Westminster Hall

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 7 July 2026

[Clive Efford in the Chair]

UK Aid Policy: Global Funding Trends

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UK aid policy in the context of global funding trends.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this vital and timely debate. We are effectively about to have a change of Government, which will mean an opportunity for a reset. Usually we come to these debates avid to hear what the Minister has to say, but today we might not reflect on the past so much as look to the future. Of course, I commend the Minister for his efforts. I will not commend him too much, because that might not help him in the weeks ahead as the Government are reformed, but I acknowledge his personal commitment to these issues.

As the Prime Minister moves on, the cuts in official development assistance and the way in which they have been carried out, with nothing seemingly learned from the lessons of the merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, surely cannot be part of his legacy that he will wish to promote. Notably, this Government are presiding over cuts to our overseas aid budget that are deeper and faster than those being implemented in the United States under the Trump Administration. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s resource DEL budget has reduced by nearly 20%, over £1.5 billion, with bilateral programmes accounting for almost half of that and no detail yet available. Indeed, stakeholders are still waiting for the FCDO to publish its bilateral allocations for ODA, which are reportedly being held back until just before the summer recess.

I do not demur from the arguments about hard choices when there are limited resources or, specifically, the need to increase defence spending, but part of that is also about acknowledging that these decisions have consequences, often for the poorest and most vulnerable communities on the planet.

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

I am the chair of the water, sanitation and hygiene all-party parliamentary group and a big champion of WaterAid’s “Time to Deliver” campaign. One million mums and babies lose their lives each year because of a lack of access to water during childbirth. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in looking at humanitarian and global aid, we should make sure that remains a basic provision and a priority?

[David Mundell]

I absolutely do. I will come on to the most effective way in which limited resources can be used, and that is clearly one of them.

We need to have honesty in this debate and acknowledge that reductions and changes in funding have consequences. We must have that honest dialogue and move away from the sort of speak that has become commonplace, such as “mainstreaming”. Everything now is to be mainstreamed. In my view that means no resources will actually be devoted to it; it will simply be part of some wider general budget. That has specifically been the case in relation to women and girls, which is something we must push back against.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman sits with me on the International Development Committee, so he will know as I do that, to date, the Committee has found that there is still no detail on how

“poverty alleviation is prioritised and tracked”

under the new model going from donor to investor. Does he agree that if poverty reduction is to remain a primary focus of ODA, we need to understand better how these things will be tracked?

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I commend him for his work on the International Development Committee. I will come on to the Committee’s report on the future of development, which highlighted that very issue. The Committee sought to help this Government take forward their stated objectives. I hope the incoming Government will grasp the report’s recommendations and move forward in the way the hon. Gentleman outlines.

Although citizens across the world might have been distracted by the Democratic Republic of the Congo almost knocking England out of the world cup, sadly for that team, the situation at home still verges on the catastrophic. It is an example of where unthought-out and unstructured cuts and changes have a devastating impact. We see the spread of Ebola in parts of the DRC, particularly where US funding and structures have been withdrawn. There is no meaningful alternative government structure to provide a health service. That is an absolute example of where funding cuts have a real impact that could spread to the United Kingdom. There was a recent suspected Ebola case in Glasgow, which fortunately did not come to fruition. We need to push back on the idea that Ebola in a remote part of central Africa has nothing to do with us.

We must not be starry-eyed about what happened previously. I was struck by recommendation 7 in the Committee’s report and, in a much more favourable climate for international development, by an article in The Guardian—I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) will not tell the Leader of the Opposition that I read an article in The Guardian—saying that, in the context of the previous Ebola outbreak, which was successfully tackled, the international response that Sierra Leoneans saw on the ground comprised outsiders setting up compounds, employing local people sometimes to be cooks or drivers, then driving around in white Land Cruisers and not engaging or leaving any positive legacy.

My recent experience of travelling to Malawi is that, while the agencies and others had done a really good job, unfortunately the Malawian Government had not, because they are now totally reliant on those agencies to provide services. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) may recall that, when I was Secretary of State for Scotland and we promoted the Scotland-Malawi partnership, I had to decline to meet the then President of Malawi in his suite at the Dorchester hotel because I felt that was a wholly inappropriate way to discuss how we could give them more aid.

As I said, we cannot be starry-eyed on what happened before. There needs to be change and a focus on how we can most effectively deliver aid and support, but we must have a coherent, long-term plan that accepts budget realities and aligns with the UK’s wider interests. If the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) is in search of sound advice, I would point him, as the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) mentioned, to the recommendations and huge body of evidence in the International Development Committee’s recent report, “UK Aid and Development Assistance in a Fracturing World”.

The report called for greater clarity on the Government’s theory of change in relation to poverty alleviation, and it suggested how to prioritise programmes and schemes to achieve the Government’s stated policies. It also set out a comprehensive vision, which I hope the new Prime Minister might be willing to adopt. If he were to ask my opinion, which I do not anticipate as I do not have a vote in the Labour leadership contest, although maybe I could—in days past, I think people could pay £3 to get one, so maybe there is still time. But if he were to ask my opinion, I would suggest that investment should shift towards programmes that are undeniably value for money. That is where we can make the most profound difference for each £1 spent, doubling down on effective interventions with the greatest multiplier effect.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, nutrition is foundational for development, and the UK has been a trusted global partner on nutrition for many years. In the context of the recent reduction in aid spending, does he agree that supporting and developing innovative new mechanisms such as the Child Nutrition Fund is vital to reversing the trend of hunger, malnutrition and starvation while working in partnership with affected nations?

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I can think of no better example than the Child Nutrition Fund to achieve what he has set out and our wider development objectives. Malnutrition is entirely preventable and treatable, yet it remains the underlying cause of nearly half of all deaths among children under five. It stifles economic growth, weakens immune systems, and disproportionately impacts women and children, so the Child Nutrition Fund is a perfect example of what the public expect from ODA funding: it puts food in the stomachs of those in need. With a relatively modest investment from the UK Government, the fund has a unique capacity to leverage philanthropic and private capital while mobilising domestic resources. If we want value for money in a stretched budget, nutrition is where we must double down.

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman has talked about stretched budgets. Does he agree that we also need to address debt, because private debt is a big factor in preventing some low-income countries from investing in their health and education systems? It should form part of the Government’s strategy to leverage more money into debt-distressed, low-income countries.

[David Mundell]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I commend him and others for bringing the debt issue back to the debate. Obviously, it was a focal point of debate a number of years ago. It appears to have slid down the agenda, but it remains a vital issue, as he has highlighted.

Another vital issue in reference to the Child Nutrition Fund is public support. We all have to acknowledge the need to rebuild public support for development. I put my hand up to being complacent in that regard, as I think many in the sector were assuming that the support would remain. It is still there, but it is all about the questions that people are asked and the context in which they are asked. That is why, for example, the Child Nutrition Fund commands public support: because people see that an intervention by the UK can have the direct effect of saving children’s lives. What detracts from public support is where interventions are less easily explainable or there is an inability to be clear that interventions are not wasteful. It was therefore surprising that the Government were at one point proposing to get rid of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, the body that reviews the effectiveness of ODA. Thanks to the cross-party effort of the International Development Committee and others in Parliament, that decision was reversed, at least in part.

I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, and in the multilateral/bilateral debate—a debate we need to have—I was very supportive of additional funding for the Global Fund. The fund has done a huge job not only in tackling AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, but in providing the backbone of many countries’ health systems. That backbone would not be there were the Global Fund not providing support for other issues. I welcome the Government’s £850 million contribution to the fund. That amount is a lot more than was previously touted, although it is less than the £1 billion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield provided. However, of course, there were smoke and mirrors, as the funding is back-ended and the bulk of it will come at the end of the three-year period. That will have an impact on the Global Fund’s capacity to carry out its job, which again has direct consequences.

I commend Bel Trew and The Independent for highlighting the impact that cuts have already had in the fight against HIV and AIDS.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It feels to me that there is scope for the UK and European Union countries to work together more closely to tackle the rising global anti-rights movement. Given the progress in Hungary, it feels like there is an opportunity to start to push back on the age of impunity. Does the right hon. Member agree that we should put human rights—especially sexual and reproductive rights and health—on the agenda of the upcoming European Political Community meeting, which will be held in Dublin in October?

[David Mundell]

I agree with the principles that the hon. Gentleman has set out; I will come on to that topic now. We need to see UK leadership in co-ordinating a response to such issues. Because of political decisions taken in the United States, certain groups will be deprived of help and support. We need to have a role in ensuring that there is co-ordination so that the support goes in, whether through country donors, philanthropists or non-governmental organisations. LGBT communities, for example, will not get that support unless we are proactive in ensuring that co-ordination. Although I welcomed the announcement that the Foreign Office still has an LGBT budget, I do not see the issues that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned being proactively tackled at this time, and we need to be at the forefront of that.

I will draw my remarks to a close, as other Members wish to contribute. I was going to touch more on British International Investment—perhaps my International Development Committee colleague, the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), will do so—but I will make the point that BII has to play a much greater role in alignment with UK Government policy, whatever the policy is. That does not mean that BII should not be independent in making investments, but the position of equivalent bodies in other countries is to be aligned with Government policy. I am not convinced that BII is at the moment, and given the scale of its investment, it needs to be.

I have tried to range over the issues of the moment, and I look forward to the contributions of other Members. As I said at the start, there have been one or two good things in the last couple of years, but I do not think this is a glorious part of the Prime Minister’s legacy. I hope that, going forward, we can have that reset.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to stand in their places if they intend to contribute. I intend to call the Front-Bench speeches at 28 minutes past, so that gives you roughly seven to eight minutes each. That is a rough guide; there is no hard limit.

09:50

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. We meet at a moment when the global aid system is under extraordinary pressure. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this incredibly important debate.

Current projections suggest that cuts to international aid could contribute to as many as 14 million additional deaths by 2030, including 4.5 million children under the age of five. That is the human cost of dismantling the world aid architecture at speed.

The United Kingdom is not alone in reducing aid spending—the United States, France, Germany and Canada are all scaling back their commitments—but that does not make our choices less significant; it makes them more significant. When every major donor retreats at the same time, there is no one left to step into the gap, and yet the challenges we face today do not stop at national borders. Conflict, climate change, forced displacement, pandemics and antimicrobial resistance affect us all. Investment overseas is increasingly an investment in our own security and prosperity here at home.

Global health provides perhaps the clearest example of why this matters. Viruses do not stop at passport control. The first line of defence against the next pandemic is not at Heathrow or Dover, it is in strong public health systems thousands of miles away. Our national health service and the health security of people across Britain depend on a global health system that works effectively for everyone.

That is why I welcome aspects of the Government’s approach. I welcome the decision to provide protection for key multilateral health organisations, and I am proud that the UK has made ambitious commitments to the Global Fund and to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance—institutions with a proven ability to deliver vaccines at scale and to reach communities that fragmented programmes often cannot.

The Government are also right to recognise that countries want autonomy, not dependency, and that our role should be to help to build resilient health systems that countries themselves can sustain and own. That is the right long-term objective.

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

Does the hon. Member agree that one of the most cost-effective ways of helping, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, is to allow local people to avail themselves of clean drinking water, which can transform lives?

[Dr Cooper]

I agree 100%. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) has already talked about his role in the water, sanitation and hygiene all-party parliamentary group. Access to water is an absolutely essential health determinant.

Partnership and resilience building are incredibly important, but they cannot be the whole answer. A strategy designed to strengthen systems over many years does little for a clinic that is closing next month. Communities facing the loss of essential services are not reassured by a long-term theory of change, much as we love that in the development arena. They are worried about whether medicines will be available, whether healthcare workers will be paid and whether the lights will stay on. Withdrawal is fast, capacity building is slow, and people are falling through that gap.

That is why, to be honest, the decision to withdraw support from the Global Polio Eradication Initiative and the Pandemic Fund is really quite disappointing. The Government’s own impact assessment warns that these choices increase the risk of disease outbreaks. We are closer than ever to eradicating polio, a disease that has blighted generations of children, and yet, potentially because of cuts to official development assistance, we are stepping back from that goal. I urge us not to.

I am equally concerned about the dismantling of the Fleming Fund. Antimicrobial resistance may sound a little abstract, but it is not a distant or theoretical threat. Just ask anybody what they think will happen if their antibiotics do not work when they need them. It is one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face. The effectiveness of antibiotics underpins modern medicine and protects countless lives every day. Our NHS depends on those medicines continuing to work. Recent outbreaks of serious infectious diseases remind us just how much rests upon them.

As we have just been reminded, health does not exist in isolation. Clean water, good nutrition and quality education are health interventions by another name. For example, children whose mothers have received a secondary education are far more likely to be fully vaccinated. Although I welcome the prioritisation of healthcare spending, we cannot ignore the reality that in practice many of the programmes being cut are health programmes, too.

Nowhere is that more evident than in Africa. The continent bears about a quarter of the world’s disease burden while possessing only 3% of the global health workforce, yet bilateral aid to Africa is facing a 56% reduction—the steepest regional cut across the entire ODA budget. Multilateral institutions will of course continue to play an essential role, but we should not be so naive as to believe that they can absorb cuts of that scale without consequences.

The consequences are already becoming clear. In Malawi, an estimated 250,000 adolescents could lose access to family planning services each year. In Somalia, fewer women, girls and boys will be able to access lifesaving healthcare because of these decisions. Behind every statistic is a human being whose opportunities, health and future are being diminished.

There is also a broader question of fairness. The NHS benefits enormously from healthcare workers who trained overseas before coming here to serve patients across the United Kingdom, which we sometimes forget in our conversations about immigration. It has been estimated that the UK has saved about £14 billion by relying on health professionals educated and trained elsewhere, and many of the countries from which those workers come are themselves grappling with fragile and understaffed health systems. That is not a windfall; it creates a responsibility. We have a duty to invest back into the health systems from which we have drawn so much expertise, not to withdraw support at the very moment that those systems are under increasing strain.

The lessons of Ebola, covid-19 and antimicrobial resistance are ultimately the same: we cannot isolate ourselves from global threats, and the cheapest crisis is the one that we prevent. Ministers have described these decisions as exceptional measures taken in difficult fiscal circumstances. I recognise those pressures, but we have a responsibility to keep people safe, including people here in the United Kingdom. We are weakening the protection of some of the world’s most vulnerable communities, and in doing so we are undermining our own health security here in Britain. For those reasons, I urge my Government to look again. We need a credible, serious and urgent plan to restore aid spending, not only because it is the right thing to do but because it is in our national interest.

09:57

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for raising this important issue and for the passion and detail that he conveyed. I welcome the Minister to his place; I very much look forward to what he has to say. I also look forward to the contribution of the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who is always here in these debates.

We meet at a sobering hour. The global landscape for official development assistance is contracting before our very eyes, and funding is falling right across the west. At home, our aid budget is projected to come down to 0.3% of gross national income. I understand the intense fiscal pressures facing our nation and the absolute necessity of strengthening our national defence in a dangerous world, but as the aid pot shrinks, our moral responsibility does not diminish; it intensifies. When there is less to go around, it is a matter of profound duty to ensure that every single penny that we set aside is well spent. We cannot afford waste, bloated bureaucracy and Whitehall-centric projects that fail to hit the ground.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman raises the principal point that this money will go from aid to defence. The reduction will be £4.8 billion in 2026-27, and then £6.5 billion. We obviously appreciate the need for defence investment, but that money is being transferred to the most profligate and incompetent spending Department in Government: the Ministry of Defence. Those of us who have been here for a number of years can remember Nimrod, which cost £4 billion and was scrapped. The Bowman radio system cost £2.5 billion and was scrapped. The Daring-class destroyer went £1.5 billion over projected expenditure. The Ajax armoured fighting vehicle has cost £4 billion and probably cannot be used. The sale of married quarters lost £4 billion. We are taking money that is desperately needed to save lives and giving it to a Department that has wasted money time and again.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Gentleman has made his point well. I am not sure whether the Minister will be able to answer that, because he is not in charge of defence, but the point is none the less well made.

Being wise stewards of public money also means that we must take a hard, honest look at where our money is going. Aid was never meant to be a permanent, open-ended dependency; its ultimate goal must be to help nations to stand on their own two feet. We still see today vast sums of British taxpayers’ money flowing into middle-income countries with excellent economies. For example, India has a fast-growing economy, an expanding space programme and burgeoning domestic wealth. Surely common sense must prevail. We should be deeply wary about continuing to fund countries that are now clearly on their feet and fully capable of looking after their own citizens. Our priority must shift; I have a solution that I will put to the Minister at the end of my speech. We must concentrate our precious, limited resources on the poorest of the poor—on those forgotten nations that desperately need a helping hand just to get on their feet.

To achieve true value for money, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office must radically change how it delivers aid. For too long, vast sums of UK aid have been swallowed up by massive international agencies and expensive consultants sitting in metropolitan hotels miles away from the suffering. The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale mentioned conferences being held in hotels while people starve on the streets. This is not efficiency. If we want maximum impact for the British taxpayer and maximum relief for the world’s most vulnerable, we must empower local, on-the-ground bodies. We must trust the people who know the area, speak the language, live among the communities and truly understand the complex realities on the ground.

In particular, I want to champion a group too often overlooked by modern technocrats: our Church missionaries and faith-based organisations. They have been doing their job for literally hundreds of years, carrying out physical, emotional and biblical charity. These men and women do not fly in for a three-month contract and fly out when a crisis hits. They have been in place for years, sometimes for decades and often for generations. They are there in the poorest villages of Africa, the remotest parts of Asia and the most dangerous corners of the middle east. They have built deep, unbreakable bonds of trust with local people. They know exactly who is starving, which clinics lack medicine and how to distribute resources without a single penny being siphoned off by corruption.

I say respectfully to the Minister, who knows me well, that when the FCDO partners with established missionary networks, it is not funding expensive administrative overheads. My Strangford constituency has many churches and faith groups, including the Church of Ireland, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Elim Church and many others. They are funding pure, direct delivery. They are utilising infrastructure that is already built, relationships that are already formed, and a dedication that money simply cannot buy.

As I have mentioned in other debates—I hope the Minister can give me a reply today—the networks are there and the people are there. In particular, the Elim missions in Zimbabwe and Swaziland are working with farmers to till the land and produce their own food. At the same time, they are involved in healthcare and education. As we reshape our aid footprint, will the Government commit to bypassing the bloated international middlemen and graduated economies? Will the FCDO actively channel our precious, reduced resources into the trusted, long-standing Church missionaries and local bodies that offer the ultimate value for money?

Let us ensure that British aid is defined not by the billions we spend but by the lives we save through those who know how to save them: the Church missionaries and faith-based groups. They are happy to partner with the Government, and they should be invited to do so.

10:04

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

It is a delight to participate in the debate, and I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing it. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of the IDC and a former development banker. I share many of my IDC colleagues’ reflections on the need for clarity and to be steadfast in our pursuit of the overarching goal of the UK’s foreign development policy, which is poverty alleviation. Our report sheds a light on the fact that there is a much greater need for clarity, transparency and measurability of the outcomes we are looking to deliver in particularly constrained circumstances.

That said, I wholeheartedly support the Government’s shift from the mindset of donor to that of investor. That is necessary not just because it is what many developing countries are asking of us, but because it is the only way we will get the scale of investment that is needed to transform the fortunes of the world’s poorest countries. Whichever way we look at it—whether it is the sustainable development goals financing gap or any other interpretation—the scale of capital need is enormous and cannot be met by the multilateral development banks, let alone our development aid budgets.

Let me move on from the hand-wringing we are all so used to in our favourite sector, towards a much more normative, positive pitch for the role the UK Government can play as we head into the G20, where we have the chance to set the tone of development globally. We can play a unique role in three areas: first, the global debt system; secondly, our influence on multilateral development banks and development finance more broadly; and thirdly, the mobilisation of private sector investment. I know the Government are incredibly invested in those three themes, which align with our shift from donor to investor, but let me be clear about what will work to deliver shifts across those three agenda items, at least in my experience.

On global debt, the UK is home to the vast majority of emerging markets’ sovereign debt. England is the jurisdiction under which it is governed, with the other key jurisdiction being New York. In my mind, it is incumbent on this jurisdiction to try to right the wrongs addressed by the private Member’s Bill introduced last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), who is no longer in his place. It is incumbent on us to build not just a more sustainable debt system, but ultimately the financial capacity of these countries, and to take the agenda very seriously.

I welcome the work of the London Coalition so far, including the steps to strengthen the common framework and the term sheet, which suggests pause clauses that might prevent some of the frankly usurious debt obligations on developing countries from building up during restructurings. I also welcome the need for transparency, which is another workstream of the London Coalition. But we must ask ourselves whether this is sufficient. Are voluntary measures and the self-regulation of the City as the leading emerging markets bond market sufficient?

As a key player in the G20, can we take a stand on delivering a much greater ambition to ensure that best practices move from being voluntary to being a gold standard for the market? If there are concerns about the market impact, one has only to look back to the previous round of global debt reform under Gordon Brown, and the concerns raised by the City then. Let us be honest: not all investors are created equal. A big pension fund that just happens to have exposure to Ghanaian sovereign debt is not the same as a debt-distressed hedge fund.

Creditors will have different views about whether a real ambition from the UK to put reforms on a statutory footing will scare the markets. I encourage the Government to engage very strongly; I would be happy to provide evidence from the City and from economists working on global sovereign debt to support the fact that, rather than being all doom and gloom, this might be an opportunity to reset the sustainability of the sector and, in doing so, build financial capacity.

With that financial capacity, we could mobilise a far greater sum of investment than ever before. I know that is the ambition of the Development Minister, Baroness Chapman. If we can get the financial capacity right for these countries, it may be that the cuts to aid will pale into insignificance—to put it bluntly—compared with what investment could be mobilised if we get the macroeconomic structure right.

Multilaterals also have a role in mobilising private capital, but some, particularly larger, multilaterals, which we have fervently supported, are currently not taking on sufficient risk, and in many cases are crowding out commercial banks and are too focused on debt. They need to be more catalytic in their work. BII sets a good reference point, and it also serves a good reference point for project development, or what the International Finance Corporation would call upstream project development.

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

The hon. Member mentioned multilaterals. We have seen massive cuts to aid. As many people will know, I worked for 30 years in the WASH sector, which had been cut by 85% before the recent aid cuts, and is so important in changing people’s lives. Does the hon. Member agree that, given the movement to multilateralism and multilateral support, we should see that channel used to direct much larger funds to the very poorest and to sectors such as WASH—although not to WASH exclusively—so that we can see a real improvement in people’s lives around the world?

[Noah Law]

I agree that alongside the shift to more risk capital, which will also support that goal, and more upstream project development with local partners, there needs to be a focus on the world’s very poorest, and on getting capital into markets that do not currently have the capacity to support it. We have to move on each of these fronts: on global debt reform, on engagement with the multilateral development banks and our own development finance institutions, and on the private sector. Only by getting the capacity right, and by getting the work that the MDBs and the DFIs do right, will we be able to mobilise capital at scale. In my experience, WASH in particular suffers from being uninvestable for development finance, partly because the ability of DFIs to provide support at the municipal level and for city regions is underdeveloped. I urge the Minister to work with, for example, Urban 20 colleagues to address the issue.

[James Naish]

My hon. Friend mentioned multilaterals. I wanted to put on the record my concern, shared by a number of IDC members, that it will be much harder for us to influence the multilaterals when most of our money is going there, rather than to bilateral aid. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that we need to resource appropriately to achieve maximum leverage within the multilateral system?

[Noah Law]

I do share my hon. Friend’s concern. In a time of constrained resources, there is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to move everything into the multilateral space to get more bang for our buck but, as we have seen, it is not as simple as that. One does have to be wary when trying to make that money go further. I am glad that there are examples, particularly on the climate finance front, of where our Government have stepped up to ensure we maintain the agenda of the multilateral development banks.

To sum up, we need to be serious about the potential need for a statutory footing for some of the reforms to the global debt system, which the UK is uniquely well placed to address. We need to push our multilateral development banks and development finance institutions to go further, to take more risk and do that upstream development work. In doing so, we need to mobilise the private capital that at the minute is unable to get to the world’s poorest countries.

10:14

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

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this debate and on leading a galaxy of great speeches. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper); she and I have worked together on global health partnerships, and I agree with everything that has been said.

I will pick up on a couple of points that have been made. There has been focus on Britain’s G20, and I am sure that is an important opportunity for Britain to provide some leadership on this issue. As we get older, we tend to look back at the past through rose-tinted spectacles, but I acknowledge at the outset that British development policy is at its best by far when it is conducted on an all-party basis. It is not a Labour, Conservative or Liberal policy; it is a British policy. That was one of its great glories in the past.

The Government did well in their recent conference, where they brought together a lot of interested parties and helped to underline an appropriate agenda. Those of us who really care about this issue must also be careful, because in Britain we are still spending an enormous amount of taxpayers’ money, and it is doing a lot of good. Although it has been greatly and savagely diminished, a lot of the spending is very good, and I want to make that clear. I am also very pleased that the Government have stuck to the 2023 White Paper, which was effectively an all-party White Paper.

[Tom Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a critical point. Obviously, we have seen public support wane in recent years, but protecting and preserving that narrative of the good that we do in the world is important. As a country, we often tend to look at the floor rather than looking up at the sky. As a country, we have a monarch of high standing, we are a permanent member of the Security Council, a NATO partner, a founding member of the United Nations and a global financial hub, and we have world-leading universities and research institutions.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the things that can come out of this and other debates that we have around the topic is not hand-wringing, as we have heard repeatedly in this Chamber, but an opportunity to think about how we build on our successes and celebrate the good that we have done?

[Sir Andrew Mitchell]

I do not really agree with that because, while the hon. Gentleman cites a number of areas where Britain makes a big contribution, there is a big black hole where we have cut off our legs in respect to international development. I will say a word or two about that in a moment.

The importance of turning from donor to investor is absolutely right; but if investors are investing in a poor country where there is not adequate health and education, that country’s workforce will not be able to attract suitable investment. We must be worried about that. We must always focus on the results agenda, showing that the British taxpayer is getting 100p of value for every £1 spent.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale about the importance of saving the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, but we have to accept that we will not get a major boost in public support unless it comes from the top. We had an era of huge support, led by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Theresa May. If there is not support at the top, public support cannot be won back and sustained—particularly if there is a Prime Minister who is foolish enough to say from the Dispatch Box that DFID is like an ATM in the sky, spewing out taxpayers’ money.

Finally, the only point on which I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale is in respect of BII, which of course follows the Government’s lead. The Government are the 100% shareholder in BII and are therefore able to set out very clearly what its priorities should be, but they should then leave an organisation like BII to get on with following that mandate.

I argue that there have been three great losses from the Johnson and Starmer premierships. Bear in mind that in the last year of the last Conservative Government—do not tell the Treasury this—we spent nearly 0.6%, so there was huge support. However, there are three areas where we have seriously lost out. The first loss is to Britain’s reputation, as a result of the cuts. As has been pointed out, the cuts in Britain are more savage, pro rata, than the cuts in America. The damage to Britain’s reputation is acute. I argue that, since the Suez crisis, international development has been the only area of indisputable British international leadership—and we have lost that.

Secondly, we have lost out on British interests, particularly in respect of the rampant nationalism now being pursued at a time when we need international co-operation to tackle the great scourges mentioned in this debate. Above all, the poorest people in the world, who were reliant on British expertise, support and cash, have lost out.

Now is a chance, with a new leader. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) was part of a Government who championed international development. He knows about that. Now is a chance to make some changes. I urge Labour Members to rise up now and say that the historical interest and support of the Labour party have been for international development. People might expect the beastly Tories to cut aid and development, but they do not expect the Labour party to do that. Now is a chance to have a real reset, which should include three things.

First, the reset should include an acceptance that the vaporisation of DFID and the merger was an ocean-going disaster. Everyone who has had anything to do with it knows that perfectly well. It has led to a huge loss of skill. I urge the Government to decide, if not to restore DFID, at least to set up an agency to take action on helping to restore our reputation and the huge agglomeration of expertise in London that resulted from DFID.

Secondly, we should move back to 0.7%, as is the law of the land. We should do that, however, over a number of years. We cannot provide that amount of money overnight, but over five or six years we should try to move systematically back to it.

Finally, we should understand what this Government do not understand: defence, diplomacy and development are linked very tightly indeed. The idea that taking development money and putting it into defence is the answer to the—admittedly absolute—requirement to spend more on defence is absurd. Development is the other side of the coin to defence. I hope that the new Administration, when they come in shortly, will take account of some of these matters.

10:22

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford, and an honour to follow the contributions by the right hon. Members for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell). I thank the former for securing this very important debate.

It is shocking that we are in this position—that a Labour Government, who are supposed to share the principles of concern for the vulnerable, for equality and for solidarity, are the Government who have presided over the biggest ever single cut to the UK aid budget. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned, aid, our investment as a country in international development, has historically been a matter of cross-party consensus. That is crucial. This is not a party political issue; it is about our fundamental humanity as politicians and as a nation. Disappointing is not the word; it is shocking and shameful that we are in this position and that this Government have slashed aid to such an extent. It is short-sighted, because aid is an investment in building a better and a more secure world, and it is immoral, because aid does work. As the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), with all her experience in public health, communicated so clearly, aid saves lives. The effect of the cuts that we have seen in the UK and globally will be millions more deaths—millions. Every single one of them is an individual human being whose life could have continued. This is utterly extraordinary. It is immoral.

[Tom Hayes]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Chowns]

Very, very briefly, as I have almost no time.

[Tom Hayes]

In which case, continue.

[Dr Chowns]

I thank the hon. Member. We know that aid works; I have seen it myself. I worked in international development for several decades before coming to this place. I have seen, in Malawi, how the provision of clean water literally saves lives. I have seen, in Burundi, how work on HIV and AIDS literally saves lives. I have seen in northern Uganda how investment in conflict resolution, conflict prevention and rehabilitation of child soldiers works to rebuild lives and livelihoods. I have seen, in the Philippines, how international aid has helped a community devastated by a tornado to rebuild lives and livelihoods.

Aid works. No, it is not perfect—of course it is not. Yes, we do need to do better. Yes, we know how to do that. We know how to build longer-term programmes, how to work better with local partners, and how to channel money in ways that are focused on outcomes rather than just on bean counting. We know all that, and we have been doing it for decades—yet what has happened? The rug has been pulled out from under aid, and for what purpose? To put the money into defence spending, which, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, has itself too often been a black hole, with cancelled programme after cancelled programme costing billions. In the aid sector, we have focused on results and on outcomes. No other sector is so closely focused on results.

Why was that done? Let us remember that this aid cut was put in place on 25 February 2025. That was one month after Donald Trump returned to the White House and two days before the Prime Minister went to the White House, touting this aid cut and redirection of funding into defence, as part of his strategy for sucking up to Donald Trump. Look how well that worked. It did not—it was never going to.

This country has betrayed its proud record of supporting international solidarity, and for what? It is crucial that we move back towards investing in aid, because it is lifesaving, because it is the long-term investment that we need to make the world a safer and more secure place, and because international solidarity has to be part of our identity as a country. That is not just about aid; it is about engagement with the debt crisis and with our trading relationships, and it means that we need to look at new sources of funding, such as “polluter pays” taxes, to generate new streams of revenue to invest in these lifesaving and life-changing programmes.

But one thing must be clear: we cannot cut aid and expect to build a more secure world. This aid cut—this shameful Labour aid cut—makes the world a less secure place for us and for the millions of people directly affected. I very much hope that the new Labour Government will reverse course.

10:27

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this debate, because we rarely talk about this subject in the Chamber.

The Government do not seem to want to talk about aid and development very much, but they must and they should, because our world is on fire, because cuts to development make it worse and because it is within the British national interest to support it. I am sure that, if my party had cut the aid budget that far, I would not want to talk about it either.

The deplorable aid cuts, from a proud 0.7% to 0.3% —the biggest cuts to aid this century, amounting to a 50% cut in bilateral aid to Africa alone—are in danger of stripping the UK of much of its proud reputation on the global stage. I must note at this point that, despite continual prompting from members of the International Development Committee, of which I am one, the Government are still yet to publish their country allocations of aid, which makes it very difficult to scrutinise the damage.

However, we do know, and the Government know, that these cuts will cost lives. Combined with those caused by the collapse of USAID—the United States Agency for International Development—the lives lost will likely be in their millions. That includes in countries where we have a legacy, such as Afghanistan, where 45% of the population needs humanitarian assistance and which is no longer prioritised within the UK’s aid budget. In 2022, we contributed $488 million; today, it is $32 million. We have also heard how global aid cuts have caused such damage to health systems in the DRC that the response to tackling the Ebola crisis has been made significantly harder.

I know the personal commitment of many Members in this room, and of the Minister, but this is where we are: the party of DFID and Make Poverty History has become a Government of aid cuts so extreme that they outstrip the Trump Administration in their brutality. A Labour Government who followed Donald Trump in cutting aid have outdone him—a Labour Government whose legacy in development, just two years into their Administration, is already far worse than the Conservatives’.

Yet once there was consensus. I agree with the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) on almost everything he said but particularly on leadership. It comes to a pretty pass when a Conservative Member urges Labour Members to rise up and be radical. He said that he had the best job in the world as Development Minister. The British did the best job in the world in development. There was consensus.

Building on the work of the previous Labour Government, the coalition Government delivered the commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on development, which had been a Liberal Democrat manifesto promise since the 1970s. In coalition, we reached the UN aid target and NATO’s defence spending target at the same time, proving that investment in development and defence are not mutually exclusive; in fact, as we have heard, they are complementary.

As I and others have said, defence, diplomacy and development support each other and strengthen any coherent foreign policy. We have heard from some of the UK’s most senior former military chiefs that reducing development capacity today stores up greater instability, greater cost and greater risk for tomorrow. That means more defence spend down the line, and look how we are scrabbling about for it now.

Development brings benefits to Britain. It is strategic, and mutually beneficial because investing in peacebuilding, prosperity and stability keeps us safe here too. Take guarding against another pandemic. Covid was not so long ago, and we are told with certainty that there will be another one. Given all the pandemic’s death, its destruction of economies and its long tail of social and mental health challenges, I am sure that many hon. Friends will share my dismay at the decision by the Government to discontinue funding the Pandemic Fund.

What about climate change? When harvests fail through drought or flooding, malnutrition sets in, communities fight for pasture and people migrate. In May, the Government broke their pledge on the Green Climate Fund by announcing a cut of 50%, while their new international climate finance target of over £6 billion of public money, which I note is committed over three rather than five years, also seems to be a reduction.

[Tom Hayes]

I used to work in the international development sector for Oxfam, thinking about how to increase public support for international aid. I agree with what everybody in this room is saying, but we have a problem in our country that people in growing numbers do not support it, and I fear that we, as a Parliament, have to tackle the complacency that we are exhibiting here in the Chamber. Leadership matters, but how can we in Parliament actually grow that support to sustainably fund poverty alleviation?

[Monica Harding]

The hon. Member is 100% right, and I will come to that slightly later in my speech.

We hear a lot from the Government about migration. Each 1% increase in food insecurity in a population compels 1.9% more people to migrate. They are escaping war, too. The largest single group of unaccompanied minors in small boats has been from Sudan, the world’s greatest humanitarian disaster, in the midst of a brutal civil war. But this is just the tip. The wider Sahel is a tinderbox. Millions are expected to fall into crisis or, worse, into hunger in this lean season, as armed violence escalates across the region. Thousands of schools are closed due to insecurity, health systems are buckling under the weight of need, and still we cut.

Do the Government understand the reality of these cuts at this inflection point, when the world is on fire? Do we not need some honesty with the public on where ODA is actually spent? In 2025, £2.4 billion was spent on in-donor refugee costs, in comparison with £1.3 billion spent on humanitarian assistance. Lifesaving ODA is being spent on propping up a broken asylum system, with less and less spent on the causes that brought those people here in the first place.

We can assume that the cuts came first and the strategy second, given that the cuts announced in February 2025 seemed to take everyone, including the then Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), by surprise. Since then, the approach has often seemed confused and incoherent. The IDC has asked for clarity on the Government’s theory of change to reach their shared objective of poverty alleviation.

Of course, upheaval like this can create opportunity and wake us up from our stupor to make the case for aid outside of our own echo chamber, and to re-imagine our aid and development spend. But tearing down the system before the plan is in place is never a good idea. The answer for many things that have failed to be funded is that they will be “mainstreamed”, which is a euphemism for “disappeared”.

British aid and development worked. Millions of children vaccinated and educated; safe births; clean water and sanitation; lives saved—all achieved by well under 1% of this country’s GNI, and it gave the UK influence and leverage on the world stage, a seat at the table in global fora and friends in trade and diplomacy. Why not celebrate that?

Instead, the Minister for Development suggested:

“The days of viewing the UK Government as a global charity are over”.

Does the Minister before us today really believe that, or does he hope, like us, that with a change in leadership and a new Prime Minister, a focus on the long term will come back, with a realisation that doing the work now will make Britain safer and more powerful down the line? Does he not agree that framing the debate to pitch defence against development is wrong, and that, as the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said when she resigned as Development Minister,

“it will be impossible to raise the substantial resources needed”

to fully fund our defence capability

“just through tactical cuts to public spending”?

And so it is: there is another hole—a £4.7 billion hole—in the defence budget, despite the aid cuts that were supposedly meant to fill it. Is it not right that the new Prime Minister must lay out the urgency of the debate on funding our defence and our development spend, and the benefits that it can bring to Britain?

Great damage has been done by our retreat from aid to the reputation of our country and our shrinking influence. While we retreat, others whose values may not match ours are making a play for Africa. With rapid population growth and an emerging labour force, Africa will become one of the world’s biggest markets, and the Government should place themselves in the best position to take advantage of that.

The Government have a chance now, with a new leader in place, to take the long-term strategic view, repair the damage, return to the world stage and remember their moral responsibility and the strategic benefit to Britain. It is not too late, but it is nearly.

10:36

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this important and timely debate. As ever, he brings considerable knowledge and experience on development issues and, importantly, an understanding that the world in which we deliver development has fundamentally changed—as indeed do a number of other speakers today, not least my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell). I think it is fair to say that few in this place have the depth of knowledge that he brings to the debate.

Today, the international landscape is defined by conflict, instability and strategic competition. Russia continues its illegal invasion of Ukraine. Sudan has become the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe. Fragility stretches across the Sahel and the horn of Africa. China is using finance and infrastructure investment to expand its geopolitical influence. At the same time, donor budgets across western democracies are under increasing pressure.

Against that backdrop, Britain must ask a simple question: how do we ensure that every pound we spend overseas delivers the greatest possible benefit for the British people—our national security, our prosperity and health—as well as for the recipients? That is why we Conservatives believe the debate should not simply be about the size of the aid budget; it must be about reform.

Following the Government’s decision to reduce ODA from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI, the spending review allocated £8.9 billion in ’27-28 and £9.4 billion in ’28-29. We believe it is right to go further, reducing ODA to 0.1% of GNI, and delivering almost £7 billion of savings across those two years, to help fund the sustained increase in defence spending required in today’s far more dangerous world. But reductions in spending alone are not enough; they must be accompanied by genuine reform. That is where I fear the Government have failed to provide the meaningful clarity that we deserve.

After two years in office, Ministers continue to speak of moving from donor to investor, yet we still do not know what that means in practical terms. I gently point out that it was almost a decade ago that the Conservative Government published a strategy for how to do economic development. Can the Minister explain what criteria are now being used to determine whether a programme represents value for money and serves Britain’s national interests? Which programmes have been cancelled? Which partnerships have been scaled back? Which priorities have been strengthened? What measurable outcomes will the Government use to judge success? I believe the British taxpayer deserves answers and so do we, as parliamentarians.

The Conservatives’ approach is clear. We believe Britain’s development mission should be redefined. Development assistance must be tightly focused on advancing Britain’s economic interests, national security and wider strategic influence. That means asking of each and every programme whether it strengthens Britain’s security, supports economic resilience, helps to prevent instability, counters authoritarian influence or creates stronger, long-term partnerships.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Lady always makes incredibly important and helpful contributions. In my contribution, I suggested that there is another way of doing things, which is working alongside church groups and faith-based organisations. Does she feel that that is a possible way to spend money and have influence more wisely?

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Gentleman always brings great passion to this place and is never afraid of sharing ideas. I think we are at a stage with development where we are, I think all of us, looking for more answers and ideas. It is also important that we look to partners in other donor countries, and learn from them too.

Coming back to the point about longer-term partnerships and areas where programmes should be helping us, if they do not we should ask why not and why British taxpayers are funding them. That also means introducing far greater conditionality. The British taxpayer rightly expects the organisations and countries receiving our support to demonstrate accountability, transparency and good governance.

That principle must apply equally to the multilateral system. Under the previous Conservative Government, Britain led international efforts to reform UN agencies, reduce duplication and introduce stronger performance-based funding. We challenged international organisations to deliver better value and greater accountability. What reforms is the Minister pressing for across the United Nations and the wider multilateral development banks? What conditions are attached to UK funding? What discussions has he had with our international partners about driving greater transparency and accountability throughout the multilateral system? What are the Government doing to promote positive reform where it takes place, such as that being rolled out by the president of the World Bank, Ajay Banga.

Equally important is the role of bilateral and minilateral partnerships. Britain’s relationships, particularly across the Commonwealth, remain one of our greatest strategic strengths. Rather than relying on large multilateral institutions, how are the Government exploring more agile bilateral and minilateral partnerships that can better advance our economic and security interests? What discussions has the Minister had with key partners, particularly across the Commonwealth, about developing those new models of co-operation that deliver greater impact, stronger accountability and better value for the taxpayer? Have the Government also explored the potential for development partnerships with countries such as Japan and South Korea, as well as the Nordics and Germany? These are allies whose interests align with ours in different parts of the world, and they matter for our security and prosperity.

Economic development must sit at the heart of our approach to international development. Conservative Governments demonstrated that development is not simply about grants, but creating jobs, building markets and enabling countries to stand on their own feet. As we heard today, British International Investment has become one of Britain’s genuine development success stories, mobilising private capital to support sustainable economic growth. Can the Minister tell the House whether BII will receive further support, and what level of private capital do the Government expect to leverage through development finance?

If development is to support Britain’s national interest, global health must also remain central. The Conservatives have a proud record of supporting Gavi and the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Those investments have not only saved millions of lives but strengthened Britain’s own health security. Can the Minister confirm today the Government’s future commitments to Gavi and the Global Fund, and, importantly, the sequence of that funding?

I want to turn quickly to a humanitarian crisis, because Sudan cannot be ignored. It is now the world’s worst humanitarian emergency. Will the Minister tell us what additional action Britain is taking to secure humanitarian access and what discussions are taking place with regional partners?

I am conscious of the time. I am coming to an end, but I first want to touch on Ukraine, which I visited earlier this year. One of the gravest humanitarian issues arising from the war is the systematic abduction and forced deportation of Ukrainian children. Can the Minister update us on the latest support the UK is providing to help locate, identify and reunite the children with their families?

Conflict is increasing, donor funding is under pressure and strategic competition is intensifying. Britain’s development policy must change, too. I hope the Minister will explain not only where the Government are spending the money, but how their approach is being fundamentally reformed to meet the realities of a more dangerous and contested world. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

10:45

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this debate. I thank all Members who have contributed and will do my best to respond to the points raised.

Twenty years ago, many believed that globalisation, economic growth and international co-operation would steadily drive down poverty and expand opportunity across the world. That ambition remains as important today as it was then, but the world has changed dramatically. We are living through a period of geopolitical fragmentation, increasing conflict and economic uncertainty. The assumptions around development policy no longer hold, so we must adapt. Many traditional and significant donor countries have announced or are carrying out reductions to their official development assistance budgets. Global aid fell by 23% in 2025—the largest year-on-year reduction we have ever seen.

As this House is aware, the Government made the difficult decision to reduce the UK ODA budget to fund a necessary increase in defence spending. That was a tough decision that many Members have talked about today, and not all Members agreed with it. I understand that, but it was the right decision given the threats our country faces. Constrained ODA, though, is only part of the story. That is clear when we look at Africa, where the annual financing gap—the difference between the investment Africa needs each year to deliver the sustainable development goals and the funding it can currently access—is around $1.3 trillion. In contrast, aid to sub-Saharan Africa totalled $66.5 billion in 2024. That gap demonstrates that traditional ODA flows have only ever amounted to a small fraction of what is actually needed. In other words, ODA can only be part of a solution, not the whole solution. Continuing to work in the same way and expecting different results is no longer defensible.

Low-income and middle-income countries have been calling for change for some time. They want long-term genuine partnerships based on mutual respect and shared priorities, not paternalism.

[Dr Chowns]

The argument that aid is only a small part of the solution to global poverty and inequality is not a controversial one, but lower-middle income countries have not been calling for the change that the hon. Member’s Government have delivered: the biggest slash in the aid budget altogether. If he believes that aid expenditure and development investment need to be done slightly differently, let us make the argument for that, but cutting it should play no part in the sorts of changes he talks about.

[Chris Elmore]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I have to say, it is in complete contrast to my conversations with foreign Ministers. Some of them are exhausted by the idea that we dictate the terms of aid funding, and exhausted by the fact that we put a project in and then move away five years later with limited output.

[Dr Chowns]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Elmore]

I will not give way. The hon. Lady posed the question and I will answer it. When I have had conversations with Ministers globally—[Interruption.]

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Chris Elmore]

I understand the hon. Lady has significant experience in this field. I am talking about meetings that I have had with Ministers while serving as a Minister in the FCDO. They are clear that they want a different approach in how overseas aid is funded. They want a different approach in economic growth and investment. I have had more conversations with my ministerial counterparts on investment into digital infrastructure than I have on deciding to run a project for five years and then walking away from it. The hon. Lady and I are not going to agree. The difference for me is that I am not going to shout from a sedentary position—I have too much respect for the House for that.

My ministerial counterparts want long-term, genuine partnerships based on mutual respect and shared priorities, not paternalism. To reflect that new reality, we are modernising our approach to international development through four essential shifts. The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), raised the first point, so I hope I can answer her question. First, we move from donor to investor. There has been some criticism around that term today, but there is a key point. It means partnering with countries to unlock growth, jobs and trade through innovative finance and private sector investment. That is what those countries are asking for, not the dictatorial response, “We will do this to you.” We are doing it with them, not to them.

Secondly, we are moving from service delivery to support systems, and are helping countries to build their own education, health and economic systems so that they can thrive without aid. Thirdly, we are moving from grants to expertise, leveraging UK strengths such as our world-class universities, the City of London, the Met Office, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and our education, health and tech sectors.

Fourthly, we are moving from international intervention to local leadership, working in partnership with local actors and organisations, rather than making interventions that are driven internationally. That is the key point that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about. Having better delivery on the ground with people who understand it has to be the way forward, so hopefully I can offer him some reassurance on his question to me and the shadow Minister.

Those shifts reflect how we are prioritising the ODA budget.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

The Minister is talking about the importance of long-term partnership. Last week, I was proud to lead the first British parliamentary delegation to Syria since the fall of the Assad regime. I had a number of conversations with Ministers, who asked for technical support from our Government, particularly on special educational needs and disabilities. Some 27% of Syrian children are disabled, following the war. They also asked for us to reopen the embassy in Syria, for business support and a lot of other things. Does the Minister agree that now is the right time for a new development partnership with the Syrian Government, as that nation hopefully builds from the ashes?

[Chris Elmore]

On the wider work on Syria, I agree. The Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), is working hard to bring about more support for the new Syrian regime, and we continue to prioritise that. My hon. Friend’s wider point about expertise is right, and that is exactly what the ODA changes bring about. We are using our expertise in education, health and—dare I say it—planning. I have had a number of conversations about planning and infrastructure investment in countries. It is about listening to what those countries actually want us to help with, rather than saying, “We think we know what is best,” so I agree with her wider point.

The shadow Minister and a number of other colleagues spoke about the multilateral system. I happen to be the UN Minister, and UN reform is very high on my agenda. That is not just about the Secretary-General’s discussions about UN80, but about wider reform of the international civil service and the international architecture system, which Baroness Chapman and I are leading on in the Foreign Office. The shadow Minister is right to challenge us on that, but I assure her that we have led the charge in my 10 months in office, not just as a member of the Security Council but as a leader in the UN multilateral space, to bring about more reform in the UN system.

[David Mundell]

Could the Minister give some examples of how we will maximise our impact in those multilateral organisations, given that the balance of funding has moved towards them?

[Chris Elmore]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise that matter, and I will come to it later in my speech, particularly when I discuss the multilateral development bank system, which other Members have raised.

We will prioritise multilateral organisations in the ODA budget, where the international system is required to deliver at scale and with legitimacy. We are backing the most efficient parts of the multilateral system to multiply our investment. For example, we are prioritising multilateral development banks, which are the largest source of development and climate finance and are able to lend to partner countries on the most affordable terms. That includes the World Bank’s International Development Association, where each £1 we invest unlocks £4 of additional finance, and where we have increased our contribution by 40%. It also includes the African Development Fund. Our £650 million contribution will allow it to leverage up to £1.6 billion in grants and concessional loans, including by issuing bonds on the London stock exchange for the first time.

At the same time, we remain committed to reforming the global development system, and will strengthen its most important parts: humanitarian aid, health, climate and the global financial system. I assure the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale that that reform and our influence remain absolutely crucial to the FCDO’s wider work.

I come to a point that I know the right hon. Gentleman cares deeply about: the vital support work on HIV and AIDS as a key part of development infrastructure. I pay tribute to him for his many years of work in that space. The UK remains a steadfast global leader in global HIV response. We are working with key partners such as the Global Fund, the World Health Organisation, Unitaid and UNAIDS to strengthen health systems, prevent new HIV transmissions and save lives. Our commitment is backed by action. In 2025, the UK co-hosted the eighth replenishment of the Global Fund with South Africa, helping to secure $12.64 billion for the fight against HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, including a UK pledge of £850 million.

We also recognise the vital role of UNAIDS. It provides world-class HIV data, co-ordinates the international response and ensures that global communities continue to be heard. As the organisation undergoes significant change, the UK will continue to support an effective and responsible transition that protects essential functions and delivers the best possible outcome for the global HIV response.

Alongside that, we are investing in innovation, including by expanding access to the new long-acting HIV prevention and treatment technologies. That has the potential to transform the global response and help put the world back on track towards ending AIDS as a public health threat. As we do so, we will continue to champion an approach that is inclusive and evidence-based, focused on key populations, communities and those most at risk from HIV to ensure that hard-won gains are protected for future generations.

It would be remiss of me not to respond to some of the comments on LGBT leadership in the multilateral system. I am the Minister responsible and can assure the House that we will not shy away from our responsibilities under a multilateral platform. I recently announced a £21 million fund, £3 million of which will go to Kaleidoscope for its international response in supporting LGBT communities around the world. While I remain Minister I will never shy away from my responsibilities to challenge and ensure that communities who are being suppressed and seeing their rights rolled back are not ignored. Meanwhile, we are prioritising our bilateral support for countries and communities that need it most. We are committed to £1.4 billion a year over the next three years for places with the highest humanitarian need. That includes fully protecting the budgets for Ukraine, Sudan and Palestine, and protecting funding for Lebanon during the ongoing crisis.

I briefly want to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) about polio. I reassure her that we are doing our utmost by investing £1.5 billion in Gavi between 2026 and 2030. That is about shifting investment to where it works, and looking at immunisation as a way to eradicate polio. It is not about a lack of support, but about ensuring we get development right in making such decisions.

In a changed world, we need to take a new approach, which is exactly what we are doing. In May, the UK hosted the Global Partnerships Conference, which brought together participants from Governments, multilateral organisations, business, tech, philanthropy and civil society. I heard at first hand from partners the importance of genuine partnership as the basis for our modern development approach. That approach combines our diplomatic network, our financial sector, our expertise and businesses for a far greater impact. It is the essence of going beyond aid and using the full range of UK capabilities to support partner countries. That is our vision for international development and how we will meet the global challenges that we face.

10:57

[David Mundell]

I thank the Minister for his response, which is a picture from the current Government. This is a moment for reset, which I hope the incoming Prime Minister will take on board along with many of the things said in this debate, as well as the International Development Committee’s recent report on the future of international development in a fracturing world. This may be an echo chamber, but we can all make a difference in making the case for international development, which we have to do outside here. We have to be bold enough to challenge some perceptions. Most people think that a huge percentage of the UK budget is spent on aid. They do not realise it is 0.3%; they think it is nearer 40%. There are many misconceptions out there, which we must lead on challenging.

At this moment, Labour MPs are the ones with the opportunity to make a difference. I have been through several changes of Prime Minister, and I know now is the point at which they can be influenced. They are not influenced once they are in No. 10, when it becomes much harder—it is now, as they cross the threshold. We have heard passionate contributions from Labour MPs and I know others feel the same. My appeal is the same as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell): make that difference now and get international development back on the Government agenda.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered UK aid policy in the context of global funding trends.

Carlisle-Settle Railway: 150th Anniversary

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I will call Ms Julie Minns 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. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the 150th anniversary of the Carlisle-Settle Railway.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, as we celebrate a remarkable milestone in the history of one of Britain’s great railways. This year marks 150 years since passenger services first ran along the Carlisle-Settle railway, linking Carlisle with communities across Cumbria, the Yorkshire dales and beyond. A hundred and fifty years on, it remains a railway of national significance, renowned for its engineering, celebrated for its scenery and cherished by the communities it serves.

For Carlisle, this railway is far more than a transport link. It is part of our city’s history and identity. It has helped to connect our city to the wider north for generations, bringing people, ideas, commerce and opportunity. Today, it is fitting that we come together to celebrate not only its past, but the people who ensured that it would have a future.

The story of the Carlisle-Settle railway began in the great age of Victorian railway building. It was one of the last great railways constructed in Britain and was undoubtedly one of the most ambitious. Building it required extraordinary determination. More than 6,000 navvies worked along the route, enduring isolation, appalling weather and dangerous working conditions to carve a railway through some of the most challenging terrain in England.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Some of the navvies who helped to build that railway would have come from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I congratulate the hon. Lady on her assiduous commitment to her constituents: she is making a good name for herself in this House. Well done to her; I wish her well.

Will the hon. Lady join me in urging the Government to ensure that the Department for Transport actively applies the invaluable infrastructure and community-led preservation lessons learned from the Settle and Carlisle Railway Trust to protect our vital regional connectivity and heritage lines across all the nations of the United Kingdom, including the heritage links in Northern Ireland?

[Ms Minns]

It is always a pleasure to be intervened on by the hon. Member. As I will go on to say, there are many lessons from the history of the railway line that we can apply to the challenges that community groups across the country raise when they are campaigning for their local railways. We can learn a lot from the Carlisle-Settle railway.

Entire settlements were established to house the workforce, who founded many of the villages along the line today. Their story is an important part of the railway’s heritage and deserves to be remembered alongside the engineering achievements for which the line is famous. The engineer responsible for the project was John Crossley. As Cumbrian ramblers will testify, the terrain over which he engineered the line is not forgiving. Construction was frequently halted by snow, flooding and frozen ground. One contractor withdrew altogether after underestimating the severity of the landscape and weather conditions. Despite those challenges, the line was completed and open for passenger services in 1876, just 11 years after Parliament had passed the enabling Act. I am sure the Minister wishes he had a few John Crossleys on hand for some of our rail projects today.

The railway required the construction of 14 tunnels and 22 viaducts. The most famous, the Ribblehead viaduct, stands 104 feet high and comprises 24 magnificent arches stretching across the north-west landscape. Soon after crossing Ribblehead, trains enter Blea Moor tunnel, which is driven deep beneath the moors for more than a mile and a half. The line also travels to Ais Gill summit, the highest point reached by any mainline railway in England. There are fascinating stories along the route. In Lazonby, local legend tells us that the tunnel was constructed at the request of a local vicar who did not wish the railway to pass directly in front of his vicarage. One hundred and fifty years later, the structures remain, as a testament to Victorian ingenuity, determination and ambition.

Despite its engineering significance and strategic importance, the future of the Carlisle-Settle railway became increasingly uncertain during the second half of the 20th century. In 1963, the Beeching report recommended the withdrawal of passenger services from the line. Although those proposals were not immediately implemented, station closures and service reductions followed. By 1970, all stations apart from Settle and Appleby had been closed and passenger services had been reduced to just two trains a day in each direction. In the 1970s, the railway suffered years of under-investment. Freight traffic was diverted on to the electrified west coast main line, ageing infrastructure deteriorated and viaducts and tunnels were allowed to fall into disrepair. By the early 1980s, British Rail was arguing that the cost of maintaining the railway could no longer be justified, and proposals were made to close it entirely.

What followed was one of the most inspiring grassroots campaigns in British railway history. In June 1981, before closure had even been formally announced, the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Line held their inaugural meeting in Settle town hall. They recognised the threat and they acted. Soon, they were joined by local authorities, rail users, railway development groups, environmental campaigners and communities along the route.

When closure notices appeared in 1984, the campaign intensified. Campaigners challenged BR’s assumptions and highlighted the railway’s wider value. They argued that its tourism potential had been overlooked. They argued that its role as a strategic diversionary route had been underestimated. They argued that closure would damage the communities who depended on the railway. They were right. The campaign also exposed what many regarded as a policy of closure by stealth: reduced services, diverted traffic and inflated repair estimates, all to justify closure.

The publicity surrounding the campaign encouraged people to start using the railway in unprecedented numbers. The number of passenger journeys rose dramatically, from 93,000 in 1983 to 450,000 by 1989. In 2025, almost 1 million journeys were made along the Carlisle-Settle railway.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Lady for raising the issue: the Carlisle-Settle railway line is so important, and Carlisle is a great railway town with such a strong tradition. Does she agree that the points that she makes about the campaign for the Carlisle-Settle line are also applicable to the Borders railway extension from Carlisle to Tweedbank? That extension would bring the tourism benefits, scenery and opportunities that keeping the Settle-Carlisle line open has brought.

[Ms Minns]

I completely agree with the right hon. Member, who is my constituency neighbour and friend. The spirit that we see today in the Borders rail campaign is exactly that which we saw in the Carlisle-Settle line campaign. He is absolutely right about the economic benefits, which have already been demonstrated between Edinburgh and Tweedbank and could also be realised in the Carlisle-Tweedbank extension. I am grateful that this Government, alongside the Scottish Government, have ensured that funding is now in place for the viability work on the remaining leg between Tweedbank and Carlisle.

On 11 April 1989, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Paul Channon, announced that consent for closure would be refused, as repair costs were found to be lower than was originally claimed, and passenger growth had demonstrated the continuing viability of the line. That remains one of the most significant victories for community transport campaigning anywhere in the United Kingdom. Today, as we celebrate the anniversary, we should acknowledge every person who played a role in that achievement: the volunteers, campaigners, railway staff, local councillors, passengers and community leaders who fought for the railway’s future. They ensured that future generations would continue to benefit from this remarkable line.

There is perhaps no more touching symbol of the campaign than Ruswarp the border collie, whose owner Graham Nuttall served as the first secretary of the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Line. Ruswarp famously signed, with his paw print, the petition to save the railway. After Graham Nuttall tragically lost his life while walking in Wales in 1990, Ruswarp remained at his side for 11 weeks before they were found. Today, a bronze statue stands at Garsdale station, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), commemorating Ruswarp’s loyalty and courage. It has become one of the most beloved landmarks on the railway and a reminder of the devotion that people have shown to protecting the line.

The story of the Carlisle-Settle railway did not end with its reprieve. In many ways, a new chapter had begun. Today, the line is operated by Northern Trains and supported by an outstanding partnership of organisations. The Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Line continue their invaluable advocacy and volunteering work, the Settle and Carlisle Railway Trust helps to preserve and promote its heritage, and the Settle-Carlisle Railway Development Company serves as an accredited community rail partnership, working to encourage tourism, education and community engagement. Their efforts have transformed the railway into one of Britain’s great rail success stories.

The line continues to bring thousands of visitors into Cumbria, Westmorland and Yorkshire every year. It supports our local economies, connects our rural communities and introduces new generations to our railway heritage. This anniversary year demonstrates that spirit perfectly. Schools, volunteers, artists and community groups are all helping to tell the railway story through events and exhibitions. I was particularly pleased to see the commissioning of a new play, “Lives Along the Line”, by Yorkshire playwright Joan Barnard, which the Vagabond theatre group will perform this summer at Appleby public hall and the Victoria Hall in Settle. The play will bring to life the stories of the people whose lives have been shaped by the railway over the past century and a half.

What makes the Carlisle-Settle railway so special? It is one of the most beautiful railway journeys in the world. Few railways can rival its combination of dramatic landscapes, historic stations and iconic engineering. From my home of Carlisle, through the Eden valley and to Yorkshire’s three peaks, it offers views that attract visitors from across Britain and beyond. However, its importance extends far beyond tourism. For many communities, it remains a vital transport link, providing access to employment, education, healthcare and leisure opportunities. For rural communities along the route, it remains every bit as important as those who campaigned to save it understood it would be.

The railway also continues to play an important strategic role in the rail network. When the west coast main line is closed because of engineering works, weather events, which are sadly all too familiar in my part of the country, or any other disruption, the Carlisle-Settle railway provides an invaluable diversionary route. In an age in which resilience and redundancy within critical infrastructure are increasingly important, the line’s value stretches far beyond the communities it serves. The railway’s resilience was demonstrated once again following Storm Desmond and the major landslip at Eden Brows in 2015 and 2016. The subsequent repairs demonstrated the continued commitment to preserving this vital railway for future generations.

As we look ahead to what I hope will be another 150 years of the Carlisle-Settle line, we should remember the lesson at the heart of its story, which is that infrastructure should never be judged purely through the lens of short-term accounting; we must also recognise the social value, strategic importance, connectivity, resilience and heritage. Had closure gone ahead in 1989, Britain would have lost one of its greatest railways. Instead, thanks to the determination of campaigners and communities, we are celebrating its 150th anniversary.

I ask the Minister, my friend and fellow rail enthusiast, for reassurance that the long-term future of the Carlisle-Settle railway remains secure, that the Government recognise its ongoing strategic value to our national rail network, and that the community organisations and volunteers who do so much to support the line will continue to receive the backing that they deserve. I also ask him to join me in paying tribute to the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Line, the Settle and Carlisle Railway Trust, the Settle-Carlisle Railway Development Company and all those whose dedication continues to sustain this remarkable railway.

Most importantly, I ask the Minister to join me in thanking the visionaries who refused to accept that this railway’s story was over. Because of them, trains still run between Carlisle and Settle; because of them, communities remain connected; because of them, future generations will continue to enjoy one of the finest railway journeys anywhere in the world. Long may that continue.

11:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I heartily congratulate my very good and hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) on securing this debate on the anniversary of the Settle-Carlisle railway, and I thank other Members for their contributions.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her continued advocacy on behalf of her constituents. This is a moment of celebration of our railways, but it is also a time to reflect on the present and the future. I welcome the opportunity to address some of those points today.

The Settle-Carlisle railway, which is celebrating its 150th anniversary, is, of course, one of the most historical and spectacularly scenic lines in the UK, with a long and colourful history of innovative engineering and dogged determination by the rail visionaries who fought to keep the line open against all the challenges it has faced—a legacy that my hon. Friend is certainly working hard to continue.

I am delighted to assure my hon. Friend that the future of the line is indeed secure. The introduction of the Yorkshire Dales Explorer has brought thousands of new visitors to the line, investment at Horton-in-Ribblesdale station and secured the line’s invaluable role as a support route for the west coast main line. These all demonstrate the line’s ongoing importance to our network and this Government’s commitment to its future.

I am pleased that there is such a strong community rail involvement with this historical line. Community rail is all about connecting communities to the railways, and at the heart of the community rail concept are community rail partnerships. The Settle-Carlisle Railway Development Company has done some wonderful work in this area. It has been an accredited community rail partnership for more than five years, working to support the local economy and benefit communities along the line.

Its work includes organising station open days and art installations, running projects to support access to the railway and environmental initiatives with community organisations, as well as providing a range of services and products that benefit locals and visitors alike. The company achieves so much for the benefit of communities along this historical line. I congratulate it on its most recent reaccreditation, awarded in recognition of its community-centred projects and services provided across the Yorkshire dales and Cumbria.

I also pay tribute to the work of the Settle and Carlisle Railway Trust, which does so much valuable work in helping to restore, preserve and maintain the historical buildings and structures along the route, sparking the imagination and engagement of the public.

The railways, of course, have changed so much since the first passenger trains on the Settle-Carlisle line, and I think it is appropriate to raise where this Government see the future of this railway. Rail reform will put passengers and customers back at the heart of the rail network. The Railways Bill, of which I know my hon. Friend is a keen supporter, is progressing through Parliament and will create Great British Railways, which will bring track and train together under one publicly owned and accountable body to reduce fragmentation and improve decision making. GBR will work closely with local mayors and local authorities to make sure that services meet the needs of their areas and better integrate with other modes.

I now turn to Northern Trains and its performance as the main operator on the Settle-Carlisle line. I am pleased with the introduction of the Yorkshire Dales Explorer, which links Greater Manchester and Lancashire to the Settle-Carlisle line and the dales. I also hope that my hon. Friend’s constituents are able to partake in Northern’s offer of discounted tickets between Leeds, Settle and Carlisle, in honour of the 150th anniversary. But that does not mean there is not more work to do.

Northern’s performance leaves room for improvement. We have an improvement plan that outlines the steps that the operator will take to improve reliability, with a target of 90% of all its trains arriving within three minutes of timetable and cancellations below 2%. I am pleased that the latest rail period results show that cancellations on the Leeds-Carlisle route were only 1.24%, but we need to work to improve punctuality, with 77% of trains arriving within three minutes of timetable. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to improve services for both tourists in her remarkable area and her constituents. Northern is also in discussions with train manufacturers to procure new train sets to replace the oldest trains in its fleet. The procurement of up to 450 new train sets will offer increased capacity as well as more accessible trains for passengers.

In January and April this year, the Settle-Carlisle route played a critical role in supporting passengers during several closures of the west coast main line for engineering work. To avoid lengthy replacement bus journeys, Avanti West Coast operated its bi-mode Evero trains over the historical route—the first time in more than a decade it has been used for that purpose. Feedback was incredibly positive, underlining findings from the rail watchdog, Transport Focus, that passengers prefer to stay on trains than take replacement bus services—that is certainly my preference, too—even if it involves a longer journey. Avanti hopes that the Settle-Carlisle route can continue to play an important role as a diversionary route over the next decade, especially when a significant volume of renewal activity is required on the northern section of the west coast main line.

On infrastructure, Network Rail recently installed a footbridge with lifts at Horton-in-Ribblesdale station, allowing the closure of a high-risk level crossing and enabling a rail connection to the nearby quarry. The scheme was a mix of public and private investment, including a contribution from the quarry along with the Access for All fund. Connecting the quarry by rail safeguards the future of the facility while reducing carbon emissions by taking lorries off the road.

The 150th anniversary of the Settle-Carlisle line is an opportunity not only to celebrate extraordinary railway heritage, but to recognise wider investment to ensure that rail continues to support communities, connectivity and economic growth for generations to come. That investment includes the £323 million west coast north modernisation programme, which is the biggest improvement programme on the northern section of the west coast main line in decades.

Network Rail and industry partners are working together, in the spirit of Great British Railways, to keep passengers moving while replacing ageing infrastructure, particularly the overhead line equipment that powers electric trains. Over the past two years, Network Rail has renewed around 200 km of overhead wires on the northern sections of the west coast main line. The work will improve reliability and deliver a more resilient and better-connected railway for passengers and freight. From the Settle-Carlisle line to the west coast main line, rail remains a vital part of connecting people, places and opportunities across the north and Scotland.

My hon. Friend will recall the Department’s investment of £13.5 million as part of the £38 million Carlisle station gateway project, part funded by the borderlands inclusive growth deal and delivered in partnership between Network Rail and Cumberland council. The scheme provides a new public square to the rear of the station, an enhanced Court Square to the front, new lifts and increased car parking capacity. Works are on site and the Scott & Brassey public house has now opened in the restored first-class waiting room, with passengers enjoying a selection of great local ales. I often travel up to Glasgow, and I will avail myself of those great local ales as soon as I make contact with Carlisle station.

To conclude, I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are firmly committed to honouring our railway heritage and improving services for passengers in rural communities across the north. She continues to be a resolute champion of the Settle-Carlisle railway, and the Government are committed to supporting her and her constituents as she continues to do so. Here is to the 150 years to come.

Question put and agreed to.

11:23

Sitting suspended.

Future of British Horseracing

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Carolyn Harris in the Chair]

10:17

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of British horseracing.

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I am very grateful to hon. Members for attending this debate. I will be very generous with interventions, but I hope that hon. Members will not intervene for the next 45 seconds—they will see why.

“The final open ditch is fence number 14. Il Est Francais by about a length and a half. Jukebox Man in second now, being pushed along by Jango Baie in third. They’re bunching up towards the fourth from home and it’s Il Est Francais. He’s now joined by The Jukebox Man on his outside. Jango Baie right there in close third. Djelo now makes a big move round the outside and is now in fourth. Just covered up is Gaelic Warrior and Banbridge. Master Chewy on the inside. Fact To File on the outside. Still no more than four lengths split this star-studded field of eight as they make their turn for home.

Three fences to go in this Ladbrokes King George and it’s now Jango Baie on the outside with The Jukebox Man, and Djelo is right there with Gaelic Warrior on the inside. Banbridge tries to go through between two horses. Fact To File was away on the outside towards the second from home. The Jukebox Man has a lead by a neck. On the inside, Gaelic Warrior. Banbridge, the reigning champion, with every chance. Jango Baie right up the inside. Still a length between the leading four of the King George. Over the final fence. Banbridge, a nose in front, Gaelic Warrior to the inside and Jukebox Man racing towards the line in a head-bobbing finish. In the centre, Jukebox Man; on the far side, Gaelic Warrior; and on the near side, Banbridge, in a classic renewal of the Ladbrokes King George.”

The reason I focus on that is because I was there on Boxing day last year to watch the running of the King George. There was an audible gasp as the four in the fray came round the final bend into the straight. Members should have heard the roar. I think the whole of Spelthorne was on The Jukebox Man, owned by Harry Redknapp. When he crossed the line—it was very close—the place simply erupted. And the reason I am focusing on Kempton Park racecourse in my constituency is that it is under severe threat because, in around 2017, the Jockey Club sold an option to Barratt Redrow to make an application to flatten the racecourse and put up to 3,500 homes there.

The proposal had been seen off under previous planning rules. However, hon. Members will be aware that, under the new national planning policy framework, there is an assumed yes for planning purposes if a proposed development is within 800 metres of a train station with two departures an hour in the same direction. That is despite the racecourse being on highly protected metropolitan green belt, some of it being floodplain and all of it being an internationally famous, iconic racecourse.

My aim in securing this debate is to highlight the risk that this proposal could happen. It is policy, not rules, so hopefully the Minister will be so furnished as to advocate for one of our most important sporting venues—most important to horseracing in particular—when the application is submitted.

Barratt Redrow told me on 20 March that it was going to put in a planning application by the end of this year. After I started campaigning vociferously for Kempton Park, it elicited a media statement from the company on Friday that it had no plans to put in a planning application during this calendar year.

However, my area is undergoing local government reorganisation. On 1 April 2027, Spelthorne borough council will be no more and we will be subsumed into west Surrey and, if I have my way, south Middlesex. I can see what Barratt Redrow is going to do: it will wait until 1 April and then the planning application will go in. That will last until the end of 2028 unless there is a live planning application under consideration, in which case it gets extended for a further two years.

Obviously, I am agitating locally. My residents in Spelthorne love their racecourse and have no desire to see it flattened and turned into housing so, as any Member would, I started a petition. It has received over 3,500 signatures so far. I also organised a public meeting in the Magpie pub in Lower Sunbury last week, attended by about 70 people.

However, I really wanted to get a view from horseracing itself on this proposal. Although I go to Kempton Park, I do not know horseracing inside out, so I reached out to a number of people in the racing industry, and I have been blown away by the response. I wish to share with hon. Members certain aspects of that response. In doing so, I pay tribute to someone in the Public Gallery who, in my book, is racing royalty—Nicky Henderson. He has been fantastic in galvanising horseracing and the response we have received.

I will start with an email I received from a chap called Richard Dunwoody:

“As a steeplechase jockey, I enjoyed some of the best days of my career at Kempton Park racecourse. Two of them were when partnering with the great Desert Orchid to win the King George VI Chase in 1989 and in 1990. Hats flew in the air. The roars were deafening. As Dessie crossed the line, his ears pricked.

It would be a tragedy to lose this racecourse. With the introduction of all-weather racing, Kempton Park has indeed changed over the years, but the standard of racing at the course has not. Jockeys and horses of the very highest level still compete there, as we witnessed last year in the renewal of the King George. Four horses took the last fence line abreast, with Harry Redknapp’s The Jukebox Man taking the honours by the narrowest of margins.”

The journalist Brough Scott wrote that it was:

“As good as it gets.”

And, yes, Kempton Park is indeed as good as it gets when it comes to grade 1 sporting venues. We cannot let it fall to property developers.

Nicky has also garnered support from other names in racing—the list is like “Who’s Who?” From the National Hunt world, there is support from Nicky Henderson, Paul Nicholls, Dan Skelton, Willie Mullins, Ben Pauling, Jamie Snowden, Alan King and Fergal O’Brien. And from the world of the flat, there is support from John Gosden, Roger Varian, Richard Hannon, Andrew Balding, Ralph Beckett, Charlie Hills, Ed Walker and Eve Johnson Houghton, and there is support from a number of people in the racing press—for example, people probably saw Marcus Armytage’s column at the weekend. And the list goes on.

The list of names boils down the reaction I have had. Here is a decent example of the wider reaction:

“Sir, I am Dan Skelton, I’ve been involved in horse sports all my life and have been a National Hunt racehorse trainer for 13 years. I am currently Champion Trainer of the UK.

I am writing in support of Kempton Park Racecourse remaining exactly that. KPR is an elite racing venue steeped in history, with a lot more to offer in the future. Horseracing is the second biggest spectator sport in the UK, and a major contributor to the UK economy and its culture. As an employer, British Racing takes care of a great many thousand individuals and families with specific skills, and quite obviously in more rural destinations. Any job losses in our current economy would be disastrous.”

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend, I am no expert on the racing world, but I am lucky enough to represent Fakenham racecourse. Does he recognise that the loss of a racecourse impacts not just the racing world but the community that hosts it, both in direct employment and, importantly, in the indirect employment that supports the surrounding community and infrastructure? Furthermore, does he agree that, when a course goes, it goes forever and will never be replaced?

[Lincoln Jopp]

My hon. Friend makes two outstanding points. The race commentary I read out is just the tip of the iceberg. Sitting underneath that, in order to produce a race, is a whole ecosystem and industry of equine specialisms, including stables, stable lads and trainers. The whole thing culminates in a race, but it supports a whole industry. He is absolutely right to say that, if we lose it, we will never get it back.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I would like to add to the list of our glorious racecourses. Bath racecourse is Britain’s highest flat racecourse, and it adds so much to the community. We have plenty of races, but we also have family and big sporting events. It was also an important centre for the vaccination programme. It is not just horseracing; the whole city benefits from having a racecourse. As has already been said, we lose something great when they go. I would like to hear a bit more about how we can save our racecourses.

[Lincoln Jopp]

The hon. Member makes a very good point. I think Europe’s largest antiques fair happens at Kempton Park racecourse twice every month. I have been around it and met stallholders who travel from Germany and France. It is absolutely enormous and produces oodles of cash for the Jockey Club—I cannot understand why the Jockey Club would want to sell the family silver.

How can we save our racecourses? First, everyone should be going racing. It is a bit like the local pub—use it or lose it. Secondly, we need to educate a lot of people about horseracing, so that things like planning applications are considered from a position of understanding. I am obviously doing my bit by advocating as much as possible.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

I am delighted to be here to support the hon. Member’s debate on the future of British horseracing. Aintree racecourse is in my constituency. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare my interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on racing and bloodstock.

I have been passionate about horseracing since I was very young. Despite the challenges it currently struggles with—and I will say a few words on that when the hon. Member has concluded his speech—British horseracing is the best in the world. It is a global leader in what it does, and people want to be part of it, but it needs the Government, and the industry as a whole, to find strong leadership from within and to work together to make sure that this incredible product is protected for the future.

[Lincoln Jopp]

The hon. Member reminds me that I, too, should declare that I am a member of the APPG, and that he is my chair. I received the following email from Kerry Lee:

“I am writing to express my full support for your opposition to the proposed redevelopment of Kempton Park Racecourse and to thank you for securing Tuesday's debate.

Kempton is far more than a racecourse. Since opening in 1878, it has become part of Britain’s sporting and cultural heritage. It is one of the country’s few truly year-round racecourses, staging over 70 fixtures annually through its all-weather track while also hosting the prestigious King George VI Chase and some of the finest jump racing in the world. It is nationally significant sporting infrastructure”.

She goes on to say, to the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), that it is

“an internationally recognised venue and a major economic asset that, once lost, can never be replaced.

Locally, it supports jobs and generates substantial spending for hospitality, retail, transport and many other businesses, while providing valuable green space. Nationally, it underpins an industry supporting tens of thousands of jobs”,

as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) pointed out,

“across racing, agriculture, veterinary services, transport, media, tourism, hospitality and countless rural businesses. Internationally, it strengthens Britain’s reputation as a global leader in horse racing, attracting overseas owners, investment and visitors…This debate is about far more than one racecourse. It is about protecting jobs, heritage, tourism, green space and one of the most successful global industries. Once Kempton is lost, it is lost forever”—

I will continue with these quotations until Members get bored or intervene.

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

I am also a member of the APPG chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), and I have a couple of points to make. The first is about the cherished memories horseracing gives us, which I have had since I was a young lad. My mum’s cousin had the Prince of Wales pub at Newmarket, which was amazing, and we used to go and visit her. I have seen Desert Orchid finally get his head in front up that Cheltenham hill—the four-time winner of the King George, split by The Fellow one year, I think; Nicky Henderson, and Kauto Star and Denman fighting it out; Red Rum; and Frankel’s scintillating form in the Newmarket Guineas. Horseracing just brings so much wonderful passion and pride. It is also about patriotism and our country, because it goes back generations.

I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) will talk about Doncaster racecourse in a second, but I have the National Horseracing College in my area. We talk a lot about young adults going into new industries and about young adults with special educational needs and disabilities, as well as about the importance of 18 to 24-year-olds being able to find jobs that are not necessarily behind a desk or that do not require lots of theory. The National Horseracing College employs about 40 people and has 130 apprenticeships a year, and it is absolutely marvellous. This is also about the jobs and the industry, and what it can do to inspire young adults to get into a profession that is amazing as a career.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask Members to be brief with interventions.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I think the hon. Member was being kind to me there, as much as anything else. I thank him for his point, and he is right. Everywhere I have lived, I have gone to the races. I used to go to Perth races; when I was in the Army, I used to go to Catterick races. The racecourse is part of the experience of a place.

This is from Alan King at Barbury Castle stables:

“I have run horses at Kempton Park for over 25 years, training over 100 winners.

In my opinion Kempton is in the top four of British Racecourses. It is a very fair track and attracts top class horses in both National Hunt and Flat Racing. Its other huge attraction is that it produces decent going mid-winter which is the only southern track that provides this.

I think it is irreplaceable.”

This is from Philip and Sarah Hobbs:

“As a trainer of National Hunt horses for 40 years I am very opposed to Kempton Racecourse closing down to build houses.

It is the home of the King George on Boxing day as well as plenty of other important races, and is very free draining maintaining good ground in the winter. It also has a place providing plenty of opportunities for flat horses on the all-weather circuit.”

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

The hon. Gentleman is clearly passionate about the horseracing sector. Did he see the incident at the Grand National festival earlier this year, when Gold Dancer broke his back during the race and was whipped to continue? As a result, when he got over the finishing line, it was too late for the vets to save him. That is not an isolated incident. Last year, there were 254 deaths of horses due to horseracing. In too many cases, the horses could have survived their injuries, but the owners judged that the damage was not worth it in terms of the financial value the horses could bring. Given all that, and the 641 instances of recorded whip abuses, if the horseracing sector is serious about its future—I recognise it matters to many people—it needs to show that horses will not be treated as expendable assets but as the beautiful animals they are, and future deaths must be avoided.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. The last two interventions were long enough to be speeches. I cannot allow interventions of that length. There is a process where you apply to speak and you will be called to make a speech, but interventions need to be short, as the name suggests.

[Lincoln Jopp]

The hon. Member speaks with passion about animal and horse safety. I do not know a single owner, trainer or jockey, or anyone involved with horses, who does not care deeply for them. At Kempton Park, I have been struck by the extensive lengths the racecourse goes to in redesigning fences and barriers to ensure that animal welfare—horse welfare—is a very high priority. I did not see the incident the hon. Member referred to, but I take it on trust that the industry cares deeply for its animals, which are both highly prized and very expensive.

This is from Martin Fetherston-Godley:

“Dear Mr Jopp…As a former racehorse trainer, I am very concerned to hear that one of our premier racecourses could…be sold for redevelopment. Kempton, with its all weather track, offers valuable opportunities all year round to flat racing owners and trainers and hosts some of the most important races in the jump racing calendar. With its proximity to London and its good transport links it is also a highly valued local amenity. I would like to add my voice and support to preserving Kempton Park’s status as a racecourse.”

I would not like hon. Members to think that I was in any way scraping the barrel by now. Mr Russell Grant—he was not in horseracing, but I believe he is the nation’s favourite astrologer—said:

“Good morning…Someone has just told me that”

you are

“leading a campaign regarding the proposed development of Kempton Park.

Is this true they want to build over the racecourse?

Do let me know if I can help. Kempton Park is one of the four jewels in the Middlesex sporting crown.”

Another email states:

“Good afternoon Lincoln, I have read the article in the Racing Post today regarding the application that Barratt Redrow intend to make for Planning Consent on the land at Kempton Racecourse.

With the closure of Chelmsford, the importance of retaining Kempton as a dual purpose racecourse providing owners with All Weather racing all year round and National Hunt racing during the winter, within easy access of Central London, has become even more important.

I have horses in training in Lambourn for both the Flat and National Hunt, where for the latter Kempton is probably the best drained and fairest course in the United Kingdom, rarely impacted by adverse weather.

I understand the house builder’s option to purchase the course expires in 2028, which suggests that it is likely to be exercised within the next year. The Council should resist any Consent which would mean that Kempton Park has to close for racing as it is not only Green Belt, but also a course supported by all owners and trainers, providing employment for many”.

I am not going to continue with these quotations—I think the Minister and hon. Members have got the message.

I was really surprised when I reached out to horseracing, because I thought it would speak with 50 or 60 different voices, but the whole of horseracing—with the exception of the Jockey Club—appears totally united by the notion that we must save Kempton Park racecourse from development. The Minister may be concerned that I am being a nimby, but I can reassure her that if she wants to build homes in Spelthorne, I can show her other places that are not on iconic racecourses, green belt and partial floodplain. I hope I have given her enough political ammunition so that she can go away, make some inquiries and ensure that if this planning application ever sees the light of day, strong signals could be sent to Barratt Redrow about its ultimate lack of success. If it wants housing in Spelthorne, I can direct it elsewhere.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members to bob if they wish to be called in the debate, and they should be brief. I intend to call the Front Benchers at 3.28 pm, and I suggest that all interventions be kept short.

14:55

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I declare that I am also a member of the APPG on racing and bloodstock.

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on the future of horseracing. Few places understand the cultural and economic impact of that industry better than Doncaster. Horseracing has been part of my constituency’s story for more than four centuries, and Doncaster racecourse is one of the oldest in the country. It has been home to the St Leger since 1776, and this September marks the St Leger’s 250th anniversary. It is an event that honours centuries of sporting heritage and continues to captivate racing fans from across the world. I am sorry to disappoint hon. Members in the Chamber, but it is the St Leger that is the most iconic racing event in this country. I hope everyone, including the Minister, will be able to join us this September.

Local success reflects the importance of the industry nationally. Horseracing contributes more than £4.1 billion to the UK economy, supports 85,000 jobs and remains the country’s second largest spectator sport. It is a major employer in my constituency and across Doncaster, an important part of both rural and urban economies, and defines Britain’s sporting heritage. If we want a successful future for horseracing, the industry must have the confidence to invest. That means providing greater certainty over its long-term funding and ensuring that Government policy reflects the unique contribution that racing makes to our economy and our communities.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her advocacy for the sector. She will know that I have Uttoxeter racecourse in my constituency. For over 60 years the horserace betting levy has helped courses such as ours, but some of that levy does not go to racecourses such as Uttoxeter in the same way that similar levies in European countries go to their racecourses. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Horserace Betting Levy Board should look to give more support to courses such as ours?

[Sally Jameson]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I want to highlight the unique relationship between horseracing and betting. Key income streams, including the horserace betting levy, media rights and sponsorship contribute around £350 million a year to racing. It is therefore vital that any changes to regulation recognise the potential impact on the industry and ensure that the economic and community value it brings is not diminished.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her excellent speech. The point she raises is apt, and what she describes is currently happening. I am sure she will share my concerns and welcome comments from the Minister about how we can mitigate the unintended consequences the Government have unfortunately brought about—particularly the big betting companies reducing their sponsorship in the horseracing sector as a result of the recent changes to the tax regime. That was not intended, but it is happening and the impact is being felt right now.

[Sally Jameson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important contribution on an issue that I know is really salient in his constituency.

I also want to raise a growing concern about the black market and the unintended consequences that regulation can create. There is clear evidence that illegal betting activity has increased significantly in recent years. The shift away from regulated markets risks worse outcomes for horseracing fans and for the Exchequer, due to lost tax revenue. Most importantly, it deprives the horseracing industry of vital levy income. It also creates serious integrity risks, as bets placed through illegal operators are far more difficult to monitor and investigate, which makes it harder to protect the sport from corruption. I therefore welcome the Government’s recognition of the challenge, which includes investment to tackle illegal gambling and the creation of a dedicated taskforce. That action is essential to ensure that customers remain in the legal betting market. I hope the Government will do more work in that area in the future.

For constituencies such as mine, this debate is not simply about sport; it is about protecting jobs, supporting local businesses and our city centre, and preserving an important part of our national heritage, ensuring that racecourses such as Doncaster can continue to thrive for generations to come. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and I hope she will provide reassurance that the Government are committed to working in partnership with the industry to secure a sustainable and prosperous future for British horseracing on the 250th anniversary of its most iconic race.

15:00

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. It is a pleasure to see leading trainer Nicky Henderson here today. That should indicate how important this debate is to the racing industry. I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing this debate. I should make clear at the outset that my husband is a board member of the Racecourse Association and chairman of the National Horseracing College.

Previous speakers have set out the importance of the horseracing industry to the economy, tax receipts and jobs, not to mention its importance to local communities and to sporting excellence in the UK. This sport is genuinely world-leading, and we should all be immensely proud of it. I do not actually think the Government need persuading of the case; they already understand it. That can be seen from last year’s Budget, when the Chancellor exempted horseracing from her increases in gambling taxes, something that was welcomed by the horseracing industry following its “Axe the Racing Tax” campaign.

I do not fear this Government deliberately seeking to destroy or undermine horseracing in the UK, but I very much fear them doing so inadvertently through ignorance. I am not asking them to do something to support horseracing. Instead, I am urging them not to do two things in particular that would decimate horseracing in the UK if they went ahead.

My first request is that the Government direct the completely hopeless Gambling Commission to abandon any form of financial risk assessment or affordability checks in relation to the betting industry. The previous Government rightly said that any checks should be entirely frictionless, but the pilot that has been carried out has been a complete failure. Rather than flogging a dead horse, the Government and the Gambling Commission must abandon this policy.

Despite the claim that financial checks are not being carried out—merely showing the incompetence of the Gambling Commission, which is made up of people who know nothing about gambling and do not even understand their own policies—those checks are already driving punters in their droves to the black market. Roughly 10% of gambling in the UK is now carried out on the black market, and that is growing rapidly, all due to the Government’s tax policies and the Gambling Commission’s regulatory policies, which mean that the regulated sector cannot compete with the black market. That is, of course, bad for player protection, and it is also devastating for the horseracing industry, which relies on the betting industry and punters for much of its income.

[Wera Hobhouse]

British horseracing gets significantly lower returns from the gambling industry than our neighbours France and Ireland. Does the right hon. Lady not agree that it is disappointing that betting levy reform did not deliver better support for the industry?

[Esther McVey]

Better support is needed from everywhere—that is what I am talking about—but those are key issues that are undermining the industry. That is why I will press on with the key matters today that are threatening the racing industry.

Will the Minister assure the House that those affordability checks will be abandoned, despite today’s senseless announcement by the Gambling Commission? My second request is that the Government ignore the siren voices of the Social Market Foundation and its recent policy suggestion to double the tax on category B gaming machines from 20% to 40%. The SMF tried to portray itself last year as a friend of horseracing, and unfortunately some in the industry, who should have known better, were taken in. That proposal proves beyond doubt that the SMF is not a friend but an enemy of the horseracing industry.

Such a swingeing increase in the tax rate—which would also destroy casinos and bingo halls—would virtually collapse the remaining betting shops in the UK, whose numbers have already reduced rapidly in recent years. Regulus Partners has calculated that this policy would close 70% of the remaining betting shops, reducing their number from 5,500 to just 1,500. Each and every betting shop contributes a significant amount of money to horseracing through levy payments and, especially, media rights payments. Will the Minister set out how much money horseracing gets from betting shops and take this opportunity to rule out the Government carrying out the SMF policy proposal? Will she also explain how many betting shops she believes will close if the SMF tax proposal on machines is implemented?

The simple fact is that, if the Minister will not stop the affordability checks and does not get a grip on the reins of the out-of-control Gambling Commission, and if the Government will not rule out vastly increasing the tax on category B machines, any promise today to support horseracing will be completely worthless, and will undermine the Chancellor’s policy in the last Budget. I await the Minister’s speech with great interest, as will the entire horseracing industry.

15:05

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I once again congratulate the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing the debate. I will not repeat all the points colleagues have made; people know my passion for the sport. I know the Minister enjoys horseracing and is keen to be supportive to the industry. I look forward to what the Government and colleagues in Westminster can do, working with the racing industry in the years ahead, to take it from strength to strength.

I will start with the strength of British horseracing. There was a battle last year over the racing tax because the Government were going to look at horseracing in the same light as online casinos and gambling. That was totally and utterly wrong; horseracing is an incredible industry, employing up to 100,000 people across the country. It is important to all our communities, with 60 racecourses across the United Kingdom. It attracts a remarkable amount of investment, especially flat horseracing, through all the work around breeding racehorses for a global industry. The Treasury does not quite understand the investment that horseracing brings into this country; I would like to see it do a better job.

I share concern and opposition to the way in which affordability checks have been brought about and implemented. I do not know of any other significant public policy such as this, which will have a major impact on the revenues that go into the Treasury, that can be made and implemented by a quango outside the view of Parliament and away from Government Ministers. I would like the Minister to be honest about her Department’s remit over the Gambling Commission, and where authority for this policy lies. Where does authority lie when we want to challenge it because it is not working?

It has already been mentioned that the impact is on the black market, on people who do not go racing, who are at home and decide to use a virtual private network—which can be done easily—and gamble where there are no rules. They do not know who they are gambling with, where the money they may receive has come from or the links to criminality that we can be certain are pervasive. The Treasury should look first and foremost at the criminality and the potential loss to the black market of people who want to gamble legally. I have worked long and hard over many years on all types of addiction. I know good things can be done to improve the behaviour of bookmakers, regulation and health support for people who struggle with gambling. Mrs Harris, you have spent many years in this place and I am sure you are watching this debate from the Chair with interest.

Let me make a couple of more general points. This incredible British product, which captivates many parts of the globe and makes some of the most successful and wealthy individuals want to come and play British horseracing, is something we do not make enough of in this country. It is powerful for our diplomacy, for investment in this country and for bringing people together, including the working-class communities up and down the country who get so much enjoyment from attending a day at the races. We need that to continue. There needs to be a much broader review of the financing of British horseracing that takes account of the money from bookmakers, the levy and so much more.

I will finish my contribution with one little fact: breeding is currently a loss-making activity in this country. The number of thoroughbreds being bred each year has been in decline for several years. It is very difficult to make a profit in the current climate, and that should not be the case. There needs to be better leadership from within horseracing and better link-up with Government, and we need to appreciate what we have in this country.

15:10

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) for setting the scene incredibly well, as he always does on this subject, which is very close to his heart. It is always a pleasure to see the Minister in her place, and I look forward to her answers. She is very involved in her Department, and it is well known that horseracing is one of her passions.

Everybody has spoken about their own racecourses. I do not have any in my constituency, but the neighbouring constituency of South Down has the Down Royal and another at Downpatrick. Almost every one of my neighbours owns horses. Some of them are for show jumping, and some are for racing at Down Royal, Downpatrick and elsewhere. I understand the importance of this subject to my neighbours. The hon. Member for Spelthorne has also shown passion for his constituency and has put on record the importance of retaining the racecourse there.

As you probably expect, Mrs Harris, I want to speak about the title of this debate: the future of British horseracing. I know that it is your job as Chair to be independent, but you have had a very deep interest in gambling in the past. I want to talk about gambling and the Gambling Commission.

We meet today to discuss an industry that is woven into the very fabric of our national heritage. British horseracing is a magnificent sport, a massive rural employer and a source of immense pride and community across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. From the stable hands and breeders to the racecourse staff, thousands of livelihoods depend on its continuing success, and I want to see that as well. However, as we look forward to the future of this great sport, we must do so with a sense of deep caution, a steady hand and a clear moral compass.

The relationship between horseracing and the betting industry is historical and undeniable, and betting provides vital financial lifeblood that keeps our racecourses open and their prize purses funded. However, we cannot and must not allow our support for the sport to blind us to the devastating social realities of problem gambling. I see the fallout in our communities: families torn apart, livelihoods ruined and mental health shattered by the grip of gambling addiction. Therefore, any vision for the future of British horseracing must be fundamentally rooted in an unwavering commitment to gambling awareness and robust player protections. We must welcome the implementation of balanced safety measures, such as frictionless financial vulnerability checks, which are absolutely critical, that are designed to catch unaffordable harms before they destroy lives.

There are those in the racing industry who fear the financial impact of these regulations. I understand their anxieties about falling revenues, but I say to the industry, and very respectfully to the Minister, that sustainability cannot be built on the backs of vulnerable people losing money that they just do not have to spend. True sustainability means creating a safe and transparent environment in which the casual punter can enjoy a flutter responsibly while those at risk are intercepted and protected. That is the point that I want to make today. It is something that you, Mrs Harris, have been at the forefront of in this House. I have always supported you in all the ventures that you have taken forward in the House, and that is one that has been successful.

The future of racing depends on its social licence. To safeguard that licence, the sport must step up and lead from the front. We need to see gambling awareness embedded in every single level of the racing experience. Information should be prominently visible at racecourses and throughout TV broadcasts, and integrated into every digital betting platform. When the Minister replies to the debate, will she please give me the reassurance that I wish to have on that matter for my constituents and others outside the House who are listening to this debate in Westminster Hall?

We must ensure that a meaningful portion of the revenue generated from race betting is directly and transparently funnelled into independent research, education and treatment for gambling harm. Mrs Harris, you and I and perhaps many others in this room have had occasion to meet some of those who have lost family members to gambling; gambling took over their whole life, and they eventually succumbed to taking their own life, as they saw that as the only way out. We must ensure that never happens again. Constituents back home have asked me to put this on record in the House, so I am doing that today.

I also have these questions for the Minister. First, as the Government work to secure the long-term funding and governance of British racing, what assurances can she give that gambling harm prevention will remain at the heart of national policy? Secondly, will the Minister commit to working with the sector to ensure that we protect this historic British sport, because we want to see it retained—we know its significance—and, most importantly, the vulnerable individuals and families in our communities? Let us build a future for British racing that is prosperous, but above all safe, ethical and responsible.

15:17

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing this debate. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, where I detail hospitality received from the Jockey Club last July. I am also a member of the APPG on racing and bloodstock.

Much of the home of horseracing is in my constituency of Ely and East Cambridgeshire. The July racecourse, Newmarket equine hospital, many of the studs and yards, including the National Stud, and Newmarket’s famous rearing stallion statue are all in my constituency. Horseracing provides jobs and great days out, and it cares for much of our beautiful landscape, yet it feels under attack from many angles.

As we have heard, horseracing depends on the income from the betting levy. I am grateful that the Government listened to calls to double gambling duty on remote betting, rather than harmonising all gambling tax rates, but I am worried, like others, that plans to extend affordability checks could damage horseracing.

I recognise the dangers and problems that gambling can cause, including the psychological distress and the financial and social difficulties. Government attempts to reduce that damage are worthy, but they will be counterproductive if they continue to drive people to unregulated sites. I understand that the Gambling Commission has announced that it will introduce financial risk assessments, with a phased implementation. I ask the Minister to monitor that closely and ensure that those assessments do not cause unintended harms.

In my constituency, I have a small bioenergy plant that is under threat of closure due to the removal of Government subsidies. Its sister plant in Thetford takes the bedding waste from local stables to produce energy and organic fertiliser. That plant is also under threat. Gaining a small income from waste bedding instead of having to pay for its disposal is important for the industry. I ask the Minister to talk with colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to help them understand the significance of these small bioenergy plants to horseracing and other rural industries.

Planning policy, as we have heard, also needs to respect the horseracing industry. Breeding, training and racing horses needs a lot of land. The Newmarket area has wonderful soils and clear water from chalk streams, which grow the excellent grass that in turn develops thoroughbred horses. We must not allow the genuine need for new housing and green energy to damage the water and grassland, or to restrict the land available for the horseracing industry.

The Sunnica solar farm has been approved, despite the concerns expressed by the horseracing industry, among others. It is vital that we mitigate any damage. In particular, we must have strong regulation and enforcement to ensure that any fire in the battery energy storage units can be managed without damage to the surrounding area, people, horses, wildlife and our precious watercourses. Applications for further solar farms must take account of the needs of the horseracing industry, particularly the studs where breeding mares need a calm environment.

We also have a speculative application in the area for something called Forest City. That is causing a worrying amount of concern and stress for people, because it would completely destroy the environment of the area and really damage the horseracing industry. Unless it puts in a planning application, answers all questions and has that planning application decided, it can continue to cause stress and angst in the area with its well-funded plans that have no detail behind them.

To end on a positive note, I was honoured to attend the National Stud graduation ceremony last week. We celebrated with the 29 graduates, all of whom have jobs to go to following their qualification. They are people from all areas of our economy and from all backgrounds. Of course, some of them have always been interested in horses, but some did not know they were interested until they heard about the scheme and got involved. We had a taxi driver and someone who had been cooking burgers. They have all qualified with this prestigious qualification and, as I say, they all have jobs to go to. These people are the future of horseracing. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the graduates and thanking the staff at the National Stud for running an excellent training programme?

15:22

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) for securing this important and timely debate. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, where I detail hospitality received from the Jockey Club. I am also a member of the all-party parliamentary group on racing and bloodstock.

Horseracing is the UK’s second-most attended spectator sport, after men’s football, with over 5 million people visiting British racecourses every year. Horseracing attendees, contrary to popular belief, come from a diverse range of socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds, with 39% of horseracing tickets purchased by women. British horseracing is undeniably a huge success story. Across all metrics, British horseracing remains a force to be reckoned with, particularly in terms of its economic and cultural impacts. Our races attract the best horses, and we have the best bloodstock and some of the best trainers. Racing is a British cultural institution.

[Jim Shannon]

For the record, the hon. Member for Spelthorne referred to an exciting horserace and mentioned Banbridge—I think it came in third. Anthony Peter McCoy is the most famous jockey from Northern Ireland. Hailing from Moneyglass in County Antrim, he is widely regarded as the greatest National Hunt jockey of all time. He rode 4,358 winners and was crowned British champion jockey for a record 20 consecutive years. That tells you what Northern Ireland does, Mrs Harris, and we can do it better than anybody else.

[Helen Maguire]

I thank the hon. Member for his excellent contribution.

Racing is a British cultural institution that sets the gold standard for quality and is steeped in a rich history and prestige. Horseracing dates back more than three centuries, with thoroughbred horseracing first created here in the UK. It remains closely connected with royalty, a tradition that has continued with His Majesty the King. I was delighted that he came to the Epsom Derby this year, because this connection only further boosts its global reach.

Horseracing is a soft power asset in the British arsenal that is already working hard for the UK on the international stage. Four of the top 10 races in the world are held in the UK—more than any other country. Royal Ascot alone is broadcast to over 300 million households across 180 different countries.

In 2023, the British Horseracing Authority reported that the racing industry had direct revenues in excess of £1.47 billion. Its annual contribution to the British economy was a staggering £4.1 billion, and the industry supports over 85,000 people, employing them in racecourses, training yards, stables and breeding organisations, as well as in the betting industry.

In Epsom, I have been absolutely delighted to go and see the training yards and meet the really hard-working individuals there. British horseracing simply would not be what it is today without those people working behind the scenes. It is vital and it underpins many local communities, particularly rural ones.

I have seen the positive impact of British racing in my constituency, which is home to the Epsom Downs racecourse and hosts the famous Epsom Derby. I was fortunate to be able to attend the Derby in June, which was an incredible, exciting and fantastic event—anyone who has not attended it before should do so.

A report commissioned on behalf of the Jockey Club highlights how economically significant the Epsom Derby is on a national scale, and how it is just as important on a local scale for the constituency and the county that it calls home. The report found that its economic impact in 2024 alone was over £63 million, and the races’ events, hospitality and visitor spending accounted for over £56 million of the total. The Epsom Downs training facilities and employment opportunities came in a close second and third, each bringing in an estimated figure of between £2.5 and £3 million. The revenue brought in by the event highlights that horseracing is an anchor institution in the local economy, contributing nearly £1 billion of capital through supporting regional hospitality and cultural industries in east Surrey.

Given the importance of the horseracing industry, it is disappointing that the reform of the horserace betting levy did not better deliver support for it. The levy yield for the 12 months to 31 March 2025 reached almost £109 million. That is the fourth successive year of increase, and the highest yield since the levy collection reforms of 2017, but it is still short of the 2007-08 record of £116.5 million. I urge the Labour Government to reconsider their decision not to support extending the levy to overseas racing, because the income of the industry continues to fall. In the past two years, the levy board estimates that betting turnover on British racing has fallen from £11 billion to £8.5 billion. The board says,

“falling turnover is unlikely to prove a positive for the sport’s long-term health.”

Does the Minister agree that British horseracing is an international success story, a source of global soft power and a vital community asset in many towns across the UK?

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, with good intentions, the Government wanted to do something about gambling addiction, but so much gambling is now done on the black market? We should look at gambling addiction as a public health issue and look at other reforms to support the horseracing industry.

[Helen Maguire]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I was recently at a Gamblers Anonymous meeting so that I could understand the real-world consequences of gambling at first hand.

What actions are the Labour Government taking to ensure that British horseracing continues to thrive and prosper? Support is more important than ever and has public backing. The 2025 report of the APPG on racing and bloodstock found that 53% of Britons say that horseracing is an important part of their culture; 66% say that they view racing as an important part of the identity of towns such as Newmarket, Doncaster and Cheltenham, as we have heard from Members representing such constituencies today; and a further 56% state that they support a law requiring greater reinvestment into British horseracing.

I would also like to highlight serious concerns about the future of Kempton Park racecourse—as the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne spelled out today with his racing commentary—which is currently under threat from housing development on the entire site. If that goes ahead, it will have a devastating impact on the Epsom horseracing community, due to its close proximity to Epsom Downs.

Kempton Park is a major source of various racing opportunities throughout the year, offering a safe, all-weather race surface. If lost, it would require Epsom horses and their trainers to travel much further distances to find suitable races. That is simply unacceptable, so I urge the Minister to consider the consequences of that closure and redevelopment on the Epsom horseracing community if they go ahead. If such an application is submitted, is it possible to find a compromise that would keep all parties happy—for example, with a development going ahead only on the back lands of the Kempton Park site while the racecourse is maintained in its current form?

As well as supporting the industry and our racecourses, we need to ensure we protect the horses, which are the backbone of the sport. Animal Aid reported that in 2025, 254 horses were killed due to racing, while 641 total whip abuses were recorded across 515 incidents. That is absolutely tragic, and we must do more to protect our racehorses.

The Liberal Democrats are clear that animal welfare must always be upheld and that human entertainment will never be an acceptable justification for poor animal welfare. We are calling on the Government to prevent the abuse of racehorses and to reduce avoidable deaths by creating an independent regulatory body for horse welfare. That body would be separate from the British Horseracing Authority.

I would like to highlight the tireless campaigning by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), a fellow supporter of British horseracing. For over a year, he has repeatedly championed greater equestrian safety, particularly for horses and their riders when on our roads. I urge the Minister and all those here today to listen to his campaign and support his private Member’s Bill on horse and rider safety.

We cannot talk about horseracing without talking about betting and gambling, which many view as synonymous with the sport. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for reforms to protect people from gambling harms. We recognise the dangers of gambling, such as psychological distress and financial and social difficulties. We also recognise that there is a distinction between the harms posed by betting on horseracing and those posed by online gaming slots, which is why we proposed doubling the rate of remote gaming duty and did not support the Government’s proposals to harmonise gambling tax rates. We are thankful that the Government listened to the Liberal Democrats and adopted our proposal, but we continue to believe that more decisive action is needed to combat the harms caused by gambling, and especially gambling advertising.

I reaffirm my support for British horseracing, which is an undeniable success story. I urge the Minister to reflect on the contributions made here today and to listen to my calls to guarantee that we continue to do all we can to support this important industry.

15:31

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and highlight that I have visited and met a number of trainers in my two years as shadow Minister, as well as with the APPG. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing this important debate. No one can doubt the passion with which he speaks for British horseracing, racing more widely, and his constituents, who have raised concerns about the future of Kempton Park racecourse and the sport more broadly. Dare I say that he might have a future in commentary, given the opening of today’s debate? So watch out, Ruby Walsh! It was very impressive.

Like my hon. Friend, I enjoyed the King George and seeing Harry Redknapp being the winning owner. In fact, I have enjoyed going to Kempton over the years. It means a great deal to a large number of people—not just the community immediately around the racecourse, but the wider London and south-east community, which sees Kempton Park as one of its home courses, alongside Lingfield, which is slightly closer to where I live in south-east London.

I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns about the development proposals that might come forward and this Government’s weakening of green-belt protections, an issue that I have raised on several occasions as the shadow Sports Minister. We are talking today about the impact that this might have on British horseracing, but the concern is felt across all of British sport. In particular, part of the broader concern around the impact on planning protections is the future of Sport England. If we are going to continue to have great British sports, we must ensure that future and current generations have somewhere to go and watch sports, whether that is at the elite level, as we are talking about today, or the grassroots. I hope the Government listen carefully to that concern. It is not just a Department for Culture, Media and Sport issue, but a local government one. The concern is felt across this House and across a number of sports.

More broadly, today’s debate is about the future of British horseracing as a whole. I enjoyed the contributions from a number of Members who I know care passionately about the sport and work very hard as part of the APPG. Horseracing is one of Britain’s greatest sporting success stories. It is woven into our national identity and remains one of our most successful global sporting exports. It is also of enormous economic importance, particularly to our rural economy. British horseracing contributes around £4.1 billion to the UK economy every year, supports more than 85,000 jobs and generates around £300 million annually in tax revenues for the Treasury. More than 500 training yards and 660 stud farms support rural communities across the country. More than 5 million racegoers attended Britain’s 59 racecourses last year, with attendances increasing by 5% year on year.

The industry’s value extends far beyond those headlines, as we all know. It supports hotels, pubs, restaurants and countless small businesses across the country. It provides opportunities for people from every background, with institutions such as the National Horseracing College, which we have heard about, and the British Racing School. British breeding attracts significant international investment, and our welfare standards are rightly regarded as the best anywhere in the world. In fact, since 2000, British horseracing has invested £63 million into veterinary research, which has helped to reduce fatal injuries on the racecourse by around a third. Alongside a number of Members who have spoken, I have had the privilege of visiting some horseracing facilities across the country.

As the shadow Minister with responsibility for sport and gambling, I recognise the unique relationship between horseracing and betting. Unlike almost any other sport, horseracing’s finances are fundamentally intertwined with a well-regulated betting industry. Media rights, sponsorship and the horserace betting levy contribute around £350 million every year to British horseracing. I smiled when listening to some Members argue that we should have tighter regulations on gambling but who then also complained about a reduction in funding for horseracing. For me, that position is classic—it is a certain party trying to look both ways. I do not think that most people in racing recognise that position, and we have to be honest about the trade-offs at play. We support evidence-led, proportionate regulation that protects the most vulnerable people while allowing the 22.5 million adults in Britain who bet each month to do so safely.

Today, the Gambling Commission has announced that following a protracted pilot period, there will be a phased introduction of affordability checks over the course of an implementation period of an unspecified length. That has already caused huge concern. We had hoped that the Government and the Gambling Commission would reflect seriously on this issue, but unfortunately, that has not been the case.

On a number of occasions, I have raised my concerns about the lack of Government oversight of the decision made by the arm’s length body, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden). It seems a complete dereliction of duty from the Government, and DCMS in particular, to have allowed the Gambling Commission to go ahead without bringing the plans back to Parliament following the pilot. It is deeply concerning to me as a shadow Minister, and it is deeply offensive to this House, whose elected Members would like to scrutinise these decisions on behalf of the British public. It is disappointing that this decision has gone ahead, and there will be severe financial consequences and implications for the sport of horseracing and jobs in this country.

We can look at a variety of aspects of this issue. There is an element of intrusion into the lives of people who just want to bet safely with their well-earned money in a safe environment. I think we can all see the risk of consequences. I remember a debate in this place during the last Parliament. I was one of the few Members in the room without a horse track in their constituency, or any ministerial or shadow ministerial responsibilities, but I raised the same concerns about the impact of such a policy on British horseracing. Let us consider the amount of money that is spent in a week at Cheltenham or Aintree. We could see these regulations being triggered very quickly, which would lead to more and more people being driven to the illegal black market. That should be a concern for every single Member of this House; regardless of their perspective on gambling and horseracing, that is the biggest threat to gamblers and to people suffering from addiction in this country. Because of the potential unintended consequences, we must not continue with this policy.

I find it completely unacceptable for Members to stand up in this place and advocate for British horseracing and for safe, regulated gambling in this country, but then to continue to put in the way hurdles and obstacles that drive the black market in this country. Enough is enough. We have to be honest about the decisions we are making as policymakers, and we have to be honest that the Government are ducking decisions and allowing the Gambling Commission to make them without the scrutiny that there should be from this elected House. Around 120,000 horseracing bettors could face enhanced financial checks, and the majority are expected simply to refuse them, which will reduce betting turnover and cut levy income for the sport, all while moving those punters into the black market, which is growing significantly under this Government.

The previous Conservative Government made it clear that these checks should only proceed if they can be delivered entirely frictionlessly, yet following the Gambling Commission’s pilot, decisions were delayed and independent analysis was not fully published. More concerningly, this policy has now been signed off for implementation without key stakeholders in horseracing and betting being able to see that vital evidence, such as NatCen’s independent review of the pilot. The Gambling Commission is now operating beyond its remit, and it must be brought to task by this House or by the Government. I hope that the Minister will agree that like other policies introduced from the gambling White Paper in 2023, this decision needs to have full and proper parliamentary scrutiny.

I appreciate that the Minister and the Department are very busy with another race that is currently under way to decide who will be the future Prime Minister, as well as, perhaps, the race to be the future Member of Parliament for Clacton—I understand that has been set off while we have been in this Chamber. However, the fact that this decision has been taken unilaterally by the Gambling Commission shows a clear abdication of duty by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I believe, sadly, that DCMS has failed to grasp and deal with the necessary details in this case.

The situation is quite simple. The checks being proposed have been proven by the Gambling Commission’s pilot not to be “fully frictionless”, which had been promised by Ministers in this Government as well as in the previous Government. Evidence suggests that illegal betting has expanded dramatically in recent years, as more and more burdens and taxes have been placed on the regulated market, directly resulting in significant migration away from it.

I have said a number of times that I have no problem with bashing the bookies, but I want that to be done in the most traditional sense—that is, by those who have a bet on the horse that they want to win—and not by the Government continuing to drive this underground, illegal, black market trade, which we know is fuelling some very dodgy characters overseas. As we know, illegal operators pay no UK tax. They make no contribution to horseracing. They provide none of the consumer protections required of licensed operators and they create serious integrity risks for the sport. The Treasury is already estimated to be losing around £300 million annually because of this illegal activity, and that figure is only likely to increase because of punitive tax rises by this Labour Government and the introduction of these financial checks.

The Government cannot claim that they have not been warned—I have spent the best part of two years warning them that this will only get worse, and I know that there are Labour Members in this House who share my concerns. If we generally want consumers to remain protected, we should encourage them to stay within the regulated market rather than unintentionally pushing them elsewhere. The horseracing industry also needs and deserves clear engagement from the Government, so I hope that the Minister will answer a number of questions, all of which are fairly straightforward.

Will the Minister commit to stronger engagement with the British Horseracing Authority and the wider industry, regardless of who is in No. 10? Will she ensure that the “Anti-Gambling Commission” publishes a full update on the financial risk assessment pilot before any further decisions are made? Will she require that the Gambling Commission publishes an implementation timeline for these intrusive checks? Will she also say what steps will be taken to ensure that answers from credit reference agencies will be consistently given with results, and that there will be no discrepancies between agencies’ recommendations? Finally, will she work across Government to ensure that British horseracing continues to receive the scrutiny and support deserved by an industry that contributes billions to our economy, sustains tens of thousands of jobs and forms such an important part of British sporting heritage? I urge the Government to heed my words today and to do all they can to support British horseracing traditions.

15:42

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing this vital debate on the future of horseracing. There have been many valuable contributions and I will try to respond to all the points that were made to me. Of course, I am not the Gambling Minister—that is Baroness Twycross, who sits in the other place—but I will also ensure that she writes to Members about some points.

The focus of this debate is the future of Kempton Park, and I know that the hon. Member is deeply concerned about the long-term option agreement on the racecourse land, which runs until 2028, as well as the local anxieties around potential housing development on green-belt and floodplain land. He made a couple of points about the national planning policy framework. Where the NPPF seeks to support the development of land connected to railway stations, that does not grant automatic permission or remove appropriate local oversight. I have asked my office to reach out to my counterpart in MHCLG, who I am sure will meet him—the hon. Member for Spelthorne will appreciate that planning is an issue for local authorities and MHCLG. I know that the Gambling Minister, who I spoke to earlier today, will be happy to meet him, but this particular point on planning is for MHCLG.

The hon. Member showed in his speech that he is a strong advocate for his constituency and the industry. He shared examples such as the many emails and the public meeting at the Magpie pub. Clearly, this issue is of real concern to his constituents, and I recognise the significance of the track—I think he said that it dates back to 1878.

Although the developer has stated that a planning application is not imminent this year, the Government fully recognise the immense sporting and cultural value of this historic venue. Kempton Park is home, of course, to the iconic King George VI Chase on Boxing day. That legendary steeplechase and mid-season highlight of the jumps calendar is fiercely defended by leading trainers and racing fans alike, some of whom have joined us in the Public Gallery.

The hon. Member illustrated that point very powerfully in his opening remarks. I draw his attention to the fact that there are 40 examples of racecourses represented on the national heritage list for England, with grandstands, pavilions and racing stables included. I encourage the hon. Member to submit an application to Historic England if he would like a specific part of Kempton Park racecourse to be considered for listing.

I reiterate that, although any specific development proposal remains a matter for local government and the independent planning process, we completely understand how much this internationally famous racecourse means to the heritage of British racing and the local community. I am sure the hon. Member for Spelthorne will appreciate where these decisions lie, but after this debate I will write to him and set up these meetings, as I have committed to doing.

His Majesty’s Government recognise the significant contribution that racing makes to British culture and its particular importance to the British economy, as has been rightly mentioned. It plays a central role to the livelihood of many different communities. I am well aware, from my time as the shadow Minister for Gambling, of the strength of support on both sides of the House for horseracing, as well as some of the concerns and challenges faced by the sector.

British horseracing is a world-class industry; it is the envy of the global sporting community, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) rightly highlighted. It was a joy to see him in his home city last week. Flagship events such as Royal Ascot, the Cheltenham festival, Goodwood or York are major international attractions. We have two Members here from Doncaster, my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher); it is important to recognise the 250th anniversary of the St Leger festival. It was a delight to join my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central in 2023 on the day that His Majesty the King attended. I have been pleased to go to the St Leger on more than one occasion, and would be delighted to go back. Being just down the road from my constituency, I know just how important Donny racecourse is.

Beyond the glamour of some of the elite festivals, horseracing is an economic powerhouse. It is our nation’s second largest spectator sport, contributing more than £4 billion annually to the economy and supporting approximately 85,000 jobs, many of which are vital to the sustainability of our rural communities. As the Minister for Tourism, I am aware of Britain’s reputation as a global leader in horseracing and breeding. Indeed, it is promoted worldwide as part of the GREAT Britain and Northern Ireland campaign, demonstrating the role that sport plays in soft power.

I recognise the concerns of industry and Members that have been raised about the introduction of financial risk assessments. The Gambling Commission today announced its intention to implement these assessments through a careful, phased approach. The commission outlined that the recent pilot demonstrated that these assessments can successfully identify individuals in severe financial distress without intruding on the overwhelming majority of customers.

Crucially, the pilot showed that, for those that did reach the threshold for assessment, checks can be undertaken without friction in 97% of cases. We must remember that it affects only 0.5% of customers. However, I fully appreciate the concerns put to me. The policy was established in the 2023 White Paper under the previous Government and has been in force for three years, subject to a two-year pilot and a phased implementation. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), and others have raised concerns and put questions to me, and I recognise that he has taken a keen interest in the subject. On 16 November 2023, he put a written question to the then Gambling Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), under the previous Government. In his reply, that Minister talked about how the current system was inconsistent and how they wanted to bring some uniformity.

A point was put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton about where the policy is set. The policy is set by Government; it started under the previous Government and has continued under this Government. The Gambling Minister, who sits in the other place, is responsible for that, and its implementation is for the Gambling Commission. Having spoken to the Gambling Minister, I know she has met the Gambling Commission and put many of these questions to them. I am sure that the Gambling Commission would meet any Member of this House; I can set up those meetings if that would be welcome. I have heard the points that Members have put to me, and I will take them back to the Gambling Minister.

[Mr French]

I think we are beyond this “he said, she said” about what happened in previous Parliaments. The commitment from the previous Government was clear that these checks must be frictionless. The Minister also said at the time that the checks should be frictionless, but she has acknowledged in her comments that they are not completely frictionless, so why are we proceeding with something that is against what the previous Government and this Government have said is their policy?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I recognise the point made by the shadow Minister. I quoted him in recognising his consistency on this issue, and I noted that he put questions on this to the previous Government. Around 97% have been frictionless in the pilot. Obviously, it has not yet been rolled out, but it will be, and it will be kept under close consideration.

The hon. Member also put another couple of questions to me. I understand that the evidence will be published in due course and the implementation timeline will be published after the summer. If he would like to meet the Gambling Minister, I am sure she will meet him and other hon. Members who are interested.

Horseracing holds a unique position as the only sport in receipt of a direct, Government-mandated levy, which is paid by bookmakers at 10% of gross profits and is projected to return £110 million to the sport this year. Following a comprehensive review of the levy, a written statement to the House in March outlined that there will not be legislative changes to its rate or scope at this time.

In last year’s Budget, the Chancellor announced that British horseracing was specifically carved out of the increase to gambling duty, which affected overseas racing and other forms of betting. We recognise that bookmakers already contribute through the 10% levy and we want to acknowledge the valuable role the sport plays in British culture. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who is no longer in his place, raised the unintended consequences with me. I will ensure that the Gambling Minister writes to him, and I will reflect those concerns to the Treasury.

As announced last week in our response to the consultation on fees, on-course bookmakers will now be charged on the basis of gross gambling yield rather than days of operation. That removes a significant financial disincentive for bookmakers to attend smaller race meetings and will result in a fee reduction for 44% of operators in this category.

I am incredibly encouraged by the proactive and ambitious steps that the racing sector is taking to innovate. The British Horseracing Authority’s work on Project Beacon and Project Pace shows exactly the kind of forward-thinking strategy needed to protect and grow the sport.

Members have raised valid points about the risk of consumers moving to the unlicensed illegal gambling market. The Government recognise that that threat exists. We are taking action in this space, including providing an additional £26 million funding over three years to enable the Gambling Commission to increase its enforcement activity. The illegal gambling taskforce, chaired by Baroness Twycross, is actively considering what more can be done to tackle those threats and will meet again later this month.

We are also committed to ensuring that the licensed sector is not placed at a commercial disadvantage. To support that, we will soon launch a consultation on banning unlicensed gambling sponsors in sport and will continue to work across Government to crack down on illegal advertising.

Finally, I want to touch on the issue at the heart of the sport—the welfare of the animals. Over the last 20 years, British racing has invested more than £47 million in veterinary research and education, with funding from the levy board and more recently the Racing Foundation. To build on that progress, the levy board is committing £3.7 million to disease surveillance, veterinary science and education programmes starting this year.

[Esther McVey]

I appreciate that the Minister might not be able to answer some of the very specific questions I raised, so could she make sure that the Gambling Minister writes to me with the answers?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I absolutely make that commitment. I touched on some of the points that the right hon. Lady made, but I will make sure that she receives that letter.

British horseracing is a cherished part of our national heritage and an invaluable contributor to our economy. As I have reflected in this place before, I have a number of happy memories of going to the races myself, down the road from my constituency to Donny races, and to York races, where I spent a wonderful day with my late, great agent, Jim Andrews, who sadly passed away shortly after that time. I always think of him when I think of York races.

15:53

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), the hon. Members for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), as well as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), and our own resident expert, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French).

I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. I took great note of what she said, and I hope they were also listening to it in the boardroom of Barratt Redrow. I look forward to rereading her words tomorrow, because they told a very large story.

I also thank all of racing who have come in behind this campaign to save Kempton Park racecourse and the members of the public, including my own residents, a number of whom have come up here today, and those from racing more widely.

I hope that racing is reassured that the expert voices that have been given airtime today show that there are some very fierce advocates for horseracing, and we look forward to it having a bright future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of British horseracing.

15:54

Sitting suspended.

Fraud Strategy 2026-29

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of increasing fraud protections and the Fraud Strategy 2026 to 2029.

It is a pleasure to lead this debate with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris, and I thank the Minister for being here.

Fraud has been spreading like the plague for years, infecting almost every aspect of daily life: online, on the phone, at work or out and about. People do not know who or what to trust. Fraud costs the UK economy more than £1 billion a year, yet sentencing is well below its 2010 level. In 2025, British consumers lost £1.2 billion to fraud—a four-year high.

What does that rise mean? My constituent’s small business in Ilton was scammed out of more than £3,000worth of orders through a credit card scam, wiping out their business. Another constituent’s elderly mother had debts run up by an estranged relative, who used her details to the extent that bailiffs came round. Another constituent was tricked into investing hundreds of thousands of pounds into a building company that then shut down. Lots of constituents have been defrauded out of thousands of pounds by tradespeople for half-done work or work that never actually happened.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. My constituents have similar concerns about the impact of fraud, especially on vulnerable people. I have spoken to the noble Lord Hanson, who has been developing the strategy, to outline those concerns. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the direction in the new UK fraud strategy, the expansion of the “Stop! Think Fraud” campaign and the promotion of proactive policing are good things that should be welcomed?

[Adam Dance]

They are good things and I will come on to them later, but we do need more support for vulnerable adults and young people—something I will also come on to.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

We need to get a balance. I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand, and we must be incredibly careful not to let the state overreach in the process. Does he agree that a law-abiding citizen should be able to walk into their local bank and spend, withdraw or transfer their own hard-earned money without being treated like a criminal suspect? We must ensure that the fraud strategy does not become a nanny-state charter that forces ordinary people to prove to a bank clerk why they want to spend their own money.

[Adam Dance]

I agree with some of what the hon. Gentleman said, and I will come on to talk about why banks should have more face-to-face contact with people instead of sending them online.

It is even simple, little things. One constituent was scammed into paying a clean air zone charge, which does not exist, because it popped up on a sponsored page on Google. Another agreed to send Amazon vouchers to their elderly mother, but they actually sent them to a scammer.

In April, in response to this problem, the Government came forward with the 2026 to 2029 fraud strategy. They have committed £250 million to the plan over the next three years. There is a lot to welcome in the strategy, particularly the establishment of the fraud victims charter and the new Report Fraud scheme to replace Action Fraud, which was totally useless.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

I will make my intervention very quick, Mrs Harris. Unfortunately, Police Scotland and the Scottish Government have not opted to join the Report Fraud scheme. That means that my constituents do not benefit from it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that they should make progress in joining it?

[Adam Dance]

I totally agree that Scotland should join, because we should work together against fraudsters, not in isolation or silos.

Short of catching the fraudsters themselves, my constituents who were defrauded provided every scrap of evidence that they or their businesses could, but they were all told by Action Fraud that there was no line of inquiry. I welcome the strong start on international co-operation and the introduction of an online crime centre, a new abuse taskforce and more data-driven policing. If properly supported, that work could help us to take a proactive approach to addressing the types of fraud that my constituents were victims of. Will the Minister look into whether the cases that Action Fraud failed to follow up can be reopened with those new systems in place? Lots of my constituents are still out of pocket.

Despite that, there are still some real challenges with the strategy. The big question is whether, given the scale of the problem, £250 million is enough. Will we be able to afford the technology and the workforce to keep up with fraudsters? Is the strategy fully costed, or will we find ourselves in a situation like that of the defence investment plan, for which the money just is not enough? I know for a fact that we do not have enough police officers to do outreach to all the people vulnerable to fraud in Yeovil and south Somerset. Given that we are losing billions to fraud, surely it would be a smart move to invest a bit more in fighting it. The expansion of awareness campaigns such as “Stop! Think Fraud” is great, but what are the challenges to that? How will current approaches be improved to reach more people and be more effective, given that fraud cases are still on the rise?

Another glaring issue is that the strategy provides no changes to the current system of largely voluntary charters and Ofcom oversight of social media and tech platforms to prevent fraud. Two thirds of authorised UK financial fraud last year happened on social media. In fact, through things like paid advertising, these companies could be making a profit from fraud on their platforms. It is not good enough, so why are the Government and Ofcom not doing more?

The Online Safety Act 2023 gives us tools to fine social media companies for not reducing harm, but will they be properly used? Will the Minister commit to push Ofcom to prioritise fraud enforcement? Will the Government give Ofcom a hard deadline to implement the fraud advertising codes of practice, which would set out rules for ads online?

We could talk for hours and hours about the different types of protection that need to be in place, but sadly for me—and luckily for everyone else—we do not have hours, so I will focus on the cases of two constituents and the questions about safeguarding that they raise.

Christopher lives with developmental language disorder and struggles to produce or retain complex information. He is very agreeable and is known to give consent even if he does not really understand, which makes him incredibly vulnerable. He was targeted by romance fraudsters, who misled him, largely online, into believing that he was in a romantic relationship with one of their gang. He was convinced to travel to Hungary to buy a property for them to live in. He invested £70,000 in a property that was never transferred to him. After that, he was persuaded to purchase a rundown property in Yeovil and was misled into joining a property scheme that he could not afford. He ended up taking on loans to manage his debt. My team and I managed to get him the £70,000 back from Lloyds after his therapist reached out to us, but that case raises serious questions about how effective protections are for the most vulnerable people. About 7% of the population have DLD, and many more have other forms of learning difficulties, which can make them just as vulnerable, so we are not talking about a small number of people.

Banks’ fraud protection systems rely on automated texts or AI, which the fraud strategy continues to support as a key safeguard, but that is not good enough for someone with communication challenges or learning difficulties. Christopher’s therapist faced endless barriers in trying to get in contact with Lloyds; they were turned away from the branches and told to go online.

We need clarity from the Minister about how the Government will work with the banks to ensure that their safeguards are accessible for people with neurodiversity and disabilities. Will the fraud victims charter establish a right for vulnerable people to access in-person specialised support in bank branches or banking hubs? We also need clear routes for therapists and support providers to flag concerns to financial services and the police. Christopher should not have been able to take out those loans without it being flagged.

The second case that I want to raise is that of Jason, a veteran who served in the Navy. He has come up from Somerset to sit in the Public Gallery today—welcome, Jason. Jason was a victim of wealth creation and property investment schemes run by trainers who styled themselves as social media influencers and targeted veterans and military personnel. These influencers promote themselves and their lifestyle online. They then go to veterans such as Jason, bigging up their military background to build trust. The combination of slick social media, a background that people think they can trust and the promise of training courses that offer financial freedom can be pretty convincing. That is especially true when we consider that far too many of our veterans are facing hardship that, according to Trussell, means that they are twice as likely to run out of food than those who have not served.

In reality, the training courses do not deliver the skills and high-figure salaries promised. Instead, people get basic technology and mindset training. The people running these schemes know that what they offer is absolutely rubbish, but they will convince people to invest in more sessions and to recruit others until they are trapped. Jason ended up spending over £20,000 on training. It got so bad that he even considered taking his own life. Thankfully, Jason is with us and has turned things around. He is now working a fantastic job and has completed an Ironman to raise awareness and money for his community. Sadly, others felt they could not find a way out, like Danny Butcher, who took his own life and in whose name a foundation has been set up, of which Jason is a trustee.

The fraud strategy does not give us much on how to deal with cases like that, where people are clearly being taken advantage of and misled, but where proving fraud is a challenge. I hope the Minister will commit to looking into how measures in the strategy can be used to investigate these types of practices. What we urgently need is proper protections and warnings on social media about the risks posed by this industry. We already have warnings in place for gambling and social media. We even provide warning labels for public service broadcasts. Why can we not do that for wealth creation influencers?

Jason and other veterans have been fighting for the Financial Conduct Authority to fully regulate the property training industry across the UK. Jason is not the only one, and I have heard from many people who have been drawn into this. The Government also need to investigate the practices and impact of the broader influencer wealth creation industry. It is not just veterans, and if we do nothing, more and more vulnerable people will be ripped off.

It is no overstatement to say that we are fighting a war with fraudsters. For far too long they have been one step ahead. I hope that the Minister will be able to address the issues we have raised today and will commit to setting up a meeting with me and her ministerial colleagues, so that we can talk in more detail about these cases. This issue is not going away, and I will not either until I have seen stronger protections put in place.

16:12

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dame Angela Eagle)]

It is a great pleasure to be in this Chamber with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) on securing the debate. I also thank him for how he has set out some of the very difficult problems that all our constituents have faced as technology has provided the wherewithal to industrialise frauds and scams, often from abroad.

There is now no way to get a handle on what they are doing without involving ourselves in international co-operation. As technologies advance, the threat of these kinds of activities evolves, and we have to do what we can to try to keep pace with them and hopefully get ahead, so that we can do some prevention rather than trying to pick up the pieces after terrible things have happened.

At this juncture, I express my empathy and sympathy with the hon. Member’s constituents, some of whom he has mentioned today, including Christopher, who was the subject of a romance fraud, and Jason, who was subjected to fraudulent behaviour and the temptation of wealth creation that was not really there.

One thing that has struck me very strongly since I took up this post three weeks ago, and from my own constituency caseload over many years, is how invidious and difficult it is for the victims of these kinds of behaviours to admit that they have fallen into a trap, because many of them feel a bit silly and embarrassed and do not know where to turn to try to get redress. The way that redress has worked in this country in the past has not kept pace with the industrialisation of fraud, its international aspect and its sophistication. It has been difficult, therefore, as the hon. Member for Yeovil recounted, for systems to keep up.

People feel not only embarrassed, worried and a bit shameful that they have fallen into those traps, according to my constituency caseload, but they do not find it easy to get redress. I congratulate the hon. Member on his constituency work, and the way he has used the systems that we are putting in place to ensure that the money can be refunded in many cases, though obviously not all.

My esteemed colleague Lord Hanson leads on this area of work. Despite all the innovations in our constitution since I have been in this House, we do not allow Lords to speak in Commons debates, thank goodness. I am here, however, and more than happy to talk to Lord Hanson about some of these issues.

Before I come to the points raised, I want to make some simple but important ones of my own. Fraud is high volume and high harm, for the reasons the hon. Member for Yeovil outlined. Hon. Members will know that is true from their experience in advice surgeries. It deprives law-abiding people of their hard-earned money; it hits businesses with sometimes crippling losses; it destroys lives and livelihoods; it destroys confidence and mental health; it drains our economy; and it weakens our resilience and undermines confidence in the rule of law.

This problem is directly linked to my work as Security Minister, because it helps to fuel some of the most serious threats we face as a country, as well as causing the human harm we have heard of today. Our response has to match the scale and impact of the threat. I believe the Government have acted with clarity and ambition, with the new fraud strategy published in March, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I thank him for acknowledging that he was happy to see elements of that, such as crucial international action and the replacement of Action Fraud—it was so difficult to see any action coming from it that it would have been better named “Inaction Fraud”. Thankfully, that has been replaced.

As the strategy is put into effect, it will include Report Fraud, victim-support schemes and charters on advertising. In its broadest sense, the strategy brings together all parts of the system, including Government, law enforcement, industry and civil society, and goes further and faster in our fight to disrupt fraudsters and protect the public. The strategy is built on clear principles: to disrupt criminals, to safeguard people and businesses, to respond strongly, to protect victims and to enforce the law.

The Government have invested £250 million and will work with everyone to clamp down on the fraud epidemic. We will try to make that money work as hard as possible in co-operation with other parts of the system to get best value for money. To some extent, that is my answer to the question the hon. Member for Yeovil asked about whether £250 million is enough: it is not a bad start, and we will see how it develops to ensure that we cover the bases that we need to cover in this area as quickly as possible.

At the heart of the new approach is a new online crime centre, which has over £30 million of investment to bring Government, law enforcement, GCHQ and industry together in one place. Its mission is clear: to identify the technological enablers of fraud, which are rapidly evolving and industrialising, as I said before; to disrupt fraud at scale; and to deliver high-impact interventions at speed. The online crime centre is working on those things even as we speak.

Safeguarding and supporting victims is also at the forefront of the strategy. We are strengthening public awareness through an expanded “Stop! Think Fraud” campaign because it is important to remember that, as plausible as some of these people are, the more we can increase the suspicion and resilience of the people who interact in these systems, the more likely we are to be more resilient to fraud. I acknowledge absolutely that the psychological cleverness of a lot of fraud is something to behold. These people are very clever at what they do. They are very sophisticated in how they draw people in. All of us have a duty to try to warn individuals about the kind of dangers out there from those very sophisticated approaches.

[Adam Dance]

I thank the Minister for her answers. Does she agree that we should fully regulate the property training industry? That is a huge issue across the whole country and affects lots of people. As the Minister rightly said a second ago, people do not come forward because they are embarrassed, which is also why, unfortunately, they take their own lives.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We need to look at where the issues are, where the loopholes are and where people are being exploited. We need to see what we can do, both as law enforcers and as regulators, to close those loopholes. I am not going to say yes immediately to the hon. Gentleman’s question, not least because it is not directly in my bivouac, but he can rest assured that we will look at the trends and see how we can harden the target, if I might put it that way. A whole range of individuals can be scammed and fall for very sophisticated frauds without realising—and by the time they do realise, it is too late.

Obviously the private sector, specifically the banking sector, has an important part to play with the warnings that it puts on its electronic banking systems. We need to do an enormous amount of co-operative work in all this, to ensure that our online crime centre can pick up and collaborate with all parts of the system that is there to try to protect people. As I said earlier, “Stop! Think Fraud” is an important part of that. If something looks too good to be true online, it almost certainly is. We have to get that education out there, be it through influencers or other types of people, to the people who are potential victims in this area.

[Adam Dance]

On banking, one of the biggest issues for Christopher was that his carer was turned away by Lloyds many times and sent online. We often see that issue because banks are shutting and we have banking hubs. Does the Minister agree that the banks should work more with people with neurodiversity and disabilities and work more to see those people face to face? There should also be more support in our banking hubs.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The banking hubs are at an early stage of their development. They are a good development. At the moment, they are less sophisticated in the services that they can offer. We have to work with banks, which are—because most of their customers wish it—going online and leaving the high street. That does leave in a more vulnerable situation people who perhaps are more vulnerable to being scammed online. In our work with the banks, we have to try to make the case that they need to have special relationships and ways of dealing with those who are neurodiverse or who may be easier, in some ways, to fool. In my experience, almost anyone can become a victim of this kind of fraud if they get caught at a vulnerable moment or when they are upset about something, so we have to deal with education in a much more holistic way, rather than just categorising people. But I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Using data from Report Fraud, we are improving our ability to identify emerging fraud trends and local fraud hotspots, which enables us to work with police forces and community partners to deliver targeted interventions where we see they are needed most. We are just beginning to get to the stage at which we can start spotting these kinds of trends and trying to prevent them, rather than trying to pick up the pieces after a fraud has happened.

It is equally important to co-ordinate the fraud protect networks, for which City of London police has responsibility. Bringing together local, regional and national law enforcement, the network helps to reduce the threat of fraud and repeat victimisation through consistent prevention messaging, practical safeguarding advice and targeted public engagement. I think that as we see more of these issues developing, we will be able to see what the trends are and be more preventive and ahead of the trends before they cause damage.

An estimated 70% of fraud has an international element: it knows no borders. As part of our effort to counter that, the UK sponsored the UN Office on Drugs and Crime and Interpol global fraud summit in March. That ministerial summit brought together over 1,000 attendees across 115 Governments, over 40 Ministers and senior law enforcement, and over 500 private sector companies, including big tech, with the aim of strengthening international co-operation, raising global standards and agreeing co-ordinated, multi-sector action plans to deal with fraud. We also want to do what we can to try to shut down some of the scam centres that we know are appearing in particular areas of the world; where we can, we will sign memorandums of understanding with countries that may have a particular issue that we see impinging on our citizens.

The international part is extremely important. As the hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned in his speech, working with the telecoms companies and the big tech companies is equally important. I assure him that our new fraud strategy is particularly aimed at being able to ensure that we bring these different strands together and bear down on the current levels of fraud, which are completely unacceptable.

Question put and agreed to.

Human Rights in Kashmir

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for human rights in Kashmir.

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. As a British parliamentarian, I remain proud of my roots in Pakistan and Kashmir. I continue to be privileged to chair the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir, which has support from across the political spectrum. It has worked across Parliament and engaged with Government Ministers around one simple principle: the inalienable human rights of Kashmiris must always come first. That is why this debate is extremely timely, as Members across the House continue to be extremely concerned about the seriously escalating tensions in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Before I come on to that, let me put some points on the record very clearly.

For over a decade, I have called out the persecution, oppression and injustice faced by Kashmiris in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Their calls for justice have too often gone unanswered. Their fundamental human rights have been violated. Their right to self-determination has been repeatedly denied to them. For over a decade, I have called out and challenged the most repressive and draconian security legislation: the Indian Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, the Public Safety Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. This legislation continues to be used to give the Indian armed forces sweeping powers of detention and immunity to persecute journalists, human rights defenders, political activists and ordinary civilians.

In August 2019, we all saw the right-wing Modi Government unilaterally and illegally revoke articles 370 and 35A, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special constitutional status. That was followed by mass detentions and unprecedented communications blackouts, severe restrictions on civil liberties and the further erosion of democratic rights. I led the campaign in this place, on every single forum, to call out the illegal actions of the Modi regime. I want to today reassure the sons and daughters of Kashmir who remain under oppression in Indian-occupied Kashmir that their voices will never be silenced. They will continue to be heard loudly and clearly in this place.

I want to make another point for the record before I move on to the substantial part of the debate. There is no comparison between the long-term systematic human rights abuses in Indian-occupied Kashmir and the current situation in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The scale, duration and nature of the repression in Indian-occupied Kashmir remains in a different category altogether. But that does not mean we should remain silent when serious concerns arise.

That brings me to the deeply troubling and worrying situation we have witnessed in recent weeks in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Members from across the House have been contacted by deeply distressed constituents unable to reach loved ones because of the lockdown and communications blackout imposed on parts of Azad Kashmir, now well into its fourth week.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I have been inundated with representations from my constituents who have friends, family and loved ones in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. They are deeply concerned that the blackout has been going on for a month. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way forward is peaceful resolution and for the Government of Pakistan to return to the table for peace talks, and that our Government can play an important role in making those representations to the Pakistani Government?

[Imran Hussain]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall come to his point shortly.

For over 1 million British Kashmiris, more than 50,000 of whom demonstrated on the streets of London over the weekend, this is not a distant foreign policy issue. These are their parents, brothers and sisters—their families—and they have been worried sick, staring at silent phones waiting for a call that does not come and hoping that people they love are safe.

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

rose—

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

rose—

[Imran Hussain]

I will give way, but I ask hon. Members to be extremely brief in their interventions because I have a substantial contribution to make.

[David Williams]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work as chair of the APPG on Kashmir. In Stoke-on-Trent North, I too have been contacted by residents about people who live on both sides of the line of control, and they are seriously worried. We have had reports of shortages of food, medical supplies and baby milk. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK Government must do all they can to open all possible humanitarian routes?

[Imran Hussain]

I will take the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), who may make a similar point.

[Dr Gardner]

My hon. Friend is correct. I recently met constituents in my office who are deeply concerned about the internet blackout. They are unable to find out if their families are okay and have told me some horrendous stories, including—this is unverified—that a two-year-old child has been shot. Their major concerns are the food shortages and lack of medicines that can go in. Does my hon. Friend agree that the blockades must stop immediately so that children can survive?

[Imran Hussain]

I thank both my hon. Friends, and I absolutely agree with them. They will know that, as chair of the APPG on Kashmir, I co-ordinated a letter to the Foreign Secretary calling for urgent diplomatic engagement to address those very issues and tabled an early-day motion that now has the combined support of over 70 parliamentarians across the House, so I am grateful to all my colleagues. We have met Ministers and convened emergency parliamentary meetings through the APPG because this House cannot simply look away.

We have all seen deeply concerning reports of continued bloodshed, arbitrary arrests, restrictions on communication and a breakdown in dialogue with representatives of grassroots groups. More recently, we have seen reports suggesting restrictions on the movement of food and medical supplies into parts of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Those reports are profoundly concerning.

We have also seen reports that those seeking to act as peaceful arbitrators, including senior Pakistani politicians, have been prevented from entering Azad Kashmir. That cannot help to de-escalate the situation. Groups such as the Joint Awami Action Committee have for many months sought to pursue peaceful negotiations around long-standing civic governance and economic concerns. There was a commitment that those issues would be resolved through dialogue.

Criminalising grassroots movements can never be a solution. Most of their reasonable demands were negotiated and met. There remain a number of outstanding issues, most importantly the 12 refugee seats. Of course, there will be strongly held views on all sides of that issue, but whatever view one takes, ordinary Kashmiris should not be made to pay the price for a failure to return to peaceful table talks.

It is deeply unfortunate that the situation has deteriorated to this point. I say to the Governments of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir, and to the Joint Awami Action Committee, that the answer must be dialogue, restraint and peaceful negotiations. I welcome the efforts made in recent days by political figures and others who have called for an immediate return to negotiations. Those seeking to lower the temperature deserve the full support of this House.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend talks eloquently about the need to lower the temperature and de-escalate the situation. One of my constituents was visiting relatives in Kashmir recently and saw with his own eyes a relative shot by the Pakistani authorities who was too terrified to go to hospital because he feared reprisals. Does my hon. Friend agree that the shooting of unarmed civilians and peaceful protesters should not be tolerated by any country?

[Imran Hussain]

I absolutely agree. While not all the reports have emerged in full because of the communications blackout, they continue to concern the whole House, as they should.

My message to those who use inflammatory and divisive language is that they do not help anyone. Successive Pakistani high commissioners and Ministers have engaged constructively with the all-party parliamentary group in the past. I ask the Governments of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir what message they are sending on human rights to over a million British Kashmiris and the international community. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer)—he could not be with us today, but he is no doubt well represented—for regularly meeting me and the all-party parliamentary group. He has visited Pakistan and continues to monitor the situation and raise the matter directly.

Today, we in this House make an appeal to our Government to send a direct appeal to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the Government of Azad Kashmir to ensure that this situation ends immediately. The lockdown and communications blackout must end. Any restrictions affecting the movement of food and medical supplies must end. Those acting as peaceful mediators must be allowed immediate access. Meaningful table talks with grassroots groups must resume immediately. At the heart of those negotiations must remain one principle above all others: respect for the human rights of Kashmiris. Our Government must play their role for the 1 million British Kashmiris impacted by this situation. They must continue to use every appropriate diplomatic channel to encourage restraint, de-escalation and dialogue.

Ultimately, peace and dialogue must prevail. There is only one sustainable path forward: peaceful table talks. As chair of the APPG on Kashmir, I will continue to work constructively with all those prepared to pursue that objective. I will continue to stand up and be the voice for over 1 million British Kashmiris with family who continue to be directly affected by these events. We will continue to speak out whenever the human rights of Kashmiris are threatened, and I will continue to push for a peaceful resolution in which the voices, dignity and fundamental rights of the Kashmiri people are placed where they always should have been: at the very heart of any lasting settlement.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they need to stand if they intend to speak, as there are a lot more people in the Chamber than on my list, and that you need to have been here at the start of the debate to be able to make a speech.

16:43

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for setting the scene, and I commend him for his words of wisdom and his directions for finding a peaceful way forward. I have supported him every time he has had this debate over the years, and I am happy to be doing the same again. I declare an interest as chair of the APPGs for international freedom of religion or belief and for Pakistani minorities, so this issue is close to my heart, and the hon. Member made the case incredibly well.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on this matter. I commend all hon. Members who have consistently brought the plight of the Kashmiri people before the House. I have spoken on this matter before and make no apology for returning to it. The situation in Kashmir is not a distant abstraction; it is a lived reality for millions of human beings—people with families, faith and hopes for their children. This United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has both a historical connection to that region and a moral obligation to speak truth to power. I look forward to the Minister’s answer—she is much liked and respected by all of us in the House.

Kashmir, divided, disputed and suffering, represents one of the most protracted human rights crises of our age. Whether we speak of India-administered Kashmir or Pakistan-administered Kashmir, the reality for ordinary men, women and children on the ground is one of fear, repression and silenced voices. Amnesty International has documented with harrowing clarity the realities of life in Kashmir: arbitrary detention, torture, restrictions on freedom of assembly, the suffocation of civil society, and many killings and injuries. These are not abstractions; they are human beings deserving of dignity, justice and freedom.

In any debate, I try to think of the words of Micah 6:8 in the Holy Bible:

“And what does the Lord require of you

But to do justice, and to love kindness,

And to walk humbly”.

That is the reason I am here: to obey that Holy Scripture and speak up for my brothers and sisters across the world, wherever their human rights are being suppressed and wherever they are being persecuted. That is the standard of this House, and we must hold ourselves to it when we speak of Kashmir.

I have been on delegations to Pakistan in the past, and I am due to return, if God spares me, because I feel so strongly about the human rights of the people of that part of the world. I have sat with community leaders, religious minorities, and mothers and fathers who simply want safety and freedom for their children. Freedom of religion or belief—that intrinsic, God-given right—is denied across the Kashmir region. Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Christian communities have all experienced the fragile nature of life when the state does not protect fundamental rights as it should.

The situation in India-administered Kashmir since the revocation of article 370 in 2019 has illustrated the dangers of unchecked Executive power: communications blackouts, thousands detained and journalists criminalised. In Pakistan-administered Kashmir, democratic accountability remains a transformative aspiration rather than a lived reality. Can we honestly say in this House that we are doing all in our power to stand against that? This debate is a chance for us to show our united resolve to speak up for our brothers and sisters in Kashmir.

You told us earlier to be conscious of time, Mrs Harris, so I conclude with this: we must use every diplomatic channel—bilateral, multilateral and through the United Nations—to press both India and Pakistan to uphold their international human rights obligations. I look to the Minister to ascertain how we can seek to play our part in ensuring that the people of Kashmir are not disenfranchised from justice for geopolitical convenience. The heartbeat of this Government’s foreign policy must be not only simple human rights but simple humanity. It is with that simple humanity that I speak.

16:44

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing this important debate.

Luton South and South Bedfordshire is a vibrant and diverse area. We have residents with far-reaching global connections, which include a large first, second and third-generation British Kashmiri diaspora for whom Luton is home. They have built their lives and raised their children in Luton, but they also maintain very strong familial ties to Kashmir and regularly travel back to see relatives and loved ones.

One recent example of the strong ties between Luton and Kashmir is our community’s remarkable fundraising effort over the past two years. Because of Luton’s close connection to Kashmir, in 2024, UK charity Kids Operating Room approached me and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) to seek our support for the building of a new paediatric operating theatre in Kotli. Led by local GP Dr Tahir Mehmood, our Luton community and other donors raised more than £300,000 to fund the establishment of a fully equipped children’s operating theatre at District Headquarter hospital in Kotli. The project delivered more than 3,300 pieces of specialist equipment, bringing lifesaving care closer to thousands of children. This powerful intervention from our Luton community to support the universal human right of access to healthcare highlights just how connected our Luton community is with Kashmir and why many of my constituents are deeply concerned about the ongoing human rights abuses in the region.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East has set out so eloquently, periods of unrest in the region, followed by authoritarian crackdowns, have become increasingly common, and we are once again seeing serious human rights abuses. The latest unrest began after peaceful protests against the Pakistani Government’s proposed electoral changes, which many feared would weaken political representation.

On 5 June, the movement was banned and there were subsequent mobile and internet blackouts. That has resulted in many of my constituents being unable to contact family and loved ones, while British nationals remain stranded in the region without communication or a way to return home. Reports indicate that more than 100 activists and journalists have been arrested, with roadblocks and travel restrictions effectively sealing off the region. Clashes between protesters and police have also resulted in several deaths and many injuries.

While every Government have a responsibility to maintain public safety, over recent years we have seen the unlawful use of tear gas and the use of lethal force, and both protesters and police officers have been killed. It seems to demonstrate a pattern of disproportionate action, preventing freedom of expression, peaceful assembly or access to communication with the outside world.

We are all very aware of the political tensions in Kashmir, and the UK is home to significant diaspora communities of Pakistanis, Indians and Kashmiris. Emerging issues related to Kashmir therefore have the potential to affect our community cohesion here if we do not handle them sensitively.

I know that Ministers are very alive to these issues. Will the Minister ensure that any dialogue and actions relating to events in Kashmir are handled seriously and sensitively and with consideration of the concerns of the diaspora communities? Will she elaborate on what discussions she is having with counterparts in Pakistan to ensure that human rights are being upheld in Kashmir and that communication lines are fully restored? Will she also provide an update on steps being taken to identify and support British nationals who are stuck in the region and to assist them with returning home?

For my constituents, it is vital that we continue to use our influence on the international stage to remain steadfast in our commitment to ensuring equal and inalienable rights for all around the world, including Kashmiris’ right to self-determination, and that we call out any Government or regime who infringe upon those rights.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I intend to start the Front-Bench speeches at 5.8 pm. Will Members please make sure that they keep their remarks as short as possible?

16:51

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)]

Thank you for calling me in this debate, Mrs Harris. I will be very brief because others wish to speak.

I put on record my thanks to the hon. Members for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) and for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for the huge work they have consistently done on the issue of Kashmir. The hon. Member for Bradford East chairs the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir, which has made a huge difference and meant that the issue has been properly debated in Parliament.

The contribution of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) brought together the whole issue, which is fundamentally that the way Kashmir was treated at the time of Indian independence is an overhanging colonial responsibility for Britain that has never been resolved. The matter was referred to the United Nations in 1948 and that is where it still is. At some point, it will have to be returned to, and there will have to be a recognition that this is an international issue that requires an international solution.

The immediate crisis is, in a sense, symptomatic of the partition of Kashmir, with the line of control between Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Azad Kashmir. The situation in Azad Kashmir at the moment is frankly terrible. I have constituents who have family there or who are there at the moment. The information getting back to us is that there are shortages of just about everything. There is an inability to move about and there are very high prices for food. There are also irrational detentions of people for taking part in protests and the general suppression of any civil and political activity.

That is what happens when the economy spirals out of control and people cannot eat or feed their children properly. Something has to be done. At the very least, one would hope that the British Government—I look forward to the Minister’s response—will put whatever pressure it can on the administration in Azad Kashmir and be firmly in touch with the Pakistani Government through the high commission here to ensure that there is a lifting of the sanctions, a return of universal access to the internet, free movement around Azad Kashmir and a preparedness to engage to bring about long-term peace and stability within the region.

Too many people are suffering, there is too much tension, and too much abuse of power is taking place at this very moment.

16:54

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing this important debate.

I speak today not only as a British Kashmiri but as someone who was born in Kashmir. Having left that part of the world when I was just a few months old, it is now not unusual for me to hear about what is going on, in the main, across Kashmir. Let us be in no doubt: the disruption and disputes in Azad Jammu and Kashmir have no equivalence or bear any comparison with what is happening in Indian-occupied Kashmir.

The principal enemy of the Kashmiri people’s basic rights and dignity remains the extremist BJP Government in New Delhi. Last November, 10 United Nations-appointed human rights experts condemned India’s arbitrary arrests, torture and lynchings of Kashmiris over the past couple of years. Those experts highlighted reports of house demolitions and other tactics of collective punishment being used against Kashmiri Muslims. Even the Indian Supreme Court, which has been complicit in the oppression of the Kashmiri people many times, ruled against such actions in 2024.

However, Modi’s thugs do not care about their own law, let alone international law and morality. Day after day, families find that their sons are missing, and then they find them dead in canals or ditches. These unexplained disappearances are later ruled by the authorities to be suspected suicides. Day after day, there is new torture, of old and young alike, including children. No one is spared. It is all too obvious what is happening.

The Indian state tries to hide away all its crimes by suspending over 8,000 social media accounts, including the accounts of independent journalists, and imposing media blackouts. However, the truth still comes out. For as long as the Kashmiri people are oppressed by the extremist BJP regime, we will continue to call them out. However, every time that we raise this issue, the Government read out the usual script that this is a bilateral matter between Pakistan and India. Kashmir has never been a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan; it never has been and never will be. It is a mess that was left by a British Labour Government in 1948, but we now have another Labour Government that can right that wrong. Now is the time to step up.

What is happening in Azad Jammu and Kashmir? A 38-point plan or list of demands was put to the Government; 36 have been met. There is a dispute over two points, one of them being the 12 appointed seats that purportedly represent Kashmiri migrants. The only way to resolve this issue is through peaceful negotiations and talks, which can happen only if we have flexibility on both sides. Actually, there are three sides involved: the Pakistani Government; the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir; and the Awami Action Committee. Someone needs to co-ordinate and facilitate talks between them, and the British Government can play their part.

We object to the direct shooting of innocent civilians, at least 18 of whom have lost their lives. The internet blackout needs to end and the internet needs to be restored, so that families can stay connected. Most important, however, the people who voice their concerns in this country often find that they are targeted, in the form of their families being harassed in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. That has to stop. Those families are tortured, harassed and then made to read out public statements. That is a violation of all international law and it cannot be allowed to continue.

[Dr Gardner]

Some of my constituents have been labelled terrorists because they have spoken out and are now unable to travel to visit their families, even if the blockade should end. Does my hon. Friend agree that that type of draconian abuse of the law must stop and that my constituents should not be labelled as terrorists just for speaking out?

[Tahir Ali]

I absolutely agree. No one’s views, no matter how harsh or difficult they may sound, should be used as a means of torture or a means of distracting them from the agenda by making their families in Azad Jammu and Kashmir feel the brunt of what is being said here.

None of us can agree with what the authorities are doing in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. They are blockading baby milk, food and internet access. That blockade must be lifted and talks have to resume. That is the only way we will find a peaceful settlement to the saga that has been rolling out for the past few weeks in Azad Kashmir.

17:00

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) not only for his work on the APPG on Kashmir, but for securing this debate.

There are two distinct issues: the first is around Indian-occupied Kashmir and the second is what we are now witnessing in the region of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. In so far as Indian-occupied Kashmir is concerned, the people in that region have been oppressed for decades. That issue has been raised on numerous occasions on very different platforms, including at the United Nations. We know that many resolutions have simply been ignored.

My primary point, which follows on from the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali), is about the British Government’s position. Historically, it has been said that there are two nuclear power nations and that this is a bilateral issue. In my view, and I hope the Government can take away the position set out by several hon. Members in this Chamber, when there are two nations with nuclear capabilities, it becomes an international issue. In my respectful view, I suspect that if the British Government were to adopt a multilateral or international position, it would certainly help the region, which is the most militarised zone in the whole world. Torture, rape and extra-judicial killings frequently take place there.

Coming back to what is close to home—I say home because we have all seen demonstrations here in London on multiple occasions—the United Kingdom is home to about 1.4 million British Kashmiris. They have heritage and family and friends in that region. I will not repeat what has already been set out. British Kashmiris can be found scattered around virtually every constituency in the United Kingdom, so it comes as no surprise that more than 70 Members of Parliament have signed a joint letter asking for diplomacy and dialogue.

One of the biggest problems is that when there is a vacuum of information, we do not know what is happening. That has caused enormous anxieties for families that live in the United Kingdom and have heritage or family back in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Again, I am grateful to the chair of the APPG for his work. I have had several meetings with the acting high commissioner of Pakistan, who has been open and transparent about what they want to see and how they want to resolve matters. As someone who has direct heritage—like the hon. Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley, I was born in that region—I am more than happy to assist in mediation if our Government are in negotiations with the Pakistani Government, so that we can reach a sensible resolution.

17:04

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris.

I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing the debate. It is clear where I stand on this issue, because I co-signed his letter late last month. Human rights abuses in Kashmir matter deeply to my constituents in Woking. More than half of my local Asian population have ancestry from and links with Kashmir. It is a fundamental issue that is raised with me regularly, and particularly over the last month. I am here to represent them, and to ensure that the British Government show some leadership and ensure that civil liberties are returned to normal in Kashmir.

The Liberal Democrats and I condemn the reports of the excessive and unlawful use of force against the people in Kashmir. For the last two years, the Government there have arrested, banned and clashed with people protesting over flour and electricity costs. In the last month, things have got worse still. These actions have been condemned by human rights groups such as Amnesty International, which has argued that the state has been weaponising anti-terror laws as a legal excuse to crush peaceful protest. Peaceful protesters aspiring for equal rights should never be criminalised.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents are deeply concerned about the safety and wellbeing of their loved ones in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, as tensions continue to rise and communications blackouts and obstructions persist. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital that peace negotiations take place between the relevant parties, so that we can ensure an end to the violence and see sustained stability in the region?

[Mr Forster]

I completely agree. Britain has a long history in the region. I believe we can be a force for good—for a change—in that region, to bring about peace. I will talk about that later.

Dictatorships, not democracies, trigger communications blackouts when they want to hide what is happening. I am afraid that is what is currently happening in Kashmir. The removal of access to the internet and phone networks is a tool of oppression. We have seen that in Iran; we do not want to see it in Kashmir. The communications blackout demonstrates just how dire the situation has become. I believe, given the reports, that 200 people have been killed in the last month but, because of the communications blackout, we just do not know. British Kashmiris, and UK residents with connections there, have been cut off from contacting their loved ones, including British citizens currently in the region.

Although I want to focus on the immediate issues in Kashmir, it is fair to say that a long-term and stable resolution in Kashmir can be achieved only by putting human rights, democratic aspirations and the self-determination of the Kashmiri people at the centre of our foreign policy. We need a lasting peace, and we can achieve that only with the explicit consent of the Kashmiri people.

For decades, British Governments have hidden behind the convenient diplomatic fiction that Kashmir is strictly a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan. The Liberal Democrats and I urge the Government to remember their historic and moral responsibilities as the co-author of United Nations Security Council resolution 47. The UK must champion the democratic mechanism of a free, fair and impartial referendum, as originally mandated under international law. The Liberal Democrats call on the Government to reject the unilateral changes to Kashmir’s status. We believe that any constitutional reform or future governance structure must be led by the democratic aspirations of Kashmiri people, and agreed by them, and that their human rights need to be front and centre.

Let me come back to the matter at hand and the concerns about Kashmir right now. I have some questions for the Minister. How often have the British Government raised issues in Kashmir with the Pakistan Government and the high commission? When was the last time, and when are they going to do so again? When was the last time our Prime Minister spoke to the Government in Pakistan? Finally, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that British nationals in the region, and British citizens with families there, are able to access support and maintain contact with loved ones?

17:09

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing the debate, which is the second he has secured to which I have had the pleasure of responding as shadow Minister. As chair of the APPG on Sri Lanka, I know how much effort goes into running geographic APPGs, particularly those on areas where real difficulties and sensitivities need to be navigated, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work.

Kashmir remains one of the most sensitive disputes, with its impacts stretching far beyond the region’s borders. It continues to have profound implications not only for the people who live in the region but for wider regional stability, as well as for the diaspora communities here in the United Kingdom that have close family and cultural ties to Kashmir. There is agreement across the House that allegations of human rights abuses should concern us all, wherever they occur. Those concerns should not be viewed through the prism of geopolitics or partisan politics, but through our shared commitment to universal human rights, the rule of law and democratic freedoms.

The long-standing position of the Conservative party is clear: we have never sought to prescribe a solution to the constitutional status of Kashmir. We believe that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution through peaceful dialogue, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. Equally, however, we have consistently argued that the United Kingdom should not shy away from raising credible allegations of human rights abuses wherever they arise, and should encourage both countries to uphold their international obligations.

I note that the hon. Member for Bradford East secured the debate with a firm eye on the current situation in Azad Kashmir. Reports of the use of force against protesters, internet shutdowns, arrests under anti-terrorism legislation and the intimidation of political activists are of grave concern. Human rights are universal and should be defended consistently, irrespective of which authority is responsible.

Recent events have demonstrated how fragile the security situation remains. The appalling terrorist attack last year, in which 26 people were killed, was a reminder of the continuing threat posed by terrorism in the region. There can be no justification for attacks that deliberately target civilians. India has every right to defend its citizens against terrorism through lawful, reasonable and proportionate means. At the same time, all parties have a responsibility to pursue dialogue wherever possible.

Against that backdrop, I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, how are the Government using their diplomatic engagement with both India and Pakistan to encourage constructive dialogue on human rights, while maintaining the UK’s long-standing position that the dispute itself should be resolved peacefully by the parties? Secondly, what discussions has the Foreign Office had with both Governments regarding allegations of arbitrary detention, restrictions on journalists and civil society organisations, and the protection of religious freedom across Kashmir?

Thirdly, given that both India and Pakistan are members of the Commonwealth, what assessment has the Minister made of the role that Commonwealth institutions could play in encouraging dialogue on human rights and confidence-building measures between the countries? Fourthly, following the recent protests in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, what representations have the Government made regarding the reported use of force against demonstrators, and the importance of thorough, transparent and independent investigations into allegations of wrongdoing?

Fifthly, given the terrorist attack last year and the subsequent escalation in tensions between India and Pakistan, what assessment have the Government made of the current security situation, and what steps are Ministers taking with international partners to reduce the risk of further military escalation between two nuclear-armed states? Finally, with elections in the region due to take place on 27 July, what steps are the Government taking with international partners to ensure that they are free from interference and fair for all those who seek to participate?

The United Kingdom enjoys important relationships with both India and Pakistan, and those relationships should enable us to have candid conversations where necessary. Supporting dialogue, encouraging respect for human rights, condemning terrorism in all its forms and promoting regional stability are not contradictory objectives; they are mutually reinforceable. The Opposition will continue to support a balanced and principled approach—one that encourages peaceful dialogue, upholds international human rights standards and seeks lasting stability for all the people of Kashmir. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how the Government intend to advance those objectives in the months ahead.

17:14

[The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury (Taiwo Owatemi)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing the debate, and all Members who contributed. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), who could not be here today, but who has continually raised this issue with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

It is clear from the debate that there remains strong interest across the House in the situation in Kashmir, and deep concern for the welfare, rights and aspirations of people living on all sides of the line of control. As we have heard again today, the issue continues to resonate strongly with many communities across the United Kingdom, including those with family, cultural and emotional ties to the region.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

I have been contacted in recent weeks by many constituents who are desperately worried for their loved ones in Kashmir, and who are struggling to reach them because of the communications blockade. Does the Minister agree that such communication shutdowns, which have also been used by Indian-occupied Kashmir, are often an attempt by authorities to hide and cover up the crimes and human rights abuses they are committing? What assurances can she give us that the Government will put pressure on the Pakistani Government to stop any blockade?

[Taiwo Owatemi]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The communication blackout is an issue of concern, which is why the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), met the Pakistani Government in June to raise the Government’s concerns.

Let me begin by setting out the Government’s current policy and position. The UK has strong and long-lasting relationships with both countries and has consistently encouraged both sides to maintain dialogue and pursue lasting political solutions that support regional stability and security. That is why the Government’s position remains that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution to the situation in Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or act as a mediator. This has remained the position of successive UK Governments.

[Ayoub Khan]

The United Kingdom has many commercial agreements with India. Does the Minister agree that where the United Nations resolutions on human rights violations are not being followed, we should look at sanctioning it through our trade agreements?

[Taiwo Owatemi]

The UK has remained steadfast in its position since the 1970s, and it retains that stance today.

A number of hon. Members have raised concerns regarding recent events in parts of Pakistani-administered Kashmir, known locally as Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The Government are concerned by reports of unrest, loss of life and injuries during a recent protest in the region. We have followed developments closely and discussed them with Pakistani authorities.

We are also aware of concerns relating to communications restrictions in the region, which have been especially concerning for British nationals and members of the British-Kashmiri diaspora seeking contact with friends and family. The safety and welfare of British nationals remain one of our highest priorities. In the light of developments on the ground, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has updated its travel advice and currently advises against all but essential travel to the region. Those already in the region should leave to avoid potential disruptions.

More broadly, whenever allegations of human rights violations arise, whether in Indian-administered Kashmir or Pakistani-administered Kashmir, our position is clear. We encourage all Governments to ensure that their domestic laws and practices are consistent with international standards. Any allegations of human rights abuse should be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently. Effective engagement with affected communities is essential.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

Does the Minister agree that when we discuss Kashmir, we must remember that there are distinct realities? Indian-administered Kashmir has faced decades of conflict, crackdowns and human rights abuses and is the most militarised region in the world. The current situation in Azad Kashmir is worrying, but the two cannot be conflated. Does she agree that the priority in Azad Kashmir must be an immediate return to peaceful dialogue and negotiations?

[Taiwo Owatemi]

I agree that the issue in the region is concerning, especially in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), that is the reason why the Minister for the Middle East is continuing to raise the issue with the Pakistani Government.

Several hon. Members have spoken about human rights in Indian-administered Kashmir. We regularly raise human rights concerns with partners around the world, including India and Pakistan, and we continue to encourage all states to uphold their international obligations.

The Chamber has also heard calls for the United Kingdom to play a more direct role in resolving the dispute. I understand the strength of feeling behind those views, but the Government believe that durable progress can be achieved only through peaceful engagement by those directly concerned. Our role is to encourage dialogue, support stability, advocate for human rights and reduce the risk of escalation.

Recent events have also served as a reminder of the importance of maintaining calm in a region that has experienced periods of heightened tension. The United Kingdom has consistently encouraged de-escalation, restraint and diplomacy. We will continue to engage with partners across the region in support of peace and stability.

Many Members raised concerns about communications restrictions, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford East, for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) and for Slough (Mr Dhesi). I understand that communications restrictions are particularly concerning for those with ties to the region, and these issues have also been raised by my constituents in Coventry North West. The continued use of some internet restrictions is worrying, and the United Kingdom is clear on the importance of rights being fully respected. It is important to ensure effective and constructive dialogue with the communities affected and, as I said earlier, that is why the Minister for the Middle East raised those concerns with the Pakistani Government.

On human rights abuses, which were raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) and for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), we strongly support individuals’ rights to freedom of assembly and expression, and to peaceful political protest. We have consistently emphasised that any human rights violation should be fully investigated in line with international human rights law. Our overseas networks continue to monitor human rights issues across the country and raise them when appropriate with the Government of Pakistan.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I appreciate that the Minister is standing in for the Minister for the Middle East, who is not in his place this afternoon. On bilateral working, the UK Government have settled positions on Somalia, Crimea and the conflict in Israel and Palestine, and we do not recognise northern Cyprus. There is a whole host of areas of disputed territory where we, as a Government, have taken a position and said what we believe the outcome should be. Why is this dispute any different? Why are the Government unable to say, “We believe that UN resolution 47, which we originally supported, should be in play”? Why do we have a different position on this from our position on all the other conflicts and disputed territories in the world?

[Taiwo Owatemi]

The UK’s position has been clear since the 1970s that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir, taking into account the views of the Kashmiri people.

[Mr Forster]

The Government have had the policy for 50 years, as the Minister has outlined, but it has not worked. Does she think it is time to change course?

[Taiwo Owatemi]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that point, but I think I have been clear. I know that this is an issue that many Members feel strongly about, but the current position of the FCDO is clear, and it is abiding by the position it has had since the 1970s.

The hon. Member also asked when the Minister for the Middle East last met the Pakistani Government. In June, he met the Interior Minister and the Minister responsible for law and human rights to discuss the issue. During his visits, our Minister also heard from a number of civil society organisations about the biggest challenges in Pakistan’s human rights landscape.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is an advocate for freedom of religious belief and has been chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief for quite a long time. The UK Government are committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all and to promoting respect between different religious and non-religious communities. UK programmes promote the rights of religious minorities by facilitating interfaith dialogues, supporting the Pakistani Government to develop progressive legislation, and combating hate speech against marginalised religious communities online. We will continue to urge the Government of Pakistan to guarantee the rights of all people, including those from religious minority communities, in accordance with international standards.

Lastly, there was a question about when the Prime Minister last met the Pakistani Government. He met the Pakistani Prime Minister in April to raise concerns—many of the concerns that have been raised today.

In conclusion, our Government remain committed to supporting human rights, encouraging peaceful dialogue and supporting British nationals. We will continue to monitor developments closely and to raise concerns where we have them, and we will continue to encourage a peaceful and lasting resolution that takes into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

17:26

[Imran Hussain]

I thank all Members who have taken part in this very important debate. Our constituents will no doubt have listened to all the contributions.

May I briefly address the age-old policy that this is a bilateral issue? Let us be absolutely clear in this Chamber that this is an international issue that stems from international law and the birthright of Kashmiris under international law. We in this place have a moral, historical and legal duty, and it is about time we developed the moral courage to execute that moral duty.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister who responded to the debate today, but also to the Minister for the Middle East and Pakistan. He has kept me regularly updated, has visited Pakistan during this period and has assured me that he continues to monitor the situation, relay the concerns of this House and make sure that we push and press towards a peaceful resolution.

I will make this point to the Government again: over 70 parliamentarians now support the call of the all-party parliamentary group—I am grateful to them—and I hope the Government have heard that call clearly. We will not stop. We will continue that campaign, and more parliamentarians will join it.

To go to the root of it, I again urge our Government to continue to use every diplomatic lever to press the Governments of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir to immediately end the lockdown; to immediately restore all communications; to immediately allow full access to food and, in particular, medical supplies; to allow access to mediators and human rights organisations; and finally, to immediately resume peaceful table talks, at the heart of which must remain the inalienable human rights of Kashmiris.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for human rights in Kashmir.

17:24

Sitting adjourned.