice system. After discovering that her former partner had been convicted of child sexual abuse, she endured years of legal battles, during which he took her to court 37 times demanding access to their children. Meanwhile, she felt dismissed and disbelieved by the system. She said that the court seemed more concerned about the risk of parental alienation than about the safety of her sons being left alone with a paedophile.
In another case, a child was taken away from her mother without warning at 10 years old. That day, a social worker came to the house and told her that she had half an hour to pack her things. The child recalled:
“I stuffed my favourite outfit in a bag—this blue shirt and leggings—along with a photo of me and mum. And then I got this bunny, my favourite soft toy, and I left it on her bed. It is what mum would do for me if she ever had to go away.”
The young girl later discovered that that simple goodbye had been used to criticise her mother, who had been her main carer since her parents had separated two years earlier. She said:
“The social worker said to my mum that no child should be worried about their parent’s feelings, and it was a sign of abuse.”
At 12 years old, the child wrote to the president of the family division, England’s most senior family judge, seeking the representation that she was previously denied. A district judge had found abuse from her father and found that her mother harboured a great deal of anger against him. A consultant psychiatrist, Dr Mark Berelowitz, was then brought into the case and claimed that the reason she was opposed to seeing her father was that she had been subjected to her mother’s
“unresolved angry feelings about the breakdown of their relationship.”
The judge then ordered that the child should move to live with her father, as her mother was not giving her emotional permission to enjoy a relationship with her father.
It is clear that in this case, as in so many others, parental alienation allegations represented the complete disregard of a child’s wishes during the court process. In the child’s words:
“I was removed from my mother’s care within hours of a court order being made…I spent the ensuing five years faced with professional after professional who refused to believe me. They said I was repeating my mother’s words and that, despite findings of domestic abuse, it was better to have a relationship with the person who frightened me.”
Parental alienation is a harmful ideology that profoundly impacts children. However, there are signs that the winds of change may now be moving through the family courts. In February this year, the president of the family division handed down a landmark judgment dismissing findings of so-called alienation against the mother. She had been prohibited from seeing her children for five years after alleging abuse in private family law proceedings. Lawyers have since characterised the initial ruling as draconian and extraordinary.
In December 2019, the court ordered that the children, who were then aged nine and 12, be removed, and it granted the father sole custody. The evidence was given by an unregulated psychologist, Melanie Gill. In overturning court findings informed by Gill’s reports, the president of the family division’s ruling could open the door for other families assessed by Gill, who has acted as an expert witness in up to 200 cases. Guidance published by the Family Justice Council in December 2024 says that experts should not be appointed to look for alienation; instead, judges should take a factual approach to identifying specific alienating behaviours. It was this new information that enabled the mother to bring her case back to court.
In a historic part of the judgment, the president of the family division has recognised the significant barriers that mothers face when seeking to appeal and has asked the Family Justice Council to consider an alternative procedural approach proposed by the legal team representing the mother and her son. I urge the Family Justice Council to consider that proposal as a matter of urgency, so that children and their parents who have been wrongfully separated because of pseudoscientific claims can finally have their cases reviewed.
However, there is still more work to be done. Hundreds of children and mothers have been wrongfully separated by family courts in England and Wales. This is a matter of national shame. Although the 2024 guidance and recent judgment from Sir Andrew McFarlane are clear and consistent, there is a risk that by themselves they will not be able to prevent the underlying error. As a route to justice, such judgments depend on the protective parent securing legal representation, identifying the procedural defect and bringing a part 18 application to set aside, years after the original order.
As I have mentioned, the president of the family division himself has acknowledged that mothers in this position face significant barriers to appeal. That is why I have been working on an amendment to the Courts and Tribunals Bill; I am grateful to Baroness Levitt KC, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, for the time she has taken to discuss it with me. Through the amendment, I propose to introduce a statutory presumption operating at the front end of proceedings, before findings of fact are made and before residence is disturbed. That would effectively prevent harm, rather than relying on a remedial route that few will successfully be able to navigate. We need to ensure that the family justice system is reformed so that the voice of the child is always put at the centre of proceedings, and so that allegations of alienation never take precedence over allegations of abuse.
I welcome the fact that, thanks to timeless campaigning by the indomitable Claire Throssell and by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) the Courts and Tribunals Bill will repeal the presumption of parental involvement set out in the Children Act 1989. This is a long-overdue correction to the pro-contact culture identified in the 2020 harm report and will address what the court must presume about contact in general. I also welcome the Government’s rolling out of child-focused courts nationally, which will put children at the centre of proceedings and resolve cases quicker.
An important question remains unaddressed, however: when a child resists or refuses contact with a parent against whom abuse is alleged, what weight should the court give to that response as evidence? That gap is currently doing significant harm. Too often, in current practice, the answer has been to reframe that resistance as the product of so-called alienating behaviour by the protected parent. Doing so risks reinterpreting the child’s voice not as a possible indicator of harm, but as evidence of manipulation.
I am also aware of cases in which a child discloses abuse by their father, particularly child sexual abuse, and those disclosures are then used as evidence of alienation against their mother, meaning that when a child makes a disclosure it can work against the mother, who risks losing the child. My simple amendment would effectively prevent the use of counterclaims of alienation to undermine or distract from allegations of domestic abuse, and would ensure that the child’s evidence has the weight that it deserves.
Does the Minister agree that for many of the hundreds of children and mothers who have been forcibly separated, the route to justice through appeal is hard to access? Does she agree that further reform is urgently needed to ensure that children’s voices carry the evidential weight that they should carry in family court proceedings? Does she support strengthening the Courts and Tribunals Bill further so that if a child has experienced or witnessed abuse, the child’s not wanting to see the perpetrator is first assumed to be a reasonable reaction in the family courts?
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I completely endorse the hon. Lady’s calls. I have talked about how we need reform to the family courts. Will she support my calls for the Government to support family contact centres? In my constituency, the Woking Family Contact Centre has been run by volunteers for 25 years, which is an amazing achievement. We need to ensure that children are well supported after a traumatic incident. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government need to do much more to support family contact centres?
Alison Hume
I have raised with Baroness Levitt not only the lack of access to child contact centres but the cost of access. It appears that many of them are unregulated, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue.
To conclude, everybody wants to see the family justice system evolve to better recognise children’s lived experiences, support safer and more effective participation, and make decisions that promote long-term recovery and healthy outcomes. I ask the Government to seize the opportunity presented by the Courts and Tribunals Bill to totally discredit the use of experts who subscribe to parental alienation and to enshrine the rights of the child in law, to ensure that those speaking their truth are properly heard.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Catherine Atkinson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and commend her for securing such an important debate.
I want to start by reflecting on the stories that she shared—stories of children feeling unheard and of families in anguish. No one could listen to them and fail to be moved. As a mum, I find them really difficult to hear, but people do not need to be parents to understand the pain that they describe. Anyone who cares about children, their safety, their wellbeing and future, as all of us here do, will recognise the profound responsibility carried when decisions are made about their lives. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her determination and persistence in bringing these issues to light.
I know from my hon. Friend’s previous speeches in the main Chamber, as well as from the meetings she has held with my colleague Baroness Levitt, just how deeply she cares about ensuring that children’s voices are not lost in family court proceedings. She is right; no one could disagree that children must be at the heart of any decision that the court makes about contact, or indeed any decision that has a profound impact on their lives. Whenever we seek to reform the family justice system, it is these children we work for. It is their welfare, experiences and futures that matter. They are who I have in mind when I speak today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby spoke powerfully about the work she is doing in the context of the Courts and Tribunals Bill and the need for children’s voices to be heard and believed when they say that they have experienced abuse. The question is, are we listening when a child tells us that something is wrong?
The family courts often deal with the most complex, painful and emotionally charged circumstances imaginable. Throughout those proceedings, the child’s welfare must be the guiding principle. I assure my hon. Friend that that is precisely the approach enshrined in section 1 of the Children Act 1989, which makes it clear that the child’s welfare will be the court’s paramount consideration when the court is making a decision about the upbringing of a child. It is also why the welfare checklist set out in section 1(3) of that Act requires the court to consider, among other things, the clear wishes and feelings of the child concerned. Those requirements reflect a fundamental belief that children are not bystanders; they are individuals with experiences, views and voices that matter.
My hon. Friend also raised the issue of so-called parental alienation—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), who also raised that issue. I reiterate the Government’s position clearly: we do not recognise parental alienation syndrome. We do not believe that it can be diagnosed.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
It is true that the Government do not recognise parental alienation and the syndrome, but courts too often do. In fact, a report released just yesterday by the campaign group Right to Equality that analysed language used in family court judgments found that over 70% of those judgments used victim-blaming language. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to open up the Judicial College to some scrutiny if those are the kinds of judges that it is producing?
Catherine Atkinson
I was discussing that report with Baroness Levitt yesterday, so it is one that I am conscious of and one that we will be looking at.
The Family Justice Council has published guidance to assist courts in handling cases of this nature. Importantly, the guidance recognises that there can be entirely justified reasons why a child might fear or reject contact with a parent. Those reasons can include domestic abuse, a parent’s limited involvement in the child’s life and poor parenting. The guidance is explicit that where findings of domestic abuse are made, a child’s rejection is a justified response to that abuse. That behaviour should not be characterised as alienating behaviour. That is incredibly important because children who have experienced abuse have already shown extraordinary courage in speaking about what has happened to them.
The justice system must be capable of hearing those voices fairly and with compassion. Taken together, the legislation and the Family Justice Council’s guidance are clear: children’s voices must always be central in those cases. I also acknowledge the important point made by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), as well as the fantastic work that contact centres undertake. That work is so important to the relationships of parents and their children and wider family relationships as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby also raised the experiences of families who believe that they have been wrongly separated from their children following allegations of so-called parental alienation, and their difficulties in accessing an appeal. As I have said, she is absolutely right to highlight those cases, and the families affected have my deepest sympathies. The human reality of that is of a parent and child being torn apart, and a family living with uncertainty, grief and deep distress, with seemingly no straightforward means of resolution.
That is why I welcome the important work being undertaken by the Family Justice Council at the invitation of the former president of the family division to consider whether an alternative and more appropriate procedural approach is needed in cases where unregulated parental alienation experts have been instructed. Although it would not be appropriate for the Government to pre-empt the outcome of that work, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby that we recognise the importance of the concerns and are closely monitoring the work as it progresses.
My hon. Friend also raised an important question: what more can we do to ensure that children’s voices carry weight in family courts? That is the most important question for our system to consider, and it is right that we continue to ask it. I assure her that there are already encouraging signs of progress. In March, the president of the family division released a toolkit to guide judges on how to write to children so that they better understand the decisions that affect their lives. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and CAFCASS Cymru continue to strengthen the way that their staff engage with children. The Family Justice Board brings the voices of children into the heart of the Government’s work in this area by including representatives of the Family Justice Young People’s Board in its meetings. That means that those responsible for driving improvement in the system hear directly from children and young people, but we know that there is more to do.
My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the child-focused model. Following a highly successful pilot, we are rolling that model out nationally over the next three years. It is a significant change in approach. Too often family proceedings become focused on the conflict between parents—between adults. The child-focused model centres on the needs and views of children at the start of every case through the introduction of the child impact report. That report represents an assessment of risks and issues through direct engagement with the parties, with relevant agencies and, crucially, with the children themselves in most cases. That means that judges receive better information earlier and can make orders that are safe and sustainable, sparing many children the trauma of their cases repeatedly returning to court. The impact is already clear: cases operating under the model were resolved about twice as fast as the national average, which means that children can get on with their lives rather than being stuck in the limbo of family court proceedings. Importantly, children who have experienced the model consistently report feeling listened to; one young person described feeling as though a weight had been lifted from their shoulders. That speaks volumes.
My hon. Friend also spoke about wider reform, including the case for a family justice Bill. I understand that ambition but would point to the significant programme of reform already under way. We are repealing the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989. As my hon. Friend mentioned, that is testament to the brave fight of campaigners such as Claire Throssell, my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) and many more. Through the Victims and Courts Act 2026 we are restricting the exercise of an offender’s parental responsibility in cases of serious child sexual abuse and where a child is born of rape. My colleague Baroness Levitt has confirmed that we will implement Jade’s law by the end of the year. Taken together, those measures will protect thousands of children each year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby also rightly raised the problem of unregulated parental alienation experts. Families facing family court proceedings are often navigating some of the most difficult parts of their lives. It is absolutely essential that experts are suitably qualified, properly regulated and held to appropriate professional standards. So-called experts on parental alienation are practising the kind of pseudoscience that we do not want to see in family proceedings.
I again thank my hon. Friend for securing a debate on such a crucial topic and for her determination in championing these issues. Every child who comes into contact with the family justice system is already navigating the most difficult circumstances. They deserve a system that protects them, that listens to them, and that puts their welfare above everything else. I believe that every hon. Member in the Chamber shares that goal. We want children to be safe, to be heard, and to have the chance to move forward with stability and hope. That is what this Government are determined to achieve.
Question put and agreed to.
Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2026
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for the Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Today marks 43 days until Glasgow hosts the 23rd Commonwealth games. The games will happen from 23 July to 2 August, and the city will welcome about 3,000 athletes from 74 nations and territories across the Commonwealth, who will compete in 10 sports and six para sports. The event offers a fantastic opportunity for Glasgow to host world-class athletes from across the Commonwealth, competing at the highest level, showcasing Scotland on an international stage and providing an exciting cultural and economic opportunity for the city.
Glasgow will become only the third city in history to host the games twice, following its success in 2014. This is a source of great pride for our city, but as hon. Members will be aware, Glasgow was not intended to be the host city in 2026. When the Australian state of Victoria withdrew from hosting the games, Glasgow, with support from the UK and Scottish Governments, stepped in to ensure that the games took place, which for a time was in doubt.
In doing so, there was recognition that these games must be different. The idea needed to be refreshed to ensure a more sustainable model—reducing cost while continuing to highlight and benefit host cities, give our athletes the chance to compete at the highest level, and inspire people across the Commonwealth to take part in sport or be more physically active. For those of us who live in what we might call the devolved nations, the Commonwealth games are the only opportunity that our athletes have to wear the vest of their nation at a world-class event in sport.
The new model for Glasgow 2026 is not funded through the normal methods. The delivery of the games themselves does not really require public funding, but it is welcome that the UK Government have made available £2.3 million as a contingency towards security costs. The Glasgow 2026 “Story of Change” framework provides a way to take a new and innovative approach to the games, focusing on four key areas. First, it seeks to deliver a greener games, demonstrating that major events such as these can reduce waste and carbon emissions. As part of that approach, these games are making use of the legacy of the 2014 games by using four pre-existing venues to host events. We have Tollcross International Swimming Centre, the Scottish Event Campus, the Sir Chris Hoy Velodrome and the Glasgow International Arena, and of course Scotstoun Stadium in my constituency of Glasgow West.
Secondly, Glasgow 2026 will ensure that the games are inclusive and offer opportunities for participation, representation and engagement. With 47 para sport events, Glasgow 2026 will be the largest integrated para sport programme in Commonwealth games history. Moreover, the first medal of the games will be awarded in para powerlifting, making this the first time that a para sport event has opened the medal tally at a Commonwealth games.
Thirdly, Glasgow 2026 is seeking to create a welcoming games in a welcoming city by using the games to bring people across Scotland and the Commonwealth together. This is perfectly evident and noteworthy in the Glasgow 2026 Festival, an exciting 10-week, city-wide initiative, running from 23 July to 9 August. It comprises more than 150 free events, ranging from art exhibitions and cultural events to opportunities to participate in sport and workshops across Glasgow. My constituency will host a number of events: a 3x3 basketball tournament in Mansfield Park in Partick, a five-day children’s summer camp at Drumchapel Tennis Club, a family fun day at the Donald Dewar centre, and a Commonwealth community festival organised by Halo Arts and Victoria Park Community Trust.
Finally, in taking on this challenge, Glasgow 2026 Ltd, the organising company established to stage the event in partnership with Commonwealth Sport and Commonwealth Games Scotland, is seeking to demonstrate that a more sustainable model for the games is possible, while still supporting local economies, tourism and community development. Hopefully, the slightly slimmed-down version of the Commonwealth games on offer this year will ensure the continued viability of such a special event, while still providing an exciting and diverse programme of sport.
As I have said, Glasgow 2026 is using the legacy of facilities built for Glasgow 2014 and aims to create a series of different legacies this time. The Commonwealth Sport Foundation, which is the official charity partner of the games, has pledged that all funds raised through Glasgow 2026 will be shared equally between funding sport for development initiatives in the Commonwealth and supporting three city partners in Glasgow: Glasgow Children’s Hospital Charity, Scottish Sports Futures, and Team Scotland Youth Trust.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and has contributed so much to the Commonwealth games during her time as a Minister and councillor, and now as a Member of Parliament. She will know that for close to 20 years we have had a Scottish Government who have decimated local government revenue and capital budgets. That has had a significant impact on the fabric of many of our sports facilities and on our wider sports provision. Does she agree that a critical legacy from the games must be a Scottish Government who actually take grassroots sport seriously and support the next generation of athletes?
Patricia Ferguson
I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. In fact, one of my bugbears over the years has been that it is far too easy for cash-strapped local authorities to cut back on sport and culture, because they are not part of the statutory services that everyone expects them to deliver. The Scottish Government need to realise that if they are ambitious for Scotland, they need to be ambitious for Scotland’s people. Part of that means making us all more physically active, and to achieve that we need facilities, so I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention.
I recognise that local residents and businesses in my constituency, particularly those near to Scotstoun stadium, will have concerns about possible disruption, which is often associated with large sporting events. I am pleased that the Glasgow 2026 organising body has been engaging with community councils and local residents to understand such concerns, and to seek to minimise disruption as far as possible.
Parking is an issue in the area, so I was pleased to hear that an events permit zone will be in operation, alongside other measures such as defined drop-off and pick-up locations, and the ringfencing of ride-share locations. I am also glad that the organisers have been clear that communications with spectators will provide guidance on local public transport routes and encourage spectators to use them as an alternative to driving to venues.
Furthermore, I encourage residents and businesses in Glasgow West to attend the two “Get Set” hubs in the constituency, in the Annexe Healthy Living Centre on 12 June and at the Heart of Scotstoun on 18 June. These hubs, organised by Glasgow 2026, will allow communities to learn about the games and their local impact, and allow people to ask questions or raise concerns.
There is so much to welcome about these games that it feels a little churlish to mention some of the areas where I feel that things could have been done a little bit better. Those who know Glasgow will appreciate that George Square is the centre point of our city.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that when we raised the issue of George Square at the Scottish Affairs Committee, the organisers of the games had not thought about the problems that the closure of the square would cause for people attending the games?
Patricia Ferguson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For the period of the games, George Square will be fenced off and will be a building site; indeed, it has been for some time now. It is the place where Glaswegians traditionally gather to celebrate events—it was where we celebrated London 2012 and Glasgow 2014—so it is disappointing that it will continue to be fenced off until a few weeks after the games have concluded. It seems to me that, with a little bit of extra thought and planning, visitors to our city could have enjoyed George Square in the way that traditionally we always have done. That is a matter of some regret.
My other disappointment is that no terrestrial broadcaster has taken up the opportunity to broadcast the games. They will instead be shown by TNT Sports.
As I said, I do not want to dwell on the negatives. Glasgow 2026 will award 215 gold medals. Visitors, athletes and officials will be supported by 3,000 volunteers, who will be called Glasgow Legends. When I was a volunteer in 2014, they were called Clyde-siders; but whatever they are called, they will make new friends, learn new skills and have an exciting time along the way.
Credit must go to the organising committee, Commonwealth Games Scotland, Glasgow Life and Glasgow City Council, as well as all the sporting organisations involved in delivering this year’s games. Glasgow 2014 was hugely successful, and Glasgow 2026 will have the distinction of heralding in a new version of the games— slimmed down, yes, but just as vibrant, exciting and motivational as the 2022 games.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on the point about inspiration and aspiration. I hope that some of that comes a little south of the border and inspires residents in Carlisle. In areas such as mine, which are a long way from large infrastructure facilities to support sports, grassroots inspiration is key. Does my hon. Friend agree that these games offer an opportunity to inspire the hopes and dreams of people not just in Glasgow and Scotland, but in communities like mine in Carlisle?
Patricia Ferguson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the wonderful things about the Commonwealth is that it reaches out, and the Commonwealth Games Council and Commonwealth Games Federation have always been good at doing that. The games will be important for Carlisle and Glasgow—maybe the answer is to twin our two cities. As one of the closest cities to Carlisle, Glasgow does have something to offer in that regard. It may not always have been the case historically that people in Carlisle have welcomed people from Scotland coming across the border, but we can leave all that in the past, as we look to the future to ensure that we learn lessons and take that forward.
Although these games will be slimmed down, they will be vibrant, exciting and motivational, just like all the games before them. I hope that everyone involved—visitors, athletes, spectators, family members, Glaswegians, and people from Carlisle or anywhere else in the country—has a wonderful time in Glasgow. I hope, too, that the model for these games might inspire places like Carlisle to consider taking on games, perhaps in conjunction with other local authorities, because this version is much more affordable and will hopefully ensure that sustainability that we all hope for.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) for bringing this issue to our attention. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I am confident she will respond in a positive way, giving the encouragement the hon. Lady needs. I do not doubt for a second that that is her nature. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister in his place. He has a deep interest in all things to do with sport, so that is more encouragement for the hon. Lady. I also see the Lib Dem spokesperson in place, who has been a dear friend for many years.
Why does it mean so much to me, as the MP for Strangford, to see Glasgow host these games? We can see the potential that the hon. Lady referred to in her last couple of sentences. Also, I am keen on speak on this because of the strong historical links between Glasgow and our capital of Belfast. The hon. Lady’s colleagues are here in some numbers—I am not sure that there are any Scottish MPs left in the Chamber; they are nearly all here, as they should be, to support her. I say in all honesty and sincerity that I much enjoy the friendship of my Scottish colleagues—my Gaelic cousins. I do that for a number of reasons. I am descended from the Stewarts of the lowlands in Scotland, so the Gaelic blood they have in their systems is the same as I have in mine. Of course, we are only a short distance from each other—I would say just a stone’s throw; you would need strong arms, but it is not too far away. In our blood we have the Scottish traits, cultures and interests. We have the pipes, but maybe not the dancing—if anybody ever saw me dancing, it would be scary. We also have the thriftiness that the Scots have. They certainly gave it to me, because we look after our money in a very kind and powerful way.
The Glasgow Commonwealth games take place in just over six weeks, with the games this year focused on innovation. The hon. Member for Glasgow West set the scene incredibly well. I want to highlight a unique opportunity. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) suggested that Carlisle is close, but I tell her what: we are closer. I say that honestly. We have a chance to strengthen co-operation between Glasgow and Belfast and maximise the benefits for the wider UK economy. Belfast is strategically placed to be a support location for the games due to the transport and economic links between the two cities.
The Commonwealth teams who are coming have probably all picked their places to stay by now, but we are not too far away. Belfast has already been recognised as capable of hosting major sporting events, as it was selected to accommodate the 2028 UEFA Euros. Although that did not happen due to extenuating circumstances, it demonstrated recognition of Northern Ireland’s capability to hold these large-scale events.
Belfast could be used to accommodate visitors to the games, who would only be a short distance from Glasgow. There are many hotels in Belfast and elsewhere that could provide hundreds of rooms to accommodate them. The city is well positioned to take the pressure off Glasgow’s infrastructure by hosting media, officials, spectators and teams. There are excellent transport links between the two cities, with daily flights and regular ferries. In particular, Northern Ireland has the facilities to support athletes’ preparation for the games, and could even hold selected sporting events—side events would perhaps be the better way of putting it. That would further reduce pressure on Glasgow’s infrastructure while extending the economic benefits.
I suggest to the hon. Member for Glasgow West and those who have not considered it that there is an opportunity to utilise Bangor’s Olympic-standard swimming pool. It is a 10-lane, 50-metre pool with two submersible booms and floating floors to facilitate full international long and short-course competitions The pool was specifically developed to support Olympic, Paralympic and Commonwealth-level competitors, and it is already used for national elite competitions; it could facilitate training for the Glasgow Commonwealth games as well
Although Glasgow did not report being overwhelmed by the influx of visitors during the 2014 Commonwealth games, the incoming 2026 games have been prepared for at much shorter notice. Hopefully, the potential for those who will visit will be exceptional and boost the economy in Scotland. The originally proposed host had to withdraw due to increasing costs, leaving Glasgow only two years to finalise the arrangements. Partnering with Belfast as a support for the games could demonstrate what a sustainable model for the games looks like in the future, when the costs will be even greater and we may need to spread them a wee bit further to make the games more sustainable and ensure that they continue to unite the Commonwealth nations.
I always think that, in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we in Northern Ireland and our Scottish cousins—our Gaelic cousins—should play together in every way. No SNP colleagues are here to tell us that they may have a different opinion, but I am a great and proud member of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who loves all the people of this great nation, particularly the Scottish people. I believe that work can and should take place between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament to ensure that the rising tide of the Commonwealth games lifts the ships not only in Scotland but in Strangford lough in Northern Ireland.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) for securing this debate. A wonderful servant of the people of Glasgow, she is the embodiment of Glaswegian and Scottish values of public service that are shared across our family of nations.
As a Glasgow MP I welcome the Government’s support for bringing the games to Glasgow and the cross-party support for the games in the House, in Holyrood and in the city council chambers. I welcome all the work that has been done to bring the games to Glasgow. My constituency of Glasgow East is at the centre of the Commonwealth games 2026, together with Glasgow West. Its venues include the Sir Chris Hoy Velodrome, Glasgow International Arena and the Tollcross International Swimming Centre. The games in 2014 were a great success and our games this year will be too because my home, Glasgow, is a city of warmth and hospitality. A friend is someone anywhere in Glasgow and a stranger is a friend yet to be made.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point: Glasgow has always been known as a friendly city. Does he agree that volunteers play a fantastic role in welcoming visitors to the city for our sporting events, such as the Commonwealth games and the 2023 UCI cycling world championships?
John Grady
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The number of volunteers speaks eloquently to the generosity of spirit in Glasgow, across Scotland and across our family of nations. We are excited to welcome great sportspeople. I look forward to the return of a great Australian swimmer, Lakeisha Patterson, who is one of the world’s most decorated para swimmers. Some of her most notable swims took place at Tollcross: she made her international debut there when she was just 15, winning bronze, and she won gold at the world championships in Glasgow in 2015.
My constituency has long been a centre of sporting excellence. Sir Kenny Dalglish comes from Dalmarnock in my constituency. I think every hon. Member in the Chamber sends him our best wishes. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Sir Kenny was a brilliant footballer who could sign Peter Beardsley, Ray Houghton, John Barnes and John Aldridge, then come on as a substitute and show them exactly how the game should be played. For his courage in the face of the terror of Hillsborough and all that he did, with courage, dignity and love, for the Hillsborough families, Sir Kenny is admired greatly as one of Glasgow’s finest sons and, I believe, one of Liverpool’s finest adopted sons.
One of our most notable clubs in Glasgow is Shettleston Harriers. On the doors I meet many enthusiasts for that wonderful club, founded in 1904. One of its most famous athletes is Lachie Stewart, who won the 10,000 metres gold in the 1970 Edinburgh commonwealth games. The club does wonderful work with young people in my area.
I want Scotland to do brilliantly in the games—of course I do. I wish every member of Team Scotland the best of luck. I cannot mention each team member—I might get into trouble—but I make special mention of Evi Mackie, who is in the swimming squad and trains at Lanark amateur swimming club. I am glad to speak of such a talented sportsperson because her Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker), is a Government Whip and by tradition cannot speak in this place.
In the Commonwealth charter, the core Commonwealth principles include mutual respect and inclusiveness. The games are an opportunity to reaffirm those shared principles. A good place to start is by expressing our immense gratitude to the people from the Commonwealth who have made their homes in the United Kingdom. They have served our communities in our hospitals, in schools, in business and in so many ways. We are richer because our brothers and sisters from the Commonwealth have come to live with us and made their homes with us. Reaffirming our shared values of mutual respect and inclusiveness means that we must do much more to confront and root out racism. It is neither Scottish nor British, and it has no place anywhere in our family of nations, but we must recognise that that poison continues to infect our society and our politics. Rooting out racism is an urgent task for all of us. A society free from racism and a society of mutual respect and inclusiveness is one where we are all richer.
The games are an opportunity for us to celebrate our shared humanity and our equality. There is no better place to do so than in Glasgow, the home of the first black international footballer, Andrew Watson. His last game was in my constituency, at the first Hampden Park in Crosshill. I am pleased to say that Scotland won 5-1. I hope for similar results in the world cup and the Commonwealth games. I say to all our brothers and sisters visiting from the Commonwealth: welcome to Glasgow; we cannot wait to see you.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and to contribute to this important debate on the return of the Commonwealth games to Glasgow secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson).
The Commonwealth games have always been more than a sporting competition. They are a celebration of friendship, community, aspiration and achievement across the Commonwealth family. That is why the decision to bring the games back to Glasgow is such welcome news, not only for our city but for communities across Scotland and the UK. Glasgow has shown the world how to host a major sporting event. In 2014, the city delivered what many still regard as one of the finest Commonwealth games ever staged. The venues were world class, the volunteers were outstanding, the atmosphere was unforgettable and the legacy continues to be felt today.
The return of the games is a vote of confidence in Glasgow. It is a recognition of the city’s experience, its sporting infrastructure and, most importantly, its people. It will bring visitors, investment and international attention, and support jobs, tourism, hospitality and local businesses, but the impact of the games will extend far beyond Glasgow’s city boundaries.
In constituencies such as Kilmarnock and Loudoun, communities have long embraced the values of sporting competition. Young people across east Ayrshire will watch athletes competing for Scotland, the home nations and countries across the Commonwealth. They will see role models who prove that success is not reserved for a privileged few. They will see ordinary people achieving extraordinary things through hard work, determination and dedication. Every sports coach who gives up their evenings, every volunteer who runs a club and every parent who drives a child to training sessions understands the power of sport to change lives. Sport teaches discipline, resilience and teamwork. It teaches young people how to win with humility and lose with dignity.
East Ayrshire has its own proud Commonwealth games story. Through the East Ayrshire talented athletes support programme, hundreds of athletes have been helped to pursue excellence. Over 14 years, more than 700 local athletes have received support, including six special Olympians, two Olympians and two Commonwealth games medallists who have represented their community with distinction. I pay particular tribute to Peter Kirkbride of Kilmarnock. Peter won a silver medal for Scotland in the men’s 94 kg weightlifting competition at the Delhi Commonwealth games in 2010. His achievement remains a source of enormous pride for east Ayrshire, and demonstrates what can be achieved through dedication, perseverance and talent. I also recognise Claire Johnston, who won a bronze medal for Scotland in lawn bowls at the Gold Coast Commonwealth games in 2018. Her success, alongside her team mate Lesley Doig, added another chapter to east Ayrshire’s proud sporting history, and showed that athletes from our communities can compete and succeed on the international stage.
The Commonwealth games have a unique place in our national life because they bring together nations and territories from every corner of the globe in a spirt of friendly competition. They celebrate diversity while emphasising our shared humanity. It is fitting therefore that they remember Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, whose commitment to the Commonwealth was one of the defining features of her remarkable reign. Across seven decades, she championed the values that sit at the heart of the Commonwealth movement: service, unity and mutual respect. Her dedication helped to strengthen the bonds between nations and peoples, and her legacy remains woven into the story of the Commonwealth games themselves. As Glasgow prepares once again to welcome athletes from around the world, it is worth reflecting on how proud Her late Majesty was of Scotland’s achievements in hosting international events and bringing people together through sport.
The return of the games offers us another opportunity to build a lasting legacy. We should use this moment to encourage greater participation in sport, particularly among young people. We should strengthen grassroots clubs, improve access to facilities and ensure that every child, regardless of background, has the opportunity to enjoy the benefits that sport can bring. The true measure of success will not simply be what happens in the stadiums or on the medal table; it will be whether more young people take up sport, more communities feel connected and more future champions emerge from places like Kilmarnock and Loudoun.
The Commonwealth games remind us that talent is everywhere, even if opportunity is not. Our job is to ensure that opportunity reaches every community. The return of the Commonwealth games is good for our economy, good for our communities and good for the next generation. Most of all, it is a chance to inspire young people, not only across East Ayrshire but across the whole of Scotland and the Commonwealth, to believe that, with hard work and determination, they too can achieve greatness.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing the debate. She is a consistent and effective advocate for Glasgow and for sport in Scotland, and her contribution in this House and elsewhere in public life has undoubtedly helped to shape the strong sporting and events culture that Glasgow rightly prides itself on today.
This debate goes to the heart of something that I have spoken about in this place before: how we use opportunity to deliver growth that is not only strong but shared. In my constituency of Glasgow North sit three of the key venues for the Glasgow Commonwealth games 2026: the OVO Hydro, the SEC Centre and the SEC Armadillo, which together form the Scottish Event Campus—a central part of Glasgow’s economic life for over 40 years. The SEC is not simply a venue; it is an essential piece of economic infrastructure for the city. It has developed into one of Europe’s leading event destinations, supporting over 5,000 jobs, generating £557 million each year for Glasgow’s economy and attracting more than 2 million visitors annually.
Major events such as the Glasgow 2026 Commonwealth games are not simply important occasions; they are economic instruments that can, when embedded within a wider strategy, drive growth. Every major event hosted in Glasgow—whether it is COP26, an international aquaculture conference or a Charli XCX concert—brings with it not just visitors but investment, knowledge exchange and long-term connections. The Commonwealth games bring all that together at scale.
In this debate we are rightly focusing on the Commonwealth games, but it would be remiss of me as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for events not to highlight the consistent economic benefit of the many business events and conferences that take place in the SEC and elsewhere in the city on a regular basis. It is important that the UK Government and the Scottish Government support not only the Commonwealth games and other important sporting and cultural events, but the hugely significant business events sector.
In 2026, more than 3,000 athletes from 74 nations will come to Glasgow, with the SEC hosting the opening ceremony and the basketball, wheelchair basketball, bowls, para bowls, boxing, judo, netball, weightlifting and para powerlifting events. The fact that so much activity will take place in my constituency illustrates both the scale of the opportunity and the responsibility that comes with it. Today, Glasgow stands as one of the UK’s most important city regions, with world-class universities, advanced industries and a thriving cultural sector. However, as I have said in the House before, it is also a city still marked by inequality, where growth exists alongside deprivation and where opportunity has not been felt across all communities.
This is a key test for the 2026 games. Success cannot be judged solely by attendance figures or broadcast reach; it must instead be measured by whether the economic benefits are felt across the entire city region, particularly by those communities who have waited longest for change. That means linking the games more directly to local employment and skills, and I welcome the work that the games’ organisers have done on that. It is also important that local businesses are able to participate in supply chains, and that we invest in the necessary connectivity so that people across the region can access the opportunities created.
The reality is that economic activity in Glasgow now operates at a regional scale, with major events intersecting with transport systems, labour markets and investment decisions extending well beyond the city boundary. That is why we need a more strategic and long-term approach to major events such as Glasgow 2026—one that plans ahead, aligns activity with economic priorities and co-ordinates delivery across the region. It is also why I have consistently argued for greater devolution to the Glasgow city region. This is not about constitutional preference but about practical delivery: local people are best placed to ensure that opportunities such as the Commonwealth games translate into tangible outcomes for our communities.
In that context, Government support must go beyond the successful delivery of the event itself. It must recognise the SEC as a strategic national asset, align the games with wider priorities such as tourism, trade and investment, and support a long-term plan that builds on Glasgow’s proven strengths in hosting major events. The 2026 Commonwealth games represent the next stage in that journey: an opportunity to reinforce the city’s global reputation, drive further economic growth and, importantly, ensure that that growth is shared more widely across the city region, including by the communities I represent in Glasgow North. What matters now is that we match that opportunity with an even greater level of long-term ambition. If we do, Glasgow 2026 will be not simply a one-off great occasion, but a lasting legacy of change for the Glasgow city region.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) for securing this debate on the forthcoming Commonwealth games in our home city.
In just a matter of weeks, Glasgow will once again host the Commonwealth games. The resounding success of our 2014 games put Glasgow at the forefront of people’s minds when a location needed to be found for 2026. I am proud that Glasgow stepped up, and I am confident that the games will offer a blueprint for the future, as we approach the 100th anniversary of the first Commonwealth games in 1930.
One of the many innovative parts of the 2026 games is that they are being funded by a mixture of compensation, grant funding and commercial income, resulting in a smaller-scale event with a condensed sporting programme, and, most importantly, no additional public money will be spent. Nevertheless, after visiting the Glasgow 2026 headquarters on Bothwell Street, where I met chief executive Phil Batty and chair George Black, I am convinced that the 2026 games will be a world-class display, thanks in no small part to the substantial public investment that was made in advance of the 2014 games, including for the purpose-built Emirates arena, as it was known, which was commissioned and built by Labour-run Glasgow city council. I am filled with hope at the prospect of the games offering a new way forward, encouraging others to adopt our approach of renovation and reuse.
Often referred to as “the friendly games”, this sporting event has been, and can continue to be, an opportunity to bring nations and people together in a spirit of friendly competition. I have no doubt that that spirit will endure at these games. However, less positive differences between the 2026 and the 2014 games will also be on show to competitors and spectators. In the past decade, Glasgow has been subjected to repeated budget cuts, which will be all too visible as we welcome the world back to our streets, with a less vibrant city centre, poor and increasingly expensive public transport and a maze of road closures. Perhaps the most striking change of all is George Square, which featured prominently in the 2014 opening ceremony. That landmark remains under construction and closed off to the public, with calls for its renovation to be expedited for the games having been ignored.
I hope that, just as Glasgow has risen to the challenge of hosting the Commonwealth games once again, the city council and Scottish Government will use the short time we have left between now and the start of the games to recognise the urgency of restoring Glasgow’s status as the world-class destination that visitors and residents expect. That is a legacy that many Glaswegians would be glad to see delivered.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. It is also an honour to have the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), respond to this debate. She knows Glasgow well and was generous with her time when she was last in the city, visiting Crookston castle, the Nethercraigs sports complex—which is not a Commonwealth games venue, unfortunately, but perhaps next time—and the Pakistani Street Food café. I believe that she is due in Glasgow South West tomorrow, so it is wonderful that she is responding to the debate.
As well as congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing the debate, it is important to thank her, as other Members have done, for her long record championing Glasgow and sport. As the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport in the Scottish Labour Government, she helped to lay the important foundations of what we celebrate today—the ambition, the infrastructure and the belief that Glasgow could stand on the world stage and deliver, all of which was seeded during her tenure as a Minister.
The 2014 Commonwealth games showed what Glasgow was capable of. Under a Labour council that understood what sport could do, and what it could unleash for communities, the city welcomed athletes and visitors from across the globe, and by wide consensus, it did not disappoint. The legacy of those games was lasting, not only in the venues and infrastructure but in the civic pride felt by the volunteers and citizens, and by the young people who watched those games and dared to dream to become athletes themselves. In that sense, Glasgow 2026 does not start from scratch; it stands on the shoulders of giants like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West—that is a very special thing indeed.
These games are also personal to me and my own Commonwealth story. In 1963, my father came to this country by road from Pakistan, a proud Commonwealth nation. I grew up in the city and was trained as a surgeon by many Commonwealth citizens. I now have the singular honour of being the Member of Parliament for Glasgow South West, perhaps the most diverse constituency in Scotland, and one that has been shaped by its many Commonwealth connections from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and the Caribbean.
I am confident that when the athletes from the 74 nations touch down in Glasgow later this year, they will feel at home, with smells and languages quite familiar to them, thanks to the diverse communities that occupy Glasgow. I hope that, in some sense, they will feel at home during their time here, as one Commonwealth family bound by the shared values, histories and stories that we all carry.
It is particularly important to emphasise those shared values today, because last night we saw some violence on Buchanan Street in Glasgow, under the watchful eye of the statue of Donald Dewar, the father of our nation. That underlines that Glasgow is not immune to the challenges of social cohesion—or, indeed, prejudice. It is therefore timely to remind ourselves that, as a Commonwealth family, those shared values must come to the fore, and we as Members of this place all have a responsibility to articulate those values in these times of stress and turbulence.
When telling the story of the 2026 Commonwealth games and how they came to Glasgow, it is important to re-emphasise that when Victoria withdrew, the games were in danger of fizzling out. In fact, there was even a danger that Commonwealth games as a concept could come to an end. However, Glasgow, the UK Government and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport stepped forward to ensure that the games can once again be celebrated, and that our Commonwealth family can celebrate, too.
Finally, the King’s baton, with which the games will be opened, was handcrafted by GalGael, a social enterprise based in Govan in Glasgow South West, using reclaimed wood from Pollok Country Park. I do not think there is a better symbol of Glasgow than Glasgow timber being handcrafted by Glaswegians and travelling to every part of our Commonwealth ahead of these games. Glasgow has earned this moment, and I am confident that it will make the most of it.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing the debate. As colleagues have rehearsed very well, with her wealth of knowledge and her experience of the Commonwealth games, she brings great value to the debate.
As part of my West Dunbartonshire constituency falls within Glasgow, and with my home town of Clydebank bordering the city, this is a hugely significant event for the communities I represent—one that I hope will inspire the next generation and showcase the very best of our area to the world. When the future of the Commonwealth games was thrown into doubt after Australia withdrew from hosting them, I was delighted that Glasgow stepped up. I am proud that our nation has helped secure the future of one of the world’s greatest sporting events. This summer, the eyes of 74 nations and territories will be on Scotland.
Although it is a shame that fewer sports will be represented this year, I am keen to see how this leaner, more sustainable model works in practice. The traditional model of hosting major multi-sports events is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. Glasgow’s approach will make full use of existing world-class venues, established infrastructure and the expertise gained from the hugely successful 2014 games. If the Commonwealth games are to thrive and survive, they must be accessible, not only to athletes but to potential host nations and cities. If the model succeeds, Glasgow may once again show the way forward. That could be the defining legacy of the 2026 games.
That legacy will differ from 2014. The last games left Scotland with outstanding facilities, which have been mentioned, such as the Tollcross International Swimming Centre, the Glasgow International Arena and, of course, the athletes’ village, which became much-needed social housing. Those are tangible benefits that continue to serve communities today.
These Commonwealth games are so important for young people in my constituency. For many, this may be the first time that they see world-class sport in person. We should not underestimate the impact of that.
Jim Shannon
We have referred to sports that will not be at the games for all different reasons. We in Northern Ireland seem to excel at boxing and shooting. I am not quite sure why, but whatever the reason, there will be no shooting sports at the Commonwealth games. Does the hon. Member feel that should be addressed? We have asked for that before, and it has not happened. Maybe it is time to get it right.
Douglas McAllister
I appreciate the hon. Member’s intervention, and his point is well made. Glasgow saved the games and we had to use the infrastructure that was there. Perhaps when he secures a future games for Strangford, they will highlight shooting and boxing. We are happy to support a bid from him.
I know the effect that the games can have. I experienced it myself. I remember my parents taking me to the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh in 1986. Some hon. Members may be surprised to hear that I was a decent athlete back in my day—I know it is hard to believe. [Interruption.] The laughter was too loud there! I still vividly remember the excitement and inspiration I felt as a young person watching athletes compete—including my sporting hero, Steve Cram. That experience stayed with me. It made excellence feel achievable. Today’s young people from West Dunbartonshire and communities across Scotland deserve the same opportunity. They deserve the chance to watch elite athletes at the highest level, and to imagine themselves one day on that track, in that pool or on that podium.
However, I have one main concern: the lack of free live television coverage. With coverage of the games now behind a paywall on TNT Sports and HBO Max, many people risk being excluded. If we want these games to inspire the next generation, they must be accessible to everyone to view. That decision limits the reach and impact of the games at precisely the moment we should be encouraging wider participation and engagement.
I also want to know what my constituents in West Dunbartonshire will gain from these games. How will local communities be involved? How will young people be engaged? How will we maximise opportunities for participation, volunteering and sporting development long after the closing ceremony? I hope those important questions remain central to planning and delivery over the coming weeks and months.
Despite those concerns, my message today is one of optimism. I love the Commonwealth games. I believe in the values they represent, which were highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed): international co-operation, inclusion and friendship. Yes, these games may be smaller and look slightly different from previous years, but they also represent innovation, resilience and a determination to ensure that this great sporting tradition survives and thrives.
Glasgow saved these games when their future was uncertain. Now we can demonstrate a model that could secure their future for decades to come. I look forward to seeing Glasgow once again welcome the Commonwealth, and I hope that our young people, from West Dunbartonshire and across the nation, will be inspired.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats today. As the Chief Whip of my party, I seldom get the opportunity to do so, but when the opportunity arose to talk about the Commonwealth games coming to Glasgow, I was keen to participate. I assure Members—just in case there is a pile-on—that I may be an adopted east coaster, but my roots are in the west.
I have cared about sport all my life. I was the first female director of the Camanachd Association, the governing body for shinty, for two years between 2017 and 2019. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about shooting; I think it is unlikely that we will see shinty in any international context any time soon, but it is important for bringing communities together. Sport does that in a very powerful way across ages and generations.
I read the evidence given to the Scottish Affairs Committee—I congratulate the Committee’s Chair, the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), on securing this debate. It was interesting to read Billy Garrett from Glasgow Life reporting that, when Victoria stepped back from supporting the games, Glasgow was quickly thought of as somewhere that could be asked to step up, and indeed it was already thinking of doing so. That demonstrates the high regard in which Glasgow 2014 and its delivery was held, but I think it says something about Glasgow as well. “People Make Glasgow” is the best strapline for a city I have ever heard—closely followed by “Glasgow’s miles better”, but maybe not quite as iconic as “What’s it called? Cumbernauld!”
We are going to be seeing 10 days of games, with 215 medals and 3,000 athletes from 74 countries. As the Member for North East Fife, it would be remiss of me not to mention Finlay Allan of Cupar, who is participating for Scotland in the judo. I wish him very well. I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Members for Glasgow East (John Grady) and for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) in relation to the fact that we are going to be bringing together in Glasgow young people from 74 countries. At a time when it feels that we are becoming more insular, both globally and community-wise, such events bring young people—specifically, those younger than me—together. The power of that must not be underestimated. I certainly remember the emotion of watching 2012, 2022 in Birmingham and 2014 in Glasgow. To quote the late, great Stanley Baxter in “Parliamo Glasgow”, I am sure they’re going to have a helluva time.
Thinking about funding, there is no doubt that what we are seeing, and the fact that Glasgow has been able to step in, is a result of the down payment in 2014 and the investment that was made then. The hon. Member for Glasgow East mentioned Tollcross, where I have spent a lot of time; I had a sister who swam competitively at junior level for Scotland, so I spent a lot of time in swimming pools. Those community assets, and the power of a venue such as Tollcross to bring international swimming to Scotland, must not be underestimated.
We welcome the funding from Commonwealth Sport and from commercial funders and partnerships, the contingency funding that the UK Government have offered in relation to security, and the £150,000 that the Scottish Government are putting forward for Scotland House. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) talked about connectivity and economic value. I understand that the £150 million of economic value that it is estimated will be delivered by these Commonwealth Games is the same amount as the money that is being put into them. If that is not a return on investment, I do not know what is. That connectivity, and bringing people together, is really important. It is important for sporting events to demonstrate that economic impact.
I should declare an interest in that I sit on the Links Trust, which runs the Old Course and all the golf courses in St Andrews. Recent research by the trust demonstrated £300 million-worth of economic impact that those courses in St Andrews bring to Scotland, but as we look to hosting the Open next year, we know that connectivity and getting people to our beautiful part of Scotland comes at a cost.
The reimagining of the Commonwealth games is to be welcomed, not just because it will enable them to be delivered within the time available, but because—I was very encouraged to read this in the evidence given to the Scottish Affairs Committee—it looks like it is encouraging other countries to re-engage with hosting the games in the future, which is very important. However, I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Strangford about the sports that will be included. I am going to say something very controversial for somebody who represents St Andrews, but I have my doubts about golf being in the Olympics, in the same way as I do about tennis. If winning a gold medal at the Olympics is not the pinnacle of the sport— I would argue that for both of those sports, it is not; that is winning a grand slam or the Open—I question whether it should be in the Olympic repertoire. We have to think from the athletes’ perspective about what is seen as the pinnacle of their sport. There is no doubt that for some athletes whose sports potentially will not be represented at these games, participation in the Commonwealth games would be the pinnacle of their sport. I look forward to the emails I am going to receive from constituents about that controversial view.
I will conclude by talking about volunteering and looking forward to some legislation that is passing through Parliament. My mum is a proud Glaswegian and, like the hon. Member for Glasgow West, volunteered during the Commonwealth games in 2014. We should not underestimate the value of volunteering, not just in what it brings to the event, but in the relationships, friendships and community that it builds afterwards. My mum certainly still meets some of the people she worked with during that time. My husband also worked in spectator safety, so as a family we felt a real sense of pride about 2014 from our place on the east coast.
The Sporting Events Bill was recently introduced in the other place. My party wants to see in the Bill a bidding framework to allow the Government to bring even more world-class competitions to the UK. I think we are all in agreement about their value—not only in bringing people in to see high-class sport, but their economic benefit, which has been well utilised and articulated by these Commonwealth games. We also want to see in the Bill an accommodation and infrastructure strategy. I would hate to think that concerns about George Square and other parts of the city might detract from what will be an incredible event, but it is important that when we bring these events to our cities and communities, we ensure that people can go about their day-to-day lives as well. I hope that the Government will give that consideration, either in the other place or in the Commons.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing the debate. As many Members have said, not only is she a great advocate for the city, but she talks with knowledge and sophistication about the topics under consideration—sport and the broader ecosystem, tourism, and so many other areas.
The Commonwealth games occupy a unique place in our sporting calendar. They bring together nations and territories from across the Commonwealth to compete based on a shared affection and history and, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) mentioned, shared values and principles. This year’s Commonwealth games will be the first held during the reign of His Majesty King Charles III as head of the Commonwealth, and they will demonstrate once again the United Kingdom’s ability to stage world-class sporting events.
The games have a special place in my heart as, back in 2022, I was the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth games in Birmingham. In fact, four years ago almost to the day, I was running around the country—literally—with the Queen’s baton relay. I know well how much effort goes into organising such an event, particularly if it is taken on at late notice. I was fortunate to work with some truly incredible people, including many civil servants whom the Minister will know, as well as the CEO of the games, Ian Reid, Andy Street, Dame Louise Martin, and an amazing creative team led by the inspirational Martin Green. I know that some of the people I worked with are working on the Glasgow games this year too.
Despite the challenges of the pandemic, the Birmingham games were produced on time and on budget, and they provided a £1.2 billion boost to the economy, with more than 1 million tickets sold. They also had a record audience across channels for the official broadcaster, the BBC—something that others have mentioned and I will come to later. Of course, the Birmingham games were run alongside a trade and tourism programme, and their legacy included not only inspiring a generation of new athletes, but physical infrastructure such as a refurbished Alexander Stadium and a new aquatics centre. As we have heard, the 2014 Glasgow games also had a great legacy, including physical infrastructure, and I know there is a dedicated programme to boost tourism with this year’s games.
For very understandable and deliberate reasons, these games will be on a different scale, in part because Glasgow so generously and bravely stepped up to the plate following the withdrawal of Victoria in Australia as host. We applaud it for doing so, in particular given that the future of the Commonwealth games was in such doubt. The Glasgow games will be funded almost entirely without UK public money, with £100 million from the Commonwealth Games Federation and money generated from ticket sales, broadcasting rights and corporate sponsorships. The games are therefore deliberately and understandably smaller in size and scale than the Birmingham games, which had a budget of more than £700 million, 75% of which was from central Government. Of course, central and devolved Governments will play a role in other areas, including security provision, visa processing and so on.
Many Members will remember, and have mentioned, the great success of the previous Glasgow Commonwealth games in 2014. They are still widely regarded as one of the best games ever staged. Glasgow showcased itself to the world as a welcoming, vibrant and capable host city. We have every confidence that it will do so again next month. We should all be rightly proud that Glasgow 2026 will feature one of the largest, if not the largest, integrated para sport programmes in Commonwealth games history. The United Kingdom has been a global leader in disability sport. That was a passion of mine when I was Sports Minister, as I know it is of the current one.
We recognise the immense value that major sporting events bring to our country. They inspire participation, generate economic activity, attract visitors, and strengthen Britain’s international reputation. From London 2012 to the rugby and cricket world cups, from the women’s Euros to Birmingham 2022, when the Conservatives were in government, Britain built on a global reputation as one of the best places in the world to host sport. I acknowledge that this Government know that major events do not arrive by accident. That is why they are bringing in the major Sporting Events Bill. It takes a lot of planning, investment and, of course, credibility and confidence from international sporting bodies to deliver the games. We will debate that Bill in the near future.
As other Members have mentioned, way too often international attention focuses exclusively on our capital city, yet Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool, Newcastle, Cardiff and Belfast have all clearly demonstrated their ability to host major international sporting events successfully. The legacy of Glasgow 2026 should therefore be more than medals and memories, as I am sure it will be. We also want participation in physical activity to increase, which is where I have a couple of questions for the Minister.
It is important that people have access to facilities and that we invest in sport at all levels. Various announcements have been made by the Government, but too many sports do not know what they will receive from Government and when. The Minister has an opportunity today to give us more insight into sports strategy. We have unfortunately seen funding cuts to grassroots sport and even the recently announced cuts to school sport funding. As the hon. Member for Glasgow West mentioned, all too often, with successive Governments and at different levels, we see that our arts, creative and sports provision is the first to be cut even though they are the things we should invest in most. Investment in sport is not a nice-to-have; it is an essential boost to the economy, our mental and physical health as a nation, and our soft power around the world.
Sadly, for the first time since 1950, the Commonwealth games will not be broadcast live by the BBC. Instead, live coverage will be shown by TNT Sports, with Channel 5 providing free-to-air highlights later. It is disappointing that, despite record-breaking multi-platform viewing figures for the 2022 Birmingham games, the BBC will not show any coverage of this year’s Commonwealth games in Glasgow, which I do not think many people have yet realised. That is yet another example of the deterioration in sports coverage from our national broadcaster.
As the next Commonwealth games are in Scotland, the BBC’s decision is especially pertinent, given that Ofcom recently approved STV’s plans to cut standalone regional news for the north of Scotland. I know that my Scottish colleagues here in Westminster, Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament and others have expressed great disappointment in both those decisions. It raises questions about the role and purpose of our public service broadcasters and of Ofcom. I hope and expect that Channel 5 and TNT Sports will provide high-quality coverage, but the BBC’s decision is disappointing and I would welcome the Minister’s views on that decision, too.
Finally, as we approach the opening ceremony, I want to place on record our thanks to everyone who has made these games possible, and to all those who will generate very special memories for so many people in the coming weeks. We thank the athletes, who have dedicated years to training; the coaches, officials and support staff, who work so hard behind the scenes; the organisers, who have worked tirelessly to bring the games to Glasgow; and the important volunteers, who will once again demonstrate the warmth and hospitality for which Scotland and Glasgow, in particular, is so famous.
We wish every success to Glasgow 2026. I hope that the games inspire a new generation to participate in sport, and that they reinforce the message that the United Kingdom remains the world’s leading sporting nation and one of the world’s premier hosts of major international sporting events.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, and I am really pleased to respond to this debate. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing today’s debate, and on all her hard work and representation. It is brilliant not only to set out what the Government are doing to support Glasgow 2026, but to celebrate the games and to look ahead to what will be a fantastic celebration of sport, the Commonwealth, Glasgow, Scotland and the UK. Before I go into some of those issues, I will respond to some points that hon. Members made, and I will address other points as I go through my speech.
In opening the debate, my hon. Friend set the scene very powerfully. She spoke about the 3,000 athletes who will take part and mentioned that Glasgow is the third city in history to host the games twice. She also referred to the pre-existing venues and the scale of the para games, as well as to the fact that we are a world leader in sport and that the first medal at Glasgow 2026 will be awarded in para sport. A number of Members rightly pointed out the range of community events.
My hon. Friend and other Members made really important points about George Square. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is a strong champion of his local area and Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), who is the chair of the all-party group for events, made some really important points about major events and their wider impact. When I appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee just over a month ago, I was pleased to announce the Government’s intention to have a major events strategy.
On that subject, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), asked some specific questions about the Sporting Events Bill, which we have introduced in the other place. I believe that we will reach out to the hon. Lady about it, and I am very happy to meet her, and indeed, the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), to address some of the specific points that she put to me about the Bill.
This debate is especially well timed as I am due to travel to Glasgow tomorrow to meet the company organising the games and to hear at first hand how the planning and delivery are progressing. It has been wonderful to support the games personally as Sports Minister, whether through my regular meetings with Commonwealth games organising committee and the Scottish Government, or through the excellent baton relay at Buckingham Palace—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) spoke powerfully about the importance of the baton, and it was a delight to spend some time with him in his constituency last summer—or through marking the games at Edinburgh Castle a few months ago.
A little over a decade ago, Glasgow delivered a fantastic Commonwealth games and now the city has another chance to showcase itself to the world; many Members have spoken about that today. As we saw with Glasgow 2014 and Birmingham 2022, and as many hon. Members pointed out, the games bring world-class sport to our communities, delivering the special heart-stopping moments that only live sport can deliver.
At the 2022 games, I had the great experience of attending the diving finals at the then new Sandwell Aquatics Centre and seeing our country take home medals. It was a particular delight to go to that event, as it was just down the road from where I grew up; I attended with Lord McConnell, who sits in the other place.
The shadow Secretary of State was Sports Minister at that time, as he said, and he showed a commendable commitment to the games then. In his contribution today, he rightly pointed out that the 2026 games will be the first under His Majesty’s reign. The hon. Member’s speech clearly illustrated how he wants these games to be as successful as possible, and I know that he is a huge supporter. He put a couple of specific questions to me, which I will answer as I progress through my speech.
The games generate significant wider economic and social benefits. They bring communities together, galvanise volunteers and support local jobs and supply chains. Last week, we marked Volunteers’ Week, and I pay tribute to the volunteers who are the lifeblood of so much of our sport in the UK. They help to deliver grassroots sport up and down the country every single day, and when it comes to major sporting events, they are a vital and joyful part of the experience.
Ten world-class sports across four world-class venues, 3,000 athletes, 4,000 volunteers, the largest ever para sport programme at a games, a vibrant cultural festival and a city capitalising on the legacy of 2014—we are all looking forward to the show that Glasgow and Scotland will put on. More broadly, the games continue to be a key pathway for elite athletes, a wonderful event for spectators and a fantastic opportunity to bring together the Commonwealth family of nations in a positive and impactful way.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) said, live sport inspires more people to get active than anything else. Glasgow 2026 is seeking to adopt a new approach to legacy and will bring benefits to communities and individuals across Glasgow and Scotland more broadly.
Some points were put to me about grassroots sport, which is a passion of mine and of this Government. We are investing £400 million over the coming years, including £8 million in Scotland this year and £3.4 million in sporting projects in Glasgow since 2024. Inactivity is a story of inequality, which this Government are committed to tackling. Major events such as the Commonwealth games play a hugely important role in that.
When the Australian state of Victoria announced that it was pulling out of hosting the 2026 games in July 2023, the future of the event looked increasingly uncertain. We were at risk of losing a wonderful sporting occasion that brings nations together and provides an opportunity outside of the Olympics, Paralympics and respective sports’ world championships for athletics to shine on the world stage. That is why I am truly delighted that the UK Government stepped up and got behind Glasgow 2026. I am proud of the role we have played in making the commitments required to support the Glasgow project to go ahead and, by extension, helping to secure the future of the games. I pay tribute to Ian Reid and his team at Commonwealth Games Scotland, and I acknowledge the work of the Scottish Government and all partners involved, which has made Glasgow 2026 a possibility.
The Government’s support spans a number of areas and was critical in ensuring that Glasgow 2026 became a reality. While the Glasgow 2026 model is predicated on private income, the UK Government were pleased to be able to help the games through a commitment of up to £2.3 million of contingent funding to support the safety and security of the event. That was a key commitment that helped to unlock the original agreement for Glasgow to host the games.
We have provided support in other ways, too. I am pleased that the Home Office has worked closely with event organisers to ensure that bespoke visa processes have been established for the games family, ensuring that the games will benefit from smooth and streamlined visa processes that are appropriately tailored to the needs of athletes and officials while maintaining effective border security and immigration controls.
Operationally, teams at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and Ofcom have worked closely with the organising company to ensure that the radio spectrum frequencies to be used at the games are available and overseen effectively, supporting the essential communications behind the scenes that enable these major sporting events to go ahead smoothly and safely. Alongside all that, my Department has directly provided a small amount of staffing to support the organising company, helping to ensure that the games are effectively integrating with the Departments and teams in Whitehall that they need to.
As a Government, we have stepped up in the games’ hour of need and not only made sure that Glasgow has what it needs to deliver a safe, sustainable and world-class event, but sought to maximise the opportunities that it presents to the UK. I would also like to reflect on the important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) regarding racism in sport.
John Grady
Since I spoke, the police have explained more clearly some of the stuff that happened last night. Glasgow central mosque sits in the heart of my seat, and is somewhere that many Muslim brothers and sisters go to pray, as I am sure will visitors in Commonwealth games teams. That mosque had to be locked last night. People were attacked in the streets of Glasgow because of their colour. Police were attacked. I condemn this. Will the Minister join me in condemning it?
Stephanie Peacock
Of course I join my hon. Friend in condemning the appalling violence, and my heart goes out to all those involved. We must stand against this across the House.
Sport unites us all. It transcends boundaries, fosters camaraderie and instils the values of fairness, respect and perseverance. It is a mirror on our society, reflecting our strength and, at times, our challenges.
Dr Ahmed
To develop the point made by my dear hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady), I have been worshipping at Glasgow central mosque since it opened in 1984, and it is timely to remind hon. Members that the mosque was at the epicentre of the last Commonwealth games in Glasgow. As hon. Members will appreciate, a number of athletes were coming from Muslim-majority Commonwealth countries, and it was Ramadan at the time. The mosque became an epicentre for many athletes; it was where they first and foremost found the community of Glasgow. I am also shocked to hear that last night the mosque had to be closed, but I am deeply confident that, in the course of the games, the people of Glasgow will show themselves to be the welcoming, diverse community that they have always been and always will be. Does the Minister agree that the people do make Glasgow?
Stephanie Peacock
I do agree, and I share my hon. Friend’s shock. I am shocked and appalled. The Government’s stance remains unequivocal: racism has absolutely no place in our society, and it has no place in our sport either.
Let me turn to the issue of accessibility. I recognise and understand the disappointment that many will feel regarding Commonwealth Sport’s decision not to partner with a free-to-air broadcaster for live coverage of the games. TNT Sports has partnered with one of our public service broadcasters, Channel 5, to ensure that the highlights of the games will be available on free-to-air television. The deal provides the opportunity for a wider audience to enjoy moments that matter in the games, but I have heard the points made regarding the BBC. I am sure that the BBC will have heard the points made by the shadow Minister and others, which I will relay to the Media Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). Ultimately, all sports rights holders and UK broadcasters are operationally and editorially independent of Government.
Glasgow 2026 will be an opportunity for all of us to celebrate the unique power that live sport has to bring us together and will deliver a real impact. Once again, Glasgow and the nation are on the biggest stage, and the city’s MPs have demonstrated the power of their city today. I congratulate Phil Batty, George Black and all the organisers who are working tirelessly to ensure that Glasgow is a success that showcases the very best of sport and brings about a new era for the Commonwealth games. I look forward to a brilliant event and a bright future for the games movement. I thank and pay tribute to the athletes, coaches, volunteers, organisers and everyone else who makes it possible.
Patricia Ferguson
I will not be able to respond to all the points that colleagues have made in the time available, but I am grateful to everyone for their speeches, which have all been interesting and informative. They give us all food for thought.
The interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow East (John Grady) and for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) are very important. The scenes last night do not demonstrate Glasgow at their best—I would argue that they do not represent Glasgow at all—but it is important that we do not shy away from them, and that we challenge them. I hope that we will collectively do so.
One of the statistics about sport that has haunted me over the years is that, although boys and girls participate in sport at an equal level up to the age of 11, at the age of 11 girls stop participating in sport at a level that men do not get to until they are aged about 40. There are all sorts of reasons for that, and we can imagine what many of them are, but it is just not good enough.
No matter what successive Governments have done, we have never cracked that very important issue. Physical activity and sport are very important; they are important for women and girls and for men, and they should be important to all of us. If any of us can do anything about that, we should. That is one of the reasons why I think the Commonwealth games not being free to air on one of the terrestrial broadcasters is really detrimental. It is not providing the motivation that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) mentioned, and it is not providing inspiration either.
Stephanie Peacock
I would not ordinarily intervene as the Minister, but I thought that it might be helpful to inform my hon. Friend and the House that I will chair the next meeting of the women’s sport taskforce, which aims to encourage and tackle some of the issues around women’s sport. Indeed, this Government have the ambition to double priority slots for women and girls.
Patricia Ferguson
That is really good news, and I very much hope that my hon. Friend will relay that kind of activity to the Scottish Government and encourage them to do more for young women and girls in Scotland. It is very important.
I could not resist the challenge of responding to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). One of the things I love about the Commonwealth games is that they make a particular point of tailoring the sports featured at individual games, and it varies, to the needs of the competitors. For example, events that are very expensive for participants to take part in tend not to be featured, because many countries in the Commonwealth cannot support that kind of sport. However, shooting and boxing are quite often part of the Commonwealth games. In 2014, we had shooting in Barry Buddon in the north of Scotland, and I remember watching boxing at the games in Melbourne, so those sports are considered for the Commonwealth games. They happen not to be in these games for logistical reasons more than anything else, but the hon. Member should continue to champion them and take them forward.
In my opinion, the good thing about Glasgow 2014 was that it showed not just that Glasgow could host a Commonwealth games, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) suggested, that Glasgow can host events—big events. I cannot remember who it was, but someone also mentioned the UCI championships. We can do those events: we have the infrastructure and we are doing well, but we need to do better.
As the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) suggested, sport has the ability to make us all work together and join together; it brings us all together in common cause. At a time when our country is a little more divided than any of us would like—perhaps the world is too—we need to use events such as the Commonwealth games to show that it does not have to be like that. Indeed, it will not be if the principles and values of the Commonwealth games can be taken forward by everyone involved.
I thank everyone in Glasgow who is working so hard: George Black, Phil Batty, Jon Doig—I will probably miss out some people who I really should mention—Ian Reid and Billy Garrett from Glasgow Life. A whole panoply of people make sure that these games are a success, and I hope that everyone who comes to Glasgow to see them very much enjoys the games and Glasgow too.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for the Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2026.
Myanmar: Human Rights
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I will call Sir Jeremy Hunt to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates. I call Sir Jeremy Hunt to move the motion.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for human rights in Myanmar.
I have not spoken under your chairmanship before, Mr Twigg—it is an honour to do so. I thank the Minister for attending. We have had meetings with his colleague at the Foreign Office, and I know it is an issue of great interest to the Government.
Ukraine, Iran and Sudan have captured the headlines, but Myanmar is the civil war the world has forgotten. I went as Foreign Secretary in 2018, deeply concerned about the genocide of the Rohingya that had happened a year earlier. I was fobbed off by the Tatmadaw, the Burmese army and the Myanmar authorities. But at least we thought the country was taking tentative steps towards democracy, and following extensive engagement, we did manage to get two Reuters journalists, Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, released after they had reported on the genocide. Then things started going backwards.
In 2021 we had a military coup. Aung San Suu Kyi was imprisoned, and since then we have had a vicious civil war with appalling human rights abuses by the military dictatorship. Some 7,000 to 8,000 people have been killed, 30,000 have been arbitrarily detained, 40 political parties have been banned, and there are now 14,000 political prisoners, including nearly all the pro-democracy candidates in past elections. There are daily airstrikes on homes, schools, hospitals, clinics, churches and other places of worship. There is arson, torture and sexual violence, and 4 million people displaced from homes.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way as he is beginning to make a very cogent case about the human rights abuses happening in Myanmar. I intervene because he raised the issue of airstrikes. Since the last sanctions were imposed on Myanmar by the UK 591 days ago, there has been a significant increase in airstrikes by the Burmese military. Does he agree that we need a new round of sanctions, including potentially targeting the military-owned Mytel mobile phone network, as well as vessels and companies identified by Amnesty and Reuters as delivering jet fuel and materials for making explosives, some of it originating in Iran?
Sir Jeremy Hunt
The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted what I was going to say, but I absolutely agree that we have to go further. In terms of the current situation, in nine days’ time, Aung San Suu Kyi will mark her 81st birthday. She has recently moved to house arrest but is still unable to contact her family. We must not forget that life under military rule means no freedom of expression, no free press, no free courts, internet restrictions, sham elections and total bloodshed as the Government conduct a vicious civil war with total impunity when it comes to civilian casualties.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
The genocide against the Rohingya Muslims, which has been ongoing for almost a decade, is one of the most horrifying examples of Islamophobia. Does the right hon. Member agree that the UK should join the EU and the USA in imposing sanctions on the military-controlled Myanmar oil and gas enterprises, which is a major source of revenue for the military?
Sir Jeremy Hunt
I will respond to that as soon as I have taken the final intervention that I am going to take.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Since the illegal military coup, the junta has executed a brutal, calculated campaign targeting predominantly Christian ethnic regions in Chin, Kayah and Kachin states as well as Sagaing and Yangon. Reports from Open Doors confirmed that historical Christian communities face unprecedented violence, with churches being bombed via indiscriminate military airstrikes. Villages have been razed to the ground and Christian pastors are being unlawfully detained, disappeared or killed. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in urging the Government to do all in their power to support those Christians, as well as Muslims and all those persecuted for their faith in that nation?
Sir Jeremy Hunt
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I have campaigned for many years on freedom of religion and belief, and I agree that what is happening to Christians in Myanmar is an absolute tragedy. I totally agree with the hon. Member for Manchester Rusholme (Afzal Khan) that we have to do more when it comes to sanctions.
I say to the Minister that I am very aware of the trade-offs and challenges in foreign policy, and that the environment we are in at the moment is far from benign when it comes to human rights. Tempting though it may be to say—although I know the Minister would not—that because the UK has its own problems, we should not get too involved in this, we matter when it comes to Myanmar. That is for a very simple, straightforward reason, which is that, on the Security Council, we hold the pen when it comes to Myanmar, so it is our responsibility to make sure that the UN is aware of what is happening there. Given what is happening, it is a special responsibility for us to galvanise the United Nations to do everything in its power to end the bloodshed and brutal oppression of the Burmese people.
I recognise that sanctions are in place, and I know that the Minister cares deeply about human rights, but we can do more. One of the biggest things we can do is repeat what I did in 2018 and organise a high-level meeting on Myanmar, chaired by the Foreign Secretary, at the United Nations General Assembly in September to make sure that we draw the attention of everyone who attends that vital meeting in New York to what is happening and to the terrible suffering of the Burmese people. If it is the only thing we do—I do not believe it is the only thing we can do—at least the UK will have made sure that the world knows what is happening in Myanmar.
Myanmar might not care too much about the UK as a country, but it cares about China, the country that is protecting it; it cares about the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which is sitting on the fence apart from the brave exception of the Philippines; and it cares about the UN, so this is a major moment where we must make sure that we do our duty. There are other things. We all know that the aid budget is being cut, but if the UK finds something to support humanitarian efforts—obviously, without channelling it through a corrupt and merciless Government—other countries will follow. And for the sake of posterity and of future victims, it is essential that we give full support to any efforts to assemble evidence of war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, including referring the Arakan army to the International Court of Justice.
Will the Minister commit to the Foreign Secretary chairing a high-level meeting at UNGA in September? Will the Government respond to the final report of the former UN special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, Tom Andrews? Will the Government consider invoking article 14 of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court to request an investigation into mass atrocity crimes in Myanmar? Will the UK sanction military-controlled banks in the way that other countries have?
Sadly, the world’s most powerful democracy, the United States, is currently showing little interest in human rights across the world. Partly as a result, some autocrats are beginning to think that they can literally get away with murder, but the US is not the only democracy on the planet. There are us, European democracies, Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea and many other countries that share our democratic values. Britain does not have to stand on the sidelines, Britain must not stand on the sidelines, and I hope that when we hear from the Minister, he will tell us that Britain will not stand on the sidelines.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to Burma Campaign UK for its support, as well as to other non-governmental organisations that have supported the all-party parliamentary group on Burma. Burma Campaign UK provides secretariat support to the APPG, which I co-chair with the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt). I congratulate him on securing this very important debate. I also thank him for his leadership on this issue both when he was Foreign Secretary and my party and I were in opposition, and from the Back Benches, and for his support to those of us who are campaigning on the plight of the Rohingya Muslims. Almost 1 million were expelled to Cox’s Bazar in neighbouring Bangladesh, and for seven years they have remained in the camps there. It is a population similar to that of Wales, and they are in horrific circumstances, so I am grateful for the support that the right hon. Member has provided.
Today we are debating the ongoing deterioration of human rights in Myanmar/Burma. Initially it was ethnic groups—the largest being the Rohingya population, although there were other ethnic groups—but now it is the whole population who face persecution by the Burmese military.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, relative to the other crises in the world, in Sudan, Gaza and other places, the long-running and tragic dispute between the regime and the many people who live in Myanmar/Burma deserves much more attention—not just in this House, which is what we are providing as Back Benchers, but from the Government?
Rushanara Ali
I absolutely agree and I thank my hon. Friend for her work, in both opposition and government, on this very important issue.
It is five years since the military coup, and what we have seen is further deterioration of the situation. Despite the heroic resistance and international condemnation, the military have instituted a regime of repression and violence on a massive scale. Military abuses are widespread, and 3.6 million people have been internally displaced. That is on top of the 1 million who were forced out to neighbouring countries. According to Amnesty International, military atrocities, which include war crimes and crimes against humanity, have escalated as the junta has sought to entrench its rule through abusive military operations and stage-managed elections.
Armed conflict has also escalated further. The Burmese military are also stepping up airstrikes targeting health facilities and civilians, using deadly double-tap airstrikes for the first time. The regime has restricted freedom of speech, the media and the internet. As well as experiencing restrictions on human rights, the people are paying a huge economic price.
I visited Myanmar twice before the military coup, and the situation was already bad, but this is significantly worse. In Rakhine state, we saw massive human rights violations against the Rohingya Muslims, but also other minorities. At that time, 100,000 people were internally displaced. Their circumstances are even worse because of the conflict there. Many international investors have of course pulled out, and the economic circumstances have got worse.
In the UK, over the years before the military coup, a huge amount of work was done from the Back Benches to get our Government to play a strong leadership role. I am proud of the work that we did on a cross-party basis, which led to Britain playing a leading role in ensuring that people spoke up and sought a referral to the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. Our strong historical ties leave us with not just a special responsibility, as the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash pointed out, but an expectation from the people of Myanmar that we will stand with them in their struggle for human rights and democracy.
Following the 2021 military coup, the UK co-ordinated with global allies on the imposition of targeted sanctions, which limited the access of the Myanmar military to revenue and arms. In the absence of progress on a UN-mandated global arms embargo, which we campaigned for, we successfully lobbied countries to unilaterally impose their own arms embargoes. We joined international justice initiatives such as the Rohingya genocide case at the ICJ and publicly supported the referral of the situation in Myanmar to the International Criminal Court. I am grateful to Philippe Sands and others who have been involved with that work.
That did not happen by accident. It happened because Members of Parliament worked together to ensure that the UK Government supported the ICJ referral. However, we are going backwards. We are now at risk of losing that momentum and jeopardising our position of leadership on this critical issue.
Like the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash, I recognise that there are huge pressures on our country, with conflicts raging in the middle east, Ukraine and elsewhere, but we have a responsibility to take action. We have seen that, when we work with our allies, we can make a difference.
Sadly, no new sanctions targeting the Myanmar military have been imposed since 2024 and since my party came into government. That is deeply disappointing and I hope that the Minister will work with us to look at what more we can do on sanctions.
In the following year, the number of airstrikes by the Myanmar military almost doubled. The tactics of the military have also changed. It is moving away from airstrikes mainly targeting frontlines to a greater focus on civilian targets, including health facilities. Tactics have since changed again, with several jets engaging in airstrikes simultaneously, dropping a far greater number of bombs.
Given the escalating human rights violations, the British Government should be doing everything they can to identify and sanction sources of revenue and arms and to encourage our allies to do the same.
I call on the Minister to make sure that we work with our partners. We have not joined Canada in sanctioning the jet fuel sector, despite the humanitarian and economic impacts of airstrikes, let alone the lives lost. We have not joined the European Union and the United States of America in sanctioning Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise—the military-controlled body responsible for oil and gas extraction and a major source of revenue to the Myanmar military. We have not joined the United States of America in sanctioning international telecommunications company, Myanmar Mytel, which is not only a military joint-venture company that provides revenue to the military, but is also used to track and arrest human rights activists.
There are a number of other sanctions that other countries have been party to that we have not. I call on the Minister to look at those areas and to work with our partners on that.
I look forward to working with Ministers in the Foreign Office, as well as the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash and other members of the all-party parliamentary group, to make sure that we take action to stand with the Burmese people and to ensure that they get justice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) for securing this debate. I pay tribute to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) for their work as co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group. As a Foreign Minister myself now, though in a lesser position than he occupied, I know that the right hon. Gentleman’s choice to prioritise Myanmar during his time as Foreign Secretary was important and made a difference. Both colleagues have helped to ensure that the voices of those in Myanmar suffering grave abuses of their fundamental human rights are not forgotten.
I am also grateful to the other hon. Members who have spoken today to show continued strong concern for the people of Myanmar from both sides of this House. I will endeavour to respond to the points raised.
Decades of impunity and military rule have eroded civil and political rights and left minority groups pushed to the margins. Since the coup in February 2021, the human rights crisis has fed directly into the humanitarian emergency described by the right hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend. Sustained international engagement, including by the UK, is essential. We will not stand by.
The military continues to commit serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. Airstrikes on civilian areas, including schools and hospitals, have become commonplace. Punitive village burnings continue and religious freedoms, which were referenced by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), are under constant threat.
Sexual violence, including the use of rape as a weapon of war, continues to be used as a political tool, particularly against women and LGBTQ individuals. More than 22,000 people are arbitrarily detained, including political leaders, journalists and human rights defenders. The announcement of the conditional release of former President Win Myint and the purported transfer to house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi fall far short of the widespread and full releases that are urgently needed. The legal system in Myanmar continues to be used to silence dissent, as the ongoing unjust detention of Aung San Suu Kyi and many others makes clear. We are deeply concerned by reports of torture and by restricted access to medical care in detention.
Civic space in the country is immensely constrained, and digital surveillance and repression have turned Myanmar into one of the most restrictive online environments in the world. Registration laws continue to limit the ability of civil society organisations to operate across the country. The recent elections held by the regime were neither free nor fair: all meaningful opposition was excluded, and the elections were accompanied by intimidation, coercion and abuse, including severe sentences under the election protection law.
As the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash said, the impact of those violations extends far beyond Myanmar’s borders. More than 1 million Rohingya refugees remain in Bangladesh, with many more displaced across the region. At the same time, organised criminal networks, including scam centres relying on trafficked labour, continue to thrive in an environment of lawlessness. This poses risks to regional and international security.
Against that grim backdrop, this country must continue to stand in solidarity with the people of Myanmar. We are a leading donor, and are continuing to take practical action. In the past financial year, we have provided more than £80 million in lifesaving assistance, including emergency healthcare, protection, education and food, delivered through trusted partners. Human rights considerations are rightly central to our programming, with a focus on women, children, people with disabilities and other groups at heightened risk. We work to ensure that more than 65% of our funding goes to local organisations, including faith-based organisations.
Catherine West
Given the decline in the aid budget, will those commitments remain, or may there have to be a reduction in aid to Myanmar?
Mr Falconer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who did such a good job in her previous guise as the Minister for the Indo-Pacific. We are standing by these commitments. It will be for the current Minister for the Indo-Pacific, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), to make future determinations about her portfolio.
Over the past year, we have reached more than 1.4 million people with humanitarian assistance and provided 1.3 million with essential health services. We will continue to stand by those who have been most affected.
Jim Shannon
In my earlier intervention, I mentioned the work that Open Doors does in Myanmar and across the world. Has the Minister had an opportunity—I suspect that he has—to contact Open Doors, find out what it is trying to do there, and work in partnership with it, for everyone’s benefit?
Mr Falconer
Sorry—I could not quite hear the hon. Gentleman, but I think he was asking whether we have been engaging with faith-based groups in Myanmar. We have, and the Minister for the Indo-Pacific has been focused on those questions. We recognise that the best way of reaching those most in need in these difficult times is through some of the faith-based groups in Myanmar.
Alongside critical humanitarian assistance, longer-term action is needed to end impunity and break cycles of violence. We will continue to support international accountability mechanisms, including the United Nations independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar. That work is already contributing to proceedings at the International Court of Justice and to the important investigations of the ICC. As colleagues are aware, we established the Myanmar Witness project, which verifies evidence using open-source intelligence and trains local actors to do the same.
I hear from colleagues the desire for further sanctions, but I am sure they are familiar with why Foreign Office Ministers are circumspect on such questions. We have imposed 19 rounds of sanctions already, targeting individuals and entities responsible for serious human rights abuses, but of course we keep these questions under regular review.
It is vital to lay the foundations for an inclusive future led by the people of Myanmar. That is why we support efforts to protect civic space, strengthen local civil society and enable dialogue. That includes work to improve women’s participation in peace and security, support bottom-up approaches to governance, and reinforce economic and social rights through education, health and livelihoods initiatives. Through the John Bunyan fund, we have supported organisations working to tackle hate speech, misinformation and online harms that drive discrimination and violence.
We continue to support the Rohingya, who, as many colleagues powerfully set out, have faced decades of persecution. In Bangladesh, the UK is the second largest donor to the Rohingya crisis, and the Foreign Secretary announced an additional £27 million in September 2025. That includes targeted protection and support for women and girls, delivered through local partners. My colleague, Baroness Chapman, visited Cox’s Bazar camps in November 2025 and saw at first hand the UK’s programmes of support. That reaffirms our commitment to life-saving assistance and the safe, voluntary return of refugees when conditions allow.
The right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash spoke with authority and experience about how central multilateral action is on these questions. As he says, we are indeed the penholder, and we are working to keep the situation firmly on the Security Council’s agenda, including through resolution 2669 and regular meetings. At the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, we continue to lead and support resolutions that maintain international scrutiny and mandate independent mechanisms. We work closely with the UN special rapporteur and the Secretary-General’s special envoy. We engage actively with partners in New York and Geneva to amplify Myanmar voices on international platforms. I heard the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion for the Foreign Secretary in high-level week, and I will pass that on.
We also recognise the importance of regional engagement—particularly the leadership of ASEAN and the five-point consensus. Through our international engagement, we consistently push for progress on ending violence, securing humanitarian access and advancing inclusive dialogue—all are essential to improving the human rights situation.
The human rights situation in Myanmar remains grave, but withdrawal or silence is not an option, and we will certainly not sit on the sidelines. Sustained pressure, co-ordinated engagement and targeted support can reduce harm, advance accountability and help lay the foundations for a future that respects the rights of all. The resilience and courage shown by communities across Myanmar, even in the face of extraordinary hardship, demands nothing less. We are committed to upholding international human rights standards and working with partners across the House to support the aspirations of the people of Myanmar for an inclusive and peaceful future.
Question put and agreed to.
Water Supply in Kent
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered water supply in Kent.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to colleagues for coming to the debate, but it is disappointing that we are having to have it at all, after the fourth incident—and the third major one—disrupting the supply of water to South East Water customers in six months. Between November and December, approximately 24,000 customers experienced low water pressure or little to no water supply. When supplies were restored, a boil water notice was issued. In January, about 30,000 customers again had to put up with little or no water supply. In April, around 6,000 customers experienced water supply problems, which South East Water said were
“caused by a burst water main.”
At the end of May, as we know, customers had to cope for 11 days with interruptions to their water supply. On that most recent occasion, around 22,000 customers across Kent, including roughly 4,000 in my constituency, were impacted.
Last week, during an urgent question secured by the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), I spoke about how, like many of my constituents, I have lost all faith in South East Water due to its repeated failures. Access to clean, reliable water is not a luxury; it is a fundamental expectation. When people turn on their taps, they should be able to rely on a consistent supply of water. That is the absolute minimum any water company should guarantee, but all too often South East Water is not meeting that minimum expectation.
The repeated disruptions are not only inconvenient but deeply distressing for residents, who should be able to rely on water. The impact of these repeated failures is evident from the Consumer Council for Water report last week, which showed that trust in South East Water had been “materially weakened”. More than half of those surveyed now store bottled water at home in case of future incidents.
The most recent incident occurred during a short period of hot weather, when the consequences of shortages can be especially acute. It affected households; farmers, whose livelihoods depend on a steady supply of water; and vulnerable individuals in care homes, where continuity of basic services is critical to wellbeing and safety. The wider economic impact must also be recognised. Hotels, restaurants and pubs across parts of the county were forced to close, losing vital income during what should have been a busy period coinciding with the school half-term holidays.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman talked about farmers, who need water to give to their cattle. If they cannot do that, it is almost an animal tragedy waiting to happen. When there are water supply problems, many people suffer, but particularly farmers, who may have to look after 150 to 200 cattle, sheep or whatever it may be. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that farmers need to be looked after as a priority?
Sojan Joseph
I absolutely agree. There are many farmers in my constituency, and I have heard about the challenges they face when there are water shortages and they do not know when the water will come back—even the uncertainty is difficult for them.
For businesses, loss of trade is not simply a temporary inconvenience; it can have lasting repercussions. Taken together, South East Water’s failures highlight a pattern of underperformance that is no longer acceptable and that demands urgent attention and accountability. I welcome the confirmation from Ofwat that the recent incident will be part of its ongoing investigation into South East Water, but can my hon. Friend the Minister set out what actions the Government are taking to strengthen compensation arrangements for customers and what is being done to ensure that those affected by serious outages receive proper support and redress?
I want to recognise those who did their best during very difficult circumstances, including staff from local authorities, other agencies and the health and social care sector, as well as South East Water’s employees on the ground. I would also like to pay tribute to the Water Minister and her officials for the way they actively engaged during the latest incident. In the conversations the Government had with South East Water, did the company give any assurances that lessons would be learned? It is important to have a robust evaluation of the measures put in place to assess what was effective and, more importantly, what needs improving.
According to the company, it used tankers to supply more than 2 million litres of water to its network. More than a week after taps started running dry, I was still being contacted by constituents experiencing supply issues. The company needs to explain why it took so long to restore supply during this and other recent disruptions.
South East Water reported distributing more than 1 million litres of bottled water to customers. However, one constituent on the priority services register did not receive water at her property. After my office intervened on her behalf, we were informed that water would be delivered later that day, by which time the constituent had confirmed that her supply had already been restored. The issue of people on the priority services register being left waiting for water was raised in the House during previous outages, but it continues to arise. In any evaluation that takes place, consideration needs to be given to the location of water distribution stations. Those living in rural areas, elderly residents or those without access to a car cannot travel far to collect bottled water. Provision must reflect need.
Communication is another persistent failure. Constituents received little or no information, and updates were often inconsistent. I know that is something that the Water Minister has raised with the company, but it is simply not good enough for constituents to be left wondering what is happening to their water supply, or when it will be restored.
South East Water’s communication with Members of Parliament also needs to improve. During the recent meningitis outbreak, alongside daily updates from the UK Health Security Agency, MPs were offered regular virtual meetings to answer questions. Although South East Water sent out daily email updates, the information I received from constituents often contradicted what the company was saying. It took direct contact from my office to request a virtual briefing before one was arranged.
Of course, the most important lesson to be learned is how to prevent future water supply disruption in the first place. Each time an incident occurs, a different reason is given, whether that is a plant failure, severe weather, a burst water main or increased demand during hot weather. Those explanations do not change the underlying reality: for years the company has prioritised shareholders’ interests over those of its customers, and has failed to make the necessary investment in its infrastructure.
After years of under-investment, South East Water’s ageing and leaking infrastructure is struggling to cope. That cannot be allowed to continue. After all, if my constituents have poor service from their telephone provider, they can change their network, but because water companies have a monopoly, South East Water’s customers have no choice but to put up with this failing company.
This lack of resilience in our water infrastructure is particularly concerning, given the need for more housing in my constituency and across the county. During the Conservative Government’s last year in power, planning applications were at their lowest point for a decade. As we look to fix this problem, it is important that housebuilding takes place with natural resources such as water in mind. That includes ensuring that water companies and housing developers make the necessary investment in infrastructure.
What action can the Government take to give councils, such as Ashford and Folkestone and Hythe in my constituency, and other planning authorities confidence that all water companies make that investment, to ensure that current needs are met and that future growth, including the demand for affordable housing, can be supported? Building on the proposals set out in the water White Paper, will the Minister update the House on what action the Government are taking to deliver a water system that the people of Kent can depend on?
Climate change makes this challenge more urgent. Last week, the Environmental Audit Committee took evidence on the impact of extreme heat, and we heard that we are likely to see more frequent heatwaves and periods of extreme temperatures. Kent and the south-east of England will be particularly exposed, which will have implications for water supply. Hotter weather increases demand, while dry summers reduce availability. As the Environment Agency has pointed out, Kent is already marked by exceptionally low rainfall.
While I welcome the proposed Broad Oak reservoir, South East Water is not expected to submit a planning application until 2028 at the earliest. That will take time to deliver, and even if it is in place, further action will still be required to safeguard supply. In last week’s urgent question, the Minister mentioned that the Government are looking at desalination plants as part of the longer-term answer to water supply challenges. Those could provide a reliable source of clean drinking water that is independent of rainfall, particularly during prolonged dry periods. I would welcome further details on the role the Government see for desalination within a balanced, long-term strategy for Kent’s water supply.
I would like to ask the Minister one final question. This Government have taken strong action by nationalising the steel industry to protect it for future generations. They have also addressed the failure of rail privatisation by bringing rail companies back into public ownership. Given the steps they have already taken on water, which include passing the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 and giving the Environment Agency more powers to monitor water companies, what consideration have the Government given to taking failing water companies into public ownership?
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
I apologise for the untimely interruption earlier, Mr Twigg— if I had been in the Chair, I would have been shouting at me. I wanted to open my mobile phone because at half-past 4 this afternoon a lady from Herne Bay texted me to say:
“Sewage is being discharged into Herne Bay from a combined sewage overflow”.
That is a common occurrence, and most Members present who represent coastal seats will have had messages like that over and over again. We can go around this circuit as many times as we like; we went around it last Wednesday, and then again on Monday, so I suspect that the Minister will get fed up listening to a cracked record.
Yet again, I have to highlight the fact that we are building hundreds and hundreds of houses in our coastal towns and hinterland, for which there is no water supply and no adequate sewerage. I learned today from one of my excellent local councillors in Dover, Martin Porter, that Southern Water is resisting a planning application for a village, simply because it cannot provide a facility to deal with the sewage the little estate will generate, any more than South East Water can supply the water that will be needed. Yet, as we have discussed in the last few days, the water companies have a statutory duty to provide water to every house built and—Southern Water is the sewage authority for both the areas I have mentioned—to dispose of the sewage, but they simply cannot do it.
Yet again, I make this point: will the Minister please take on board the need to ensure that the water companies are statutory consultees for all planning applications, so that we get a clear steer as to whether water supplies and sewage facilities are available, before yet more houses are built?
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I commend my hon. and caring Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) for securing this important debate, which is very pressing for everyone in Kent. As the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) has just said, this issue is causing a lot of anxiety and aggravation for residents across the county.
In my constituency, there are two main elements to that: the supply and the outfall—the sewage. In terms of supply, my constituency is in one of the driest parts of the country—drier even than other parts of Kent, which is already the driest part of the country—because we are on the north side of the north downs and in the rain shadow. That is great for growing apples and pears, and for a lot of the nature and wildlife that we have, but it keeps our marshes a little drier than they would be otherwise.
However, we have real challenges with the supply of water, even with the large investment coming into the area, particularly to the Isle of Sheppey, which is exceptionally vulnerable. It is connected to the mainland of Great Britain by only a single water main that goes under the bridge. I had the pleasure of going underneath the Swale to see it, and it is surprisingly narrow. The entire island—nearly 40,000 people—is supplied by that very narrow pipe. Other infrastructure on the island is old, weak and creaking, and the cast iron water mains need replacing. I am grateful that the extra investment will mean that the 11 km east-west water main across the island will be replaced.
The fundamental problem, though, is that we have not been building reservoirs across most of the country, to ensure that we can store water in the wetter months of the year. Sittingbourne is an industrial town with huge water users: we have the largest paper mill in the entirety of the United Kingdom—the second biggest in Europe—which uses massive amounts of water, as do other key industries in my constituency’s towns. They are competing with residents—my constituents—for drinking water. Ironically, the water level in Sittingbourne is very high. Since we lost the other water mill, the River Bourne, which runs underneath the town, and the river at Periwinkle are both running high. We have water in the area that is coming off the north downs, but we cannot necessarily access it for industrial use. There is a bit of abstraction, but not enough. We cannot access water for industries that could really benefit the area, such as hydrogen plants and other things that might come online.
There are options for desalination. We are coastal and have lots of marsh areas, so I would appreciate hearing what the options for Kent are from the Minister. Other parts of the world that are even drier manage better than we do, so there is a fundamental question about how resilient we are in Kent. I would also like to hear from the Minister whether we have a clear plan for securing that sort of resilience across the supply by the end of the decade. What does that look like? My local council, Swale borough council, is extremely concerned by this. It has written to Southern Water and South East Water about the supply problems we have been facing and it wants to understand what the plans are for the future.
As my hon. and caring Friend the Member for Ashford said, we want to understand why the communication has been so poor. It is poor partly because we have a hodgepodge of different organisations—multiple water companies, a drainage board and, to some extent, the Environment Agency as well, which is involved in land drainage. Who people need to go to is often confusing, and when crises are happening, it is hard to get through to the right people; it is not joined up well enough with local government. Recently, as the crisis was happening in places such as Whitstable and Herne Bay, we got a lot of emergency supply come into the area, particularly the Isle of Sheppey. Bottled water stations were set up—they thankfully did not need to be used—and water tankers were moved on, but even while that was happening, it was still hard for local councillors and me to find out exactly what was happening and where. I got a lot of agitated calls from residents and councillors saying, “Do you know what’s happening? How likely are we to lose water supply?” That needs to be tightened up.
In terms of the drainage off the land, the sewage that is going into our waterways is a real concern, as the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich said. I am grateful that Sheerness beach recently got its blue flag status renewed—please come to Sheerness for your summer holidays. Lots of local residents have been looking at the water. In Milton Creek in Sittingbourne, Raybel Charters, a group that restored the barge there and are in the water a lot, found that it is dirtier than the River Seine. Open water swimmers have been doing inspections at Queenborough and found bacteria there. National treasure and local legend Danny Dyer, who has been filming on the Isle of Sheppey, has also been investigating, and has found shocking amounts of E. coli and coliforms in the water—he does not want to damage the tourist reputation, given his caravan park.
This is a real risk, and I want to understand what we can do about it. In particular, what are we going to do about securing future supply, especially through reservoirs and desalination plants? What is the plan, Minister?
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) for securing the debate.
For people in the Weald of Kent, problems with the water supply have become depressingly common. The most recent outages, last month, left thousands of people without water or experiencing severely low pressure during a heatwave. South East Water, which covers the Weald of Kent, said that it had planned for the heatwave, but thousands of people across the Weald were still once again left without running water, unable to wash, cook, or run their businesses or farms. That followed a larger outage earlier this year, which left tens of thousands of people across Kent and Sussex without running water for days. That time, South East Water blamed a freeze and thaw event and the impact of Storm Goretti.
Come rain or shine, there are clearly serious problems at South East Water. On both occasions, but especially in January, communication was poor or non-existent. South East Water was unable to answer even basic questions, such as, “If I send my constituents to this bottled water station, will there be any bottled water for them when they get there?” The company took days to respond to emails to its supposedly instantaneous email address. It simply had no idea what was going on. For far too many people, this intermittent service and poor communication are part and parcel of life in the Weald of Kent.
Earlier this year, I ran a water survey to ask people about their historical experiences with South East Water. Nearly 3,000 households responded, and it was immediately clear that the catastrophic handling of January’s outage was not a lapse in form. The company has been providing a terrible service for years, and people are absolutely right to be fed up with it. One disabled resident reported that, despite being on South East Water’s priority list for receiving bottled water during times of crisis, they received no water at all for the duration of the outage. Farmers, who simply cannot afford to have water shut off for days on end, reported that farms and livestock did not even seem to be a consideration. One local farmer reported that, despite many hours on the phone, South East Water were
“totally unhelpful and rude, suggesting [that] I go and pick up a pack of water”.
To put that into context, this farmer pays for 250 litres of water a day. The company told him to go and pick up a pack of water.
The sheer volume of the individual stories was horrific—one woman who had just given birth to children had to take her toddler in the back of the car to the bottled water stations, because she was on the vulnerable list, but deliveries had not been made. Of those who responded to the survey, four in every five said they had been left without running water over the past decade, and four in 10 said that they had been without running water four or more times over that same period. That is absurd in 21st-century Britain.
Those self-reported experiences have been mirrored in recent months by a number of official inquiries into South East Water’s performance, both historically and in relation to the January outages. Ofwat has recently proposed a £22 million fine following supply failures between 2020 and 2023, noting that South East Water “has not taken ownership” of the underlying issues that caused the outages. Given the recent outages, it is clear that it still has not learned a thing.
The report produced by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee was perhaps the most damning. It described the company as “devoid of proper leadership” and as “an unaccountable clique.” I thank the members of the Committee for their work in scrutinising South East Water’s leadership, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst).
In the light of those reports, both the chairman of South East Water, Chris Train, and the CEO, David Hinton, have resigned. That was a long time coming. Given their handling of the outages in January and the way they responded to the subsequent investigations, it was clear that change at South East Water was impossible under their leadership. They had shown no understanding of why they had failed, and no appreciation whatsoever of the harm they had caused to the people who rely on their service.
Although the resignations are very much welcome, the problems at South East Water did not start with Mr Hinton’s appointment as chief executive and will not automatically end with his resignation. As the results of the survey demonstrate, the issues at South East Water are endemic. I hope the company will use the change of leadership as an opportunity for true transformation and to review how it operates, plans and communicates with the public.
I want to use this opportunity to urge the regulator and the Minister, who I know is very focused on this issue, to do everything they can to encourage the company to go through a proper period of transformation. In this place and elsewhere, we will continue to hold it to account. However, it is important that South East Water is not just punished retrospectively, or after the fact, for its failures. Instead, we must ensure that it is taking the right steps to stop this problem becoming a permanent feature of life in the Weald of Kent.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) for securing this debate, and I am also grateful for all the other debates that we have had across Parliament on this issue. In addition, I thank the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for its detailed, scrupulous analysis and for undertaking to meet key stakeholders in the community—I have used some of that feedback for this speech.
In my view, South East Water is manifestly a corporate failure, which has been allowed to metastasise over the last 10 years. That has left customers paying the price for something that is ultimately a basic need in every single household. That failure stems from four key factors. South East Water failed to effectively monitor its management of the only product that it distributes; it failed to maintain its assets, from pipes to supply chains and ultimately the storage areas and the places where water was secured from; it failed to invest in its infrastructure; and it failed to respond to and communicate with not only MPs and council leaders but with other key stakeholders in the region, including the Kent Resilience Forum, leaving people exposed when incidents occurred.
Like others, I celebrate the resignations of key senior managers, but my focus now is on how we drive the company forward so that there is not a repeat of these incidents, which have gone on since before this Government—other incidents occurred from 2020 to 2023. More broadly, it must be said that incidents occur in other parts of the country, albeit on a smaller scale, so this represents a structural failure within the sector. I welcome the Cunliffe review and some of the reforms that we are making to water regulation, so that we can take some of these issues by the horns and deal with them. Fundamentally, though, my constituents want redress.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford mentioned, we know from the statistics that 24,000 customers were impacted in December and that 22,000 were impacted in May. Although we did not have water shortages in my constituency, several key villages—Wouldham, Burham, Eccles and Larkfield—and the town of Snodland were placed in the “at risk” category. Although their water supply was not restricted, in effect they given a warning that it would be and had to prepare for that, and they are next to a key water supply station.
I was inundated by messages from concerned people over the Christmas period—“When is this going to happen?”, “What is going to occur?”—so I would say that the company first needs to fundamentally improve its communications, which I think have been lamentable. Nor do I think that it was particularly effective at communicating with Ministers on how it manages crisis situations, and the way it communicated with local council leaders, local community leaders, MPs and others was absolutely atrocious.
The senior management of the company has now changed, but what processes have been put in place to ensure an absolutely clear line of sight and experience in communication? Indeed, one of the outcomes from 2023 was that South East Water was supposed to improve communication, but it has clearly learned absolutely no lessons.
My second point is about the company’s failure to maintain its assets. I know that colleagues here today will talk about Pembury works, Bewl Water and parts of the supply chain, but water companies are supposed to present to Parliament five-year capital management plans and get support from their shareholders for where that will go in future, so there is a real question about whether shareholders were holding the company responsible. Also, why did the company’s own internal processes not even record some of these events?
It was quite telling that when David Hinton appeared before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, he said, “Well, we couldn’t have foreseen some of these events.” Possibly not, but that was because the company was not monitoring the very things that it needed to monitor before those outcomes occurred. What is the company doing now, and what are the Government doing to press it to act on this?
Investment is also critical. With all the infrastructure expansion we are expecting in Kent—not only new homes but new businesses and industrial and commercial enterprises—there is clearly now demand for future water supply. Given the company’s questionable financial status in terms of worth, where are we heading on its financial sustainability? What are the Government doing to prepare for any financial outcome around financial market confidence in the organisation? Although this is not a Thames Water situation, in my view we are very close to something similar occurring.
Lastly, in my view—this was also the conclusion of the Committee—the company should be held to account according to the standards of public accountability. When water companies fail, how specifically do we intervene—as any businesses or consultancy coming into a business would—to direct some of that change? I worry that, without leadership, the company will drift and these incidents will repeat every six months or every year for the next three years. We need to know that there is light at the end of the tunnel, and my residents need to know that when they pay their water bill at the end of the month, they will get the service that they expect.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I will call the first Front-Bench spokesperson no later than 5.09 pm. I call Tom Tugendhat, who I am sure will be cognisant of that.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I assure you that will not be a problem, Mr Twigg, despite my known verbosity. Sadly, the Minister has heard many of my points before. However, I am grateful that she is here, as whatever any of us have said about South East Water, the one thing that unites us is knowing that she is doing her absolute damnedest. She, through her Department, has been absolutely brilliant. Wherever we sit, it is good to see her here. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) on securing this debate. Funnily enough, I applied for a debate on this topic—he won on this one—but I will still not speak for the whole eight minutes.
This is not the first time we have been here, nor the first time we have had a water outage in Kent, as we have heard from other hon. Members. By my records, this is the fifth major South East Water outage to hit the community I am lucky enough to represent since the start of last year. We heard that there were water shortages this winter because it was too cold, and we heard that there were water shortages this summer because it has been too hot. Frankly, South East Water is the Goldilocks company: it will deliver water only when everything is just right.
The common denominator is clearly not the temperature, so what is it? Obviously, the answer is South East Water. Edenbridge and the surrounding areas, which are part of the community I represent, are served by SES Water, and the situation is completely different. Despite remarkably similar—in fact, almost identical—weather to that which can be found a few metres over the border in South East Water’s area, we have not had a single outage—that is remarkable, isn’t it?
Although much of the focus over the winter was understandably on Tunbridge Wells, and this time it has been on Whitstable and the areas around Ashford, in reality an outage could happen anywhere. Each time we have had a water outage, a different community has been affected. Across the five outages I have experienced, there were issues in north Tonbridge, south Tonbridge, Penshurst, Plaxtol, Mereworth, Offham, Platt, West Peckham, Wrotham, Addington and Trosley. Each time, it has seemed to catch South East Water by surprise, and its response has always taken too long.
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) secured an urgent question in the Chamber on this topic, during which I said that South East Water is the worst company I have come across in my 11 years as an MP. I am delighted to say that many people have been in touch on social media to confirm their own impressions of the company, so I can represent that as the view of the whole constituency.
Here is why: South East Water simply does not know where the problems are coming from. It is constantly astonished that it is expected to deliver water—it is almost as though it thought its job was merely to rake in the bills. Now, why has this happened, and how will it recover? It causes so many issues that it is impossible to trust any information that it gives during an outage. Usually, we hear directly from residents first.
Let me explain what happened just a few weeks ago in my own community. At 9 o’clock on 28 May, residents at the top of Mereworth lost water. There was no communication at all from South East Water, and nothing on its website. Very late at night, water bottles arrived and were apparently made available only to those on the priority services register. Actually, many of those on the register did not get them. It was only because of an extremely assiduous local councillor, Sarah Hudson, that any of them were picked up and delivered to local residents. It is fantastic that we have such a great local councillor, but we cannot rely on local councillors every night and every time South East Water fails.
It took until Saturday evening for water supplies to be delivered to Mereworth, 36 hours after the water was lost. Again, it was local councillors, this time Matt Boughton and Sarah Hudson, who facilitated and unloaded the delivery in a pub car park for residents to use. Even worse, come Sunday it was established that Mereworth did not have enough water. It just could not be pumped to the properties. Why? Because the booster had failed twice at Bough Beech reservoir. Why did it fail? The view of residents is that it is in the wrong place.
I have offered South East Water the chance to take me round to see why that did not work, and to explain it with its engineers. But guess what? It said no. Worse than that, exactly the same issue happened in February, and many of the same properties were without water for the same reason. The alternative provision of water was just as slow. Nothing had changed. How do we stop that happening again? There are things that this company needs to do urgently. Some of it has started, including getting rid of the chairman and the chief executive, but it also needs to improve the list of potential bottled water stations.
There is still much more to do. South East Water’s business continuity plan is a joke. Its staff are not empowered to develop local knowledge of each town and village and how to establish the best responses. Given the sheer number of communities affected, one would hope it had started yesterday, but it has never started at all.
South East Water also needs to be bolder and braver. It needs to be forthright about the fragility of our water system. It needs to be clear about its inability to serve our community. I am pleased that has started, and that it has objected to the Government’s housing target for Tonbridge and Malling’s local plan. That is the right thing to do because, despite many of us wanting more homes in our area, if the water supply to current households cannot be guaranteed, how on earth can we supply 20,000 more households across Tonbridge and Malling by 2042?
I had to debate this in this very room in March, and we debated it in the main Chamber only a few years ago. In the debate with Ministers from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, it was very clear that the planning needed to happen. Either the supply of water has to increase dramatically or the housing targets have to be reduced. I know the council is directly engaged with the water delivery taskforce, but I understand that the promised position statement has not materialised—certainly not to the standard that Tonbridge and Malling borough council needs. That will leave the council with no choice. It will have to stand against the Government’s housing targets.
The Government seem to have no answers for the simple issue that their housing targets for Kent are way in excess of what South East Water can provide. I once again thank the Minister for her hard work. It is very gratefully received, but there are many challenges ahead.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
The Opposition spokespeople will probably have around six and a half minutes. That will give time for the Minister to wind up and, of course, for the mover of the motion to reply.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, and an honour to follow so many fellow Kent MPs and constituency neighbours.
In December last year, 24,000 properties in Tunbridge Wells were completely without water for a week. The following week, they had a boil notice, so they were without drinking water for two weeks. The stories that my constituents shared are harrowing. Someone who was incontinent with colon cancer was left to clean with wet wipes. Another lady who had a miscarriage was unable to clean herself, compounding the trauma. People fainted outside kidney dialysis centres and had to have CPR. Schools shut, GP surgeries received no bottled water deliveries and, as we have all spoken about, our constituents who are supposedly on the priority register did not receive any supplies. My office became a kind of crisis cell where people were able to feed requests to us to pass on to South East Water.
It would be funny if it was not so serious, but when Dave Hinton was brought in front of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in January, as he was speaking the water went off again in Tunbridge Wells for a further week. Local businesses in Tunbridge Wells lost millions over both of those outages, and the sum offered by South East Water was paltry. Working with the business improvement district and local businesses, we presented evidence to South East Water and secured a commitment that it would at least look at the size of the compensation it offered. I hope soon to bring the good news to colleagues that South East Water will increase the compensation, but local businesses lost the critical period before Christmas, which is when hospitality businesses make all of their money for the rest of the year.
As has been mentioned, the chair and the CEO have gone. I am glad that we all united around the calls, originating during the December outage, for the CEO to step down—no change could happen at South East Water without the CEO, in particular, going. I have met the new chair, and I am impressed. There are some small seeds and shoots that we can look at, because although the chair and the CEO leaving is necessary, it is not sufficient.
In Tunbridge Wells, we need to look at investment going into Pembury water treatment works specifically, as well as at the interconnections between all of our constituencies. South East Water was cobbled together from 20 other companies over 50 years, and the interconnections have not been built between those separate water networks.
There is another point about shareholders and accountability. South East Water is owned by three major shareholders: the NatWest Group pension fund, Desjardins and Utilities Trust of Australia. One way they make a return on their capital is by charging extortionate interest rates on loans to the company—in the order of 10%. Putting reputational risk aside, it is effectively a risk-free investment because, in reality, the Government back the water network.
South East Water’s debt interest runs at £3,000 an hour, so while my constituents did not have water in December, South East Water’s shareholders made £1.8 million in interest from the company. The result is that we have under-invested infrastructure that fails and causes outages, leading to the terrible problems we have been speaking about.
I echo what everyone has said about the Minister being extremely forward-leaning and helpful in these crises. She suffered a personal tragedy during one of the outages in Tunbridge Wells, and before she went off on compassionate leave, she reached out to my office to make sure I had everything I needed from the Department. That speaks to her approach to the job, as well as her professionalism.
The Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 fixes some of the regulation issues. The Liberal Democrats had been calling for a long time for the abolition of Ofwat and the creation of a regulator that brings together all these myriad regulators and strengthens their power, so we are very glad. However, I gently say to the Minister that there is an issue around the debt that the water companies hold.
The sector is worth about £100 billion in asset value, and it borrowed £70 billion against that. A sector that has a 70% debt-to-equity ratio is not a sector that is able to deliver proper investment, and I have spoken about the high interest rates. We are in this mess because of financial engineering by the likes of Macquarie and other investors. Without looking at that financialisation and solving those problems, particularly around debt, it will be difficult to drive the investment required in companies such as South East Water.
I want to touch very briefly on Ofwat, which recently fined South East Water £22 million. I think I have about a minute left.
Mike Martin
I would argue that, rather than fining the company after the event, we should be forcing it to invest equivalent or larger amounts in infrastructure. I presented a resilience plan drawn up with water experts for Pembury water treatment works. That fine should be commuted. It just goes to Ofwat and then to the Treasury, but that money should be invested in the water network.
I will conclude by looking ahead. The Water (Special Measures) Act is necessary but not sufficient—a bit like getting rid of the chair and CEO. Without tackling the debt burden and the financial structures of many of these firms, in which bonuses are still paid and part of the corporate structure is in the Cayman Islands or whatever, we will not get to the root of the problems in the water sector.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) for securing and opening this debate.
We have heard powerful contributions from across Kent, including from my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale). I congratulate him on his urgent question last week about important planning issues. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) talked about water use and resilience. My hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) spoke about the impacts on people and, indeed, on animals—I will touch on that. I congratulate her on her water survey and communication with her constituents on these issues. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) highlighted the failures of the water company. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) set out the detail of the outages and highlighted the importance of local knowledge in the response to such situations.
Over recent weeks, the House has heard a series of testimonies during debates in which many colleagues will have taken part, including on various urgent questions. Taken together, they show that the South East Water issues affecting our constituents are unacceptable, and they make clear—I know that the Minister has been all over this, as we have heard in powerful testimony—our persistent frustration about that company’s failures.
As we have heard, Kent is served primarily by two main water suppliers: South East Water and Southern Water. The county relies heavily on chalk aquifers and bulk-treated water supplies from Southern Water, which, in turn, provides bulk transfers to South East Water. That has caused issues, as the dependency creates its own vulnerabilities. The Government must consider that moving forward.
Kent experiences unusually dry conditions. The Environment Agency’s April 2026 report noted that Kent and south London faced exceptionally low rainfall, with the area receiving just 4 mm of rain in April—equivalent to just 10% of the long-term average—and decreases in soil moisture, average river flows and groundwater levels. I welcome the fact that the Government are moving forward and talking about reservoirs—a reservoir will be built in Broad Oak near Canterbury, although we are concerned about the time it will take to build it—but I hope that they are considering short-term resilience, too.
South East Water supplies drinking water to 2.3 million people across the south-east, but the recent outages have caused deep and widespread frustration and distress. Many customers have experienced low-pressure water or no water at all during the outages, followed by a boil water notice when supplies were finally restored. The consequences—Members will be all over this—have been severe: thousands of homes left without water, schools and libraries forced to close, hospitality businesses shutting their doors, farmers and horse owners worried about their livestock and even hospital appointments moved online. Water companies have repeatedly claimed that they have no duty to provide water for animals, but a 500 kg horse needs around 25 litres a day, while a lactating dairy cow needs upwards of 100 litres—and more in hot weather. The outages have created human and animal welfare issues.
During South East Water’s most recent supply failures, residents were queuing in hot conditions at bottled water stations. I would be grateful if the Minister set out what measures are in place to protect elderly and vulnerable people during such events. What assessment has been made of the mental health impacts of recurring outages, which are becoming distressingly frequent? The Minister will be aware that the Drinking Water Inspectorate launched an investigation and found that the failure was the result of
“long-standing weaknesses and failures in process control, monitoring, maintenance and operational management.”
The chair and chief executive of South East Water have resigned, but what customers really want is change and improvements now and in future. How will the Minister ensure that the new leadership of South East Water works at pace to deliver the upgrades required to prevent outages? Does the Minister agree that this must be a turning point for the company?
A report from the Consumer Council for Water found that fewer than one in 10 South East Water customers were satisfied with how the company handled the supply issues in late 2025, and I am sure that the figure is probably worse now. Over half of customers in vulnerable circumstances who registered for priority services did not receive the support that they expected. Given the focus of the Cunliffe review on long-term water security, will the Government confirm which recommendations they will take forward to address those structural issues and restore public confidence?
As we have heard, unlike for broadband or other utilities, customers cannot switch water supplier. They have no choice over who provides their water, so there must not be a postcode lottery when it comes to reliable supply. Companies that fail their customers must be held to account, so can the Minister confirm when the clean water Bill will be coming down the track with new checks and inspections, and whether the new regulator will have the powers it needs to hold water companies to account?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich talked about the importance of planning issues. Are the Government considering whether water companies should become statutory consultees, given that we have thousands of homes planned in counties around the country, including in Kent and my own county of Essex? We need to know that both water supply and wastage are adequate moving forward.
Reliable and safe water supply and disposal is an issue that unites Members from across the House. We all want our constituents to have not only a reliable water supply but a safe, predictable and dependable one that meets the basic standards necessary for them to live their lives and for businesses to go about their business. Public institutions such as hospitals and schools depend on it, private businesses depend on it and people very much depend on it. Will the Government hold the water companies to account so that we get that right?
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
If the Minister could leave a minute or so for the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) to wind up, that would be great.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) for securing this debate, and for his excellent work on the Environmental Audit Committee. I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in the debate.
In the time I have, I will do my best to answer as many questions as possible, but I think we are generally united in our feelings about this company and its performance. I express my sympathy again for all those affected by the recent disruption to supply in Kent, and I echo Members’ concerns about the human impact that it had. We heard the story of the lady who had a miscarriage, and about the people who had to use wet wipes, so we can see the impact that the disruption had on people’s lives. This was more than just a supply outage; it has a fundamental impact on everyone’s lives.
Being without water is always very distressing, but that is particularly true during a period of hot weather and during the school half-term. As has been mentioned, it was the third major outage affecting customers. That is simply unacceptable. We all agree that it is important and right that the chair and CEO have resigned. I met the interim chair of South East Water twice during the incident, and I was clear that we need a focused plan for the summer.
We expect the weather to become hot again, so we expect people to increase the amount of water they use. South East Water needs to work more closely with local partners so that it can rebuild trust. Members highlighted that trust has been broken and needs to be restored. It is good to hear that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) had a positive meeting with the interim chair. Rebuilding trust will take a long time, but we hope that it is starting to show.
Weather can increase the demand for water—of course, it increased demand all around the country—but increased demand led to a supply outage at only one water company. One longer-term cause is the company’s failure to invest sufficiently in maintaining and strengthening its infrastructure. A reliable source of clean water is one of the fundamental foundations of a healthy, functioning society. We are rightly proud that we have some of the safest drinking water in the world, but that is no good if it fails to come out of the tap. The situation demands bold action to deliver fundamental, long-term reform, and that is exactly what I am trying to do.
I will try to answer as many questions as I can. Six desalination plants are planned, largely in the south and south-east. One plant will specifically supply water for Sizewell C. Another is currently in operation in the Thames area, but there are also plants planned for Norfolk, Lincolnshire and the south and east coasts.
Members asked what should happen if a company continues to fail. The ultimate action will be to consider special administration. Of course, there is a high bar for special administration on performance grounds. It requires a serious breach of principal duties or of an enforcement order such that it is inappropriate for the company to retain its licence. I want to be clear that the Government are working with all water sector regulators to carefully monitor the performance of all water companies, and we stand ready to intervene, if required, to ensure the continued provision of a vital customer service.
The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) was right to highlight concerns about poor communication. I echo her support for a true transformation not just in delivery, but in culture, communication and everything that goes with it. She mentioned farms, as did a couple of other hon. Members. I understand from South East Water and other organisations in the Kent resilience forum, which looked at the risk to water supply for a range of locations, including farms, that in general water companies will look to supply alternative water for animals where they are able to, but that it is important for livestock keepers to have appropriate contingency plans. Obviously, if they are not receiving water, I am keen to hear about it.
I come now to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne). I hear his frustration and anger about this. He is right: we need to change things. The performance improvement regime that we are looking to introduce as part of our reforms is about doing that. Rather than being about intervening every time companies fail, it is about identifying poorly performing companies and getting in there early to support them in improving—it does what it says on the tin. Rather than waiting for failure in order to act, we say, “Okay, these are the poorly performing companies. We need to intervene early and look at why they are poorly performing. Is the reason leadership? Is it culture, asset standards or resilience? Is it that they have not got enough? What is the problem and what do we need to get in there?” That is one of our key reforms. If we are to build resilience, we have to get in there early and do something about it.
I come now to the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale). It was awful—disgusting—to hear about the sewage. He was right to talk about capacity in respect of water and waste water, as was the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). What are we going to do about water resources? We have a twin-track approach to improving water resilience that considers urgent action on water efficiency and reducing leaks—that is crucial—alongside investment in new supply infrastructure. We are trying to do both at the same time. The infrastructure includes reservoirs and water transfers, but they will not be ready and available tomorrow, so must consider water efficiency.
MHCLG recently ran a consultation, which closed in January, on reforming the statutory consultee system. MHCLG is considering the role of water and sewerage companies in planning applications as it reviews responses to the consultation.
In the meantime, colleagues in MHCLG are implementing a new plan-making system to ensure better join up between water and development planning processes. That includes prescribing water and sewerage companies in “requirement to assist” regulations so that they are obliged to assist with plan making where reasonably requested, and listing water and sewerage companies as consultation bodies, so that they are made aware of key plan-making consultations where they have an interest.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge was right to highlight specific failings, and I feel his exasperation. He pointed out the problems around trust. I wholeheartedly agree: it is very difficult to have trust in a company that continues to fail.
On the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna), it is good that that £104 billion investment is there—that is really important. He made a good point about industry use of water. It is a bit bonkers that we use drinking water for cooling systems. I want to do something about that and about the lack of join up. We must look to the local resilience forum as well.
Have I missed anybody? I hope not. No one is shaking their head to tell me I have. In that case, I thank everyone for raising their concerns. I had better be quiet now!
Sojan Joseph
I thank the Minister for all her work, and all my colleagues, who are united on this issue. I thank the local authorities that reached out to raise their concerns, including the leader of Ashford borough council, who is here to raise his concerns with us all.
Many issues and impacts can be measured, but, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), mentioned, when things like this happen, the mental health impact is not measurable, and it is important that all parliamentarians think about that. This is not a small matter for those with small children or animals.
Once again, I thank everyone for their contributions. We need to continue putting pressure on the water company to improve its service.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered water supply in Kent.