Westminster Hall

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 8 July 2026

[Sir John Hayes in the Chair]

Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

00:00

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir John, for what I hope will be an interesting and constructive debate about the future of Gibraltar. I am delighted to be joined by the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar—the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin)—on which I serve as the vice-chairman.

As the result of a discussion between me and the Gibraltar Government representative, who is in the Gallery, we thought it would be useful to have a fact-finding trip to Gibraltar, so that when the treaty on the future of the Rock was up for discussion, we could have one from an informed position. Two or three people who were hoping to go on the trip were unable to, but I was delighted that Baroness Butler-Sloss, the Cross-Bench peer, accompanied me, and we were also joined for one or two of the meetings by Lord James Wharton, from the upper House.

Following discussions with the Gibraltar office here in London, we put together a programme that was pretty comprehensive and gave us a good overview of the views of the local population, the business community and, of course, the politicians in Gibraltar. We had a meeting with His Excellency the Governor, which was just a courtesy call, but it is always a pleasure to meet up with him and other senior diplomats to hear how they approach the issues. I should point out that we went at our own expense, so we were independent of the Government of Gibraltar.

After we had seen the Governor, we were delighted to go to the airport and be joined by the Chief Minister, who delighted in giving us a tour of the airport. He has clearly devoted a great deal of time and effort to the arrangements that are necessary to ensure that all sides are content and, importantly, that the sovereignty of Gibraltar is maintained. We all know the long history of Spanish claims on the Rock, but that is definitely not in any way part of the treaty; sovereignty is absolute.

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

indicated assent.

[Martin Vickers]

I can see the Minister nodding; no doubt he will confirm that later.

On our trip to the airport, the concerns about Spanish officials operating on the Rock were, to some extent, assuaged. I was delighted that we were able to receive reassurance from not just the Chief Minister but his senior officials who accompanied us on the tour of the airport. I know there have been certain concerns about Spanish officials, police and the like operating within British territory, but the arrangements that have been made mean that, to a great extent, our fears can be assuaged.

Next we visited the commander at the British base. He assured us that there is co-operation with the Spanish authorities, which is only beneficial to both sides. There is no interference in the operations of the base, and the military is content with the arrangements. The American navy had been in the port only a day or two before our visit. It was encouraging, particularly in view of the current world situation and some of the noises coming from the American Administration, that work and co-operation are continuing at a purely operational level.

There was one visit on which we heard some discontent. We walked along Main Street and called in to see a number of retailers, purely at random, and they raised some concerns. As we know, the retail sector is struggling in many countries, and Gibraltar is no exception. Interestingly enough, one of the shops we went into dealt in ceramics, and the owner imported most of his products from the UK. He pointed out that because of various impositions on the ceramics sector, the costs were rising in the UK so much that it was becoming unprofitable to operate. With the proposed taxation arrangements in Gibraltar affecting retailers, he was going to cease operations in the not-too-distant future after being in business for about 25 years. It was very sad to hear that. But on the whole, although many of the retailers were not particularly happy, they recognised the overall benefits to Gibraltar of the operations.

I have mentioned the concerns about security and so on. One of our meetings was with the chief commissioner of the police, who recognised that there are a number of issues that need what he described as “further consideration”. Having said that, when we left the meeting we felt that, on the whole, his concerns could be worked through. I am sure the Minister is well aware of them, but I would be more than happy to discuss them with him if that would be beneficial.

We then had a lunchtime meeting with the Chief Minister, the Attorney General and the Health, Care and Business Minister. It is important to stress that we had full co-operation from the Chief Minister and his Ministers during our visit, bearing in mind that we had no official standing and were merely there as representatives of the all-party group. I want to put on the record our sincere thanks to the Gibraltar representative for assisting us in making the arrangements for the visit.

In the course of the lunch with the Chief Minister, once we had dealt with the routine matters we were there to discuss, we had a very useful political discussion. It is always interesting to hear an outside politician’s views of what is happening over here in the UK. I am not entirely sure what they would make of it today, but a couple of months ago we had a fascinating discussion, mainly about whether there were concerns about the treaty across the political spectrum here in the UK. We were able to give reassurance, based on the meetings we had and knowing the views of colleagues from the all-party parliamentary group, that there would be all-party support from Westminster.

According to the report we put together, we discussed the evolving UK-EU relationship, and on the whole the direction of travel was greatly supported. We also discussed a number of the issues that were causing concern, including—if I can remember the ins and outs of it—people taking advantage of the arrangements that were being put in place. It is probably not something we need to cover today, but it is worth recording that there were some concerns about people trying to take advantage of the health services provided in Gibraltar. We also had a constructive meeting with the vice-chancellor of the university, whom we had met on previous occasions. It was interesting to receive an update on how things were progressing there.

We had an interesting meeting with Keith Azopardi, the leader of the opposition in Gibraltar, because we wanted to ensure that we received views on the treaty from across the political spectrum. He pointed out that the opposition had imposed a number of red lines in their discussions, but as Members will know, the draft treaty was eventually approved unanimously by the Gibraltarian Parliament. The leader of the opposition quite understandably pointed out his party’s concerns. As opposition parties do, it obviously wanted to carve out a position whereby if something went wrong, he would be able to say, “I told you so.” I can see Government Members smiling at that, because they have been in opposition—my party is in opposition now, and the shadow minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), may point out one or two of our concerns in that respect.

Mr Azopardi expressed genuine concerns but—he will probably not thank me for saying this—in all honesty I think he was struggling to find reasons why he would have been tempted to vote against the treaty. It is important to recognise that political parties across Gibraltar have supported the treaty and feel on balance that it would be beneficial for it to be ratified.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. He mentioned cross-party support; does he agree that, as far as we are able to ascertain, the people of Gibraltar are glad that there is cross-party support for their position in this House, and that we must try to maintain that to ensure the safety and security of the people on the Rock of Gibraltar?

[Martin Vickers]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Following our meeting with the leader of the opposition, we met with Eva Wallace, who is a store manager at Morrisons. Those who know Gibraltar well will know that Morrisons is not just a key part of the retail scene there but a big business operation. Ms Wallace outlined what she described as the significant complexities that arose following Brexit, and the different but equally substantial complexities—such as labelling requirements—that will follow the treaty’s implementation. She pointed out that there would certainly be a reduction in the range of stock the store could offer. Having said that, it currently carries 20,000 different products, so I suspect most customers will not notice if that goes down to 17,000 or 18,000. Morrisons does business with Morocco, from where it gets tomatoes, and there had been problems with labelling. The store has a loyal customer base in Gibraltar, but felt that the ease of crossing the border would increase the footfall coming from Spain, for which bus trips were being arranged. The business is well established there and knows how to continue and hopefully increase footfall.

The university vice-chancellor referred to the new immigration rules, and we noted in our report that the university would closely assess their impact on its attractiveness to prospective students from around the world. Research funding had been difficult to secure since Brexit, and the vice-Chancellor hoped that that might ease with the conclusion of the treaty.

I will draw my comments to a close and allow other Members to take part. On balance, we came away with the overwhelming view that the treaty negotiations had been a success and that the final version of the treaty should be approved. It has cross-party support in Gibraltar and it would be regrettable if that were not reflected here at Westminster. I am interested to hear contributions from other Members. Having in a sense imposed problems on Gibraltar as a result of our leaving the EU, it is important that we have reached a satisfactory conclusion. We should congratulate our negotiating team, and the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister and their colleagues in Gibraltar. I know from several visits over recent years that they have worked tirelessly to achieve the treaty, which is, on balance, welcome. I hope that, as it passes through the various stages in Westminster, we are able to finalise it in the very near future.

09:48

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, in this important debate.

For more than six years, the people of Gibraltar have lived with uncertainty. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar, I have had the enormous privilege of visiting the Rock several times since Brexit. I have met businesses, politicians, officials and residents. Wherever I have gone, I have heard the same message: people want certainty, so that they can get on with their lives, grow their businesses and plan for the future.

I want to put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for not only securing this debate but producing a full and thorough report, alongside Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, after their visit in May. As he noted, after years of determined negotiations we finally have an agreement that delivers certainty. I congratulate the Minister and his team on that, and I pay tribute to the Government of Gibraltar, whose steadfast commitment was instrumental in securing this outcome. I also recognise the constructive engagement of Spain and the European Union. Agreements of such significance are only possible through patience, dialogue and a shared determination to find a way forward.

This matters because every day more than 15,000 people cross the frontier to work, trade and support their families. Removing unnecessary barriers will make a real difference to people’s lives, give businesses greater certainty and confidence, and help Gibraltar look to the future with certainty. However, the practical benefits need to be seen and felt, so I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about when people can expect to begin seeing them.

The economic case is compelling. Gibraltar estimates that the agreement could unlock around £200 million a year for its economy, without costing the UK taxpayer a penny. The agreement is good for Gibraltar, good for British business and good for our wider economy. More importantly, it changes nothing about sovereignty. Gibraltar remains British. The treaty is clear, the Government of Gibraltar’s independent legal advice is clear, and the right of the people of Gibraltar to determine their own future remains untouched.

Chief Minister Fabian Picardo said in one of his national day addresses:

“We are an integral part of the British family of Nations. And no one can or should try to untie the knot that binds us and Britain.”

Those words capture exactly what the treaty has achieved. It provides certainty for Gibraltar’s future while protecting the enduring bond between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom.

It is also important to remember that this is the agreement the people of Gibraltar wanted. It was backed by a Government elected on a mandate to deliver, approved unanimously by the Gibraltar Parliament and supported by every former Chief Minister. As we heard from the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham, it was backed by the many stakeholders that he met during his visit in May.

Alongside the constitutional protections come real practical benefits: easier movement across the frontier, improved trading opportunities for Gibraltar businesses, and simpler travel for British and potentially European visitors. The agreement gives Gibraltar the opportunity to thrive while remaining proudly British. However, I hear the concerns that have been raised with regard to the retail sector, security, health and access to the university. Along with the Gibraltar APPG, I look forward to supporting and raising any concerns where possible with our Government.

As the Member of Parliament for Portsmouth North, I also welcome the protections for our national security. Gibraltar has stood alongside Britain for more than 300 years and remains one of our most strategically important overseas territories. The strait of Gibraltar is one of the world’s most important maritime gateways, and the ability of the United Kingdom to operate freely from the Rock is fundamental to our national security. I particularly welcome the clear guidance that the movement of UK military personnel and equipment will not be impeded. That was an essential principle throughout the negotiations and I am pleased to see it so very clearly protected. National security is the first priority of any Government, so I would welcome anything the Minister can say about how those defence interests were protected throughout the negotiations and the close work undertaken across Government to secure that outcome.

The agreement is about more than protecting and resolving the legacy of Brexit. It gives Gibraltar certainty, protects sovereignty, strengthens our security and creates the conditions for long-term prosperity. For generations, Gibraltarians have shown extraordinary loyalty to the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom has stood firmly with Gibraltar. The treaty honours that relationship, safeguards its future and allows Gibraltar to look ahead with confidence. As the chair of the Gibraltar APPG, I warmly welcome it.

09:53

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) on securing this important debate. Before I begin, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It was my privilege to represent the Liberal Democrats at the Gibraltar national day celebrations last year as a guest of His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar. That visit, and my work on the Foreign Affairs Committee, gave me the opportunity to question Ministers, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, opposition politicians and business leaders about the treaty. Those discussions made it clear that the agreement has been shaped by the priorities of Gibraltar itself.

The Brexit deal left Gibraltar in a state of limbo for years. The treaty finally resolves one of the last outstanding Brexit issues and provides Gibraltar with the certainty it has been seeking ever since the United Kingdom left the European Union. In 2016, 96% of Gibraltarians voted to remain in the European Union; they have had to live with the consequences of a Brexit that they did not vote for. This agreement is about undoing some of the damage caused by a Brexit deal that Boris Johnson called “oven-ready” but in reality was always destined for the bin.

The Chief Minister made it clear to the Foreign Affairs Committee that the single most important priority was ensuring that people who live in Spain but work in Gibraltar, particularly in the financial services and gaming sectors, could continue to cross the frontier every day without excessive delays. Without an agreement, Gibraltar would have been required to implement the full Schengen border code, and travellers would have faced European entry and exit systems and, in the future, the ETIAS—European travel information and authorisation system—digital travel authority. Those additional checks would have created significant delays, threatening Gibraltar’s competitiveness and potentially encouraging businesses to relocate. Instead, eligible travellers will enjoy fluid movement comparable with travelling between Schengen countries. Their ability to continue doing so quickly and efficiently underpins Gibraltar’s economy and the public services that Gibraltarians rely on.

But this deal is about more than economics. The Chief Minister reminded the Foreign Affairs Committee that Gibraltar and the surrounding Campo de Gibraltar are communities bound together by families, friendship and shared history. During the closure of the frontier between 1969 and 1982, families were physically separated, forced to wave to one another across a closed border. Nobody wants a future resembling that painful past.

This agreement protects the everyday relationships that exist across the frontier for work, family, education and leisure, and allows those connections to continue. Approximately 96% of Gibraltarian goods arrive through the land frontier with Spain. After Brexit, sanitary and phytosanitary barriers made importing fresh British food significantly more difficult, with products even requiring air freighting during the Christmas period. This treaty offers businesses the certainty they need. Essential food products will be zero-rated under a new transactions tax, and there will be reduced rates on other essential goods.

The Chief Minister also made it clear that Gibraltar rejected any “freedom of establishment” in the treaty. Gibraltar is home to about 38,000 people living within approximately 2.5 square miles; it was never the intention to create unrestricted rights of establishment across a bloc of approximately 480 million people. Instead, the agreement focuses on facilitating movement across the frontier while preserving Gibraltar’s own immigration rules.

Perhaps the greatest misconception about the treaty concerns sovereignty. The Government of Gibraltar state that there are no sovereignty concessions. The British Government state that sovereignty was never on the negotiating table. Article 2 explicitly preserves the position of both the UK and Spain on sovereignty and jurisdiction. Three independent legal opinions commissioned by the Government of Gibraltar conclude unequivocally that the treaty makes no concessions whatsoever to Spain or the European Union.

The agreement also protects Britain’s strategic interests. The operational autonomy of the military base remains entirely unaffected. Protecting unrestricted military access was a red line throughout negotiations, supported fully by the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Secretary. In the highly unlikely event that Spain should ever seek to terminate the agreement, it cannot do so unilaterally. Under article 66, termination would require a qualified majority among European Union member states followed by action by the European Commission. That provides important legal certainty for Gibraltar’s future.

I want to say something briefly about the wider UK-EU relationship. Gibraltar demonstrates something important: where the UK and the EU work together pragmatically, solutions can be found that benefit everyone. It shows that close co-operation with our European neighbours delivers tangible benefits. Britain’s long-term future should lie at the heart of Europe, because our economy, our security and our young people’s opportunities are stronger when we work alongside our closest neighbour and ally.

I praise those who made this agreement possible. Officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Ministers, the Governor’s Office, His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, the European Commission and Spain have spent many years negotiating what the Minister has rightly described as a practical and lasting solution. This treaty will protect Gibraltar’s economy, safeguard British sovereignty, preserve military interests, strengthen regional stability and, above all, respect the democratic wishes of the Gibraltarian people.

09:58

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this timely debate, and for his comprehensive report on his visit to Gibraltar. His experiences there closely match my own.

On that note, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In June last year, I had the pleasure of going to Gibraltar at the invitation of the Government of Gibraltar. While I was there, Guy Dumas, an employee of the Government of Gibraltar, showed us around, and he and I got on so well that I ended up recruiting him as my parliamentary assistant. He has provided enormous assistance with my speech for the debate, for which I am very grateful. He is flying back to Gibraltar in just over a week’s time to marry the love of his life, Holly, and I am sure we all wish them well in their marriage.

There has been one cloud—the levanter cloud, as it is known in Gibraltar—hanging over the Rock since 2016. As has already been mentioned, Gibraltar did not vote for Brexit; 96% of Gibraltarians voted to remain in the EU, but they have had to deal with the consequences. And rightly so, because they are part of the British family. After a decade of uncertainty since the referendum, a positive future is finally beginning to shine through those clouds.

Much of the focus in the lead-up to the agreement was on the key issue of sovereignty, which is completely understandable. Gibraltarians are proudly British. They have reaffirmed that in two referendums, in which 99% voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. Thankfully, as has already been stated, article 2 of the draft agreement says that the agreement is “without prejudice to” the legal positions of the UK and Spain regarding sovereignty over Gibraltar. The House of Commons Library notes that the agreement includes that term and that the Government of Gibraltar have obtained legal opinions confirming that the agreement makes no concessions over the issue of sovereignty. From an entirely legal perspective, an important box has been ticked.

I will focus my remarks on a different principle: Gibraltar’s right to self-determination and the democratic will of its people and its elected Government. My visit to Gibraltar last year began with an unexpected detour. As anyone who has visited will know, the mile-long runway, combined with the strong winds across it, means that planes often cannot land and have to take a detour to Málaga. That was my experience, too.

That meant I had to enter Gibraltar via the land border, which is a routine experience for everybody living on the Rock and the surrounding area. Thankfully, I did not experience a particularly long queue to cross from Spain into Gibraltar, but I know that is not always the case. There are over 15,000 cross-frontier workers in Gibraltar, and that border is the only land entry point into Gibraltar. Delays of minutes can quickly become hours, and those hours are taken away from time with family or time at work. With this agreement, the routine passport checks that have caused those queues will come to an end. The agreement is intended to ensure that the free circulation of people and goods continues, and it removes those physical barriers at the border. As a Labour MP, I welcome any agreement that improves the lives of working people.

During my visit, I met Gibraltarian Government Ministers, the chamber of commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses. I spoke with businesses, just as the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham described, and with many others. At that point, the agreement had not been announced—it was announced a few days later—but they all spoke about the implications of any potential agreement. They also spoke about Gibraltar’s turbulent history, with Spain being a factor. Their feelings were definitely mixed. There was a mix of hope and anxiety, and there was an acceptance of the reality facing them. There was anxiety among the business community about the effects that new tax arrangements might have on their businesses.

The controlled border, while frustrating in the way I described, provided a sense of security, and some worried that removing those routine checks could affect crime on what is a very peaceful peninsula. They also acknowledged that the alternative to the agreement is a hard border. Some of the people I spoke to had lived through the closed frontier years of 1969 to 1985. They did not have to imagine what a no-deal outcome would look like, because they had already lived through it, and they were cautioning me and the people I was with against it.

What struck me was that there is both a passion for their home and a practical approach to the reality they face. I remember speaking to one of our drivers during the visit. We discussed the agreement, and although he had concerns—the ones I have set out—he was very practical. He told me that he crosses into Spain every single weekend and that if the agreement would make that easier and save him hours of queuing, then he was all for it.

Gibraltarians are a thoughtful and politically minded people. I know that because I am pleased to be a member—a secret member—of the “Speak Freely” Facebook group. I hope they do not kick me out after that declaration, especially as I am not a resident of Gibraltar, but it has been wonderful to follow the political discussions. I have no doubt that some of that political awareness comes as a result of years of vigilance with a neighbour that claims sovereignty over their Rock. The visit left me in no doubt that while Westminster scrutiny is absolutely valid and welcome, and while we have to ratify treaties here, it should not override the wishes of the people of Gibraltar.

The UK, the EU, Spain and Gibraltar announced the political agreement days after my visit, and the draft agreement was published this February. Gibraltar’s Parliament subsequently passed a motion supporting ratification. Every single one of its 17 Members voted in favour of ratification—that is the kind of consensus we can only dream of in this place. There can be no doubt that the agreement has democratic legitimacy from the Government of Gibraltar.

I recognise the desire of Members, who no doubt have the interests of the Gibraltarian people in mind, to scrutinise the agreement to the fullest. The UK has a constitutional duty towards Gibraltar, even though Gibraltar is almost entirely self-governing, but if the agreement commands the support of Gibraltar’s elected Government and every single Member of its Parliament, we must give considerable weight to that democratic judgment. Our Parliament can and should scrutinise, but it should not substitute its own judgment for the democratic will of Gibraltar, particularly when the agreement protects sovereignty and military autonomy.

I want to say a word on military autonomy. Gibraltar continues to play a key strategic military role. Defence is one of the United Kingdom’s reserved constitutional responsibilities, so I fully understand why Parliament must carefully scrutinise that aspect of any agreement, but here, too, a very important box has been ticked. The UK military base is not affected by the agreement, and those are not my words; they are the words of the outgoing commander of the British forces in Gibraltar, Commodore Tom Guy, who said that the agreement is positive from a military perspective because it protects the key principle of “military autonomy”, and our armed forces will

“continue to operate to, through and from Gibraltar unhindered”.

Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, treaties must be laid before Parliament before ratification, but the political principle, I hope, is clear: the power to decide Gibraltar’s future should rest with the people of Gibraltar. Our Government and Parliament should respect their wishes.

I have only two questions for the Minister, who I know is very highly regarded on the Rock. Can he confirm to the House and to the Gibraltarian people that there will be a legally binding mechanism to ensure that no UK Government will be able to withdraw from the agreement without Gibraltar’s consent? In a similar vein, can he confirm that no future UK Government will be able to block Gibraltar from withdrawing from the agreement if it is the democratically expressed will of the Gibraltarian people? That would be the strongest way to ensure that Gibraltar continues to control its own future.

Next week, the levanter cloud over the Rock may finally begin to lift. Gibraltar may feel different, but British sovereignty has been protected, and military autonomy is completely unchanged. Now it should be the Gibraltarians who determine their future in accordance with the principle of self-determination.

09:34

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this incredibly timely and crucial debate. It is nice to see some representatives of Gibraltar in the Public Gallery, as well as one of our old friends from this House. It is good to see the Minister in his place, and I wish him well in his job. He always gives us encouragement, and he will no doubt do the same today.

When the Minister stood up in the main Chamber back in February to outline the massive 1,000-page document, I was reminded of a wise old saying that my dear mother used to repeat when I was a wee lad with black, curly hair—I had hair at one time, believe it or not. That saying was, “Once bitten, twice shy.” The hair is long gone, but the wisdom of that saying firmly remains. My mother is 94 years of age and next Tuesday, 14 July, she will be 95 if God spares her until that time. The people of Northern Ireland have been bitten hard, which is why “once bitten, twice shy” comes to mind.

I should have said that it is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards). We might be on different sides of the Chamber, but it is remarkable how much he and I agree on. If there was a party somewhere between Labour and Conservative, I think we might find ourselves in it, or maybe we will just be in both—well, he cannot be, but that is by the way.

As I said, the people of Northern Ireland have been bitten hard. We have seen what happens when the United Kingdom signs a treaty with the European Union in good faith, only to find ourselves a slave to foreign diktats, with our internal trade disrupted, our state aid hampered and our constitutional place in this great Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland chipped away.

I have been to Gibraltar only once in my life, and that was with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I remember that Gibraltar drips Britishness, and I mean that constructively and positively. We were encouraged to meet the Royal Gibraltar Regiment and to know that we are a part of them. There is a bit of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in Gibraltar. It is all there, and Gibraltar is very close to our hearts.

When I look across the water at our loyal, steadfast fellow Brits on the Rock of Gibraltar, I do so with an eye of deep caution. I will make my point constructively and respectfully to the Minister. He knows I am very fond of him; in fact, we all are. In the past, he has reassured us that the agreement will bring “fluid” borders. He told us that it will boost the economy, eliminate long queues and align import duties so that ordinary people can do their daily shopping without a mountain of paperwork.

I do not doubt the good intentions of the Government and of the Minister in particular. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar and his Parliament have worked tirelessly, and they have even asked for a referendum on the final text to let the people have their democratic say. I praise them for that, and I thank them for all they have constructively done to try to find a way forward that protects them. We want to protect them as well.

We must look at the fine print of these 1,000 pages. The treaty proposes a hybrid governance model. It pulls Gibraltar into the Schengen area and places it under significant levels of EU law. We are talking about dual border control checks at Gibraltar airport, involving not just Gibraltarian officials but Spanish officials having their way on British territory, which concerns me.

What real safeguards do we have? If the European Court of Justice is given the final say on the interpretation of these laws, as I understand it will, how can we truly look the people of Gibraltar in the eye and say that their British sovereignty is uncompromised? That is the question. We cannot allow Spain to use the European Union’s legal machinery to slowly strangle the Rock’s independence and British identity, just as the Northern Ireland protocol attempted to separate my Strangford constituency and Northern Ireland from the rest of Great Britain.

The people of Gibraltar are fiercely, proudly and unapologetically British. Over the years, they rejected joint sovereignty by almost 99% in two separate referendums. That is the sort of election result we all need, and what encouragement it would be if it were to happen. They fly the Union Jack with a pride that matches any town or village in my constituency. I put up my Union flag over the weekend, as it is a special occasion with 12 July coming up—we always have it in place at this time of year.

Gibraltarians have stood by the United Kingdom through thick and thin. Their strategic military base remains a vital asset for NATO and the defence of the realm. The Rock, by its nature, conveys strength. When I was there with the armed forces parliamentary scheme we had the opportunity to go through some of the tunnels in the rock, and I can understand why it is a bastion of military strength.

While the treaty moves towards formal signature and parliamentary ratification under the CRaG process, I urge the Government not to rush this. Examine the treaty line by line and listen to the community’s concerns. I am a man of Scripture, as I know you and many others in the House are, Sir John. Psalm 62 says:

“He only is my rock and my salvation, my fortress; I shall not be…shaken.”

The Rock of Gibraltar is that very place; it stands firm and will not be shaken. We must stand steadfast and ensure that the United Kingdom’s sovereignty over Gibraltar is not just a symbolic phrase written on a piece of paper to save face, but a practical, iron-clad reality on the ground. Let us not make the same mistake twice; let us protect the Rock, its people and our great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

10:14

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

It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) on securing this important debate. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I had the great pleasure of visiting Gibraltar in July last summer, perhaps shortly before the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), and, like him, I got to experience the new border control operations that will be in place. I had the great pleasure of meeting multiple representatives, who spoke positively about the experience and the way in which the United Kingdom Government had ensured that, at every single stage of the negotiation that led to the agreement, Gibraltarians were present and gave their consent.

The Liberal Democrats welcome this agreement. It achieves the objective that matters above all others: preserving British sovereignty over Gibraltar while providing a practical solution to the problems that have hung over the territory since Brexit. I spent much of my academic career—I am a recovering academic—researching borders, sovereignty and contested territories, and I have spent time in Gibraltar recently and in the past and spoken to people who live with the consequences of the treaty, so I know all too well that borders are rarely just lines on a map. They are systems for managing movement, trade and security. When those systems fail, ordinary people end up paying the price.

That is precisely what happened after Brexit. Gibraltar found itself excluded from the trade and co-operation agreement, leaving 38,000 people living with years of uncertainty. As we have heard, the people of Gibraltar did not choose that outcome. Not only have they repeatedly rejected the prospect of joint sovereignty, as they did in 2002, but they overwhelmingly voted to remain in the European Union in 2016. Whatever our views on Brexit, we should recognise that Gibraltar has spent the past six years managing the consequences of decisions that it did not participate in making.

The treaty reflects one of the oldest truths in geopolitics: geography cannot be wished away. Gibraltar is politically British, geographically Iberian and economically dependent on the daily movement of people across the frontier. Good statecraft—of which these proposals are an example—reconciles those realities, rather than pretending that we can override them. The treaty deserves support—albeit not uncritical support—because it starts from the correct constitutional principle, which is that the freely expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar are paramount.

That principle is reflected in the agreement. Article 2 contains what many legal experts have described as the strongest “without prejudice” sovereignty clause ever included in an EU agreement relating to Gibraltar. Three independent KCs have concluded that the treaty makes no concession whatsoever on sovereignty. That legal certainty matters for all the reasons that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) outlined. That is why the agreement enjoys such strong unilateral support from Gibraltar’s Chief Minister and other representatives in the Parliament. Gibraltar’s Parliament and all three living former Chief Ministers agree that this is an appropriate deal. That consensus is highly unusual—Westminster might take note.

The agreement is equally clear on defence. The MOD has confirmed that the UK retains full freedom to operate from Gibraltar. British military capabilities remain sovereign and unconstrained, with Spain unable to impede British personnel or equipment. At a time of growing geopolitical instability across Europe and the Mediterranean, preserving Gibraltar’s strategic role in NATO is essential.

However, the possession and preservation of sovereignty alone is not enough. Sovereignty must also work—it must be practical. We have heard observations today not only about Gibraltar’s strategic importance, but about the sheer intensity of everyday cross-border movement: 15,500 people cross the frontier every single day. Those people staff Gibraltar’s hospitals, restaurants, financial services, construction industry and public services. Almost all food and medicines arrive in Gibraltar by road through Spain. That is why a functioning border is not just a convenience but an economic necessity. Gibraltarians understand better than most what happens when borders cease to function. Many have spoken to me about their recollections of the years after 1969, when the Spain frontier was closed, severing families, disrupting livelihoods and isolating Gibraltar economically and politically.

Even after that frontier fully reopened in 1985, political tensions have, at times, caused lengthy queues and disruption at the crossing. I have waited in those queues at various times. Gibraltar endured them for years, but its economy today is very different from the economy of the past. Thousands of workers now cross that frontier every day to sustain its economy and public services, which is precisely why this agreement matters so much.

The treaty has become even more necessary because Europe itself is changing the way its borders operate. The EU entry/exit system requires biometric registration of third-country nationals entering the Schengen area. That may work tolerably at airports—actually, I am not sure that it does, given the words of the chief executive of Aeroporti di Roma this week—but at one of Europe’s busiest land borders, it risks creating queues measured not in minutes but in hours.

Had this been left unresolved, Gibraltar would have faced severe disruption through no fault of its own. The agreement prevents that outcome and removes routine immigration and customs checks at the land frontier while keeping Gibraltar outside of the Schengen area. Gibraltar retains its own immigration laws and authorities. At Gibraltar international airport, British immigration controls will be carried out by Gibraltar officials before a Schengen check under the agreed arrangements. Spain has no unilateral power to refuse entry.

Equally important are the safeguards for Gibraltarians. Residents and Gibraltar identity card holders cannot be refused entry into Gibraltar, detained under those arrangements or subject to the EES or ETIAS systems. Those guarantees are practical expressions of sovereignty. The economic benefits are also equally significant. Without an agreement, Gibraltar faces prolonged uncertainty and significant economic harm. With the agreement, estimates suggest about £200 million could be added annually to Gibraltar’s economy—that is about 6% of its GDP—while boosting investment and confidence at no additional cost to the UK taxpayer.

The agreement also creates opportunities beyond the land frontier. Direct air services between Gibraltar and European destinations could strengthen tourism and economic connectivity. With more than 9.4 million visitors entering Gibraltar annually across the border, compared with around 184,000 by air, smoother movement would benefit Gibraltar’s economy while reducing friction for communities on both sides of the frontier.

Concerns have understandably been raised about the Schengen 90/180-day rule for air arrivals. However, it is worth saying that visitors stay on average just 3.4 days in Gibraltar—a small fraction of the 90-day allowance—and many already continue into Spain and use part of that allowance there. For most travellers the practical impact is therefore likely to be minimal. There are, however, still issues that deserve scrutiny.

Will the Minister clarify precisely how the Schengen 90/180-day rule will apply to British citizens spending time in Gibraltar? It is important that we avoid creating constitutional tests that have never existed elsewhere in the British family of overseas territories and Crown dependencies, with which the United Kingdom has never operated unrestricted freedom of movement. Territories such as the Falklands—as I know all too well—have long maintained their own immigration laws and entry requirements, reflecting their distinct constitutional status and circumstances. Gibraltar has likewise always controlled its immigration arrangements.

The question is therefore not whether Gibraltar should have border controls, but whether those controls serve Gibraltar’s interests while fully preserving British sovereignty. Notwithstanding the clarification that I just sought from the Minister, the treaty strikes that balance. Implementation must be undertaken in close co-operation and partnership with Gibraltar’s Government and its business community. Ultimately, this agreement will be judged by whether the borders work smoothly for those who depend on it every day.

Gibraltar illustrates a wider truth about Brexit. Like the Windsor framework, this agreement is an intelligent and pragmatic attempt to solve problems that Brexit created. Geography has not changed—Gibraltar remains politically British while being physically connected to the European continent, and good diplomacy recognises both those realities—but we cannot continue to resolve the consequences of Brexit one border at a time. I contend that the United Kingdom needs a broader reset with our European colleagues.

If I may be so bold, I suggest a growth and defence partnership with our European neighbours—something I have spent a lot of time trying to fashion over the past few months. That would involve entry into the single market and a relationship with the EU’s customs union, which would restore and revive our relationship and solve many of the challenges that we have spoken about in the debate. I welcome this agreement, which protects sovereignty, Gibraltar’s economy and British strategic interests, and, above all, respects the wishes of the people of Gibraltar.

10:25

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I visited Gibraltar as a guest of the Government of Gibraltar.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this important debate at a pivotal moment for Gibraltar. It is somewhat extraordinary that, although the provisional application of the UK-EU Gibraltar treaty is expected in a little more than a week’s time, Parliament has still not been afforded a meaningful opportunity to scrutinise an agreement of such significance.

Let me begin by making one thing absolutely clear: we welcome the fact that a deal has been reached. Businesses in Gibraltar and across the UK, frontier workers, and British citizens travelling to Gibraltar need certainty. Above all, Gibraltar deserves certainty about its future. This agreement helps to provide that by giving businesses, residents and those who rely on the frontier a clearer framework for the future. I am also proud of the work undertaken by the previous Conservative Government. Those negations were never straightforward, as I know from personal experience. They sought to balance Gibraltar’s prosperity with the practical realities of the frontier, our constitutional responsibilities as a sovereign power and our unwavering commitment to Gibraltar remaining British for as long as the people of Gibraltar wish.

Welcoming a treaty does not mean dispensing with scrutiny, however. On 23 April, the Government of Gibraltar confirmed that the treaty had received unanimous approval from all EU member states, and that provisional application is expected to begin on 15 July. We know, because the Government of Gibraltar have helpfully kept parliamentarians informed, that the treaty will be formally signed before then, although even now no date has been publicly confirmed. We also know that the final sections of the frontier fence will be removed on 15 July, allowing fluid movement across the land border for frontier workers, residents and visitors, before the treaty proceeds towards full ratification in the following months.

Those are constitutional, economic and practical developments of huge significance, yet it has been the Government of Gibraltar, rather than His Majesty’s Government, who have kept Parliament involved as events have unfolded. That should concern every Member of this House, regardless of their party, because Ministers are accountable to this Parliament for United Kingdom treaty obligations. Since the agreement was announced, Members of both Houses have had to rely on urgent questions, oral questions and written parliamentary questions simply to establish the Government’s intentions. I know that the Minister is aware of that.

When the draft treaty was published on 26 February, the Minister assured the House that the Government welcome scrutiny, but the answers that we have received have too often amounted to little more than references to previous statements or generic replies that fail to engage with the substance of the questions being asked. That is not meaningful scrutiny, and it is not how Parliament should be treated.

The question before us is no longer whether there should be a treaty; it is whether Parliament will be permitted to scrutinise it properly before it takes effect. The Government have repeatedly said that they are committed to transparency and respect for Parliament. If that commitment means anything, it must surely apply to a treaty of this constitutional significance.

We are now only days away from provisional application, and fundamental questions remain unanswered. Parliament still does not know when the treaty will be signed, when it will be laid before Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, whether elements of the agreement will begin operating before Parliament has completed its scrutiny, and what opportunities Members will have to debate it further. These are not procedural technicalities. The CRaG exists because Parliament recognised that international treaties should be subject to democratic scrutiny before they bind the UK. If substantial parts of the treaty are allowed to take effect before Parliament has had a meaningful opportunity to consider it, many will understandably question what practical value that scrutiny is intended to have.

For those reasons, I hope the Minister will answer some straightforward questions today. Will the Government commit to providing time for a full, substantive debate on the treaty in both Houses before provisional application begins? When precisely do Ministers intend to lay the treaty before Parliament under CRaG? What assessment have the Government made of the constitutional implications of allowing provisional application before Parliament has completed its scrutiny under that Act? Do Ministers genuinely believe that the standard 21-day scrutiny period is sufficient for an agreement of this constitutional, economic and strategic importance? I believe those are reasonable questions that parliamentarians should not have to drag out of the Government.

This debate is about more than process. As we have heard, companies involved in cross-border trade need certainty and clarity about customs arrangements, regulatory compliance and border procedures. Ministers have spoken about the opportunities the agreement presents, but opportunities must be matched by preparedness. Businesses cannot prepare for new arrangements if Government guidance does not arrive until implementation is already under way, and Parliament cannot properly represent those affected if Ministers do not provide the information necessary for proper scrutiny.

The Government should therefore answer some practical questions today. Can the Minister explain in clear terms whether any new checks, controls or administrative procedures will govern the movement of British troops or military equipment to and from the military base? Given Gibraltar’s strategic importance, Members will rightly wish to understand exactly what arrangements are envisaged. Will the Government set out the precise process by which British goods will enter Gibraltar under the new arrangements, whether by land, sea or air, and explain how they differ from the arrangements that businesses operate under today? What engagement have the Government had, both before and since the treaty was announced, with British businesses that export or import goods into Gibraltar? What assessment have Ministers made of the readiness of those businesses for implementation, and what support is being provided?

The Government have spoken confidently about the benefits of closer co-operation with Spain, but what contingency plans are in place should Spain seek to create difficulties or exert pressure once the frontier fence has been removed? Gibraltar’s scrutiny and prosperity should never depend on good will alone. The Minister should also explain the rationale behind the governance arrangements for Gibraltar airport in the treaty, including the proposed operating structure, and why Ministers believe those arrangements are in Gibraltar’s long-term interests. What discussions have His Majesty’s Government had with the Government of Gibraltar regarding the parliamentary lock that the Gibraltar Parliament has indicated it wishes to have over implementation of the treaty? How do Ministers intend to respect Gibraltar’s democratic institutions as the agreement process progresses?

I would like to place on the record my appreciation for a significant recent development. The Government of Gibraltar have announced that Gibraltar has been removed from Spain’s list of non-co-operative jurisdictions, bringing to an end a designation that had remained in place since 1991. That is undoubtedly welcome news, and it represents another positive step in strengthening Gibraltar’s international standing. Once again, however, many Members first learned of that through media reports rather than from the Government. Gibraltar occupies a unique constitutional position, and the UK retains responsibility for its external relations. It is therefore entirely reasonable for Parliament to expect timely information from our Government on developments of such significance.

No one in this House wishes to see unnecessary delay or to undermine the progress that has been made. However, supporting Gibraltar and scrutinising the Government are not competing objectives; they are complementary responsibilities. I hope the Minister will use this debate not simply to repeat previous statements, but to provide the timetable for scrutiny that Parliament has been seeking for many months. Please tell us, Minister, when the treaty will be signed, when it will be laid before Parliament, what opportunities Members will have to debate and vote on it and why the Government believe that Parliament should be expected to scrutinise a treaty only after key parts of it have already begun to take effect.

Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham for securing this important debate, which has provided an opportunity to discuss the treaty. But as I have set out, this debate should not take the place of the vital, detailed scrutiny of the treaty that this place deserves. I await the Government’s setting out the detail; now is the Minister’s opportunity to do so. If the Government are confident that the treaty commands support, they should be confident enough to subject it to full parliamentary scrutiny before its provisions take effect.

10:35

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

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this debate. I pay tribute to his work as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar, and to that of its chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, which have been broadly in the spirit that I and the people and Government of Gibraltar would have hoped for: reasonable, fair scrutiny with broad support. It is important to emphasise that, because it sends a strong signal that complements the strong support of the democratically elected Parliament of Gibraltar for the draft UK-EU agreement.

I will respond to specific points as I go, but will start by paying a tribute to all those involved in the process over many years: His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar—the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister, the Attorney General and all their officials and teams—and our teams in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, particularly the senior officials who did sterling work in taking us through the detailed process. The treaty is a big one, with many associated administrative and practical arrangements. I know there have at times been frustrations about the length of the process and the detail, but it was important to get it right. This is about the future of Gibraltar and our relationship with the EU, Gibraltar and Spain.

I also pay tribute to our friends in the EU and Spain for the constructive spirit they have shown throughout the discussions and negotiations. We have come to a conclusion that is beneficial for people, which is what we all sought to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) made a party political point but an important one: in the end, this was about people and businesses, their lives and their ability to move, to trade and to get on, without the uncertainty caused by Brexit.

Gibraltar was not included in the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement that was negotiated by the previous Government following the UK’s departure from the EU. That meant serious uncertainty for the people and businesses of Gibraltar, which is why we have worked together to find a practical and lasting solution that protects Gibraltar’s economy and way of life for the long term, while crucially safeguarding our sovereignty.

We had previously reached the provisional and political agreements, and have been involved in the detailed process for some time. We have now achieved an agreement that ensures the free circulation of people and goods between Gibraltar and the EU by removing the physical barriers on the border between Gibraltar and Spain. I cannot overemphasise the importance of that, not least because of what the people of Gibraltar went through for so many years. That will mean jobs, investment and stability, not just for Gibraltar but—it is important to emphasise—for the whole region. That involves EU Schengen area rules relating to border checks being applied in Gibraltar and a customs union being established between the EU and Gibraltar. That will bring certainty to the territory.

Let me turn first to some of the questions about scrutiny; I will answer the questions from the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), in detail in due course. The CRaG Act 2010 gives statutory form to long-standing constitutional conventions on the scrutiny of treaties and is the process we are legally obliged to follow to ratify treaties. Despite the very particular approach of the CRaG system, transparency has been at the heart of our approach. I gently rebuff some of shadow Minister’s comments, because we published the draft text of the agreement on 26 February, and I gave an oral statement to the House on the same day. We have had this debate today and I have appeared before Committees and answered many questions. We have attempted at all stages to be transparent and open. I have offered private briefings to shadow ministerial colleagues and the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel).

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Minister set out the timeline today and assure us—

[Stephen Doughty]

indicated assent.

[Wendy Morton]

He is nodding, so I will sit with bated breath.

[Stephen Doughty]

I will come back to the timeline in due course. It is quite right that throughout the process Parliament has provided scrutiny, as it has been doing in this debate, which is very welcome.

[Edward Morello]

Perhaps it is useful to point out that the Foreign Affairs Committee does not, as standard, hold evidence sessions on every treaty that is laid before Parliament under the CRaG process. The Minister and the Chief Minister very kindly appeared before us to give evidence, and frankly a lot of the questions that the shadow Minister asked were probably answered in that evidence session.

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed; that is a fair point, and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman making it. We did appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee, and we have endured scrutiny in the media and from businesses and others—and quite rightly so. On my visit to Gibraltar, I met with the leader of the opposition, businesses and others, who had legitimate and reasonable questions to ask. We have done our best to answer those transparently and in good faith.

What matters most at this point is providing clarity and certainty for the people and businesses of Gibraltar, which is why I am pleased to say that the UK and EU will provisionally apply the agreement from 15 July—next week. This is an important milestone for Gibraltar. The UK and the EU, along with Gibraltar and Spain, are committed to fully ratifying the treaty as soon as possible, and we are all working at pace to achieve that.

My understanding is that the process in the European Parliament will take place this autumn, up to December. We will be operating under a similar timeline, in accordance with the discussions we are having with the relevant Committees and others regarding the CRaG process. Once signed, the treaty will be provided immediately to the UK Parliament, and I will make the appropriate statements to signify that moment. We will then have the CRaG process and ratification. I hope that satisfies Members who asked about the timeline, but I will go into a little more detail later.

Much of the legislative and operational work to bring the agreement into force is being led by His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, and they have made very strong progress in a short space of time. They have already put in place their main primary legislation and are working tirelessly on the many practical steps needed to apply the agreement. I am pleased to say that there is very strong co-operation between the Spanish and Gibraltarian authorities across areas of shared implementation, including the physical infrastructure works required at Gibraltar’s airport. We stand ready to assist in whatever way we can, and have done so throughout the process.

It is important to emphasise, as many Members have, that negotiations on sovereignty were never on the table during the treaty negotiations, and that was not in doubt. The agreement is about technical arrangements that govern Gibraltar’s relationship with the EU. I appreciate the compliments paid by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), and others about article 2 of the treaty, which makes it clear that the agreement in no way affects our sovereignty position on Gibraltar and cannot be used to challenge it.

As I set out both in opposition and now in government, we remain committed to the Gibraltar double lock, which means we would never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes, and we would never enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar was not content. The sovereignty of Gibraltar is protected in the treaty for the long term. If it had not been, we would not have agreed it.

Many Members raised important points about the military base. Safeguarding the operational autonomy of the UK’s military facilities has been a red line for the UK Government throughout our discussions. The agreement protects that autonomy and allows our facilities to continue their vital contribution to regional security and prosperity. The Ministry of Defence has been closely involved in the negotiations at every stage. We have the full backing of the Defence Secretary and defence teams on this agreement. I am glad that that was confirmed by colleagues’ experiences of engaging with the Commander British Forces in Gibraltar.

The agreement also removes immigration checks at Gibraltar’s land border with Spain. That is crucial for the nearly 15,000 people who cross the border every day for work, and for protecting Gibraltar’s economy. To unlock the benefits of a fluid border, travellers arriving at the airport will undergo dual immigration controls. Under this system, visitors have the benefit of crossing freely into Spain without checks. Time spent in Gibraltar will therefore count towards the EU’s 90/180 days requirement. The Government of Gibraltar have assessed that the significant impact of an open border outweighs any challenges that might result from it. Because Gibraltar automatically already applies a period for UK residents coming into Gibraltar, it has been pointed out that, practically, this means very little. It does not, of course, affect the residents of Gibraltar itself. The agreement delivers a solution that the Government of Gibraltar want, and the Chief Minister has been very clear on that.

The treaty has a series of benefits for wider relationships. The shadow Minister rightly pointed out the welcome announcement regarding non-co-operative jurisdictions from our friends in Spain. That is important to Gibraltar and is a testament to how things have moved forward. We have seen tangible and positive developments in our relationship with our friends in Spain across a whole series of issues that matter to people here in the UK, including our co-operation in business, security and trade. That is welcome. The treaty is, of course, one of the crucial aspects of the reset in our relationship with the European Union. This agreement is good for Gibraltar and for the United Kingdom, and it is good for all the people, including our people. Right hon. and hon. Members have accurately reflected the work and statecraft that has gone into it and the practical benefits it will deliver. This marks a turning point.

Before I conclude, let me respond to some of the specific points that have been made. I have answered the questions about the timing of the CRaG process, but Members will appreciate that bringing a treaty of this complexity into effect has required a set of interlocking processes. We are not the sole guardians of the process; there are processes in Gibraltar, Spain and the European Union, and the treaty can be signed only once those processes—including the EU’s translation of the text into 23 other official languages—have concluded and been aligned. Rather than delaying the publication until that point, we chose to bring forward the draft treaty so that Members could scrutinise it and see the detail.

I assure Members that the text published in February remains substantively unchanged. The intervening period has been used for legal verification, technical checks and the preparation of authentic language versions. That is one of the reasons why the final treaty will be published and signed imminently. The provisional application will take place from 15 July, and we will then make the appropriate statements in this House and start the CRaG process, in line with discussions with the secretariat of the European Affairs Committee regarding the practical arrangements.

[Wendy Morton]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

I am conscious that in between there will be a recess. I will ensure that that does not affect this House’s ability to have the proper period to scrutinise under the CRaG process. That may be what the shadow Minister was going to ask.

[Wendy Morton]

It was along those lines, but for absolute clarity, does the Minister envisage the treaty coming forward before we break for recess?

[Stephen Doughty]

I do envisage the treaty coming forward, but I want to ensure that we do not start the clock and then Members feel they do not have a chance to scrutinise it over the recess. The minute that the treaty is signed, it will be provided—within appropriate transmission times—to both Houses. We will ensure that we are in close contact with the Committees and that we have an agreement on the CRaG process, and we will make the appropriate statements. Sir John, you will know that the timing of statements and debates in the House is a matter for the usual channels between the Government and the Opposition, but I do not want to shy away from scrutiny, and that is why I welcome this debate. We will not try to curtail the CRaG process in any way. In practical terms, this treaty will have had far more pre-scrutiny and Committee scrutiny in this House than many other international treaties. I hope that provides some assurance to colleagues.

Members asked a number of other questions. I have covered the questions about article 2 and sovereignty. I was asked about future scenarios that might emerge with respect to the relationship between the UK and Gibraltar. It is important to emphasise that the Gibraltar Parliament unanimously passed a motion calling on the UK to ratify the treaty, subject to the existence of a concordat assuring that the UK can exercise its powers in the treaty only with the consent of His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, and that the people of Gibraltar have the right to determine in a referendum whether the treaty should be terminated in the future. Obviously, we hope to never get to that scenario, but it is important that we have those safeguards in place.

To answer the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley asked, I quote from my letter to the Chief Minister on 2 March:

“It is therefore politically inconceivable that in any normal circumstances, should a democratically elected Government in Gibraltar or indeed the Gibraltarian people determine that this agreement does not serve their interests, His Majesty’s Government would not take action.”

I hope that provides assurance, as it is certainly the tenor of my discussions with the Chief Minister and, indeed, of the discussions he has had in the Gibraltar Parliament.

I have touched on the questions about the 90-in-180-day rule, but for the record, under the agreement, non-resident British nationals can visit Gibraltar for up to 90 days, as is the case today—there is no change in that—but, as visitors will be free to enter Spain without checks, time spent in Gibraltar will count towards the 90-in-180-day requirement of the EU. Importantly, immigration into Gibraltar is and will remain the responsibility of the Government of Gibraltar. The agreement provides a unique solution, a fluid border, and puts different procedures and processes in place.

On the military base, there are lots of details, but I was asked a specific question, so I want to be clear that UK military personnel entering Gibraltar will not be subject to Schengen checks under the proposed arrangements. That will enable our facilities to continue their vital operations without interference or interruption. The posting of UK military personnel serving in Gibraltar and their families will not depend on Schengen border checks; as is the case now, the UK will decide who will serve in Gibraltar. We also have important agreements on goods entering the base. As colleagues will understand, we do not disclose sensitive operational details, but we have agreed special arrangements to ensure the functioning of the new arrangements.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. I asked him about officials from Spain being at border control posts alongside officials from Gibraltar to oversee that work, and about the impact and influence that they may have. Can he confirm that that will be the case? What influence will the Spanish officials have? Will they oversee or counteract Gibraltar border control and customs officials?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. The practical checks that take place at the airport are not dissimilar to the juxtaposed controls at St Pancras and elsewhere. We tried to come up with a practical solution to the new arrangement, and it is one that has the full agreement of the Government of Gibraltar. Everyone arriving at the airport will undergo Gibraltar immigration controls carried out by Gibraltar officials, followed by Schengen entry checks carried out by Spanish officials on behalf of the EU. On completion of those checks, individuals will be able to enter both Gibraltar and the Schengen area.

As I said, that set-up is similar—it is not exactly the same—to how we make the arrangements work practically at St Pancras. Of course, 18,000 people use Eurostar every day, and we have heard about the 15,000 people crossing the border in Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar and the different authorities are working closely on a whole series of practical and physical arrangements for how things will work—I will not go into the detail of all the different maps, plans and architect’s drawings that we scrutinised in great detail.

As was rightly pointed out by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, another benefit of the agreement is that, subject to commercial interest, new flight routes into Gibraltar from other areas within the Schengen area could open up. Again, this will provide an economic boost and benefit. I pay particular tribute to the Deputy Chief Minister, who has taken a keen role in relation to the airport and its functioning over the years; it has been at the heart of the agreement throughout.

On customs checks and the business impacts, I recognise the points made by Members about the questions they have been asked by businesses. The UK Government and the Government of Gibraltar are confident that overall, the economic benefits of the agreement will massively outweigh any issues with changes. Obviously, there will be implementation periods for the taxation arrangements, which are for Gibraltar to decide on; for example, there will be a period coming up to the VAT rate changes.

On customs checks for businesses, to allow for free flow across the Gibraltar-Spain border, goods in Gibraltar must meet EU standards. Over half of all goods in Gibraltar arrive from the EU and already meet those standards, as do many others that arrive from outside the EU. They are going to be pre-cleared away from the land border by relevant customs officials. The Government of Gibraltar fully support that new model, which brings in the benefits of an open border and protects Gibraltar’s economy.

Points were made about security. I think there is a steadfast commitment on both sides to work together, with practical arrangements between law enforcement agencies. None of us wants anything going on in Gibraltar or indeed over the border in Spain that will put anyone at risk. We all know the types of threats, which we share. That is at the heart of the wider discussions we are having with the EU about how we better align on law enforcement and security and defence.

I want to conclude by thanking everybody for their scrutiny, which has been hugely important. I thank the all-party group for its consistent engagement over many years, and I thank friends in the Gallery for their engagement. I really do think this is a milestone moment in finalising something that was left undone by Brexit. The agreement will have practical benefits for the people of Gibraltar, for the people of the whole region, for the United Kingdom, and for the UK and the EU. There are wins across the board in the agreement. I very much hope that Members will engage with the CRaG process as it goes forward. I will keep the House fully informed, as appropriate, the minute the treaty is signed and deposited. With that, I thank Members for their contributions.

10:56

[Martin Vickers]

At the outset I expressed the hope that this would be an interesting and informative debate, and I think all Members would agree that that has been the case. The essence of the debate, as we have just heard from the Minister, has been about sovereignty, which was one of the most important issues that we debated on our recent visit. One thing that the Chief Minister was keen to point out at the airport was the positioning of the flags. As people progress through the various stages at the airport, flags remind people that they are on Gibraltarian/British territory, with the Union flag and the Gibraltar flag prominently displayed.

Most importantly, though, the Chief Minister said the treaty is about the people of Gibraltar and the benefits that they will accrue from it. Clearly, they want the certainty that it provides, but there are also day-to-day benefits. One that I noted when we met the Health Minister was that the treaty will allow ambulances to move more freely between Spain and the Rock. That is clearly a practical advantage to the citizens of Gibraltar, whose loyalty to the British Crown is certainly appreciated by those of us who have been to Gibraltar for national day. That is something that we want to maintain.

I thank all those who have taken part in the debate, and in particular the Minister for his comprehensive response, and I thank everyone—those on the British side, as well as the Chief Minister and his colleagues in Gibraltar—who took part in the treaty negotiations. We have had an interesting and informative debate this morning and I look forward to further discussions. As the Minister outlined, the process will continue.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar.

Defibrillators in Police Vehicles

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered defibrillators in police vehicles.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am delighted to have secured this debate on defibrillators in the back of police vehicles. I have been pushing for this for some time, and it is helpful that the debate is taking place on International Paramedics Day, when we celebrate the work of people who intervene to save lives.

I pay tribute to Naomi Rees-Issitt, who tragically lost her son Jay on new year’s day 2022. Jay was unlucky in a number of ways. He was unlucky to have a cardiac arrest at the age of 18. He was extremely unlucky that the defibrillator that could have saved his life was only two minutes away, locked behind the gates of a school. His friends who were with him supported him with cardiopulmonary resuscitation, but he was unlucky that the ambulance was significantly delayed. Jay was unlucky that there was a stabbing incident in Coventry that evening, which meant that many ambulances had been relocated to deal with that incident. Jay was also unlucky that there was a backlog of patients being unloaded from ambulances at the nearest hospital, which, again, resulted in delays to intervention for his cardiac arrest.

The ambulance arrived 24 minutes after Jay’s collapse. Sadly, it was too late. The police vehicle turned up 14 minutes after his collapse, however. According to the coroner, it was a one-in-a-million situation: if there had been intervention with a defibrillator at that point, Jay would have recovered from his cardiac arrest. That demonstrates the need for defibrillators in the back of response vehicles. They could have a serious impact, saving hundreds of lives up and down the United Kingdom.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Does he agree that as well as defibrillators, there should be bleed kits in the back of police cars? Yeovil town council has introduced bleed kits across the town, as well as defibrillators. Does he agree that we need both in police vehicles?

[Steve Darling]

I have raised that very issue with Devon and Cornwall constabulary. Following an awful incident, a grieving mother is trying to ensure that we have stab kits across the United Kingdom. As I am sure my hon. Friend has done, I have corresponded with Avon and Somerset police on this issue. Bleed kits can save lives. I have had conversations with the security staff who support us. It is quite shocking to learn what they have in their bags in case there is an incident at an MP’s constituency surgery or another event. Such measures should not be focused solely on people like us; we need to make sure that there are opportunities to support people out in the community.

Going back to the serious issue of cardiac arrests, the medical evidence shows that for every minute without intervention, there is a 10% reduction in survival for individuals.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. By equipping every police vehicle with a device, such as the CU Medical iPAD SP1 or the Defibtech Lifeline AUTO, we will expand our chain of survival on the roads. Our police officers are trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must give them the physical tools to ensure that when a father, mother or child collapses on our streets, they have the best possible fighting chance of returning home to their loved ones—the very thing he is trying to achieve?

[Steve Darling]

The hon. Member makes a valuable point. Resuscitation Council UK highlights that if there is an intervention within three to five minutes, the chances of survival are between 50% and 70%. It really is all about timing and how we can significantly impact that.

A survey that the all-party parliamentary group for defibrillators undertook with all police forces across the country found that less than 10% of response vehicles have defibrillators as standard. That is really disturbing, because the police are often the first on the scene, as was the case with Jay. Naomi’s Our Jay charity has done stellar work in assisting both Bedfordshire and Warwickshire police to get defibrillators in a number of their vehicles. That had an immediate impact on saving lives. Within days of them being put in the back of vehicles, there was clear evidence of the impact they made. I hope the Minister will take that into account.

Another important element is that when mapping out where defibrillators are in communities, we often find they are in more affluent areas. The more deprived communities have fewer defibrillators, for whatever reason.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is giving an impassioned speech. I share his sadness about the loss of Jay, whom he mentioned in his opening remarks.

In my constituency we did a defib dash, where I encouraged constituents to understand where their nearest community defibrillator was. The average return journey was 12 minutes by foot. In semi-rural constituencies like mine, adding a defib to the back of emergency vehicles would make a massive difference. Does the hon. Member agree that rural and semi-rural constituencies face an issue of access to defibs?

[Steve Darling]

The police are so often the first on the scene. It ends up being a postcode lottery, whether it is because of communities are rural, coastal or more deprived. I say to the Minister that by getting defibrillators in the back of police response vehicles, we will remove some of that postcode lottery from the system, because the police would be there to support people in their hour of need. They will also have the tools to support people more powerfully, rather than simply being able to undertake CPR. That will be a massive change for people.

I have talked to a local Devon charity called Jay’s Aim, which offers support across the south-west of England. It undertakes training for community groups on this issue and provides boxes in towns where people can access defibrillators. It shared with me that a number of the defibrillators boxes are, for good reason, hammered by the police. When the police go to an incident that may need a defibrillator, they quite rightly grab and use the one in a box near the police station. The charity has to replace loads of pads as a result. If that is not a canary in the coalmine, showing that there is a need for our policing service to be equipped with defibrillators in all response vehicles, I do not know what is.

In conclusion, I hope the Minister will ensure that we take the luck out of these situations and, through public policy, make real changes that impact on people’s lives. I am aware that in response to a written question on 27 April she said she was considering the pros and cons of providing defibrillators in the back of police vehicles, and would set out next steps. I hope she will use this debate to clearly set out some of those steps. I encourage her to ensure that it is not just standard but mandatory for all police response vehicles to have defibrillators.

11:10

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) on securing this important debate. I am grateful to him for doing so, and to other Members for contributing. I know that if this had been a wider debate, other Members would probably have wanted to speak in it—several Members feel very strongly about this issue.

The hon. Member for Torbay talked at length about the Our Jay Foundation and about the death of Jamie Rees, or Jay, who died when he was just 18. I have had the privilege of meeting Jamie’s mum, stepdad and godmother on two occasions. I discussed what they are doing and trying to achieve, and what the Home Office can perhaps do. For someone to be able to experience the death of their child and put it to positive use, in order to try to get something positive out of their child’s death, is enormously powerful and very brave. Indeed, not many of us would be capable of doing that if we lost a child. I join the hon. Member in praising Jamie’s family for what they are doing; it is enormously powerful and enormously impactful.

As the hon. Member said, the foundation has been raising money; I think it has raised about £800,000 to fund defibrillators and it has now funded hundreds of them. It also has an evidence base, which was shared with me, showing the number of lives that have been saved as a result of those defibrillators. There is a conversation to be had here, and it is one that we are actively having.

Last year, the Home Office funded 750 defibrillators that we gave to police—that happened before I became the Minister, so I cannot claim any credit for it at all. There was no stipulation on where the defibrillators were placed. Some will be in police vehicles and some, I suspect, will be in police buildings, but we provided those 750 defibrillators. I know my predecessor as the Minister for Policing and Crime, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), met representatives of the Our Jay Foundation as well and was very moved by them. Providing those defibrillators was a step in the right direction.

As I understand it—I will write to the hon. Member for Torbay if my statistics are wrong—27% of police vehicles now have defibrillators. He cited a figure of 10%, so I will check that and write to him if I am wrong, but I think it a slightly higher proportion than that.

We are having a conversation with police. If there is a debate here—and I have talked to the foundation about this—it is because there is a slight nervousness from some parts of the police about the role of policing versus the role of other emergency services. There are also questions about the ability to train police in many different aspects of first aid, and where their role ends and that of the ambulance begins.

[Steve Darling]

I thank the Minister for allowing me to quiz her further. Can she expand on that point? Is the pushback from the National Police Chiefs’ Council, from lower levels within policing or from Government Ministers? Anyone can use a defibrillator, because it walks them through it. This is not about additional training on how to use defibrillators; it is about the availability of defibrillators where there is a crisis. Defibrillators need to be in the right place at the right time, and I cannot think of a better place than the boot of a police car.

[Sarah Jones]

It is not a comprehensive view across policing; there is a general concern about the role of policing versus other emergency services. We often have a wider debate within policing about the huge quantity of time that is spent responding to mental health issues, when other services should be doing that, so there is a general nervousness about that.

I am in the process of writing to police forces and having a conversation with them, so that we can answer the hon. Gentleman’s point and find out whether there is a concern when it comes to defibrillators. The Our Jay Foundation would say that, where it has engaged with police forces and given them defibrillators, that has been welcomed and it is useful. I want to find out what the concerns are, if they exist, and I am in the process of doing that.

I have said to the Our Jay Foundation—and I also say it to the hon. Member for Torbay and others here today—that of course we want every piece of first-aid equipment that could possibly save lives to be as widely available as possible. In police cars there are already first aid kits, and a lot of police officers carry tourniquets. It is not uncommon for police to conduct CPR on people relatively regularly; that has to be their job when they arrive before other emergency services.

The step to then funding defibs—since we are talking about the funding question here—and putting them into all response cars or a proportion of response cars is the next stage we will look at. There are two stages. The first is talking to police to see what they think. As we have already given the police 750 defibs, it would be interesting to understand what they have been using them for.

Moving on to the next stage, we are going through a very significant period of reform, setting up a national police service. That service will procure the kit we need for the whole of policing, so it presents a really good opportunity to consider what should be standard in all our police vehicles, response cars and uniforms, and to have a conversation with the police. We are going to have a national police service and make decisions nationally about what we need across the police service, and whether we want to use some of our funding to put defibs into all police cars.

[Steve Darling]

I know timescales are tricky, but can the Minister provide some rough timescales on the different steps? I understand that the new national police force and procurement are a bit more distant, but can she tell us what timescales she is working to, at least on the first steps she alluded to?

[Sarah Jones]

We will engage with policing over the next few months, so that will be done relatively quickly, and we will see what people come back with.

The national police service is not that far away. We will hopefully introduce legislation in September to set it up, and there are things that we will be thinking about, doing and working towards before we set up the establishment itself, to bring together aspects of the organisations that will become part of it. For example, BlueLight Commercial, which does a lot of the procurement now, will become part of the national police service. This is an opportunity for us to ask collectively what a good police car looks like and what kind of car we need, and to have a conversation about whether we put defibs into all police cars. There is obviously a cost, and if that money is spent on defibs it will not be spent on something else, so I want us to make the decision in the right way.

I suspect the hon. Gentleman will come back to me even if I do not do this, but I am happy to let him and the APPG know how our conversations go with policing and how we progress this work. I cannot promise that we will do what he and the Our Jay Foundation want, but I can promise that we are actively looking at it. We have already invested in defibs for policing. The Our Jay Foundation is building an evidence base from what it is doing with police forces, and we will take that very seriously.

Of course, we want to do everything we can to save lives. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) talked about bleed kits, and we are looking at those. There are campaigning organisations, also run by people who have sadly lost loved ones, putting bleed kits into police cars and many other public places, and those are also very useful when it comes to saving lives. We have decisions to make and I am actively looking at these things. I am very happy to keep talking to the hon. Member for Torbay as we progress.

Question put and agreed to.

11:22

Sitting suspended.

Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

14:30

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

It is a rather glorious day, so if people would like to remove their jackets, they should please feel free to do so.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policy on AI and its impact on society.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I think we all agree that AI is a transformational technology with the potential to bring many benefits to our society, but to fully realise them we will require the Government to look at radical changes to taxation, welfare and our industrial strategy. Everyone in the UK needs to benefit from a managed AI transition that puts workers and human dignity at its heart. It must make the world fairer, not more unequal, and it should give UK citizens a meaningful say in decisions that will affect their lives.

Evidence from the New Contract, a pro-worker AI campaign organisation, reveals that the public are deeply suspicious about AI. Around six in 10 people expect the gains to flow to wealthy investors and big corporations, while just 7% think they will be shared fairly across our society. Understandably, seven in 10 workers are worried about the impact of AI on their jobs. Even the Foreign Secretary said recently that AI poses a Hiroshima-style threat to humanity unless global rules are put in place.

In today’s digital age, a cartel of technology giants—Google, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon and Apple—wield extraordinarily influence over our lives online. These platforms have become so embedded in daily life that meaningful participation in society depends on using their services. Similarly, the digital infrastructure that facilitates our work and public services is now an essential layer of the economy, but that gives oligarchs like Elon Musk enormous power to distort public discourse. We have effectively subcontracted our right to information to a handful of big tech gatekeepers.

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

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point about big foreign tech companies. Does he believe that our dependency on six tech companies in all aspects of our lives poses a national security threat and needs to be assessed as such?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; I will deal with AI sovereignty a bit later in my speech.

We should ensure that, like a socialist Government’s approach to energy or water, the public have a stake in the development of AI technology, to ensure that the value it creates is captured and shared for the good of society as a whole. Previous waves of technological change have brought with them huge economic disruptions, but the human and social costs that followed were not inevitable. They were the product of political choices, as Governments left workers and communities to absorb the shocks alone.

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

The last time we saw a change of such potential scale was when we moved from being a manufacturing economy to being more of a service economy. There were trade-offs at that time, and some people, cities, towns and villages were left behind—including in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that on this occasion we can plan because we know it is coming? We need to be thinking about jobs, access and skills for younger people, and ensuring that the benefits are felt right the way across the country and not just clustered in one place.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point about no place being left behind as a result of the AI revolution. I will develop that point a later. We can already see the first signs of AI impacting on work here. We have record numbers of young people not in employment, education or training because many entry-level jobs have disappeared.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I spoke to him beforehand; he knows where I am coming from. My concern is for the young people of today looking for the jobs of tomorrow. My grandchildren will have to prepare themselves. We must try to equip young people. In the last few days the Belfast Telegraph reported that this may be the first time in a century that young people have lower scores in tests for memory, focus and reading than their parents. Is it not time for the Government to acknowledge the challenges and ensure that there are employment prospects for young people? If the hon. Gentleman’s objective is that, it is the right way to go.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Yes, young people and their employment prospects are intrinsically linked to the debate about the future of AI. The hon. Gentleman is right that we have to get that right for those people to have a future.

We also need the Government to introduce a raft of measures to manage AI-driven changes to work. Those measures should include an employment levy on companies that replace large numbers of workers with AI, training subsidies for displaced workers, redeployment programmes to move workers into sectors with skills shortages, and a job subsidy scheme for workers and companies at the sharp end of industrial change, along with, of course, stronger social security support for those who face unemployment.

We know that if it is left to the market, firms will often reach for the crudest form of automation, stripping out roles and degrading the work that remains. The alternative is that we start to advance the case for dignified work, and recognise that that will mean having meaningful worker involvement in every step of the process. The involvement of workers in adoption is often what turns a promising tool into a productive one. That is why I agree with the TUC that the Government should strengthen the Employment Rights Act 2025 to give workers a real say in decisions. There should be a duty on employers to disclose their use of AI, and a right for the workforce to be consulted and negotiate over how AI is introduced.

One of the biggest challenges of AI is to ensure that everyone gets a fair share of the gains. The AI and big tech corporations in the US stand shortly to become some of the wealthiest and most powerful private actors in history. Their wealth has been built on public research and public investment, as well as all our shared written inheritance, which has trained the models they use.

The fact that our tax system taxes income from work far more heavily than income from capital gives firms a direct tax incentive to automate a worker out of a job rather than employing them, and could see AI facilitate a further shift of national income away from labour and towards capital, eroding the tax base that funds the public services that we all need and want.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is focusing on employment and big tech companies; does he agree that we need to go a step back—back to school, teachers and training? Teachers need to prepare their pupils for the future with AI, and for what that means. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that that is something not for this Minister but perhaps for a Minister in another Department?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his second intervention—let us see whether he can make it a hat trick before I finish. The reality is that AI is here now. We have to deal with how it impacts on today’s workers and future workers as well. This is not one generation against another, and I know the hon. Gentleman understands that.

The Government could seek to equalise tax treatment, actively explore widening the digital services tax to include AI companies, which it currently excludes, and raise the level of the tax from 2% to the European average. We cannot allow the use of machines to be made artificially cheaper than employing people.

It is important to look at AI sovereignty, which the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) mentioned earlier. The UK is growing increasingly dependent on US tech, and owns little of the data infrastructure and AI models on which the future economy will increasingly rely. This repeats the pattern of recent decades in other sectors, whereby essential national infrastructure has passed into overseas ownership and money has flowed offshore, leaving British people with less and less control over the essentials of a good life. That dependence not only creates security risks, as has been mentioned, but prevents the UK from capturing and distributing any AI windfall.

We need to give UK companies a meaningful chance to compete. The Competition and Markets Authority could use existing powers to take on the concentration in the cloud market, which underpins the AI companies’ business models. A progressive sovereign AI programme should involve an industrial strategy that seeks to expand public investment in the sector and impose strict conditions on private access to public assets, alongside active support for models such as co-operatives, public interest companies and other democratic ownership models, so that the gains of AI can be captured and shared throughout the UK.

At the heart of this debate is the role of the public. Big decisions about AI, such as where data centres are built and how AI is deployed in public services, are being taken with little democratic input.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I apologise in advance, Ms McVey, that I need to go to a Select Committee so cannot attend the full debate. My hon. Friend is, as usual, right about everything. Does he agree that public resistance to the construction of data centres is due not just to concern about the impact on the environment, but to underlying public scepticism about the breathlessness with which politicians talk about economic growth driven by digital technology when we have an economy that has a completely unsustainable food system, is not delivering genuinely affordable homes, has rubbish public transport in many parts of the country, and is not delivering the basics?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

One data centre, even a modest one, uses the same amount of electricity as 100,000 homes. The bigger the data centre, the more electricity it uses. Very few of them run off renewables, so that is another issue we need to address. The communities that host the infrastructure see the costs, in water, energy and land, without getting any of the benefits that we have discussed.

These big debates are why the Government must embed ongoing public and democratic oversight of the AI transition and legislate for community benefit where infrastructure is built, including a share of the value created locally. We must ensure that the AI revolution does not lead to more power being in the hands of a few who can determine our future. Governments must build independent, publicly funded alternatives to ensure that AI is developed for the common good. Only public investment can support AI that prioritises social and environmental challenges. We need an “AI for the people” strategy—one that starts to recognise the challenges we face and has the ideas to meet those challenges head on.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

Order. I will call the Front Benchers from 3.30; I will not impose a fixed time limit, but about six or seven people want to speak.

14:44

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I rise in support of much of what the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) has said. He has done a service to this Chamber, and Parliament more generally, by highlighting the threats that AI will bring.

Perhaps I can set the scene by reminding Members present that it took 25 years for Parliament and successive Governments to recognise that the internet must be regulated. That is extraordinary. When I was in the IT industry back in the ’80s and ’90s, I became aware of the concept of the internet—before it was widely spoken about—and even then I knew the harm it might do.

In 2000, at the beginning of the new millennium, I was privileged to be able to speak at the Spalding Gentlemen’s Society, with which I do not imagine you are familiar, Ms McVey, but suffice to say it is a learned society of the old school—it now does admit women, you will be pleased to know. It has a lecture programme on all manner of things, and I was pleased to be invited to give the first lecture of the millennium. Then, I warned of what the internet might do. Most of the audience, by the way, disbelieved what I said. It was a very civilised meeting—it was not raucous in any way—but they could not quite come to terms with what I predicted.

What I predicted then has come to pass. What has occurred is the distortion of public discourse, the enabling of widespread fraud and the provision of the means for every imaginable form of harm, from hardcore pornography being available to children, to internet gambling addiction, suicide sites and much more. Now, the prospect of AI will make all that still more chilling. As the recognition of what is real and what is invented is increasingly blurred, it will become more and more difficult for people to navigate the inevitable vicissitudes that pervade every life.

Imagine a future where the once secure certainty of what really exists is so undermined that people can no longer believe what they are told and have no place to go to establish that certainty—the basis on which we all gauge reality and are able to live reasonably productive lives. I see wellbeing being affected by that detrimentally; unless the Government take very urgent and extremely serious action, that will happen far more quickly than anyone here envisages.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the primary obligations of any Government is to keep their citizens and the people living in their country safe from all avoidable harms? AI is a major potential cause of harm, and it is avoidable. Does he agree that the Government cannot wait 25 years to catch up?

[Sir John Hayes]

I absolutely agree. That is why I began by describing what has occurred over the last quarter of a century and the misunderstanding—a pervasive one that affected all political parties and Governments of all kinds—that a dangerous fascination with novelty was more important than the certainty that I have just outlined.

The hon. Member for Poole is right to issue a clarion call for action. Let me go into a little more detail. He is right, for example, that we have allowed a handful of multinational corporates, which have displayed a carelessness to the effects of what they do, to wield immense power—more power than national Governments. It is increasingly difficult for Governments to pull levers that affect these people, because they exist beyond the purview of this House or of any Government Minister. They have shown by their example that carelessness, and only when they have been prevented from doing harm have they ceased to do so.

I am delighted that the Government are now taking steps to prevent children from accessing social media and mobile telephones; I would like to go much further, actually, and I hope the Government will. I called for the ban on phones in schools, along with many other Members of this House, a long time ago. But AI makes all that more serious, because the AI available through that technology, which has the ability to distort the very nature of reality, will be immensely difficult to control. And yet we must try to do so. Legislation is not always the only means of doing that but, as the hon. Gentleman set out, it certainly must play a part.

Umberto Eco described the internet as the “empire of imbeciles”. Over time, it has become impossible to distinguish experts from idiots, and every bar-room bigot now has an audience of millions. Most people had a sense of proportion; my parents were working-class people who left school at 14, but they had a very good sense of what really mattered. Now we have elevated trivia to an extraordinary degree and, as a result, that sense of proportion, which was once taken as read, can no longer be guaranteed.

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

On the point about proportionality, a lot of concerns about AI have rightly been raised in the debate, but let me sound a more positive note about public services. In my constituency, North Kerrier integrated neighbourhood team, which covers one of the most deprived regions in the UK, is using Brave AI to identify frailer and more vulnerable patients earlier and thereby prevent avoidable hospital admissions. Given the opportunities of AI, and the risks the right hon. Gentleman is talking about in great detail, does he agree, particularly in relation to healthcare, that the right approach is proportionate regulation, so that we do not stifle innovation, but maintain public trust and safety?

[Sir John Hayes]

I know from my dealings with the hon. Gentleman that he is a good and effective Member of Parliament who takes a very responsible view of these things, but we must not let the virtues that he describes blind us to the vices. That is what happened with the internet. When I made that speech back in 2000, when people said, “But I can reunite with my family in Australia.” I replied, “Well, if they really wanted to unite with you, they wouldn’t have gone to Australia in the first place.” I remember Friends Reunited—as though we want to get in touch with people we were at primary school with. They look so different; that is frightening in itself. Why would we want to revisit our ancient history?

But that is all an aside. I think the hon. Gentleman is right, and of course it is true that there will be the advantages that he describes, particularly in the research field. My fear is that they will obscure, in the eyes of those who have the power to make a difference, the points that the hon. Member for Poole made. I hope that does not apply to this Minister, who I am sure is far more clear-sighted than that suggests.

Parliament and the Government need to act quickly and decisively to deal with the points that the hon. Member for Poole made and that I have attempted, imperfectly, to amplify. It is critically important to understand that although innovation may matter, ethics matter more; that science and technology are morally neutral and have no implicit ethic; and that what really counts is not what is new, but what is true.

14:53

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

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing it, and I agree with many of his remarks and those made by other speakers. I particularly agree with his remarks about the New Contract initiative.

The UK’s AI sector has grown 23 times faster than the rest of our economy. We must ensure continued investment and the realisation of productivity gains from appropriate use, but we must also secure greater domestic control and resilience, and mitigate near and later-term risks from inappropriate use, if we are truly to become an innovation nation. I believe that we must change our approach to AI, and I want to spend the time that I have setting out the case for doing that.

Above all, we must seek sovereignty as if we actually mean it. Supporting UK niches, such as photonics and quantum, is key to sovereignty and to boosting growth from Southampton to Sheffield and from Belfast to Birmingham, but we must recognise how crucial access to frontier models is to our sovereignty. The recent debacle with Fable 5 and Mythos 5 only serves to underline that. The sovereign AI fund needs a clearer rationale. It should be developing UK companies and partnerships, and public stakes should genuinely put our people and our places first.

We must also work more concertedly with allies to develop joint sovereign capability. AI development needs to be part of an economic security reset with the EU, and we need to be able to participate in the Scaleup Europe Fund. Interestingly, Mistral AI’s chief executive recently claimed that the EU has at most two years to build its own AI or become permanently structurally dependent on the US or China. The UK must be included in that EU-level debate before it is too late.

Delivering stronger sovereign control and resilience also means the Government putting their money where their mouths are and supporting UK AI and UK partnership AI in procurement. All Departments should be assessed publicly on that, and the Competition and Markets Authority should be engaged on how to ensure more advanced market commitments to support our sovereignty. We can learn from other countries on that. Look at France, which recently dropped Palantir from its intelligence services. Of course I realise that changes cause disruption, but we cannot work purely on the basis of cost or short-term capability any more. We have to make assessments on the basis of control and resilience, given their significance for our national interest.

In public services, we must move beyond no, low and performative adoption to appropriate and transparent adoption that puts people and places first. It is critical that the UK can deploy sufficient compute to support those aspirations. I hope that the AI Energy Council can develop plans for a line delivery of renewable energy and data centre projects, as well as fixing difficult issues such as demand modulation to unblock additional capacity. There can genuinely be a win-win here, but for that and greater adoption to be achieved, I agree with what others have said: we have to face up to public concern about the risks. We need only look at what is happening in Scotland right now to see that.

First, on unemployment, half of all UK workers feel that they will lose their job to AI. From what I can see, there is very mixed evidence about that so far, beyond the field of software development. Pleased as I was to see the Early Careers Jobs Alliance and the AI adoption insights agreement from the Government, we must go further. Lessons should be learned from the consultation on the social media ban, “Growing up in the online world: a national consultation”.

I would like to see the Government launch a consultation on starting work in a world of AI, so that we can involve young people who are worried about that, gather their good ideas and show that the Government are engaging with that crucial issue. We should be doing far more in our schools and colleges to prepare our children.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

AI is increasingly being used to make cutting-edge assistive technology for people with special educational needs and disabilities, but the industry is a bit of a wild west, and access for young people in areas such as Yeovil is uneven. Will the hon. Member join me in urging the Government to publish guidance for schools on best practices for AI assistive technology for SEND?

[Anneliese Dodds]

The hon. Member raises a really important point, and it is part of a broader picture. My understanding is that something like only half of all schools have an appropriate AI policy. Simply saying to students, “Don’t use AI”, having an unorganised approach to it, or just taking a company’s word for it without a broader set of guidance and frameworks for deployment is not supporting our children and young people. Saying, “Just don’t use AI”, when we know children and young people are using it, is not fair to them, and will do a disservice to our economy in the future.

Our children and young people need to understand how AI works, as well as the risks of cognitive offloading and the negative impacts on social interaction from inappropriate use. I also want to see us encouraging international discussion in the OECD and the United Nations about taxation—taxation of permanent establishment, capital gains and the cost of human labour compared with tokens. That does not need to have an immediate impact; we could set a threshold of employment impact to trigger a token tax, for example. However, we cannot run away from this debate, especially given how much services dominate our economy.

Secondly, we have to engage with concerns about the safety of frontier models. As I said many months ago alongside the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, just regulating applications after harm has been done is unacceptable. Grok should not have been able to produce 3 million non-consensual nudified images in the first place. New York, California, Illinois and the EU have moved towards approaches requiring mandatory assessment of frontier models, and we should too. We should place the AI Security Institute on a statutory footing as a first step, and we should use our presidency of the G20 next year to reinvigorate global attempts at co-ordination, which started with the Bletchley conference but have effectively stalled since. We can work with EU countries to do that as well as with nations from India to Brazil.

Thirdly, and finally, although AI can release huge productivity gains, we have to recognise that unscrupulous and inappropriate use is already imposing huge costs too.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am interested in the right hon. Lady’s comment on productivity, because it is one of the prevailing macroeconomic challenges facing this Government and previous Governments, as the stalling of productivity has been a problem across western economies for a while. It is true that AI might help, but it could also harm. Equipping people with skills is critical to building productivity, and dependence on AI may actually undermine people’s confidence and their skills over time.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I absolutely agree. That phenomenon of so-called cognitive offloading and the lack of scaffolding in skills is a genuine concern. Equally, we see how rapidly and accurately AI can assess tumour scans, for example, working with human beings to deliver the highest possible quality of healthcare. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) about the potential there. We need to have a sensible approach to this issue.

I also want to mention some additional harms. We are now seeing ubiquitous slop on the internet, AI-enabled fraud and cyber-attacks, and the impact of AI summaries on local media use as well, so I want to see the CMA using its powers for competition-focused action on strategic market status services. I want the Government to adopt a maximalist approach to the “Watch this Space” White Paper, and I want us to stop treating bots as separate, because AI is increasingly going to be integral to our interface with the internet, as well as to so much else, so we need to adopt a safety-by-design approach to online regulation, and that needs to recognise the increasing ubiquity of AI.

15:02

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), as well as his two friends and allies who have just spoken, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), on bringing this important subject to Westminster Hall. This is in danger of turning into one of those rare debates in Parliament where one learns something from everybody who speaks and we all come away better informed and equipped.

This subject is enormous, and it is only a 90-minute debate. It obviously will not be the last time we discuss these matters, and I freely confess to not being an expert on the subject. Like many colleagues, I am trying to educate myself more to understand better the implications, including the upside for productivity, the implications for energy and water, and the effect on all manner of things in the public and private spheres, such as healthcare, education, international relations, and foreign and security policy and so on. I am no expert, but one thing I have learned is that no one knows what the societal effect of AI is at this moment in time. A lot of people have a story to tell, but no one really knows. That is one of the reasons why we have to keep coming back to these subjects as our understanding iterates and evolves.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The right hon. Gentleman says no one knows, but throughout history, when we have approached technologies or situations that we have never experienced before, we have done scenario planning and risk assessments, and we have prepared as best as possible for scenarios that may be plausible or possible. Does he agree that when it comes to AI, we have been absolutely asleep at the wheel and that planning has not happened?

[Damian Hinds]

I agree with large parts of what the hon. Gentleman says. The timeframes are obviously shorter this time than they were for say, the industrial revolution, the printing press or any of the other massive changes that we have seen in the past. When Gutenberg invented his printing press, I am not sure it was foreseeable to even the most far-sighted, omniscient individual what all the effects of that would be. That does not mean we do not try to scenario-plan and to think about the different possible outcomes and try to mitigate them.

Labour market effects are probably what we as politicians worry about the most, along with all the other implications, like the consequences for income distribution, intergenerational fairness and so many other aspects. People already say that AI has had a big impact on job markets, particularly on the graduate job market. I honestly do not know whether that is true or not. It strikes me that it is quite an easy thing to say: if a company is not doing that well this year and is not employing graduates to the same extent that it used to, it is a great thing to say, “Well, we’re investing in AI.” I do not see how a professional services firm, with the current technology deployment, would be able to substitute people for AI in quite that way.

In the future, it is true that there is a scenario in which there is mass unemployment. But it is also true that when there have been huge upheavals previously, labour markets have adapted, albeit over time, and sometimes it is that gap that makes the difference. Labour has found its way into different sectors—

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his excellent speech. There are lots of things about AI and its impact that we do not know. But one of the things that history teaches us is that if vast amounts of power and wealth are handed to a handful of individuals, corporations or even the Chinese Communist party—this is not just about corporations; it can be about states as well—the outcome is usually not good for the vast majority of people. I think we can all agree on that. We do not need to know whether AI will be beneficial or hostile, or become super-AI. What we can see is that when a small group of people are allowed to define what reality and knowledge are, that in itself—well, we have all read “1984”.

[Damian Hinds]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; this is, of course, not a left versus right argument. For example, the antitrust regime in the United States exists precisely to prevent the concentration of power. Indeed, all the companies in the list we heard earlier were American. We did not mention ByteDance or Huawei, which we could easily have done. As the right hon. Member for Oxford East said, sovereign capability is obviously important, too.

On labour markets, there is also a risk—actually, the hon. Member for Poole did not do this, but I thought that he was going to keep saying, “Universal basic income, universal basic income.” He did not, but a lot of people do. Universal basic income is a policy prescription that those people calling for it tended to believe in years earlier, before they had even heard of AI, and now it fits this scenario. I do not know what the outcomes and therefore the mitigations of AI will need to be, but we must keep an open mind.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Damian Hinds]

I had better press on, because we have a number of colleagues to get through.

Regarding generative AI and its effect on information integrity, which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred to earlier, we should bear in mind that so far the massive growth in fraud, misinformation and disinformation has all been done with cheapfakes. People talk about deepfakes, but it is done with rubbish, which can still take in large numbers of people. Just imagine what happens when such fakes become convincing. For example, there is the email that says, “I am stranded in Bermuda”, or whatever it is, “and I need you to send me £100 overnight.” Imagine when that scam actually involves a video of someone’s child saying it to them.

However, we soon realise that those things seem relatively benign when people start talking about agentic AI and super-intelligence, whereby machines take control of a situation, which some people have described as being ultimately an existential threat to humanity.

I do not know what all the answers are, but I think that as politicians—as the House of Commons—we need to ensure that our organisational architecture is equipped to consider all these questions as they evolve. However, I do not think that our Select Committee structure today is equipped in that way. For example, I do not think that having a Science, Intelligence and Technology Committee, which obviously covers technology, is a suitable way to address all these matters, and I also do not think that it is appropriate to expect every other Select Committee to develop such expertise themselves. Somehow, we need to meld the two structures. We must have some form of super-Select Committee—a support team, or something like that—to work with all the other teams or Committees across the piece.

I will finish by mentioning two specific things that we can do right now, because there is a ticking bomb with AI, specifically regarding children. In education now, if someone asks the typical year 9 pupil, “How many of your friends use AI to help them do their homework?”, that child would just laugh and say, “All of them.” The idea that we have some sort of issue where we have to encourage children to use AI is just nonsense. It is also crazy to suppose that we can just say to them, “Don’t do it,” and they will comply. Every child in the country learns computing in primary school. We need to make sure that the curriculum evolves so that children get to understand how the thing works, how it generates its content, why it might hallucinate, why it tries to flatter the questioner and why we cannot fully rely on it.

There is a real danger. Cognitive offloading is a fancy term, but it basically means relying on a machine to do the work for us. One way we can mitigate that effect with schoolchildren is ensure that when they do their exams at the end of the year, they do them with a piece of paper and a pen in exam conditions. I am afraid there is a move across exam boards to make more exams digital. Of course, they will say that the computers are not attached to the internet and children cannot do this, that and the other, but pen and paper is the safest thing. Of course, there should be exceptions for children with a special educational need or disability that means they need to use a keyboard, and exceptions for computer science, but in general, children at school doing their public exams should do them on pen and paper. That will make sure it happens lower down the school as well. It will also ensure that children continue to write. This sounds like a stupid thing to say, but people already ask, “Why is my child learning to write with a pen, because by the time they grow up nobody will be doing that?”

Finally, we are about to make the same mistake with chatbots as we did with social media. I am talking about anthropomorphism, where a computer program develops a personality of its own and develops relationships with people. I welcome the development of an age-appropriate design code for chatbots, but it is not enough. The regulatory regime we have in this country, with Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office, relies on there being evidence of harm. The evidence will not come before the harm. We need to change that system and adopt a precautionary principle when it comes to protecting children.

15:12

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I have rewritten my speech because I do not want to repeat all the things that have been said. I think we are in agreement, although we may have different perspectives.

I want to take us back to 80 years ago, to a country house a few miles from Milton Keynes in my constituency. A handful of mathematicians built a machine that cracked the enigma code, and it gave birth to modern computing. That was Bletchley Park, where Britain proved that it could outthink the world. That inheritance still runs through Milton Keynes in the data centres rising on our edge, the British Standards Institution at Knowlhill—the oldest standards institute in the world, whose kitemark has told people that a product is safe since 1903—and a plethora of AI start-ups that outnumber Oxford or Cambridge.

Britain is standing at another one of those moments, as we see with our economy and our military tech coming together and pushing forward either for the good of the nation or for its ultimate damage. The potential benefits of artificial intelligence are enormous, and not only for the private sector. AI is a tool that can pull our public services back from years of managed decline. The technology will allow us to detect diseases earlier and cut NHS waiting lists. It will free nurses and other public servants from back-office grind for work that only people can do.

However, every country can see that prize, and the question that decides whether Britain leads or merely buys in is whether we make the technology or just import it. A maker exports its products, services and ideas around the world, as we did in world war two, but the UK is at risk of becoming an AI taker and simply handing over the keys to giant US tech firms that are buying up our best young AI companies. It is still our technology; it is just being bought up, packaged and sold back to us so that we become indebted.

As we are talking about the impact on our economy and our society, I want to point to Palantir, which has the contract with the NHS. We know that UK companies could do exactly the same work, because I and many Members present have spoken to them. Even more concerning is that the Ministry of Defence now uses the company. With the activist Government in the US turning off technology and restricting its availability outside the US, that puts at risk not only our NHS but, most importantly, the defence of our realm against Russia, for which others may have more sympathy than we do.

There is also a social cost, as people look at a company such as Palantir and say that it does not reflect their values. It is used by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and by Israel to target Gaza. That has a huge impact on public trust. It is also bad for the UK economy and innovation, because it crowds out UK firms that could have those public contracts. That is just one example of a dependency that is putting us at risk both socially and economically.

It does not have to be that way. British AI firms need three things to succeed: customers who will buy their products, the ability to increase supply to meet demand, and a USP that British AI is the most trusted. The Government can help with all three. First, we have to act as a good customer. Why should those NHS and MOD contracts not go to British AI firms? Not only would that increase trust, but those products would be developed in a way that meets our needs; we would not be buying something that had been developed elsewhere. That would also mean that we had to invest in the entire British AI stack—it must be British from start to finish.

The second issue is supply. We need to make sure that we have the compute power we need and that we are not relying on US firms again for that. We are overly reliant: despite the fact that we part-own Crown Hosting, that accounts for only 6% of public sector data; the rest is nearly all on Amazon Web Services, which is a significant risk. We need to look at how we diffuse the supply of compute power—the underused capacity—to increase that.

Finally, we need to increase AI take-up across British businesses by building trusted products. The British Standards Institution is at the heart of that. It does not always have to be about regulation; it can be about standards that lift everything up. What attracts the world to the BSI is that it is known for doing that and its standards become international, so we get first-market advantage.

This partnership model of an industrial strategy is mission-driven, creates public trust, evaluates the impact on society and creates opportunities for our ideas and innovation to flourish. That is something we did with the innovations at Bletchley Park. We need to become an innovation leader again—an AI maker, not just an AI taker, which puts us at risk.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

As three Members wish to speak, the time limit for speeches is three to four minutes, because we are going to the Front Benchers at 3.30 pm.

15:18

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

Responsible AI, done right, could be the saviour of humanity. Irresponsible AI, done wrong, could lead to the destruction of humanity. There is, to my knowledge, no effective, self-regulated industry anywhere in the world that puts consumers and the planet before profit and shareholders.

I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this important debate. As he and many Members have highlighted, a handful of companies run by men answerable to no electorate and standing before no constituents are making decisions right now that will shape healthcare, education, employment, childhood and the economy more than most Acts of this Parliament ever will.

I will focus on topics that have not been covered and speak about safety and economic risks. I have spent 20-plus years in the pharmaceutical regulatory industry, and we can learn much from it. We regulate medicines before they reach a single patient. We do not wait for harm; instead, we test, we license and we monitor. That is the entire logic of the GxP framework that underpins pharmaceutical safety in this country, yet AI is being deployed in our hospitals, schools, courts and welfare system with no comparable safety regime at all, not because the risk is smaller but because the oversight is simply not there.

I put the following demands to the Government. First, where GxP protects patients from medicine, we need GAIP—good AI practice—regulation to protect patients from algorithms. Any AI system used in healthcare must meet a statutory standard before it touches a single patient record or clinical decision. The AI Security Institute already evaluates frontier models for biological, chemical and cyber risk, but only if the AI companies allow it to. That is progress, but progress in security assessments is not the same as regulating delivery in the healthcare industry.

This Government brought Palantir into the heart of our NHS; in doing so, they handed a US surveillance contractor that is complicit in genocide the keys to patient data that belongs to the British public, not to a share price on Wall Street. I ask the Minister to guarantee the British public that their NHS data will never be given to or allowed to be stolen by Palantir or any other private company.

Secondly, the Government must mandate independent statutory testing for AI before its release, and a yellow card scheme that would be a national register where safety incidents, near misses and harms caused by AI were reported, tracked and acted on exactly as we do for adverse drug reactions. It must not be the manufacturer marking its own homework and hoping that nobody checks; self-certification does not work and must end. Thirdly, every AI system developed in this country must have a kill switch that is triggered automatically the moment a system takes unauthorised action and that any human being can trigger manually at any time without obstruction or AI override.

This danger is not only about safety but about who pays the bill as AI unfolds. More than 300,000 private-hire drivers in this country face displacement by robotaxis. I ask the Minister how the Government will fund public services going forward. There are dangers, but there are opportunities from AI. We must try to access them as much as possible, but we must address the societal, economic and safety consequences that AI poses.

15:23

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this crucial debate. The quality of the contributions reflects how timely this conversation is.

Artificial intelligence is no longer a distant future challenge; it is here, shaping our economy, public services and daily lives. The challenge is how we ensure that these changes work for people, strengthen our communities and deliver benefits that are shared across the country and internationally. The UK has an opportunity to lead by embracing innovation and making sure that the right safeguards are in place to protect our communities, build confidence and ensure that the benefits are shared.

It is vital that we recognise how we can share in that new economy, and that we act now to safeguard public value and wealth generation. Every day, through our public services, our NHS, our transport network and countless interactions with the British public, we generate data that has enormous value. AI is the technology that unlocks that value, but the resource it is built on is our human data, which belongs to us all.

As I outlined in a recent article, we must learn the lessons from the past on this. In the past century, Norway decided to turn the national resource of fossil fuels in the North sea—the original driver of modern industrial development—into lasting public wealth. In the UK, we did not invest the revenues from North sea oil; we spent it to cover day to day costs. We must not make that same mistake twice. Rather than allowing the value created by AI from public data to flow permanently into a few private hands, we must ensure that British public services share in the wealth generated from that value—from the national assets we have created—by creating a national data wealth fund.

The Government have already recognised the strategic importance of data through the national data library and the AI opportunities action plan. Those are welcome steps forward, but we must do more to build the institutions that capture this value before it slips through our hands. I fully agree with the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) about the need for real sovereign AI capabilities and urgent collaboration with our European allies.

Keeping our communities safe and defending our democracy are essential parts of the AI challenge. I recently met the Minister for AI and Online Safety to discuss the growing impact of AI on children and young people particularly. We need to ensure there are strong safeguards around AI-generated content. If we cannot trust what is shown to us online, and if we cannot distinguish between what is real and what has been artificially created, the consequences can reach far beyond individual users and can undermine trust in our democratic institutions themselves.

That brings me to accountability. Companies with influence over what millions of people see should be held accountable and made responsible. Social media is not a village noticeboard. It is driven by algorithms that control what is recommended and amplified to millions of people every day. Technology companies act as editors: they decide what people see, what spreads, what is promoted and what disappears. AI will increasingly determine the information that people consume not only through social media, but through search engines, digital assistants and the services people use every day. That is why transparency, accountability and effective regulation are crucial.

As AI use grows, so too does the demand for further infrastructure, as I have outlined before. Data centres will become increasingly important to Britain’s economy. As the Member for South East Cornwall, I know that nature is not a blocker to growth. With careful planning, meaningful engagement and strong environmental protections, we can protect the landscapes that make Cornwall special while creating skilled jobs, attracting investment and ensuring that local communities benefit from a new technology, which, concentrated in companies in London as it is, can often feel very far from South East Cornwall.

The economic revolution is happening whether we welcome it or not, but our responsibility is to ensure that we are ready to unlock the opportunities, that we protect children and vulnerable people, and that we hold the powerful platforms to account. I am ready to ensure that the remarkable technology being developed today strengthens my community and does not leave them behind.

15:27

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing a debate on a question that will shape every community in this country, including mine. I will try to focus on topics that have not been covered, including infrastructure.

In my Mid Dunbartonshire constituency, AI has recently been brought to the forefront of local debate. At Westerhill, near Bishopbriggs, a developer has proposed a 300 MW AI data centre with 500 MW of battery storage—nationally significant infrastructure on our doorstep. My constituents’ response has rightly been one of caution—not hostility and not blind welcome. They have serious concerns and questions: “What jobs will this bring, and for whom? What happens to the environment, to the grid, to water and to energy bills?”

Developments on this scale must be good neighbours and deliver community benefit that people can see, as well as skills, local employment and investment in the places that host them—not just high fences and, as the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) said, profits that are disseminated at a distance. That is how they will be judged by the communities who host them.

This is an international issue, and it has so far been dominated by US policy. Last month, the United States showed the first sign that it may not see us as being part of its team when it comes to AI access. On 12 June, the US Government ordered one of the US’s leading AI companies to cut off access to its two most advanced models for anyone who is not a US citizen—the first time that export controls have ever been applied to AI models. Access for British businesses and researchers was switched off overnight not because of anything we did, but because Trump decided to cut us off.

That is not a partnership; a vital technology that can be withdrawn at another Government’s whim is a chain around Britain’s neck. We cannot build our public services, our security and our economy on systems that can be cut off at a whim. It is clear that the UK must build its sovereign capacity—the data centres, skills and software needed to ensure that we are not locked out of the AI race.

Communities such as mine, which are being asked to host the infrastructure of that future, should share fairly in the rewards, and we must build public trust. The Liberal Democrat approach would make that possible, based on a cross-sector, principle-based framework to give innovators certainty and the public confidence, and to give transparency wherever AI is used in the public sector, so that people can understand the impact it is having on their lives.

15:30

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I wholeheartedly thank the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing the debate. Its richness shows that we need also to have it in the main Chamber, because the Government need to tackle this issue head-on. Before I dive in, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The Government have done some work, but it still seems that AI policy is done by announcement, rather than by taking a real, strategic overview of how it will power our society, and there is still no sign of an AI Bill. As has been talked about today, AI is everywhere, and the Government must tackle it head-on. They need to see that it is a tool that can be used to benefit our society or that can lead to our society’s demise.

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

On the demise of society, AI can fuel the threat of disinformation, which can inflame tension and distort debate. We have seen that in Epsom and Ewell. Does my hon. Friend agree that AI must be regulated and that the Government must bring forward the AI Bill?

[Victoria Collins]

Absolutely, and that has been at the core of a lot of our debate today.

AI can drive inequalities, break down our society, security and safety, and take away jobs, or it can be used to tackle our biggest problems, empower individuals and drive growth. AI is a bit like the electricity of today—a supercharged version of electricity—and we need to think about where we are going to direct it. At some point, we started using electricity to light our cities and to power our homes, businesses and industries; now we need to think about where we will direct AI, and how we prepare people for that future.

The hon. Member for Poole and others talked about the future of our economy, tax and wealth, and there are key examples that highlight how important that is. We have started talking about donkeycorns; Members may have heard of unicorns, but donkeycorns are billion-dollar companies with one or two people. There is a legend that OpenClaw was a one-person company that was sold for £1 billion. That is a real shift in our economy, and we need to tackle it head-on.

As Liberal Democrats, we believe in embracing that progress and change, but we also believe in empowering individuals. When it comes to AI, we thought about tackling that big picture, which is why we launched a project called “Everyday AI”. We brought together over 100 global stakeholders from industry and civil society—to look at a Liberal vision for AI and how Britain can thrive in the age of AI. We looked at backing British innovation, empowering people and building trust, and building infrastructure for success.

As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said, no one knows where we are going. As a Member of Parliament and a politician, I often feel it is difficult to sound neither utopian nor dystopian about this issue. However, it is crucial that we ask the right questions, and keep on asking them, to make sure we are going in the right direction.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Victoria Collins]

I am going to advance, because I want to hear from the Minister.

Crucially, we need to lean into the opportunities and challenges, and I will share some of our proposals, which I would be happy to discuss with the Minister afterwards. When it comes to leaning into the opportunities, it is about helping start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises to thrive with AI, with AI procurement guides, skills tax credits and capital expenditure reliefs for AI software and adoption.

We need to look at supporting our university spin-outs and the incredible research in this country; quintupling proof of concept funding; having a standardised national framework for negotiating IP between universities and staff; and moving towards full IP ownership by researchers and research teams. We have to help to grow these things here in the UK.

As mentioned by the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), we must use Government procurement to support UK tech. It has to be a catalyst for British sovereign tech. We are calling for a trial increase to 30% for the social value in procurement contracts. That would align with our strategic goals on digital sovereignty and AI, while maintaining open borders.

When it comes to tackling the challenges head-on, we need to look seriously at the cyber-security threats that have been talked about today. The hon. Member for Poole talked about the impact of big tech companies, and Mythos was a wake-up call. We hear that China is now developing such models, but I am most worried about those we are not hearing about.

We need to prepare for the future of work and fuel our creative industries, because we are nowhere without them. When it comes to NEETs, we have to realise that we are at a squeeze point, because companies are looking at how AI is bringing down costs. However, I would gently add that this is not the time to increase the cost of employment; that will not tackle the employment question.

We need to look at establishing safety by design in AI systems and models. We must tackle harm from chatbots through a harm-based framework, but enforcement is crucial. The AI Safety Institute is now the AI Security Institute. It is such a shame that that focus has been diminished, because we should be looking at AI ethics, as well as safety and security. We have to ensure that AI systems are not used for harm.

Members talked about AI fraud, which is a massive, serious problem in the UK. Revolut told us that the UK accounts for 22% of its customer base but 68% of its fraud costs. We are not tackling that massive problem properly, and AI is supercharging it. We are therefore calling for an online crime agency and AI labelling. We are also saying that social media companies, where a lot of AI-enabled fraud starts, should be financially liable for it.

We must tackle the energy question for AI datacentres and their role in the community, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) mentioned. We have to make sure they add value to our communities, and the AI Energy Council must tackle those issues head-on. On public services, we need to make sure a person stays in the loop.

Ultimately, we need to prepare for a future that is arriving very quickly. Underpinning that, we are calling for a national people strategy. Things are changing very quickly, so we need a single, coherent framework, from primary school to the workplace, with regional input. We must realise that the skills we need for an AI future are not just technical skills, but critical thinking and analysis.

We must also look at a digital sovereignty strategy, as many Members have said. We need to look at our tech stack to ensure that we do not have a single point of failure. A resilient tech stack would be good not just for our security and for businesses, but for our tech and our economy, so we absolutely need to look at that.

We cannot give up on frontier models; we need to start looking at them now. A point was made about proportionality in models. We do not all need massive, complex models that require massive amounts of energy to solve most of our problems. Most companies probably need simple models. They can be UK models, but if we do not start now by backing and investing in them, we will be left behind very quickly.

Finally, we need to move quicky on smart regulation. The Financial Conduct Authority has a fantastic approach to fintech that looks at output and standards. We need a flexible approach to AI, because things are moving quickly. We also need a digital Bill of rights.

We need to unlock the benefits by addressing the challenges head-on. According to the Ada Lovelace Institute, 91% of the public feel that it is important that AI systems are developed and used in ways that treat people fairly, and almost 90% are calling for an independent regulator for AI. Will the Minister listen to those concerns, take back the many great ideas that have been raised today and speak to his colleagues across Departments? AI is an extremely powerful tool, and we must embrace it. The Government must tackle this head-on. Where will they let the power be focused?

If anyone is unsure how quickly AI is going to change, I am repeatedly reminded that this year is the slowest we will ever see in AI development. If a plane going around the world is 1° off, it will be 500 miles off course. We need to decide now the direction we are going in with AI. We need to look at that holistically. We are here to support that Government work and make sure it empowers society, so that Britain can really be the leading nation on trustworthy, innovative technology.

15:39

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for bringing forward this interesting debate, and all the Members on both sides of the House who have taken part. I recognise many of those who have participated in many debates such as this and who will, I am sure, participate in many more to come.

I will start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)—I wish I had attended his lecture in 2000, not least to have had the experience of being in a room where everyone disagreed with him, which must have been rather unique—for making an important point about how slowly Parliament regulates and responds to change.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made a similar point about our responsiveness to this rapidly evolving sector. I also very much welcome his point about education and the challenges involved, particularly given his experience in the sector. However, more than anything, I welcome his point that nobody knows what the future outcomes will be—a point I shall come back to a bit later.

I want to focus the bulk of my remarks on employment. I share the desire of the hon. Member for Poole to look at how to support and enhance employment through the AI transition, and we do need to have more such discussions. However, I am saddened that one core proposal from Labour Back Benchers is a plan on who or what we should tax now. I regret that the hon. Member’s plans for an employment levy, which he is very passionate about and has written about previously, would not work to protect jobs—protectionism never does. It would simply put a brake on the ability of organisations, large and small, to adapt to AI, and leave us behind our competitors, losing jobs across all sectors.

The history of protectionism is, sadly, frequently a very tragic one. With each technological intervention and change, there are often calls for protectionist approaches, and when they come in—

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the hon. Member explain how this will work, then? Human beings at work pay national insurance, income tax and pension contributions, and then they can support their families. AI agents and AI-powered robots do not pay any of that—there are no tax receipts for the Government—so how will Government fund public services in that scenario?

[Dr Spencer]

I thank the hon. Member for his challenge regarding a future hypothetical that has yet to be realised. I think I will be able to address some of his points, but I think the premise he is setting is a bit beyond the scope of this discussion. However, I can give some concrete proposals for protecting human jobs. As a starter for 10, rather than inventing a new tax, we could start with some old ones, and rather than inventing new regs, we could start with some newish ones.

The Labour Government’s approach has been to make it as difficult as possible to employ human labour by increasing national insurance contributions from employers; making it more difficult for younger people to compete in the workplace by increasing the minimum wage; and increasing employment regulations, making it a greater gamble for businesses to take on new starters. To support jobs in the UK, we should, before looking at AI, look at the Labour Government’s policies, which are uniquely designed to make it more and more difficult to employ a person over a machine.

We are right to think about the workforce implications of the adoption of AI, but the future is always unclear and uncertain; that is the challenge of working in this sector, and I am very mindful of that position of humility as I move on to the following, more specific remarks.

Other technological disruptions, while displacing jobs, have ultimately led to more jobs through elasticity of demand. As costs decrease through automation, demand increases. That is the story of what happened with mass manufacturing in the automotive sector: to begin with, people were concerned that mechanised manufacturing would reduce jobs in the sector. Of course, the car sector exploded because the cost of a car went through the floor, and as a net result there were more jobs in the automotive sector. The issue was that they were different jobs; it is more of a transition than a replacement.

There are signals and concerns that the current decrease in the number of youth jobs is due to AI. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said, it is unclear whether that is due to AI replacement, the current prevailing economic circumstances, or a mixture of the two. The data remains unclear, but I appreciate that we need to be thinking now about what possible futures could unfold. Equally, our tech sector provides growth and jobs. The UK could be the world’s fastest AI adopter, but only if it is not punished with burdensome taxes and regulations. We are already seeing a hint—just a hint—of what AI can offer, especially in the research and health sectors. Our economic future needs AI, or we are going to be left behind.

Before I come to my final questions for the Minister, let me touch on AI and tech sovereignty, which is increasingly being talked about in the media and in this place as people focus on it more and more. AI and tech sovereignty, as described in this debate and in other forums, is illusory. We work and operate in global supply chains, with technology enmeshed around the world. Whether it is microchips built by TSMC in Taiwan, microchip etches created in the Netherlands, quantum tech built in the UK or frontier models, most of which are based in the States, our sectors are completely and utterly enmeshed.

Rather than talking about tech and data sovereignty, we should be talking about resilience and leverage. What are the core functions and features that we want to have on domestic soil? We can have a discussion about that. What should it be necessary to have on British soil, and what are the core technologies on which we want to be elite? We want to be world leaders, and to be indispensable to the world so that it looks to us, as opposed to the other way around. We need resilience and leverage rather than to chase the illusory rainbow of tech and data sovereignty.

Given my remarks about regulation and competitiveness, can the Minister rule out any part of the UK being brought into the EU AI Act? That would reduce our competitiveness with the EU. Will the Minister summarise the impact on the UK AI sector of Government taxation and employment policies? Have they been positive or negative? If they have been negative, to what extent? Can he confirm that there will be a decent statement before recess, as has been promised, on social media and the regulation of chatbots? Has he spoken to the virtual Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), about the importance of anti-protectionist policies in the UK’s AI sector?

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister, mindful that I would like to give some time to the hon. Member for Poole to wind up the debate.

15:47

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr James Frith)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) on securing the debate, which speaks directly to the kind of country and society that we want to create for everyone we represent, and our friends and family—the type of country and society we want to live and thrive in.

The Government recognise that AI is, as Members have said, already changing our economy, the delivery of public services, our expectations of each other and the ways in which we interact and engage in debate. For me, it is not merely the latest thing, or the something new and shiny that is so attractive to politics and politicians; in my mind, it is equivalent to a new atmosphere in which we now all expect to feature and play our part. We see the potential of AI in everything from scientific discovery to better public services and stronger economic growth.

The Government have a clear responsibility to make sure that the change at the heart of this debate reinforces rather than weakens the fabric of our society. That includes standing up to big tech firms when we deem it necessary—examples will follow—when they facilitate harm to UK citizens. As so many Members have powerfully made the argument for, it also includes developing sovereign capability—determining what comes next and honing it for best benefit. As we bring this debate to a close, it is important that we continue to consider those questions. We must collectively decide how we build a better society in an AI-enabled world. AI must serve us, and not the other way round.

The Government recognise the pressure to internationally compete on AI. That means we need to actively shape the transition towards it to secure benefits for the UK while managing risk or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) put it, exert the domestic control that we need. That is why we are working hard to ensure that the UK has the capability, access and influence it needs in the technologies that will shape our economy, public services and national security. It is why we established the sovereign AI unit with £500 million to enable the Government to back promising UK firms. The UK already attracts the third highest private investment in AI.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The Teesside region has the potential to bring nationally significant investment in new AI data centre infrastructure. We welcome that investment and we are open for business, but will the Minister commit to meet colleagues at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that the governance arrangements around the Teesworks site attract business, rather than deter it?

[Mr Frith]

If I am considered worthy to meet in a few weeks’ time, I will be very happy to do so.

This is not about self-sufficiency or about turning away from trusted international partners; it is about ensuring that where the UK has genuine strengths—in research, talent, creativity and innovation—we can translate them into long-term economic benefit. Significant private investment is now flowing into areas that would have seemed like science fiction even a decade ago, including therapies that slow or reverse biological ageing and AI-accelerated drug discovery that could compress timelines for curing major diseases. If realised, such developments would profoundly reshape expectations of health, work and the role of the state. That is why the Government have already committed to ambitious plans to transform services and digitise government, as set out in the road map for modern digital government published earlier this year.

[Sir John Hayes]

I hear what the Minister says, but there are no specific laws governing the standards of AI, there is no dedicated regulator to deal with AI development, and there are no sanctions on companies that knowingly use AI for malevolent purposes. Those things are all needed now.

[Mr Frith]

The Government’s principle is to regulate at the time of deployment or at use. I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, but it is important that we strike the right balance between innovation and regulation. Of course, as I will come on to discuss in more detail, where there have been examples of harm we must call that out and call in those who caused them.

The Government have already committed to ambitious plans to transform services. For a radiologist, that means access to the best tools for detecting cancer—tools that can save lives and cut waiting lists in our NHS. The public sector is where it is perhaps most crucial that the Government ensure that we embed frameworks, standards and guidance to ensure that AI is deployed in a way that is fair, transparent and accountable. We are doing so with the data and AI ethics framework, the AI playbook, and transparency standards that ensure the public can understand how systems are used.

We are also supporting UK firms that provide third-party AI-assurance ecosystems, demonstrating that AI systems are safe and reliable as well as creating new jobs. That is critical not just for risk management but for building businesses, building confidence in those deploying AI, and building trust in the systems we use. To the points that were made about the job market, AI has the potential to enhance job roles and the performance of each of us at work, but it is necessary and reasonable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole pointed out, to distinguish the jobs that are most at risk—those least likely to be enhanced and most likely to be replaced. That is a very reasonable proposition. We recognise that one of the primary areas where people will interact with AI is in the labour market.

To zone in on labour markets, and the issue of young people and entry-level jobs, an estimated 12.8% of all people aged 16 to 24 in the UK are not in education, employment or training. That goes well beyond data-entry or access-level jobs, or a potential shift of culture in relation to entry-level jobs. To date, there is little conclusive evidence that AI is reducing employment. However, the International Monetary Fund estimates that around 70% of UK workers are in exposed occupations. Around half of those exposed workers are in high complementary roles, where AI will enhance rather than replace their work.

The Government are committed to supporting the worker experience through the AI transition, and have a proud record of advancing workers’ rights. To that end, earlier this year the Government established the AI and the future of work unit, bringing together expertise from across Departments and industry to monitor how AI is affecting jobs, wages and opportunity in real time. We are putting in place the institutions, data and cross-Government co-ordination needed to ensure that AI transforms the labour market, that workers are supported and that opportunities are widely shared across society.

We are also investing in people, because the opportunities of AI will be realised only if the workforce are equipped to harness them. That is why we have launched one of the most ambitious skills programmes anywhere in the world. Our AI skills boost programme is already delivering results. In an answer given to the House last week, I referred to the early careers funding and work on curriculum reforms to come, such as an AI-inclusive GCSE in computing.

This is about ensuring that workers at every stage of their career, and whether in small businesses, large firms or public services, have the tools that they need to thrive in an AI-enabled economy. AI will have—is having—seismic impacts on our working lives and productivity, and we must embrace the democracy this gives us. We must democratise access to AI to ensure that communities across the country reap the benefits. Central to that effort is ensuring that support is delivered to the graduates and young people entering the world of work for the first time. Much has been made of the rising level of NEETs. Programmes such as TechLocal are creating new jobs, traineeships and professional training, while scholarships and fellowships are supporting the next generation of researchers and innovators.

Nobody is waiting 25 years to tackle the threats, however. AI harms are very real, and we do not sit idly by when it comes to tackling them. We are not standing still. The AI Security Institute is conducting world-leading research to understand the capabilities and impacts of advanced AI. In response to the generation of vile and degrading non-consensual sexual deepfakes on Grok earlier this year, the Prime Minister himself, and the Government, stood up to Grok and X and won that fight. We have criminalised the creation of non-consensual sexual deepfakes and legislated to require platforms to remove them. Separately, we have banned nudification apps and criminalised AI tools designed to create sexual abuse material, as well as learning the importance of sovereignty when considering the recent switching off of the latest Anthropic AI tool.

I was asked a specific question about the social media ban. I was a proud early adopter of the policy and I am pleased to say that it remains the Government’s intention to update the House before recess.

The UK is proactively responding to the AI revolution—we are shaping it. AI has extraordinary potential to improve healthcare, accelerate scientific discovery, personalise education, strengthen public services and drive economic growth. We will harness the opportunities across every region and community to shape UK society for the better for all.

15:59

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I thank all Members for their contributions to an excellent debate that showed we need to have more of this discussion. I will make some very quick points. First, we need to act with speed, as I think was accepted by a number of Members. As the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) mentioned, we cannot wait 25 years.

We also need clear democratic oversight of what is happening. We cannot allow people we do not know and do not control to make our futures for us. We have to be in control of our own destinies. That is very important and will require global regulation. We will have to work with other authorities across the globe to come to the necessary arrangements.

Finally, the protections we will need must ensure that the next industrial revolution, which is already here in effect, benefits everyone and not just a few.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Government Support for Bus Services: West Dorset

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

15:59

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for bus services in West Dorset constituency.

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. It is my privilege to bring this debate to the House.

This issue may seem niche, but it matters a great deal to my residents. It has generated a huge number of queries, social media comments, emails and constituency casework since I became an MP, reflecting just how deeply it affects people’s daily lives. Buses determine whether my constituents can get to work, reach college, attend a hospital appointment, visit the high street or simply remain independent. When services are reduced or withdrawn, it can cause real anxiety for those who rely on them and, as I recently saw through casework, their families, too. That is especially true when it comes to reaching vital hospital appointments or when there are further cuts to essential routes, as we saw when the X53 and X51 services were significantly reduced due to last-minute increases in the subsidies demanded by the bus company, which the council could not afford to meet, when changing to a winter timetable.

In the spirit of constructive opposition, I welcome the direction that the Government have taken. I welcome the introduction of the new local authority bus grant, bringing together previous funding streams into a single multi-year settlement. I welcome the recognition of rurality in the funding model, as well as the extra funding that has been provided to local authorities. Long-term funding provides certainty. It allows authorities to plan strategically and move away from the stop-start cycle of short-term funding announcements that has characterised this area for too long.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. As he is well aware, West Dorset is similar to my constituency, with market towns and many townlands rather than towns, and the profitability of public transport can be questionable. However, does he agree that the bottom line is not the ledger, but connectivity and the end of rural isolation in an affordable fashion? Does he agree that we are not getting the balance right for our rural constituencies, which are the backbone of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Edward Morello]

The hon. Member rightly touches on a lot of the issues that I will come to, all of which I know are as pressing in his part of the United Kingdom as they are in mine.

I thank the Minister for the constructive meeting we had on these issues. For the first time, the funding formula explicitly recognises rurality. That is an important step forward, and one that I and many other rural Members have called for from our first days in the House. However, recognising rurality and adequately funding rurality are two different things. The scale of the challenge in rural areas is immense, requiring a sustained and significant effort to rebuild networks that have been hollowed out over many years. Rural bus services fell by 52% between 2008 and 2023.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

My constituency neighbour will know that in Somerset and Dorset, we get older models of buses no longer used elsewhere. At the same time, rural bus depots, such as the one in Yeovil, are closing. If a bus breaks down from Ilchester on the way to Dorchester, passengers have to wait over an hour for a replacement bus. Does my hon. Friend agree that if depots for repairs are going to be closed, we need newer buses in West Dorset and Yeovil?

[Edward Morello]

My hon. Friend and neighbour is right to raise the pertinent issues of older buses and the closing of depots, which are directly linked. I hope that has been heard by the Minister.

Across England, there were over 1 billion fewer passenger journeys in 2023 than in 2015. Bus service frequency in West Dorset has fallen by an astonishing 62%, and 10 of Dorset’s 14 towns are already transport deserts or at serious risk of becoming one. That creates barriers to employment, healthcare and independence. Patients miss hospital appointments, which contributes to the £1.2 billion annual cost of missed appointments for NHS England. Young people miss out on opportunities, older residents become isolated, and communities slowly lose confidence that public transport will ever return.

That is why simply maintaining today’s network cannot be considered a success; the scale of decline means that we must actively rebuild what has already been lost. Between 2026 and 2030, Dorset will receive £13.8 million in Government bus funding: the lowest allocation anywhere in the south-west. That is £10.9 million less than neighbouring Somerset receives and £7.5 million less than Wiltshire. Devon and Torbay alone will receive over three and a half times Dorset’s allocation and Hampshire will receive nearly four times as much. It is therefore unsurprising that neighbouring authorities can expand services, modernise fleets and increase frequency, while Dorset is often forced simply to maintain what it has left.

The Government deserve credit for recognising rurality, but rurality now needs to be given greater weighting within the funding formula. Serving dispersed populations inevitably costs more per passenger than operating in dense urban areas. There is a significant difference between increasing the frequency of an existing service and recreating a lost route from scratch. The latter requires considerably greater investment before passenger numbers can even begin to increase.

Every summer, West Dorset’s population increases by over 42% due to seasonal visitors. Around 4 million day visitors and 2 million overnight visitors place a huge additional demand on our transport networks, which were designed to serve a much smaller permanent population. Yet that seasonal pressure is barely recognised in the national funding allocations.

The Prime Minister in waiting takes great pride in the transformation of Manchester’s bus network. However, the Bee network demonstrates the scale of the investment required. Greater Manchester receives about £41.42 per resident, compared with approximately £4.84 per resident in Dorset—over eight times as much in funding per head.

Transport for Greater Manchester manages a budget exceeding £480 million and subsidises almost a quarter of the network. That level of investment has transformed services, and I want Dorset to have the same level of ambition. However, rebuilding transport across hundreds of square miles of villages, market towns and dispersed communities is significantly harder than doing so in a major urban area. If the Government truly wish to level up rural transport, the funding formula must recognise that restoring services in rural Britain costs more, not less, than maintaining them in our cities.

The consequences of poor bus services are perhaps felt most keenly by young people. The recent Milburn review identified transport as one of the main drivers of young people becoming detached from education, employment and training. The review found that in rural, deprived and coastal communities, transport itself had become a major barrier to opportunity for those without access to a car. The proportion of 17 to 20-year-olds holding a full driving licence has fallen to 29%, while for many families the cost of owning and insuring a car has simply become unaffordable.

At the same time, bus services have become less frequent and more expensive. Bus fares increased by 59% between 2015 and 2023. On average, young people are now 15% less likely to travel than they were just 15 years ago, which should concern every Member of this House. When the last bus leaves before a hospitality evening shift finishes, a young person cannot access that hospitality job; they have been presented with a challenge that they cannot overcome. That is why I was pleased to table amendments to the Bus Services Bill during its passage to improve connectivity for young people by providing free bus travel for 16 to 18-year-olds, to encourage better co-ordination between buses and trains, and to ensure that funding reflects the realities that rural communities face. Those amendments were not adopted, but I hope the Government will start to move in the positive direction that they indicated.

West Dorset has an ageing population, and many people rely on buses to reach GP surgeries, hospitals, pharmacies and shops. When the bus services disappear, independence disappears with them. Poor transport also increases pressure on the NHS, on social care and on local authorities—all these things are connected. That is why I believe we should return to a sort of “total place” thinking, which was first developed over a decade ago: looking across departmental boundaries, instead of operating within them. The Dorset total transport pilot brought together school transport, adult social care transport, public bus services and community transport.

With just £180,000 of funding, the pilot improved services in some areas while identifying longer-term efficiencies and introducing more flexible, demand-responsive transport. It also explored digital technology to better match transport supply with demand. Rather than allowing buses to sit empty after a school run or to return to depots, we should ask how those vehicles could transport patients home from hospitals, connect isolated villages or just provide additional journeys during the day.

We also need a more joined-up approach between different modes of transport. People should not wait 40 minutes for a bus because the train was three minutes late. We need a properly integrated local transport network with more regulated and co-ordinated bus services. In many rural communities, community transport is often the only reason people remain connected at all.

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

Interconnectivity goes across not just buses but other modes of transport such as trains. There is a petition in one of my rural areas where, pre-covid, trains ran every 30 minutes; that is now every two hours, and there is a big gap in the middle of the day. Does the hon. Member agree that we need strategic planning in the mayoralties across all modes of transport?

[Edward Morello]

I agree 100%—talk to anyone who has got off the last train from Crewkerne when the last bus stopped two hours beforehand. We are depriving our communities of the ability to get around, and of course there is an economic impact to that.

The CB3 community bus in Beaminster demonstrates exactly what local communities can achieve when volunteers, councils and residents work together. Similarly, the new LB1 evening service between Lyme Regis and Bridport has quickly proved a success, despite disruption caused by necessary works on the A35. I am also encouraged by proposals for further community transport in places such as Sherborne, which have my support, but parish councils and volunteers cannot continue to carry the burden alone.

The Department for Transport currently makes up to £3.8 million available annually for eligible community transport operators, but that is across the whole country. Given the scale needed, that is simply not enough. Instead, there should be dedicated, ringfenced grant funding specifically to help communities establish new community transport services where commercial routes have disappeared. A hub-and-spoke model supported by smaller community buses and demand-responsive transport could reconnect villages at a fraction of the cost of restoring traditional commercial routes immediately.

Importantly, that funding should recognise that the greatest cost comes at the beginning. Communities need capital investment to purchase vehicles, recruit drivers, establish a booking system and build passenger confidence. Once services become established and passenger numbers increase, public subsidies can reduce over time. Demand-responsive transport has already shown real promise in Wiltshire, where passengers can book flexible journeys through an app and AI software identifies the most efficient routes. Data suggests that these services have been particularly successful among younger users travelling between villages and market towns before they learn to drive. West Dorset would be an ideal place to pilot a similar, larger-scale approach.

For rural communities such as West Dorset, buses are fundamental to tackling social isolation, supporting economic growth and giving young people genuine opportunities. I hope that the Minister will listen to the appeals of my residents and ensure that rural Britain is no longer left waiting at the bus stop while the rest of the country moves ahead.

16:13

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing this important debate. He has been a committed champion of bus services and transport needs in his constituency, and I thank him for the constructive tone with which he has approached these subjects.

Buses are at the heart of our vision for better and more integrated, reliable, affordable and accessible public transport. The Government have set out an ambitious plan to deliver better bus services, grow passenger numbers and ensure that communities that have too often been underserved can benefit from reliable public transport. Of course, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to local bus services. That is particularly the case in rural areas such as West Dorset, where there can be additional challenges to running a good local bus service.

The Bus Services Act 2025 puts decision making into the hands of local leaders across England, including in rural areas, so that they can determine how best to design their services for their communities and have greater control over routes and timetables. As the hon. Gentleman knows, since he was on the relevant Bill Committee, it expands the options available to local authorities, allowing each area to pursue the model of bus service delivery that best suits their needs while safeguarding the needs of passengers. The Act also tightens a requirement around the cancellation of vital bus routes, particularly those relied on by vulnerable and disadvantaged passengers. The Government are committed to monitoring the effectiveness of those measures, including the impact on rural services, with a review five years after their introduction.

We will provide meaningful financial support to improve bus networks totalling more than £3 billion over the next three years. That includes nearly £700 million per year for local transport authorities through the local authority bus grant. That funding can be used to support the introduction of new routes; for more frequent services; for safer, better, more accessible bus stops; for new electric buses; and for improved real-time information so that passengers can travel with greater confidence. It could also be used to increase the provision of community transport, for instance.

At the end of last year, we published individual multi-year settlements for local authorities under the local authority bus grant for the next three years. As the hon. Gentleman said, those allocations were determined by a new, revised formula. Gone are the days when it was a competitive funding bid—each local transport authority now receives funding. For the first time, the formula considered rurality to ensure that rural areas are not disadvantaged. Other parts of that formula include population size, levels of deprivation and the extent of current bus services.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman was saying about not just protecting what is there, but going further and building back. He has my assurance that we will continue to look at that funding formula to make sure that it is the fairest possible way to distribute funding across the country. We have already allocated multi-year settlements for the next three years, so it would be after that period. I am pleased to confirm that Dorset council will receive slightly over £12 million through the local authority bus grant for the next three years. That is nearly £200,000 more per year than the allocation in 2025-26, or roughly a 5% increase. Under the local authority bus grant, local leaders will be able to invest in transport priorities that are right for their area, such as enhancing bus services in rural communities.

Alongside the multi-year funding, this Government’s bus reforms are fundamentally about giving local leaders more powers and more choice over how to deliver services. That includes unlocking franchising as an option for all areas. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Different areas face different challenges because of their geography, population density and demographics. That is why work is under way to provide active support to local transport authorities that wish to explore franchising, particularly in rural areas.

The work includes our bus reform and franchising pilot programme, which supports authorities with feasibility assessments for bus franchising. The programme is designed to test different types of franchising model to understand how they could be best implemented to deliver improved bus services for passengers in rural locations. Case studies, guidance and templates from the programme will be shared with other local transport authorities, ensuring that learning is captured and can support other areas considering franchising. These products could be particularly important for small towns and rural communities, including in West Dorset, where members of the community may rely on buses as their only realistic public transport option.

We also know that in some areas, traditional stopping bus services may not be viable. We want to encourage local leaders to consider a range of options to deliver better services for passengers. That includes incorporating demand-responsive transport and community transport services into the local transport network. DRT has the potential to improve local transport in areas where demand is more dispersed over longer distances, which makes it harder to provide conventional fixed-route services that meet residents’ needs.

Our franchising guidance outlines key considerations for LTAs exploring franchising regarding DRT, including how local bus services integrate with alternative models such as DRT. We have recently published guidance on best practice for local authorities to set up and deploy demand-responsive schemes, from planning and procurement through to launching and sustaining those services.

Making bus fares more affordable is one of the Government’s transport priorities because that really matters to passengers. The Government continue to cap single bus fares at £3 on thousands of routes in England, outside London, until March 2027, helping millions of people access affordable travel and better opportunities. That cap can be particularly beneficial for rural passengers, helping to limit the cost of journeys where single fares can otherwise be significantly higher.

The Chancellor went further in May, announcing more than £100 million additional funding for the bus sector, to help children travel free this summer, and to continue supporting services. Under the offer, children aged five to 15 will be able to travel free on participating local buses in England throughout August, helping families to get out and about for less, at a time of increased cost of living. Further details will be announced shortly.

To pick up on the point about better integration, I draw Members’ attention to a fantastic read—“Better Connected”, the Government’s integrated national transport strategy. That looks at how to dovetail buses with trams, trains, micromobility and active travel. I highly encourage Members to take a look at that, because we recognise the challenges they have mentioned today.

[Adam Dance]

My biggest concern is that we have no electric buses in Yeovil. There is nowhere to charge them because other depots have been shut down. How will we cope with an electric future if First Bus is closing depots?

[Simon Lightwood]

That will be a commercial decision for First Bus about whether to invest in those services. The option remains for local leaders to consider whether they want to pursue franchising and take greater control over that issue. They could also lift the ban on establishing new municipal bus companies. There are options there. I will continue to work across Government to ensure we get grid connections for future deployment of electric buses. Funding from local authority bus grants and other sources can be used to purchase electric buses.

In closing, I reiterate my thanks to the hon. Member for West Dorset for securing this debate, and to the other hon. Members for their interventions. Improving bus services, importantly in rural areas, is central to the Government’s mission to drive growth and opportunity across the country. We know there is more to do, but we are taking meaningful steps to ensure that wherever people live—in a city, rural area or small town—they have access to the reliable, accessible and affordable transport that they deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

16:23

Sitting suspended.

National Youth Strategy

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

16:34

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the National Youth Strategy and youth enrichment.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the importance of the national youth strategy and youth enrichment. I know that many colleagues share my commitment to ensuring that every young person is offered the support and opportunities they need to thrive.

Youth services are not a luxury, but an essential part of our communities. I commend the Minister and her team for the Government’s national youth strategy and its £500 million commitment to rebuild the places, relationships and power structures that young people need to thrive. It aims to right the wrongs of previous Administrations and confront the challenges faced by more than 10 million young people.

We must be honest about the challenges. Having been born and raised in Huddersfield, I have seen at first hand the impact of austerity on young people. Too many have had their futures torn away from them. Youth services have lost around £1.2 billion in local authority funding since 2010, with more than half of council-run youth centres closing in that time. Kirklees council, which covers my Huddersfield constituency, saw a 70% decrease in funding from 2011 to 2025. That leaves just over £47 per young person being spent on youth services in our community.

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

We know all about funding cuts in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire—they were more than 90% in our local area—so I welcome this investment. However, does my hon. Friend agree that we must ensure we get the revenue funding as well as capital funding? That is what makes activity work on the ground.

[Harpreet Uppal]

My hon. Friend is quite right, and I will come to that point later.

Young people who have lost access to youth clubs have been shown to be 14% more likely to engage in criminal activity in the six years following closures. A recent project in Ashbrow in my constituency saw antisocial behaviour fall by an incredible 63%. Alongside policing operations, partnerships were developed with community organisations to support children and young people, alongside regular intervention programmes designed to support those most at risk. The evidence is clear: when youth services are cut, our young people and communities suffer; when they are funded, young people and entire communities thrive.

The youth strategy sets out a 10-year vision, but current funding commitments cover only the first few years, so will the Minister outline how the Government will ensure long-term investment so that organisations have the certainty they need? Will she also confirm how her Department will work alongside other Departments to ensure greater alignment between all Government reforms focused on young people?

Since being elected, I have had the privilege of visiting many of the youth work organisations in my constituency and have witnessed at first hand the life-changing work they deliver. They include Central Stars youth club, Yorkshire Community Development, Empower, Positive Stepz, Team KickStart, Conscious Youth, Boxpower and Temple Well-Being, as well as the foundations of Huddersfield Town football club and Huddersfield Giants. I will also mention organisations working at the national level, such as the Duke of Edinburgh’s award team, some of whom are here today—thank you for joining us [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear!”]—the National Youth Agency and all members of UK Youth. All those organisations and many others deliver outstanding community-led services and policy work, often in difficult financial circumstances.

Crucially, many of the organisations also offer opportunities to access sustained enrichment programmes, such as volunteering, physical activity and skills development, which can help to close opportunity gaps, particularly for young people who face disadvantage. Enrichment should not be seen as a “nice to have”; activities outside the classroom also give young people direct exposure to environments that many have never previously accessed.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is generous in giving way, and she is making an important speech. The crisis of young people not in education, employment or training is one of the biggest problems we have in this country. Does she agree that youth clubs and the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme are part of how young people get the skills that will help them to get into the world of work?

[Harpreet Uppal]

My hon. Friend is quite right. That is why it is so important that we fund and support these organisations sustainably.

As I was saying, enrichment activities help to raise confidence, skills and aspirations, while making future opportunities feel achievable. Last week, when I visited a school in my constituency, pupils asked me what services and activities will be available in their local area once the under-16s social media ban is in place. Importantly, access to opportunities should not depend on family income. Every £1 of public money invested in the youth sector generates between £3.20 and £6.40 in benefits for the taxpayer, while for every £1 saved from youth service closures, nearly £3 is lost in educational outcomes and increased crime costs.

The Duke of Edinburgh’s award is a proven national enrichment programme that helps young people to develop skills and gain experiences that can have a lasting impact on their lives. Last year alone, more than 350 students from a range of backgrounds in Huddersfield took part in it. I was pleased to see the launch last month of the “Every Child Can” programme to fund enrichment activities, and the national youth strategy’s commitment to halving the participation gap in enrichment activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers. Youth workers see enrichment as one of the most important commitments in the strategy, so can the Minister confirm how the Government plan to deliver on that pledge, and whether she has considered an enrichment premium or targeted funding to help to do so?

Alongside enrichment, many who work in the industry believe that the most significant policy change the Government could make would be to strengthen the statutory duty on local authorities to provide a sufficient local youth offer. I understand that the national youth strategy commits to “explore reviewing” that, but the youth sector is clear that it needs to be urgently prioritised. I ask the Minister: will the Government commit urgently to reviewing and strengthening the statutory duty on local authorities to provide a local offer, and will it be backed by dedicated funding and clear national benchmarks to define what sufficient youth provision means?

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I make a habit of agreeing with my hon. Friend, and I particularly agree with her on that point. When I speak with youth workers, they are clear that they do not want to reinvent the wheel. Youth work works; we just need more of it to be ringfenced and have dedicated funding. We are about to have a youth hub opened in my area as part of the youth guarantee, which is fantastic news. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to MBN Arts and Mike Ness? Last Thursday, they put on a summer exhibition for younger neurodivergent, to help them with their educational and creative pathways and into a brighter future.

[Harpreet Uppal]

That sounds like an excellent programme and I absolutely commend it.

Youth workers are central to delivering the national youth strategy, but the workforce are under acute pressure: more than 4,500 qualified youth workers have left the profession in the last decade, around 60% of the workforce has no recognised youth work qualification and only six undergraduate youth and community work programmes remain, down from 37 in 2013. The strategy provides a £15 million commitment for youth workers, including new qualifications and educational pathways, which is excellent, but can the Minister confirm how that will align with the Government’s wider skills reforms to rebuild workforce capacity at scale and improve job prospects in the industry?

I also want to highlight the importance of Young Futures hubs, which reflect a growing understanding of the importance of youth services and provide accessible pathways into education, employment, volunteering and community participation. However, to be a success, the hubs must effectively support young people to re-engage with education and training, and create collaborative working partnerships. Can the Minister outline the steps the Government will take to deliver that long-term approach to youth engagement? I reiterate my previous requests for Huddersfield to be included in future phases of the programme; the Minister may need to pass those on to someone else, but that would be amazing.

Many young people and youth support workers have persistently been excluded from having a voice or influence in the national and local decisions that directly affect them. The national youth strategy will help to change that; it includes a commitment to placing young people’s voices at its heart, and explicitly identifies youth workers as the people holding a fragmented system together. Those are major shifts, and a recognition that the sector has fought hard for. To deliver that ambition, youth participation must be built into implementation, not treated as a one-off consultation. Young people should have meaningful opportunities to shape and monitor delivery of the strategy at national and local level. That should include long-term, properly resourced mechanisms for youth voices and democratic engagement, particularly for those least likely to be heard.

I will take this opportunity to give a shout-out to my annual summer school for young people from Huddersfield; it was great to welcome them to Parliament this week. One of the main issues they raised in our sessions was the importance of their voices being central to the decisions that affect them. I heard that message loud and clear. Can the Minister confirm what long-term arrangements will be established to ensure that young people are meaningfully involved in developing and implementing the delivery of the strategy at all levels?

I thank the Minister for being here, and you, Ms McVey, for chairing the debate. I look forward to hearing contributions from other Members.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. I will call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 5.10 pm. This debate is popular, so I set a time limit of three minutes and remind Members to keep interventions short.

16:41

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for securing this important debate. I am sure that all Members of this House will advocate for ensuring that the next generation has every opportunity to thrive, and to develop confidence and resilience. Youth enrichment is fundamental to building stronger communities, improving wellbeing, fostering social mobility and developing skills that needed by employers, communities and, of course, the country.

My first point follows a conversation that I had with GoWild Outdoors, which is a business that operates outdoor education activities for children and young people across my constituency and beyond. That business is extremely worried about the Government’s decision to end the physical education and sport premium for primary schools, which gives primary schools direct control over funding, after the 2025-26 academic year and to replace it with the PE and school sport partnerships network. GoWild Outdoors told me that the change would mean not only a potential reduction in schools’ autonomy over how PE and sport provision is developed, but a 22% drop in annual funding.

As a result, schools are already starting to cancel sessions from third-party providers, because there is a lack of clarity from the Government on how the new PE and school sport partnerships network will work and will impact funding. That lack of clarity is not just harming local businesses and third-party providers in my constituency, such as GoWild Outdoors; it is having a hugely negative impact on the children whose learning and wellbeing benefit from additional non-classroom provision. GoWild Outdoors asked me to ask the Minister for reassurance that the new scheme will not negatively impact the ability of third-party providers to deliver for children and young people who rely so desperately on the programmes that they provide, because the uncertainty is having a direct impact, right now.

My second point is about the Government giving mayoralties the ability to roll out a tourism tax and apply it to accommodation for youth organisations, such as the Girl Guides and Scouts. I seek reassurance from the Government that the tax will not apply to organisations that provide youth enrichment through accommodation that is generally provided through charitable means. Doing so will have a direct impact on the youth enrichment programmes run by the many great volunteer organisations that I am sure many Members of Parliament interact with across our constituencies. I would greatly appreciate the Minister responding to those implications of the tourism tax.

16:44

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for securing this important debate. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on youth affairs, I know the importance of services for young people, and I welcome the Government’s leadership on this issue.

When I meet young people in my constituency or through my work on the APPG, I am struck by how tough it is to be a young person in Britain today. Whether through the 73% cut in youth services over the last decade, a housing crisis that prevents some young people from moving on to the next stage of their lives and means that others grow up in temporary accommodation, or youth unemployment, our young people are growing up in a world that is economically challenging, internationally volatile and often hostile to them. Our young people are just as ambitious, just as determined and just as willing to work for their future as anyone who has gone before them, and in that context of hope, opportunity and ambition for our young people, the national youth strategy is so important.

Around £1 billion has been taken out of the sector since 2010, more than half of council-run youth centres have closed, and the statutory framework is often too weak. We have been left with a postcode lottery for youth provision, where spending on youth services can range from as little as £1 per young person in one area to £137 in another. Co-created with young people, and backed by £500 million of Government investment, the national youth strategy is a 10-year plan to provide young people with somewhere to go, something meaningful to do and someone who cares.

Although I wholeheartedly welcome this landmark strategy, for it to have a truly meaningful impact it must be backed by statutory protections for the services that our young people rely on. That is why I introduced the Youth Services Bill last year, which aims to strengthen the statutory duty on local authorities by introducing clear, measurable benchmarks for what sufficient youth provision looks like. It includes expectations around qualified staff and accessibility, and it embeds the conditions needed for long-term improvement through joined-up safeguarding, quality standards and meaningful youth voice in the design and delivery of services.

I have seen at first hand the impact of a lack of statutory protections for youth services. In Croydon, London’s youngest borough, the council shut down the youth engagement team, a group of wonderful youth workers who were a critical link between the voluntary sector and the council. The lack of statutory protections meant that it could be closed down without real consultation with young people, the NHS or the police.

Protecting our youth provision is not about placing unrealistic burdens on local authorities; it is about making a practical investment in our young people’s future and financial savings for our communities. As has been outlined, for every £1 we save on youth services, we save up to £6.40 in social value. Although I wholeheartedly recognise and welcome this strategy, I urge the Minister and the Government to think again about how we can provide statutory protections for our youth services.

16:46

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship for the third time today, Ms McVey; I think we are getting to know each other quite well. I thank you for your courtesy and guidance. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) on securing this debate. I spoke to her beforehand. When I saw the title of the debate, I said, “I’m definitely going to Westminster Hall.” People will say, “You’ll be in Westminster Hall anyway.” But I came racing down for this debate—I love this debate—and I am going to explain why.

It is nice to see the Minister in her place again. She gets all the good debates, and today she has a really super one. I look forward to her contribution. This year is the 70th anniversary of the Duke of Edinburgh’s award, and a new national youth strategy will be in place. This is an opportunity to reshape what will be offered to the next generation to ensure that every child, regardless of their background, postcode or circumstances, is given the tools to become world-ready.

I wanted to come and speak in this debate because my three boys, Jamie, Ian and Luke, got the Duke of Edinburgh’s award. When they were young men, Jamie got the gold and the other two boys got the bronze. I watched them march off with their impossibly heavy rucksacks into the damp, unpredictable weather, maps in hand, full of nervous energy. I watched them return tired, covered in mud, but standing just a little bit taller. I believe it taught them resilience—the hon. Member for Huddersfield outlined that incredibly well in her contribution—and it taught them how to look at a challenge, look at their peers and say, “This is something that we have to do together.” It is not just about a single person; it is about doing it together. That is what the Duke of Edinburgh’s award instils. As a father, I owe a great debt of gratitude to the legacy of the late Prince Philip, and to the ongoing devotion of the current Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Edward. Through the Duke of Edinburgh’s award, my boys made friends for life.

Every year, Northern Ireland produces some of the highest completion rates anywhere in the United Kingdom for gold, silver and bronze. Our schools, our uniformed organisations, such as the Boys’ Brigade and the Girl Guides, local youth clubs and even farmers clubs have been the engines driving this success. The charity’s 70th anniversary goal is to reach 2 million more young people over the next five years—what a goal that is, and it is achievable.

In Northern Ireland, young people are unfortunately dealing with a mental health crisis. It is deeply concerning. We are dealing with pockets of severe deprivation where a child might never otherwise, without the award, get the chance to see the beauty of the Mourne mountains, let alone hike across them. The Duke of Edinburgh’s award is the framework that catches young people when formal education is not enough, building their focus, memory and social awareness. It does all those things, and brings them together for us, ensuring that no child is left behind in my constituency of Strangford and across Northern Ireland, including in the inner-city estates of Belfast and the border regions.

Let us use this 70th anniversary not just to celebrate the past, but to build a robust, unbreakable foundation for the future of our youth. My three boys did the Duke of Edinburgh’s award; they did well, and the award did that for them.

16:49

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) on securing this debate.

I welcome this Labour Government’s national youth strategy, and how it recognises the importance of achieving good work and the emphasis that it places on trusted adults. Too often, those relationships have been seen as a soft offer—a nice to have—when in fact they are a key strategic asset in tackling youth unemployment. That is because today we risk having a lost generation. There are a million young people neither earning nor learning, with hundreds of thousands of them disconnected from traditional employment support and hidden from the system entirely.

A growing evidence base suggests that trusted adult relationships, whether with youth workers, coaches, mentors or others can act as the connective tissue to the wider support that will help to address the barriers locking young people out of education, employment and training. They can transform a young person’s journey to employment through the continuity, advocacy and encouragement that many need to navigate a system that is often confusing and isolating. That consistent, person-centred support can be vital in identifying those hidden NEETs too.

On Monday, to mark Youth Employment Week, I hosted a roundtable with the Youth Futures Foundation where we heard the powerful testimony of its youth ambassadors: Aarya, Elaina, Grace, Niamh, Serena, Sharna and Yusra. They talked about the impact that the presence, or absence, of a trusted adult had had on them. I am living proof that trusted adults can succeed where traditional provision falls short. When I dropped out of school feeling like the world had ended, it was a local youth worker called Russell who helped to rebuild my confidence and set me on a positive journey. I would not be here representing the home that I love without the support that he gave me.

In a fragmented and often confusing landscape, trusted adults can act as a golden thread, bridging young people into the right support at the right time. They can also help to draw this Labour Government’s offers together, aligning work across employment, education, skills, health and youth policy, delivering the system change required to tackle the NEET challenge.

Young Futures hubs can act as centres of excellence for relational practice, offering open access and co-ordinated support for young people across employment, mental health and crime prevention in every community. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out in her response how she is working across Government to deliver this manifesto commitment, and how she thinks we can strengthen and support the role of youth workers like Russell, and trusted adults more generally, across this important policy area.

16:52

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for securing this really important debate. I also thank my two work experience students, Nicoleta and Lyra. They are both from Harlow and are in the Public Gallery today. They have prepared me a very thorough and informative briefing ahead of this debate, so my contribution might be slightly more informed than usual.

When I met with Nicoleta and Lyra before this debate, they spoke about their experiences of taking part in the Duke of Edinburgh’s scheme, which obviously celebrates its 70th anniversary this year. I want to read out some of their thoughts on the scheme and the difference that it made to them and their friends and peers. Nicoleta completed the Duke of Edinburgh’s bronze award while she was studying at Burnt Mill academy. She said:

“I would describe it as very insightful and gave me an opportunity to give back to community by mentoring primary school children as part of the volunteering section.”

Lyra completed the Duke of Edinburgh’s bronze award while she was at Stewards academy, which is also in Harlow. She said that

“taking part in a local theatre production as part of the skills section, was very insightful and ignited a new passion. As part of the volunteering being able to volunteer at Harlow Youth Council improved political interest and involvement with the town.”

I think we can all agree that that is admirable and fantastic.

I have a few points with regard to the national youth strategy. I welcome the publication of the first long-term youth strategy that we have had in over two decades. Following a lot of lobbying from me and others, I am really pleased that young carers were included in that strategy, because it is hugely important that groups like that are listened to and their voices are heard.

I emphasise to the Minister the huge importance of prevention rather than intervention, and of ensuring that every young person, regardless of their postcode, has the opportunity to be involved in the schemes that have been mentioned. We can all appreciate, as Members across the Chamber have commented, the huge difference that taking part in schemes like the Duke of Edinburgh’s scheme can make to young people’s confidence and their ability to be part of the community.

Finally—I know I am running out of time—I am really delighted that Harlow will be the home of a Young Futures hub funded by this Labour Government. I am also delighted that this Labour Government have an ambition to halve the enrichment participation gap between disadvantaged young people and their peers.

16:55

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

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. If we are going to make interventions that will have a real impact on lives and change opportunities and trajectories, we have to look at where we place those priorities. Of course, these transition points in life are those opportunities: the 1,001 critical days, the start of school and the transition between primary and secondary.

Then there are youth services, and I believe we are at a juncture where we need to bring our services together around our young people. We are doing incredible work on people not in education, employment or training and in the criminal justice space; we have the national youth strategy; and we are looking at young people’s wellbeing and mental health. We need to bring those into one space, because ultimately they are about the relationships that young people build with trusted adults. They do not compartmentalise themselves, and these different areas are completely interwoven, so I urge more joining up of the different strategies as we move forward.

As part of that, statutory youth services should be returned and local authorities should have the obligation but also the necessary funding. Often, we are talking about the same children who need that security as they go through their teenage years. I am bringing the organisations together in York. We have so many brilliant organisations, such as the Scouts, Guides, churches, Door 84 and the Island—I could spend a few minutes just talking about them—but, ultimately, they are working in siloes because we do not have that integration. I have the jobcentre, the local authority and the police coming, and we want to ensure that we are able to lead on having one integrated service for youth in our city.

I look to the Minister at this point in the debate, recognising the way that these services were ripped of their funding in 2011 and lost so many youth workers across the board. We lost 60% of our workforce; we can rebuild that under her leadership, but we need to ensure that services are built and co-produced by the young people so that they can take a lead in determining their future and the outcomes they want to see.

As we enter this conversation as a city—I will also be bringing it to the Minister’s door—I want to ensure that young people transition well from those years of exploration as teenagers into adulthood, with the securities that they need around them in every part of the system. That will take funding. I note the incredible £500 million, which will be transformative, but we must ensure that it is sufficient for the services that we need. Young people need opportunities and confidence as they grow into adults, and I want to ensure that our Government deliver that for them.

16:58

[Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for introducing this really important debate on national youth strategy and youth enrichment. I truly welcome it because, as a former teacher and deputy headteacher, I saw the transformative impact that youth work, enrichment activities, sport, volunteering, the arts and outdoor education can have on a young person’s confidence, aspirations and life chances, but I also saw the consequences when those opportunities were decimated. We have a growing number of young people who feel safe only in their bedrooms on digital devices. That has to change.

For too long, young people have paid the price for over a decade of austerity. Local authority spending on youth services in England and Wales has fallen by 74% in real terms since 2010, while the number of local authority-run youth centres has fallen from 931 to 379. Investing in young people is smart economic policy, too. I know that education never stops at the school gates. Young people learn resilience through volunteering, teamwork through sport and confidence through challenge. That is why I welcome the Labour Government’s commitment through the national youth strategy to ensure that every young person has somewhere to go. Backed by more than £500 million, it includes investment in youth spaces, a new enrichment entitlement and an ambition to halve the enrichment gap by 2035.

I particularly welcome the Government’s recognition of opportunities that should not be based on family income, geography or background. I grew up in an area called Ashmore Park, and we had a youth club on my doorstep. I spent many an evening there—I will stop the conversation there. It was one of 30 local youth centres that were lost over 15 years, and we felt that hole in the community. But recently and despite those challenges, there are organisations in Wolverhampton and Willenhall that are delivering the vision that we set out in the strategy.

I must mention the Wolves Foundation in conjunction with Wolverhampton city council. A couple of weeks ago I went to one of their community space sport activities, had a go at basketball, shot a few hoops—I do not know whether that is the right phrase—and had a brilliant time. More importantly, so did the 50 other young people with the free activities in Heath Town. We are opening up the same in Tennyson Road, in Low Hill and the Scotlands as well. I must mention the Loft youth club at the Hive in New Invention. Across Wolverhampton, the Way Youth Zone has become a shining example of what investment in young people can really achieve.

I will finish by thanking the Duke of Edinburgh’s award and all the staff and volunteers that take part to give young people a brilliant opportunity to really find themselves, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield for securing this important debate.

17:02

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) on securing this important debate.

In Dartford and our towns and villages we have an increasingly youthful population, with a quarter of households in the constituency comprising a family with children. Our young people do our community proud, from our brilliant Kent youth county councillors, including Madalena, Amelia, Sam, Stephan and Flourish; our Dartford youth councillors; Heritage, who got to the final of Monday’s Poetry by Heart national competition; and so many others who star in our cultural and sporting life. And let us not forget eight-year-old Ruth, who wrote a brilliant and persuasive handwritten letter to me last week about YouTube.

Ahead of the Government’s very welcome national youth strategy last year, it was a pleasure for me to work with the YMCA to host an event to discuss with our Dartford young people what they wanted to see in the strategy. The concerns they shared at the event were many and varied. They worry about their futures: how they will find affordable housing, cope with the cost of living and deal with growing challenges to their mental health and to their sense of community in a digital age. There was a strong feeling in the room that their generation needed better public transport, access to more varied job opportunities locally, and more places for them and other young people to come together.

Last year’s national youth strategy was a wonderful document. It rightly promised a place-based approach to rebuilding a local offer for young people, and I hope that for Dartford it will mean more sports facilities such as a rebuilt Swanscombe Pavilion and more youth provision in the town centre. I hugely welcome the youth guarantee. The challenges faced by young people getting into the early stages of a career come through in the people I meet and the stories I hear across Dartford. It is welcome that Dartford will host one of the Government’s new youth hubs, providing access to expanded employment and wraparound support services. But we need to go further, as others have said, to rebuild the youth services lost over the past decade and a half, and to give young people a chance to meet, create, play sport and learn.

One of the great underacknowledged dimensions to young people’s excessive use of social media and its effect on their mental health is the loss of such opportunities. We owe it to young people in Dartford and across the country to give young people back the chance to grow, to take risks and to unlock their talent.

17:04

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) on securing this really cool debate, and I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

In Gravesham, we have a good track record of listening to and working with our young people. Gravesham Youth Council is about to celebrate its 26th anniversary. The current chair of the council is work shadowing with me this week, and I am married to the first chair of the council, who was activated to enter politics because his youth club was closed by the then Conservative-run Kent county council. How things have changed—or not changed.

Under the last Conservative Government, that trend continued. Kent County Council used to have 36 youth centres; the number went down to 12, and now the youth centres are family hubs. There is limited open-access provision, as family hubs are not available exclusively to young people. Indeed, a young person needs a referral or targeted youth support to gain access to those services, rather than there being predominantly open-access youth services.

The national youth strategy aims to reverse that decline and to enhance youth services, which I really welcome. Last week, I attended an event hosted by Gifted Young Gravesham and organised by the charity The Grand, and there were representatives from nearly every local secondary school on the day, which was a very hot one. When I spoke to school councillors during a consultation on growing up in the online world, I heard many of the same themes: social media disrupts sleep patterns, but also young people are struggling inside and need somebody to talk to. They want somewhere to go, but where can they go?

That is the digital isolation paradox, which is evident across the UK. One young person at that event said:

“Social media is so extremely flawed - but it’s all we have. If we had more places to go outside of social media, we’d be happy. But adults build these toxic platforms, and then got angry when they hurt us. They destroyed the places where we would connect and got angry when we stayed home.”

That is the paradox, and that is where the national youth strategy is coming with more youth centres.

We are grateful to have been able to receive a youth hub, working with the Department for Work and Pensions in Gravesham and with the Gravesham Youth Council. I am fulfilling a promise by directly reporting back to the Minister, the Members and all the decision makers who are here today, to show that we are listening to and hearing young people.

I have to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) about how we can help to structure young people’s voices. Young people’s voices need support around them, and we have heard some really amazing testimony today from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) about the impact of youth work. Youth workers are professionals who need to be protected by statutory requirements for local authorities to fund this quality and professional service. That can be done. Indeed, it has been done in Scotland with the Community Learning and Development Standards Council, and I urge the Minister to look into that.

I will end with a quote: “Young people are not a problem to be solved. They are potential to be unlocked.”

17:08

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

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

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for securing this important debate and I also pay tribute to all the other Members who have spoken in it for making really excellent speeches. Some very compelling points were made about the value and importance of youth services and youth enrichment.

I have no doubt that many in this Chamber share my core belief that every child and young person has some innate and special talent and ability in them, and that it is our job as families and as a wider society, through both the formal and informal support that we put in place, to draw out that talent and ensure that every young person grows up to thrive and contribute to our society and our economy. Youth services and youth enrichment are a key part of that, including, of course, the Duke of Edinburgh’s award, which celebrates its 70th anniversary this year. It has helped so many young people to improve their skills and has equipped them to make valuable contributions to their communities and societies.

I congratulate all the young people across the country, and especially in my constituency of Twickenham, who have completed their bronze, silver or gold awards. I also offer huge thanks to all those people who give up their time to make the awards happen. I know some very hard-working teachers who give up their weekends to go camping and do all sorts of crazy things in all weathers. I am awestruck by them. I certainly would never do that, but I am not a camper. I thank all of them.

These experiences not only change individual lives, but strengthen our communities. Through volunteering in the community and completing expeditions, young people are countering the rising tide of isolation. Last year alone, young people participating in the Duke of Edinburgh’s award contributed to an impressive 6 million hours of volunteering, with an estimated value of £45.4 million.

A number of Members have mentioned Alan Milburn’s recent report on young people not in employment, education or training, and the scale of the challenge that we face. It is important that we challenge the narrative we hear all too often that young people are disengaged, lazy or selfish. Actually, they are anything but. This generation is growing up in an online world shaped by economic uncertainty, mental health challenges, rapid technological change and concerns about the future of our planet but, time and again, young people show us their determination, creativity and drive, especially when they are given the space and support to thrive.

The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a fair and long-term funding settlement to support youth work, resources and infrastructure. We very much welcome the Government’s national youth strategy, particularly their promise to introduce multi-year funding settlements and halve the participation gap in enrichment activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers by 2035.

I note, however, the recent YMCA report, which found that spending on youth services by local authorities in England and Wales fell by 10% in a single year, in the largest annual reduction since 2016-17. At the same time, we know that children from lower income backgrounds have less access to enrichment activities outside school, and that schools are facing tighter budgets than ever. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation reported that almost one in five schools has cut back and stopped enrichment activities and clubs in order to provide support for pupils experiencing hardship.

I also draw the Minister’s attention to a briefing from the Duke of Edinburgh’s award, which notes the vital role that education providers play in successfully implementing enrichment targets, especially in the light of some of the cuts we have seen in youth services. With both schools and youth providers stretched to the limit, the Government’s ambitions will be challenged. Achieving them will depend on practical support, sustainable funding and capacity.

We have already seen concerns emerging in West Sussex, where the county council has decided to stop centrally commissioning the award, leaving many schools unable to meet the administrative costs themselves. I would be grateful if the Minister could share whether she is aware of similar situations arising elsewhere in the country. I am keen to understand what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Education on the ask from the Duke of Edinburgh’s award for 80 hours of enrichment per year for every young person.

As we have heard, the evidence for investment is compelling. We know that enrichment activities can help to improve school attendance, and we have heard about the return on investment from youth services, reducing pressure on other public services. Without funding certainty beyond the three years currently promised, we know that youth organisations will struggle to run consistent programmes. [Interruption.] I am being asked to wind up, so I will just reiterate that the consequences of under-investment are clear and youth services are not an optional extra. The Liberal Democrats stand ready to collaborate with the Government to ensure that the right investment goes in for our young people and their future.

17:13

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

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) on securing this important debate.

We all recognise that this issue is increasingly important to our constituents across the country. I spend a lot of time discussing it as both the local MP in Old Bexley and Sidcup and a shadow Minister. I have had the pleasure of having young people on work experience with me this week to keep me on my toes. It has been a busy week.

In 2022, the previous Government allocated £560 million over three years to fund the national youth guarantee, ensuring that young people aged between 11 and 18 in England had access to regular clubs and activities, something to do after school, experiences away from home and opportunities to volunteer. As part of that, we allocated £300 million to youth facilities, improving and developing 300 of them. We established the National Citizen Service; this Government cancelled it, but more than 750,000 young people participated in it and it had a 93% satisfaction rate—something this Government could only dream of.

As the Government well know, youth charities, like all employers, are subject to national insurance contributions, and the increase in contributions requires them to find additional funds. According to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, these changes could cost the charity sector an additional £1.4 billion a year. For smaller charities with limited reserves and core funding, that will seem like an insurmountable challenge. As has been mentioned, this has led to a reduction in provision.

Youth work has huge economic benefits. Research has shown that every £1 of Government investment in youth work has a social return on investment of between £3.20 and £6.40. Moreover, it saves around £500 million annually by preventing antisocial behaviour, knife crime and associated criminal justice costs. As a Government, we established the youth investment fund, which delivered £300 million over approximately three years. This Government scrapped it, and announced a new national youth strategy, which analysis shows cuts the funding by around £50 million each year over the life of the strategy.

Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) and I hosted a roundtable with those from the enrichment sector—it is great to see some of them in the audience today. The renewed national focus on enrichment is welcome and timely, but access to enrichment remains uneven, and Government funding cuts will only make that worse. We agree with those we heard from yesterday that the challenge is how we ensure that fantastic youth enrichment provision is accessible for as many young people as possible across the country.

As others have said, enrichment is not an optional extra; it is a vital way in which young people learn fundamental life skills that often cannot be taught in traditional learning environments. I have seen some of the Duke of Edinburgh work in one of my local schools, with pupils putting up tents and camping. The Duke of Edinburgh’s award celebrates a milestone next week—70 years—and I am sure that many Members will be there to support that tradition.

[Jim Shannon]

Those opportunities allow many young people to enjoy camping—unlike the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who is not really a camper. Those who get the thrill of camping for the first time will always want to do it. My oldest boy did it, and now he goes camping every summer with his wife and the children. That is just an example of people acquiring something that lasts.

[Mr French]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for one of his famous interventions. I am pleased that his son enjoys camping; I am not sure I am as sold on a camping holiday in this weather. He is right that it teaches young people key life skills that they can take forward for the rest of their lives.

We all know the crisis we have, with more than 1 million young people not in education, employment or training. A good enrichment offer is a key way of reversing the alarming increase we have seen in recent years. The Government’s national youth strategy has some noble aims, including halving the participation gap in enrichment activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers, and giving half a million more young people access to a trusted adult outside of the home by 2035—I believe passionately in the power of role models, and I would love to go on about it longer, but I am looking at the time, so I will not.

The warm words in the strategy are all well and good, but the funding must match them. Governments of all colours make big announcements, but the funding does not always match them. That is my concern: that the money being put forward is not enough to deliver the objectives.

Government can often be siloed, so I hope that the Minister will also commit to making a concerted effort to ensure that policies and programmes across Government are put into practice in a more holistic and strategic way in this area. There ought to be an understanding of the need for funding pots and programmes for enrichment to complement one another, to work in tandem, and not to duplicate efforts or to compete with other Departments’ aims. Will the Minister therefore urge colleagues in the Department for Education to reverse the 22% cut to school PE funding and reverse the cut to the opening schools facilities fund, which would help many youth clubs to have somewhere to provide their services?

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister, hopeful that Harpreet Uppal will have a couple of minutes at the end to wind up.

17:19

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

Of course. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) on securing this important debate, and I am grateful to all those who contributed to what is an important conversation. We heard some brilliant contributions that highlighted just how important it is to support young people across the country. This generation is the most connected but most isolated one, and our national youth strategy aims to tackle that and the challenges associated with it. Members made a number of points on spaces, places and funding, which I will address throughout my contribution.

A specific point put to me was around the importance of providing streamlined funding, particularly access to both revenue and capital funding. The Government have merged some funding regimes, and I am happy to write to Members with more details. The shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) not only made important points but paid tribute to their work experience students. I add my thanks to those students for their contributions.

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) put two specific points to me, including one about GoWild Outdoors in his constituency and the changes to school sport. I understand the concerns about the decision to replace the existing PE and sport premium for primary schools; however, despite sustained investment through that premium for more than a decade, fewer than half of children get the 60 active minutes a day recommended by the chief medical officer, and persistent inequalities remain for girls and people from disadvantaged communities. That is simply not good enough.

The Government are determined to close those gaps in participation, which is why we have committed more than £1 billion in funding for PE and school sport over the next three years. That includes £580 million for a new PE and school sport partnerships network to replace the PE and sport premium, alongside investment in improvements to school sport facilities and transitional support for primaries. That change includes secondary and primary, and capital and revenue funding. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that further, if it would be helpful. He also asked about the overnight levy. That policy is led by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but of course, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Treasury have significant interest in it, and I work closely with my ministerial colleagues. The consultation on that is yet to be published, but I will happily write to him on that point in due course.

I will now take the opportunity to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Duke of Edinburgh’s award. Over the last seven decades, the award has changed the lives of countless young people; I saw that in action and at first hand when I visited Barnsley academy in Kendray in my constituency. We know the transformative power the award can have on young people: learning new skills, developing confidence and making friends are just a few of the benefits of completing the DofE award.

I am delighted to be attending the parliamentary reception for the 70th anniversary next week; it is great to see that some representatives join us today. I thank the teachers, volunteers and all those who have worked hard to achieve the award across the country. Just a few months ago, I visited Centrepoint just outside of the centre of Barnsley, which is working with homeless young people on their Duke of Edinburgh’s awards. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) referenced, more than six million hours of volunteering is phenomenal, and just one of the contributions made by the Duke of Edinburgh’s award.

As the Minister with responsibility for youth, I am proud of the conversations that the Government have had and continue to have with young people. Last month, I signed the power of youth charter to demonstrate our commitment to youth empowerment. That sends the clear message that we are listening and will act, and illustrates the importance that we place on youth voice, which was raised by a number of Members. We always said that our youth strategy would be not about young people, but made with and by young people. We wanted to know what mattered, and we listened. The voices of young people are right at the heart of the decisions that we made.

The Government’s landmark national youth strategy is ambitious, long term and cross cutting. “Youth Matters” radically transforms how we work, to give every young person somewhere to go, someone who cares and a community that they feel part of. We have been clear about what that means: by 2035, we want to halve the participation gap in enriching activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers, and for half a million people to have access to a trusted adult outside their home. We have the ambition to halve the participation gap because we do not believe that a young person’s background should determine the opportunities that they get. We are fiercely committed to breaking down barriers, and are working across Government and with partners to make that a reality.

[David Williams]

On closing that gap, research shows that for every £1 a year spent on a young person in a place such as Stoke-on-Trent or Kidsgrove, £10 a year is spent on a young person in inner London. I welcome all the investment via the national youth strategy, but how can we use the strategy to close the gap, to make sure that we lift young people from Stoke and Staffordshire up to those levels?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I totally appreciate my hon. Friend’s point. Under the previous Government, my area of Barnsley saw some of the worst cuts in the country, but despite that, the then Labour council invested in the youth zone and free transport for under-18s. I know that the challenges in Stoke will be similar to those in Barnsley, and of course there will be pockets of deprivation in London and other areas. We want to ensure that every young person, whatever their postcode, gets the support they need. Obviously, this is in the context of 73% cuts in England over the last so many years. That will not be reversed overnight, but we have an ambition to work towards reversing it.

The strategy is backed by £500 million of DCMS funding. That will include funding for new builds, refurbishments and capital equipment, so that organisations can improve or expand their services. I have seen the impact of schemes like that, from the reopening of the Double Six Youth Club in Sheffield, to Eloquent Dance in Birmingham.

The second ambition is increasing access to trusted adults—my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) spoke about this—because we know how important it is for young people to have someone in their corner. As the Minister responsible for youth but also civil society and sport, I often hear about the fantastic work of youth workers, volunteers, sports coaches and many others. I have also seen that at first hand in places such as East Bierley Community Sports Association in Kirklees, which I visited a few weeks ago and which is just down the road from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield. In the interest of time, I will not mention any more, but I have seen so many.

However, as many as one in five young people still does not have a trusted adult outside the home to talk to. We want to change that. Our recent joint investment with the King’s Trust of £10 million will expand young people’s access to a trusted adult. That money will be matched with corporate and philanthropic investment, bringing the total to £20 million to build young people’s skills and tackle youth unemployment. We will follow that with £15 million, over the next three years, for youth workers, volunteers and others who work closely with young people. An additional £5 million will help organisations to spread good practice, improve data and build strong local partnerships.

Expanding enrichment is a key aim of our strategy. Young people have told us that they want more in-person opportunities, whether that be through arts and culture, sports, volunteering, or being outdoors in nature. We know that those experiences are invaluable for wellbeing, belonging, school attendance and future employment opportunities. That is especially true for disadvantaged young people. Those who attend after-school clubs achieve, on average, a two-points-higher total score in their key stage 2 assessments in English, maths and science at the end of primary school. That is the value of enriching activities, and that is why the Government recently published the enrichment framework to give every school and college the tools to offer high-quality enrichment. That framework is for all pupils, to ensure that access is not limited because of who someone is or where they are from.

Building on the enrichment framework, my Department will invest £22.5 million to support up to 400 schools to meet the benchmarks. That will help them to listen to the pupils in their school about what they really want, and to act on it. We will work with schools in some of the most deprived areas of England to ensure that where young people live is not a barrier anymore. We have also announced Every Child Can—an investment of £132.5 million of dormant assets funding to fund opportunities across the five key categories of enrichment. That includes ensuring that every school has access to a library.

When talking about enrichment, I think of organisations in my own area, such as the Barnsley Youth Choir, which is giving hundreds of young people amazing experiences, opportunities and skills, Beat the Street, whereby primary schools get together and get kids more active, or our brilliant new Base71 Youth Zone.

A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), spoke about cross-Government work. We have a Young Futures ministerial group. Delivering for young people is a shared responsibility; we are not doing that alone. Across Government, we are working with incredible partners that are delivering on the ground and galvanising action—uniformed youth organisations, the Duke of Edinburgh’s award of course, and many others. We are working closely with local authorities and developing a network of up to 50 youth hubs. We have already opened eight pilot hubs, and the learnings will inform the remainder of the programme. That includes how we align with other Government initiatives such as the Young Futures panels and the Department for Work and Pensions youth hubs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons), who of course is the chair of the all-party group, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), as well as others, spoke about strengthening the statutory duty on local authorities to provide a sufficient youth offer. We are already taking steps to address that. Our local outcomes framework outlines key priorities and accountability for local government. We will explore reviewing the statutory duty, but we must ensure that any change is properly funded in order to empower, not burden, local authorities.

Every time a young person discovers their passions and pushes themselves outside their comfort zone, that has an impact far beyond the youth club or sports pitch. It is a step towards them becoming a more resilient, positive and connected adult, and it is a powerful reminder of our nation’s story—one that has produced world-famous musicians, actors, athletes, inventors and entrepreneurs. They all started as a young person who was told that they could reach their potential. This Government are ensuring that young people hear that same message again.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield and all other Members who contributed to the debate.

17:29

[Harpreet Uppal]

I thank everyone who took part in the debate—I also join the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) in saying that I am not a camper either. I thank the Minister and her team for everything that they do, and all youth workers as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the National Youth Strategy and youth enrichment.

17:30

Sitting adjourned.