Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Carry-over extension)
Tuesday 14th July 2026
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 14 July 2026 - large print - (14 Jul 2026)
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
Tuesday 14th July 2026
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026 View all Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 22–R–I(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (7 Jul 2026)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 18.
Chris McDonald
It is a pleasure to be back in the House today to see through the final stages of this Bill. The Government support all the Lords amendments before us.
I wish to pay tribute to my colleague Minister Leong for so expertly guiding the Bill through its passage in the other place. I also wish to place on the record my thanks for the constructive approach taken by peers to the scrutiny of the Bill during its passage through the upper House, including the constructive and careful consideration from His Majesty’s official Opposition, Liberal Democrat peers and Cross-Bench peers. I thank them for their contribution.
We have a responsibility to act now to secure the future of the UK steel industry. This Bill will assist in that by ensuring that steel production is secured, helping to restore domestic production to sustainable levels and supporting the Government’s economic growth plans where the public interest test is met.
The Lords amendments before us strengthen the Bill in several ways. Amendment 1 ensures that the sunset power in the Bill may be extended only by increments of two years. This means that the Government would have to seek parliamentary approval at regular intervals to keep the principal transfer powers on the statute book.
Lords amendments 2 and 3 place a duty on the Secretary of State to consider the costs that are likely to be associated with the exercise of the principal transfer powers, ensuring that such costs are considered in any decision making over the use of these powers.
Lords amendments 4 and 5 upgrade the parliamentary procedure relating to continuity obligations and enforcement, ensuring that Parliament has increased scrutiny of these matters.
Lords amendments 6 to 18 all relate to the appointment and role of an independent valuer and ensure that key considerations around environmental and health and safety liabilities are taken into account during any valuation exercise.
A final decision on the use of the powers in the Bill has not been taken. Any decision to exercise the powers in the Bill will be subject to satisfaction of the public interest test, based on the relevant facts at the time of the decision.
Steel has shaped our nation’s history, and this Bill is an opportunity to ensure its long-term success. The Bill enables decisive action for a strategically vital industry, defending our national security and supporting our critical national infrastructure, our economy and our national interest. I therefore ask right hon. and hon. Members to support the Lords amendments before us today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I am grateful to their lordships for their work on the Bill. We support the amendments before the House.
Let me be plain from the outset: our objection has never been to steelmaking, or to the men and women who make steel; it is to a Government who have crashed around and used blunt instruments without ever having a detailed plan. Hope is not a strategy, and a blank cheque is not a plan. Nationalisation is a bad idea, and nothing that has yet been said at that Dispatch Box has told the House where the spending stops. The Government are taking us down a fast and expensive road with no idea where the exit lies. Even members of the Government concede in private that they rushed into something that they now repent at leisure.
Let us look at what we have learnt over the passage of the Bill. The Government and their Lib Dem little helpers in the Lords voted against a Conservative amendment in the name of the noble Lord Hunt to limit support to £2.5 billion over three years. That is almost £2.3 million every single day. The cap was not plucked from thin air—that £2.5 billion was the Government’s own figure. In their refusal to accept a cap, the Government concede that the figure is likely to be more. That could have been 35,000 new police officers, eight brand-new hospitals or more than double what the Chancellor raised over the course of this Parliament by destroying the livelihoods of British farmers.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
We have a duty to stand by the steel sector, especially as it navigates unprecedented challenges, including President Trump’s unfair steel tariffs, China’s anti-competitive state aid practices, and the transition to environmentally sustainable production methods. If we are going to foster a thriving steel industry, we cannot allow more producers to collapse, more jobs to be lost, or the risk of our last blast furnaces going cold.
That is why the Liberal Democrats broadly welcome this legislation as a temporary emergency and targeted step aimed specifically at turning around British Steel before it can be returned to the private sector. I am particularly glad that the Government have accepted Liberal Democrat amendments that will require the Secretary of State to have regard to the costs of nationalisation before they table regulations to nationalise a company, as well as amendments that would ensure the consideration of environmental liabilities. Those Liberal Democrat amendments will strengthen the legislation, ensuring that these measures—and indeed the Government’s broader steel strategy—move us in the right direction to set the industry on a truly sustainable footing for the long term, while providing taxpayers with real value for money.
Lords amendments 2 and 3 ensure that if the Secretary of State is to exercise the principal transfer power, the Government must consider the expected cost to the taxpayer. That is important not only for business and industry to have certainty over the nationalisation process, but for taxpayers, who need to know that their money is not being wasted or paid to foreign owners who will leave our industries high and dry.
I am glad that the Government have also agreed to Liberal Democrat amendments that will strengthen the treatment of environmental liabilities in relation to the steel undertaking and ensure that they are explicitly identified and accounted for before compensation payments are made. On top of those legislative concessions, we are glad that the Government accepted other Liberal Democrat calls, including holding a debate in each House within 12 months of Royal Assent and requiring any future chair of a nationalised company to appear before the Business and Trade Committee. Those significant improvements to the legislation promote parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
We also welcome the Government’s having listened to Liberal Democrat peers and introduction of written ministerial statements on the day of acquisition, which will be repeated every three months until we reach a year from nationalisation. Again, that change boosts transparency, enabling Parliament to scrutinise the measures’ impact on local communities and jobs. Lastly, we are glad that the Government adopted Liberal Democrat proposals to strengthen the UK Steel Council and its role in facilitating nationalisation within the context of the steel strategy.
Steel is a vital sector, bringing far-reaching benefits across the UK. It provides key materials for our national infrastructure from defence to renewable energy, and creates thousands of good jobs across the UK. The Liberal Democrats welcome the action that the Government are taking to protect British steel, backing a key plank of our critical national infrastructure. I am glad that the Government have worked constructively with the Liberal Democrats and that Ministers have adopted many of our proposals to improve transparency and accountability around the financial and environmental costs of any forthcoming measures. We will continue to constructively scrutinise the Government as they put these new measures in force to ensure that steel producers, local jobs and British taxpayers are properly supported and treated fairly.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s acceptance of the Lords amendments. As hon. Members will know, part of my constituency takes in the Scunthorpe steelworks, and hundreds of my constituents work there. My aim throughout the rather tortuous and long saga about the future of the steelworks has been to ensure that their jobs are retained.
As the shadow Secretary of State outlined, the Bill could have been further improved, but I am delighted that we have at least reached a conclusion. There will be a sigh of relief among my many constituents who rely on the steelworks for their employment.
I look forward to engaging with the Minister as we move forward on the future of the steelworks—because, as I think he is well aware, if energy costs in particular stay as they are, there are future disasters ahead. We must do something on energy costs if we are to maintain any sort of a steel industry and heavy industry in the UK.
I thank the Minister for getting us to this point and look forward to working with him in the future.
Chris McDonald
I have listened carefully to the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks and those from the shadow Minister, and I will address them in a moment. I am grateful for the support of the Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), and of the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), both of whom are unable to speak in the debate as a result of their positions elsewhere in the House.
I opened by remarking on the constructive and careful consideration that the Bill has had in the other place; it is disappointing to see that the shadow Secretary of State is not taking the same approach. I will pick up a couple of the issues he raised. I am acutely aware of the position in which the previous Government left us, with uncompetitive energy prices for industry. If he had been attentive in some of the debates we have been involved in, he would be aware of some of the measures that I have taken to address that. Those include our energy-intensive scheme, increased relief on our supercharger scheme and our British industrial competitiveness scheme. I am determined to do more.
On tariffs, I am not saying that making the decision on tariffs was easy, but the shadow Secretary of State would clearly throw British industry to the mercy of dumped steel on the global market. We will not make that decision. He mentions coal for coking ovens. He may be unaware that there are no coking ovens in Scunthorpe. They were closed on his watch.
This Government are acting decisively and with purpose in the national interest, but the shadow Secretary of State is blinded by his ideological position on nationalisation. We believe that a steel industry, where necessary run by the Government and owned by the people, at least gives the opportunity to attract private sector investment. If the public interest test is met, that is the right thing to do. But if that does not convince the shadow Secretary of State, perhaps I can appeal to his sense of patriotism. I said on Second Reading that the England men’s football team had only ever won the world cup in a year when we had nationalised the steel industry. If he has any sense of duty towards our team and wishes them well, he should support nationalisation this time as well.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 18 agreed to.
Petitions
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I wish to present a petition on behalf of residents of West Bridgford in my constituency, calling for the creation of a new town council. West Bridgford is home to around 40,000 people, making it by far the largest settlement in Rushcliffe, yet unlike almost every other part of the borough it has no town or parish council to represent its local interests. As local government reorganisation concludes this week, many residents are concerned that decisions affecting their community will be taken solely by a large unitary authority, leaving local voices further removed or altogether absent from decision making.
For almost 80 years, West Bridgford had its own urban district council, and there is a strong feeling among residents that a new town council would be beneficial. Indeed, an independent survey carried out earlier this year found exceptionally high engagement. The petition I present today therefore reflects that local desire for greater democratic representation and asks the Government to work with Rushcliffe borough council as the process moves forward.
I am pleased to present the petition, which states:
The petition of residents of West Bridgford in the constituency of Rushcliffe,
Declares that there is a need for a new town council for West Bridgford; further declares that a new town council would have a positive impact on community cohesion throughout the area, which would enhance a sense of place, and support the local environment, its communities, and local distinctiveness.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Rushcliffe Borough Council to create a new West Bridgford town council to support local residents.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003223]
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition alongside a corresponding online petition signed by hundreds of my constituents in North East Hertfordshire calling to ban housing developers from donating to political parties. Developers are some of the largest donors in politics, pouring in massive sums to tilt the planning system ever further in their favour. Cash for access leaves the impression that the same developers are wrecking nature and failing to deliver affordable homes. Those profiting from low-quality, overpriced housing are also writing the rules. This cements inequality at the heart of democracy because the people living with the consequences of a profit-driven housing crisis never get a seat at the table.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that housing developers are among the largest donors to political parties and donate massive sums of money in an attempt to tilt the planning system further in their favour; further declares that cash-for-access leaves the impression that the same developers profiting from low-quality, overpriced housing are also helping to write the rules; and further declares that the corrupting influence of big money should be removed from the planning system and politics should be refocused on genuine solutions to the housing crisis that bring down housing costs for ordinary people and give local communities more of a say over their future.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ban housing developers from donating to political parties.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003225]
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition, alongside a corresponding online petition, which has been signed by more than 4,000 UK residents, calling for a ban on political donors getting contracts from Governments they helped to fund. Big money donors do not give out of kindness; they pay for access and influence. The evidence shows that it is a smart investment, because the firms have landed billions in Government contracts. If we want to build a better country, we need a better kind of politics, and tackling the corrosive influence of big money is the first step to rebuilding public trust. The petitioners
“therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ban political donors from receiving public contracts with Governments of political parties”
to which they have donated,
“And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that companies which donate to political parties have gone on to receive billions of pounds in public contracts; and further declares that this creates a perception that political decisions are shaped by cosy relationships with super-rich donors, instead of a sole focus on delivering better living standards and services for millions of people.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ban political donors from receiving public contracts with Governments of political parties they have donated to.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003226]
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
With 28 world records, the Crystal Palace national sports centre is the spiritual home of UK athletics. It is also an incredible community asset. Residents across Beckenham and Penge speak fondly about using its facilities growing up, or remember their children and grandchildren learning to swim in the Olympic-sized pool. However, in recent years, the centre has become a boarded-up relic of the past—in 2014, the then Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, even tried to demolish the athletic stadium and turn it into an unwanted free school—but thanks to the work of Fran Bernstein, Ben Woods, the Crystal Palace Sports Partnership and many others, the centre now has a lifeline. The £130 million transformation of the centre, backed by funding from our Mayor of London, Sir Sadiq Khan, will see the reopening of the Olympic-sized pool and diving boards, a revamped athletics stadium, and new facilities for other sports, too. I will be campaigning to bring world-class athletics back to Crystal Palace park once again. The petitioners
“therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to work with the Mayor of London and other relevant partners to support the delivery of the transformation of the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Beckenham and Penge,
Declares that the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre is a nationally significant sporting and community facility; further declares that plans have been submitted to transform the site, including refurbishment of the Grade II listed building, a revamped Olympic-sized pool and athletics stadium and new multi-sport and parasport facilities; and further declares that this transformation would benefit residents of Beckenham and Penge for generations to come.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to work with the Mayor of London and other relevant partners to support the delivery of the transformation of the Crystal Palace National Sports Centre.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003227]
Future of Thames Water
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I will discuss the future of Thames Water, starting with Thames Water’s record of pollution and environmental failure, and how it impacts everyone in my Witney constituency. Thames Water serves the constituency and embodies the systemic failure of the national water sector. Last year, Thames Water pumped sewage into rivers and lakes for 107,822 hours.
West Oxfordshire is very much ground zero for sewage. We have the Thames, the Evenlode, the Windrush, Shill brook and the Cole. We also have WASP, or Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, which has been so active in going after Thames Water’s bad behaviour. It has mapped the illegal sewage spills at Thames Water sewage treatment works and found that, between 2021 and 2025, there were 1,231 illegal spills just in the Witney constituency, and 271 illegal spills in just one sewage treatment works, Faringdon.
West Oxfordshire district council has done great work in trying to hold Thames Water to account, as has WASP, which inspired the Channel 4 programme “Dirty Business”, which many hon. Members will have seen, so well done to Peter, Ash, Geoff and Vaughan. Despite Thames Water’s appalling record, residents have seen their bills skyrocket. I have constituents whose bills have gone up by 50% and 70%; I even have one whose bill has gone up by 93%. That is outrageous, but those bill hikes are not making the situation any better. That is because Thames Water’s financial situation is disastrous. Thames has nearly £20 billion of debt.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making his speech, because this is hugely important. Residents in Harlow are also fed up with their bills going up because of what appears to be Thames Water’s incompetence. Does he agree that that should not be the case, and that if Thames Water is so incompetent that it cannot sort out this problem, the Government need to step in and do something about it?
Charlie Maynard
I completely agree, and Thames Water’s full-year accounts are out at 7 am tomorrow morning. We will see just what they tell us. It is going to be ugly, not least because the company’s equity is worthless. The largest equity shareholders wrote down their shareholding to zero value and withdrew their board members more than two years ago. When Thames Water’s creditors sought to take on another £3 billion of debt last year, I was given permission to intervene in the High Court and speak for the interests of Thames Water’s 16 million customers, who are paying all these outrageous costs and interest expenses, but would otherwise have had no voice in court.
This Labour Government have slow-peddled for the last two years, and have refused to draw a line under decades of Tory bad behaviour by putting Thames Water into special administration. This approach is costing customers an absolute fortune. Thames Water paid £338 million just in interest expenses in the six months to September 2025. That is £133 million more, just in interest expenses, than it paid in the same period the previous year.
Labour is taking this hands-off approach despite the company’s multiple breaches of its operating licence. Let me illustrate some of those breaches. As I have stated, the company has carried out more than 1,000 illegal spills over four years. It must hold two investment-grade credit ratings as a condition of its operating licence, but it last held any investment-grade credit rating two years ago, in July 2024, and it has undergone a change of ultimate controller; yet the Minister, the Secretary of State and Ofwat have repeatedly refused to answer on that point.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
We have a similar problem with South East Water, which is probably the second-worst water company in the United Kingdom after Thames Water. With South East Water, too, this Labour Government have been too timid. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government, by acting, or not acting, in the way that they are, they are privileging shareholders over consumers?
Charlie Maynard
Absolutely. The consumers are getting the raw deal, and there is no end in sight.
To qualify as an ultimate controller—it is a defined term—a party need only have material influence over Thames Water. The creditor consortium right now is negotiating bilaterally with the company, and has put in £3 billion, but somehow that does not make it meet the criterion. It is ridiculous, and frankly, seeing this failure play out was probably the single moment when I most despaired of government and the rule of law. I repeatedly ask the same question, and repeatedly do not get an answer. I find it really, really bad.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Residents in Wokingham are absolutely sick of the failures of Thames Water’s management. In 2025 alone, Thames Water committed 74 sewage spills, for a duration of 684 hours. That means that Thames Water dumped sewage for the equivalent of 456 football matches, and there were certainly no clean sheets. No waterway in Wokingham is safe—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that interventions should be short, spontaneous and perhaps not pre-typed and three pages long.
Charlie Maynard
I thank my hon. Friend.
Rather than having customers pay hundreds of millions of pounds of debt at ludicrous interest rates of nearly 10%, Thames Water should be taken into a special administration regime, which is commonly known as bankruptcy on insolvency grounds. I urge the Government to pursue a SAR on the basis of insolvency, as this is a more straightforward way to secure special administration than on a performance basis, and it will give the special administrator additional powers and a stronger position in relation to the creditors.
The Water Industry Act 1991 sets out triggers linked to financial insolvency. Among them is the company being unable, or likely to be unable, to pay its debts. The Secretary of State and Ofwat both have discretion to apply to the High Court for a special administration order if that condition is triggered. I understand that the Government currently do not have, and have refused to publish, a SAR assessment policy. That is despite the Cunliffe review concluding that there is a need for
“broad, judgement-based tests within a clear policy, that has been set out in advance, of how the regulator will assess failing companies against these tests, the factors it will take into account and the indicators it will consider.”
That is from paragraph 793, recommendation 59, of the final report. Clarity around those tests and when a SAR will be used would benefit the water sector and its investors. Importantly, it also increases the Government’s negotiating leverage with the class A creditor consortium by further increasing the credibility of the threat of a SAR. I am interested to hear from the Minister why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is so reluctant to publish those tests.
A SAR process would allow Thames Water’s debt to be written down substantially, very likely into single-digit billions. This write-down is crucial, and it is not punitive. The write-down should be sufficient for the company to leave the SAR with a balance sheet that is strong enough to manage the huge spend that will be required over the next decade or so on treatment works and pipe networks.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need Thames Water to go into special measures, so that it can invest in infrastructure? In my constituency, Thames Water has closed a road for three weeks in Horsell because it has not invested, and it dumped over 1,115 hours-worth of sewage last year into our River Wey. That lack of investment is why we need what he is calling for today.
Charlie Maynard
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is what is going on up and down the catchment writ small, with treatment works deferred despite being crucially needed. In Aston, we have sewage running down the street year after year, and it is the same in Standlake. It is just disgusting, and there is no end in sight.
A SAR process would allow the Government to use the period while Thames Water is in a SAR to put much of the good work from the Cunliffe review into new legislation, and to do the legwork to enable the company to exit as a mutual. Crucially, a SAR would not ultimately cost the Government anything—this really matters—because they will recoup all the funding spent on a SAR, as this new funding injected by the Government would be super senior to all other funding. I am very grateful to the former DEFRA Secretary, Steve Reed, for setting out in a letter to the—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Gentleman means to say, “the former Secretary of State for DEFRA, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed).”
Charlie Maynard
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful to the former Secretary of State for setting out in a letter to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in June last year that
“we expect that any Government funding required during a SAR would be recouped after the conclusion of the administration”.
The current Secretary of State set out the same point in a parliamentary debate on 16 June. It is also worth noting that the Tories—there are not any in the Chamber—continue to refuse to acknowledge this, and that Teneo, Thames Water’s own expert adviser, stated the same in its report to the High Court in December 2024.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. Does he agree that the Government’s reluctance to take a company that is clearly now technically insolvent into a SAR is loading costs on to consumers who use other water companies, by creating a moral hazard that means that companies are incentivised to take on ever more debt, with the debt providers being protected by the Government? Instead, the Government should allow companies to fail, if they are going to fail, and to be taken into a SAR, so that there can be investment in the infrastructure that my hon. Friends referred to.
Charlie Maynard
I agree 100%, and that is what is so depressing; by continuing to demonstrate that the regulators have no teeth, we create a bigger and bigger problem for ourselves.
The alternative to a SAR—a deal with the creditors, which, extraordinarily, seems to be the Government’s preferred option at this point—should not be countenanced. Giving these businesses, now operating as London & Valley Water consortium, yet more control of the company at ludicrously high interest rates would allow this downward spiral to continue. The Government must and can change course by using their power to ask for a SAR under existing legislation.
There is now the opportunity for Thames Water to exit special administration as a mutual, owned and run in the interests of its customers, and to break the cycle of financial mismanagement and egregious environmental failings once and for all. Legislation sets out that a water company insolvency SAR can conclude in two ways: rescue, whereby the company is restructured, debts are written down or converted, and the existing legal entity continues in a modified form; or transfer, whereby the regulated undertaking is sold or transferred to a new owner. That does not require a competitive auction, as the legislation provides for a transfer approved by the Secretary of State and Ofwat.Nothing in the legislation states that either route requires a competitive sale, as the overriding objective in a SAR is continuity of public service, not maximising creditor returns.
The Government could therefore set out at the point of SAR entry, or shortly after, that a mutual is the preferred exit route for Thames, and make that clear in the special administrator’s mandate. Work would need to be done in parallel with the SAR process to incorporate and put in place the governance framework for a new mutual, as well as more broadly updating water regulations to take into account the Cunliffe report’s recommendations. Ofwat could then work towards a licence transfer to the mutual, rather than running a market sale.
In conclusion, I have some questions for the Minister. If she is unable to answer them now, I would appreciate an answer in writing if possible. Have the Government sought legal advice on the SAR process from a specialist law firm? I appreciate that FTI Consulting has been instructed for many months, but that is not a substitute for legal advice. A proper, specialist understanding of the SAR as a legal process, and of the litigation risk—perceived or actual—of applying for a SAR, is critical.
Will the Government commit to publishing a SAR assessment policy, and does the Minister agree that the creditors consortium has material influence over Thames Water, and therefore meets the ultimate controller test? Will the Minister act with Ofwat to enforce the appropriate penalties on Thames Water for having undergone that change without having given notice, and will she provide an update on the negotiations between Ofwat and Thames Water? Will the Minister now take the London & Valley Water deal off the table, and work with the Secretary of State to apply to the court for Thames Water to be put into special administration? Finally, in response to a question about whether she would consider the Liberal Democrat call for water companies to be mutually owned public benefit companies, the Minister said:
“I would be happy to see more mutual ownership of water companies, but the question is how we get there.”——[Official Report, 16 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 728.]
Given that, will she confirm her Department’s position on mutual ownership models for water companies? What are the Department’s plans for exploring how we get there?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I thank the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for inviting me to respond to his concerns about the future of Thames Water. I have listened with his interest to his comments, and I hope I will be able to add some facts to the debate. I also accept his sympathy and anger on behalf of his constituents. Indeed, they must feel very angry about the fact that water was left in such a state, and that the Environment Agency’s budget was cut by half by the coalition Government, who also introduced self-monitoring. The Environment Agency was unable to fulfil its duties during the time of the coalition Government, and the regulators did not put forward forceful accountability for the water companies. It was left to this Labour Government to clear up the mess left by the coalition Government and 14 years of the Conservatives. I am sure the hon. Gentleman shares my anger about that—I certainly felt angry about it when I came into government and saw the mess that we had been left to clear up.
Let me remind the hon. Gentleman exactly what we have done. We introduced the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 within six weeks of entering government, to raise standards, enforce accountability, and make pollution cover-ups a criminal offence. We banned more than £4 million in bonuses, and unlocked money in private investment to rebuild vital infrastructure. Just last week we introduced automatic penalties. There is more I could mention, including 10,000 water inspections, which is many more than happened after the slash and burn of funding for the Environment Agency by the coalition Government. We have restored to the system the accountability that has been missing for so long.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
My constituents are cheering on the work that the Government have done by getting a grip of this situation after the Environment Agency was left to mark its own homework, and the self-monitoring and regulation framework failed. Will the Minister say more about the dedicated supervisory teams in the White Paper, which will be working to stop this happening again and ensure that Thames Water changes in future?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is quite right to point out how self-monitoring, which was introduced by the coalition Government, was such an utter mistake that has done so much damage to the water industry. It is why we are in the current situation. The purpose of the supervisory regime is to be able to intervene earlier, and it works alongside the performance improvement regime so that we can hold companies to account. That is why we are abolishing Ofwat—
Emma Hardy
I have heard quite a lot from the hon. Gentleman, so I would be most grateful if he would not mind giving someone else a chance. We are looking at introducing the performance regime for the same reason, because we want to ensure that we can intervene early to stop the abject failure that we saw under the coalition Government.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Every week in my surgeries I hear about the consequences of Thames Water’s failures. An elderly widowed constituent was left without running water after it failed and botched the installation of a water meter, and she was forced to shell out hundreds of pounds on an emergency plumber to remedy the situation. Will the Minister confirm that she understands the anger of constituents like mine with regard to Thames Water and its continued failing? Will she confirm that she will keep all measures under review?
Emma Hardy
It is true that I feel angry on behalf of all our constituents who have been so badly let down by the system that we inherited, and that is exactly why we have taken the action that we have. There is, of course, lots more to do—nobody is saying there is not—but we have to acknowledge the dire straits and the mess that we inherited. We are going to bring forward a clean water Bill to deliver on our promise to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas, and not just for today but for generations to come. The reforms will create a single powerful water regulator to act, and we will ensure that it has teeth in the way that the current regulator does not.
Turning to some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Witney about the consortiums proposal, regarding the recapitalisation proposal being negotiated between Thames Water, London & Valley Water Consortium—a group of Thames Water’s creditors—and Ofwat, I reiterate that this Government will always act in the national interest. Before I turn to the proposal itself, it is important to be clear about the respective roles and responsibilities of the parties involved, because there is so much misinformation and misunderstanding out there. I welcome the opportunity to at least introduce a few more facts into the argument about the proposals.
Ofwat, as the independent economic regulator, is responsible for assessing that proposal and deciding whether it meets the relevant regulatory and statutory requirements, including whether it is appropriate to take the proposal forward for consultation. However, section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991 places a duty on both Ofwat and the Secretary of State to exercise their respective relevant functions in the manner best calculated to further or achieve certain objectives. This includes protecting customers, securing the proper delivery of water and sewerage services, ensuring that companies can finance those services and that statutory obligations are properly carried out.
Mike Martin
Does the Minister think that the Secretary of State exercised those duties well when, under the Blair Government, Macquarie was allowed to come into Thames Water and South East Water and asset strip those companies?
Emma Hardy
Quite clearly, some of the behaviour that we have seen in the past from water companies shows that the regulatory system did not work, and that is exactly why we are changing it. Of course, between Blair and the current Government there were 14 years of Tory Government and five years of coalition Government during which those Governments could have taken the actions that we are taking today.
On 16 June, the Secretary of State gave her preliminary views on the consortium’s proposal to Ofwat, with reference to section 2 duties of the Water Industry Act 1991. She was clear that she does not believe that the current proposal goes far enough to protect customers and the environment. She cited three particular concerns in line with her duties: unfair costs to customers, delays to infrastructure investment and delays to environmental improvements.
However, the decision on how to assess the proposal and whether to proceed with consultation ultimately rests with Ofwat as the independent regulator. It is therefore important that the Government respect those boundaries. While the Secretary of State may express views in accordance with her statutory duties, it would not be appropriate for the Government to direct Ofwat’s decision making, prejudge the outcome of its assessment or be seen to exert undue influence on an independent regulatory process.
We are working closely with Ofwat, which will engage with the consortium on any revised proposal. It is important to be clear that it is ultimately a matter for Ofwat to decide whether to consult on the consortium’s proposal. However, I reassure the House that while the company is stable, we stand ready for all eventualities and the Secretary of State takes her duties very seriously.
I will also use this debate as an opportunity to address some of the misconceptions that have developed about special administration. Too often, SAR is presented as a simple lever that the Government can pull whenever there are concerns about a water company’s performance, but that is simply not the case. The reality is that there is a high bar for the imposition of a special administration regime. A company can enter into a SAR only if it becomes insolvent, or if there has been such a serious breach of its principal statutory duties or an enforcement order that it is no longer appropriate for the company to retain its licence.
Where performance is concerned, any application for a special administration regime would have to be supported by a robust and compelling body of evidence and would ultimately need to satisfy the courts. Bringing a case forward without sufficient evidence would not only risk the failure of that case, but waste a huge amount of taxpayers’ money. For any case brought forward, the Government and Ofwat would need to be convinced that there was a robust and compelling body of evidence. That is quite different from what is presented out there too often—that this is just a button the Government can press at will.
Calum Miller
I am glad the Minister has moved on to the substance of DEFRA’s case. Will she clarify for my residents whether she considers a company that is spending 33% of the income it gets from customers on servicing its debt and paying a 10% premium on that debt is actually viable as a company? Will she set out for the House what she considers to be the measure of insolvency for a privately held monopoly?
Emma Hardy
As I have just said, on the issue of performance, cases have to be brought forward to court, and the court must be convinced that the company is not performing—I will move on to insolvency.
This issue is why regulators start by using the full range of supervisory and enforcement powers available to them where appropriate. Companies must be held to account, put forward credible plans to improve and deliver for customers on the environment. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why we are introducing a new performance improvement regime through the clean water Bill.
The performance improvement regime will help to prevent poorly performing companies from falling into a cycle of decline, allowing regulators to step in before a company approaches the point of failure. It will strengthen accountability, support improvements in performance and provide a clearer pathway for intervention long before special administration may be required.
Let me address another misconception about special administration. Some suggest that placing a company into special administration would simply allow the Government to take over and run the company directly. That is not how the regime works. A special administrator is appointed by a court and has specific legal duties and objectives. It must manage the company’s affairs, businesses and property for the statutory purposes set out in the Water Industry Act.
The special administrator’s primary responsibility is to ensure the continued delivery of essential water and waste water services while securing a long-term solution for the business. Depending on the circumstances, that could mean rescuing the company, such as through a restructuring, or transferring it as a going concern to new owners. That is why the special administration regime exists to protect customers and maintain vital public services while providing a framework for recovery or transfer. Customers continue to receive their services throughout the process, and the special administrator operates under the supervision of the court and within a clear legal framework.
I know the hon. Member for Witney is particularly concerned about whether the consortium meets the criteria of acting as the ultimate controller of Thames Water. Let me use this opportunity to address his concerns. The classification of ultimate controller is a matter for Ofwat, as the independent economic regulator, by reference to the terms of the company’s licence. Ofwat has given a detailed explanation of why it does not consider the creditors to be the ultimate controllers of the company in its letter to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), dated 8 September 2025.
Ofwat has stated that one of the reasons why it does not believe creditors are in a position to materially influence the company’s policies or affairs is that it does not have the right to appoint directors to the board, and it does not hold any governance or veto rights over the Thames Water business plan or other strategic decisions that the company’s board is making. I am reassured that it has reviewed the matter and that the ultimate controller of the company has not changed—
Emma Hardy
This is the thing with the hon. Gentleman: he makes many assertions in this House when he stands up to comment, but then he refuses to allow me to address and answer them. I am still answering his point about the ultimate controller. If he wants to ask me a question, he should have the decency and respect to listen to the answer.
I am also reassured that Ofwat will continue to keep the position of Thames Water’s ultimate controllers under review, and that it has made clear to the company its expectation that the company will continue to monitor whether there is, or may be, a change to the ultimate controller position.
I hope that what I have said has introduced a few facts to what can otherwise be quite an inflamed conversation. This Government are serious about tackling water company failure, acting on behalf of customers and protecting the environment. We have demonstrated this with the action we took on our very first day in office, and the action we have taken every day since. I am always happy to discuss issues related to special administration. I have held a private briefing with the hon. Member for Witney before. I would do so again, but what I do not like is when things are presented to the House in a way that is—I am not allowed to say dishonest, so how can I put this?—incorrect. This Government will always act in the national interest, and while the company is stable, we stand ready for all eventualities, including being ready to apply for a special administration regime if necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Employees Travelling Outside the UK: Expenses Rate
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered expenses rates for employees travelling outside the UK.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am calling on the Government to ensure that serious consideration is given to reassessing the scale rates for expenses and subsistence paid to employees who by nature of their work are required to travel outside the UK. My constituency of Crawley is home to Gatwick airport and many workers, including pilots and cabin crew, who are required to spend considerable time abroad with the flights they crew. That can last from several hours to several days for those working long-haul flights.
Time spent away from home in foreign cities, without access to kitchens or other domestic utilities, can be overwhelmingly expensive, particularly for junior members of the cabin crew, whose salaries, according to the National Careers Service, begin at around £19,000. It is right, therefore, that employers pay tax-deductible subsistence payments to their employees, to cover the costs associated with travel necessary to do their jobs.
Under the previous Government, to save companies having to check every single receipt that an employee accrues while abroad, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs introduced a benchmark expenses rates for employees travelling outside the UK. Those were first published on the Government’s website in 2013, with unique rates produced for almost every one of the world’s major cities, setting out the average cost of drinks, breakfast, lunch and dinner, a night in a hotel room and even the journey from hotel to office. Each city had also been given broader non-specific subsistence reimbursement rates. Demarcated across specific time boundaries, that is a rate for when employees spent more than five hours in a given city, with another for when they spent more than 10 or 24 hours there.
The detailed task of producing those rates over a decade ago is evidenced by the fact that HMRC went to the effort of making unique assessments city by city, and that the increase in reimbursement between five, 10 and 24 hours is not only non-linear but unique to each city. Despite the time and effort put into producing those bespoke rates, they have been upgraded significantly only once in the past 13 years—in October 2014, a year after they were first produced—and that only included a fraction of the cities listed.
Despite assurances that the Government keep under review all taxes, including overseas subsistence rates, if we check their website, we see that rates payable to an employee who has travelled to Zagreb for work are listed in Croatian kuna, even though Croatia joined the euro on 1 January 2023. The subsistence rates for at least 15 European capitals, including Athens, Madrid, Lisbon and Dublin, have never received an update. Due to more than a decade of inflation, those benchmark values have been eroded in real terms.
Ahead of this debate, using the total residual rates produced in 2013, and nation-specific consumer price index inflation figures from the World Bank Group, we have calculated today’s expected subsistence rates for European destinations. Amsterdam’s total residual rate in 2013 was set at €71; a year later it was raised to €72, where it remains today. According to World Bank Group data, prices in the Netherlands in the 12 years since have risen by an average of 2.6% a year. That compounds to a 36% increase over that period. Had the 2013 rates for Amsterdam increased in line with inflation, workers who had spent more than 24 hours in the city would now receive more than €96. The fact that those rates have been ignored for so long means that cabin crew and pilots—including constituents of mine and those in adjacent areas—are losing out on subsistence payments of more than €25.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I represent Horsham, an adjacent constituency, and very much experience the same problems, so the issue is not rare. I have many cabin crew in my area who say the same thing. One of the people affected is trying to get leave to remain, but the visa application is made extremely complicated by going back and forth out of the country, so I very much support the hon. Member and emphasise to the Minister that it is not a small problem.
Peter Lamb
I take that fully on board. I am delighted that the hon. Member is here for this debate.
There are cities in Europe where the situation is even more pronounced than in Amsterdam. In Budapest, the total residual rate set in 2013 and unchanged since 2014 has been eaten away by a compound inflation rate of 67% in Hungary. The current payment of 16,000 forints is well over 10,000 forints, or 40%, lower than it should be. The worst example among European capitals, however, is in Ankara. In the years since the overseas subsistence rates were first set, Turkey has experienced huge inflation. Prices have risen at an average of 22.5% every year. Despite that, Ankara’s residual rate remains at 240 lira, as set in 2014. If it had increased with inflation, it would be over 2,500 lira today, which represents an unrealised tenfold increase.
In these situations, as a direct result of the Treasury not having revisited those rates over the last 12 years, airlines and other organisations are able to justify under-compensating their staff by pointing to what is essentially Government guidance. When I wrote to the Treasury with those concerns last year, the then Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray), informed me that in situations where expenses rates do not cover the actual costs of needing to eat, drink and sleep while abroad for work, the employers can instead choose to “pay actual expenses incurred”. Unfortunately, not every company chooses to do that for their employees, with many of them instead choosing—I do not think this will be a surprise to any of us—to pay the lower rate, the Government’s fixed rate.
The issue has a real and detrimental impact on the working lives of cabin crew. A constituent of mine working for an airline operating out of Gatwick airport was blunt about this, telling me that the fact that the rates are so far behind reality means that they have been forced to “miss meals” while abroad for work.
Another constituent stated that
“current scale rate allowances do not reflect the real costs we face on these trips”,
and reiterated that
“the allowance provided does not cover even the most basic meals.”
It is evident, therefore, that overseas scale rates must be raised. That is why I was delighted when, in his written statement, my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury committed to reviewing and uprating them last month. This has been a long time coming. While simply increasing the 2013 rates in line with inflation would be welcome, I hope the Treasury takes the opportunity to undertake a full review of how subsistence rates can be systematically improved.
Having secured this debate, I was contacted by Virgin Atlantic, which, among other things, raised concerns that there are some destinations where the current rate might not reflect the full cost of subsistence for an individual visiting or living in the city. For instance, it provided the example of Lagos where safety restrictions require pilots and cabin crew to remain in their hotels and rely on higher cost room service or onsite dining. It is its view—one that I share—that any review should give consideration to those concerns and ensure that safe accommodation is made affordable under new rates.
I am well aware that questions related to tax pose difficult decisions for Governments, particularly in times of global economic uncertainty such as these. But I would hope that we would all accept that people should not go without meals while undertaking travel essential to their work, particularly where those individuals might already be on a very low wage. I will closely follow the outcome of the Treasury’s review of overseas scale rates, and I hope that the various issues I have highlighted today are reflected in its outcome.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for raising this important issue today and for the work that he and neighbouring MPs, on a cross-party basis, have been doing to highlight the concerns that their constituents have raised with them.
I can see that hundreds of people in the Crawley constituency have signed the petition. It is similar in Horsham and people near Heathrow and other major airports have signed it, too. The issue clearly affects many staff who work in the airline industry and, as my hon. Friend points out, particularly affects those who are on lower wages. Yes, they might enjoy and love the travel and going to visit so many different places as part of their work, as well as the benefits that come from a job working in the sky and working for airlines, but there are costs associated with being away from home. It was right to have the overseas scale rates system in place back in 2014, but it is not right at that the system has not been updated since then.
The OSRs play an important role in reducing administrative burdens when employees incur subsistence costs while travelling overseas, and the key thing is that they provide a practical alternative to reimbursing and evidencing every single expense. As a result, if they were abolished at any point in the future, that could place a significant burden on airlines, which is certainly something we want to avoid.
As my hon. Friend set out, the rates have remained more or less frozen since 2014. I was doing the maths earlier today in preparation for the debate, and I came up with a similar figure to him. If they had been uprated in line with inflation in the UK, they would have increased by 40% since 2014. Of course, inflation rates vary across the globe, but that gives us a sense of the size of the gap that has opened up over the last 12 years.
The Government have been listening to representations made by airlines, individuals and Members of Parliament, including my hon. Friend. As we announced just a few short weeks ago, we will review both the OSRs and the benchmark scale rates, which are the domestic equivalents that set out the scale rates for lunches and dinners that employees may have when they are in the UK on business.
We will also look not just at uprating the rates but at whether there is scope to simplify the OSRs. We want to engage in detail with businesses on such a proposal, and officials in HMRC have already begun that work. Rather than having hundreds of individual rates for individual countries that need to be updated in a painstaking and administratively costly way, and that are also difficult for businesses to administer, we may find that having buckets or bands works better for employers and employees. That is something we will want to look at as part of this review, so I would really welcome representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on what changes their constituents would like to see.
Let me be clear: we have not taken any decisions on where we would like to go, and our mind is not made up. We are convinced that we want to review the rates to make the system better, but we want to consider the issues carefully and gather evidence from those who are affected before a decision is made. Just last week, I met the CBI, which represents some of the large airlines, and it welcomed the announcement of a review. I look forward to receiving further representations from the private sector.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, it is important for the Government to strike the right balance between supporting businesses and maintaining fairness in the tax system, while also protecting the Exchequer to ensure that, in the round, we raise the necessary revenue to fund and put right our public services after the last 14 years, when too many were cut back. We also need to ensure that any administrative arrangements such as these remain straightforward and proportionate.
Of course, there is political change in the air, but I hope that this review will conclude in time for the Budget. We do not want to be in a place where, in years to come, we are still waiting for these changes. I hope that we can make swift progress in the coming months, so that my hon. Friend’s constituents, as well as employees of airlines across the country, can see some improvement.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Horsham for his intervention. I will take the strength of feeling in their representations back to the Department, for as long as I will be there.
Question put and agreed to.
Support for Pig Farmers
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for pig farmers.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank Members for coming to the debate. To say that the UK’s pig industry is worried is a gross understatement. The sector has always experienced ups and downs, but the current trough and range of difficulties faced by our pig farmers is sustained and significant, and there seem to be few routes to stabilising the sector.
The current downturn is considered to have begun back in the autumn of 2025, and has been driven by a combination of factors, including an oversupply of pigs, stagnant demand and falling prices in Europe, which have put downward pressure on UK pig prices. The situation has been exacerbated by constraints in the processing sector and by rising costs. Next came the substantial backlog of pigs at the start of 2026; at its peak, as many as 100,000 pigs were left on-farm.
Although the worst of the backlog cleared, the standard pig price fell markedly and has remained low: it has fallen from about 208p per kilo in August 2025 to 178p per kilo now—a 15% fall. In the context of profit margins across agriculture that are sometimes only 1%, it is understandable why the fall in price over such a sustained period is causing issues for the sector.
However, it must be acknowledged that the standard pig price is very much an average price metric. Many producers are receiving significantly less than that—sometimes in the region of just 130p to 140p per kilo, which is significantly below the farm’s break-even point. Indeed, a farmer I recently met in my constituency is losing about £50 per pig, and across Scotland, the industry has lost £5.7 million since January. Unless farmers are paid a price that at least covers the cost of production, there can be no future in the sector. It is as simple as that.
Lower welfare standards and the attractiveness to UK retailers of the flood of cheap pigmeat from the European continent is a key factor dictating the low UK price. Here lies a significant problem: the undercutting of UK pig farmers by retailers, food manufacturers and providers, be that in the food service sector or in local authority procurement, is making the viability of the UK pig sector even tougher. While I absolutely understand and appreciate the fine margins in hospitality, not least due to rising costs and seemingly ever-increasing taxation, and the tight budgets of our local authorities, more needs to be done to ensure that local British produce, be that pork, beef, lamb or other farm outputs, can be prioritised and offered to British consumers.
Fairness in the contracts for independent pig farmers is also a well-voiced concern. I recognise that the Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025, which are designed to improve fairness and transparency across the UK pig supply chain, will come into effect for the sector next month. The regulations were introduced in recognition of the imbalance in bargaining power between individual pig producers and the relatively small number of large processors and purchasers. The changes will include principles such as mandated written contracts, a clear pricing mechanism, mutually agreeable term lengths and fair notice periods.
Those regulations will not immediately resolve every challenge facing the sector. The industry still has concerns, and has requested that the Government undertake an assessment of whether the fair dealing regulations are truly robust enough to address the pricing and margin concerns of producers when dealing with processors. Is that something the Minister would consider?
Biosecurity concerns are never far away from the pig sector. Indeed, the outbreak of African swine fever in Spain and elsewhere on the European continent and the impact that that had on the export market, including to China, is partly responsible for the oversupply and depressed prices we are currently seeing. There is real and growing concern about the emergence of diseases such as African swine fever and about foot and mouth entering the UK and infecting our livestock—no one needs reminding of the devastation that the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak had. Every possible effort must be put into ensuring that these diseases do not arrive on our shores.
In winding up, I ask the Minister to comment on what proactive and robust steps the Government are taking to ensure that diseases like African swine fever do not spread to the UK, because more robust checks are needed. His answers to my recent written parliamentary questions and a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) in the main Chamber last week show that these robust provisions are not in place. It feels like we have been lucky not to see cases of African swine fever, foot and mouth or any other significant livestock disease enter the UK. The UK’s biosecurity system cannot rely on luck, because the consequences of any of these diseases entering the UK and our livestock is hard to overstate.
Before I conclude, I want to reflect briefly on the situation in Scotland. Although I appreciate that agriculture is devolved, a robust agricultural sector and supply chain and strong food production and biosecurity controls are relevant UK-wide. Indeed, the UK pig industry, of which Scotland plays a significant part, is worth £2 billion at the farm gate, £7 billion in retail sales and, considering food service and export values, £14 billion in total. As I said, Scotland does contribute to that. The Scottish pig industry is facing even more acute pressures than those in England. With just one single processor in Brechin and distances too large to transport the pigs for processing south of the border, Scottish pig farmers are seeing an even lower standard pig price than their English counterparts.
According to data that I have seen, the price being paid has barely got above 140p a kilo since April. At present, Scottish pig farmers have no formal contracts, so there is no guarantee that their finished pigs will even be taken. Having spoken to pig farmers in my Gordon and Buchan constituency—most recently just yesterday—there is genuine fear for the future of the sector. Just since January, Scotland has lost 15% of its pig herds and the average price per kilo has fallen by more than 20%. The pig sector in Scotland is down £5.7 million since January this year, with continued losses almost guaranteed if prices remain suppressed. Almost half of those losses—more than £2.5 million—are in my constituency.
In closing, I want to ask the Minister just a single question, in the hope that it will be the most beneficial way to help the sector to address the challenges it is facing. My understanding is that Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last met the National Pig Association or the pig industry in November 2024. Will the Minister commit to meeting the NPA and, when he does, making sure that there is a substantial package brought forward that can help support the sector? The best way to support the sector, which is complex and facing a wide range of issues, is to meet those who know most about it. That is the best way that we can support our pig farmers going forward.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.
My constituency spans Doncaster and North Lincolnshire—two very proud agricultural areas with a long and important connection to British pig farming. We are part of a region at the heart of British pork production. Yorkshire and the Humber accounts for around 40% of England’s pig population. Pigmeat contributed £499 million to the region’s agricultural output in 2024. The Isle of Axholme also has deep roots in the farming and food traditions of Lincolnshire. Few products symbolise that heritage more clearly than the Lincolnshire sausage, yet consumers cannot always be sure that a product carrying a Union flag, British branding or a traditional British name actually contains pork from pigs born, reared and slaughtered in the United Kingdom. We must address that problem.
Unprocessed pork must already carry origin information, but once that meat becomes bacon, ham, sausage or gammon, the picture becomes far less clear. Pork can be imported and then cured, sliced or packaged in Britain, while the finished product is presented to shoppers as British. The place where food is packaged is not the same as the origin of the food itself. For pork, the origin is where the pig was born, reared and slaughtered. That is the information that consumers want to know and should be able to see clearly.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The hon. Member is making a really important point about the need for consumers to be clear about where their food is produced and reared. I draw his attention to my private Member’s Bill on that very topic. I hope that he and others across the House will support it.
Lee Pitcher
The hon. Lady has my full support—and, I am pretty sure, that of my farmers.
My farmers have told me how much this issue matters to them. When consumers can easily identify British pork, they actively choose to buy it. That supports British farms, British jobs and our rural communities, while rewarding producers who meet the high standards of animal welfare, environmental stewardship and food safety that we rightly expect. There is nothing wrong with imported food being sold in Britain, provided it is labelled honestly. What is wrong is allowing the true origin of the meat to be hidden behind British branding. The principle should be simple: the Union flag on a pork product should mean British pork, not simply British packaging.
I therefore ask the Minister to genuinely consider—I was going to say genu-swine-ly, but I will not do that—extending mandatory country-of-origin labelling to processed pork products, requiring that information to appear clearly on the front of the packet, and ensuring that unqualified claims that a product is British are reserved for pork from pigs born, reared and slaughtered in the United Kingdom.
Pig farmers do not need another expression of sympathy; they need practical action that helps consumers to identify British produce and choose it with confidence. When shoppers pick up a packet carrying the Union flag or drawing on the proud reputation of UK farming, they should not have to search through the small print to discover where the pork came from. British branding should mean British farming.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing this important and timely debate.
Pig farming is an important part of our rural economy in West Dorset. Alongside several family-run pig farms, we are home to a large integrated producer and businesses that support local employment, veterinary services, feed supplies, agricultural engineering, haulage and food processing. We are also fortunate to have Dorset’s last remaining independent abattoir, which processes around 100 pigs a week and provides a vital local route to market for small family farms.
Since August 2025, the standard pig price has fallen from around 208p per kilogram to approximately 178p. However, many independent producers have said that they are receiving far less—in some cases, only 130p to 140p per kilogram. Some farmers are losing as much as £50 on every pig they sell. That is unsustainable. Once again, it is independent farmers who have borne the greatest burden. Around half of the UK’s pig herd is owned by independent producers. If they disappear, rebuilding the capacity will take many years. We should remember that the United Kingdom is only about 58% self-sufficient in pork. We should never accept a situation where British farmers, who produce to some of the highest welfare standards anywhere in the world, are undercut by cheaper imports produced to standards that would not be permitted here.
No future trade agreement should weaken UK food safety, undermine British farmers or lower our animal welfare standards. West Dorset farmers are proud of the standards they have achieved. Every farmer I have spoken to wants to see further improvements in animal welfare. I want to see, as they do, an end to farrow crates and to inhumane or distressing methods of slaughter, such as carbon dioxide stunning for pigs, through the implementation of DEFRA’s 2025 recommendations by the end of this Parliament.
We should work together to prevent unnecessarily painful practices in farming, but it must be properly funded. Farmers operating on small, or in many cases, non-existent, profit margins cannot absorb further mandated changes unless they are properly funded and accompanied by practical support. One pig farmer in my constituency told me that they fully support moving towards better systems, but estimate that a realistic transition could take up to 15 years. For many family farms already carrying debt from previous reforms, unfunded regulation is not an option. If we move too quickly without proper support, we risk reducing British production and replacing it with imported pork products produced to lower welfare and food safety standards.
Small and medium-sized abattoirs continue to disappear at an alarming rate, with fewer than 200 now remaining across the United Kingdom. Rising inspection costs, energy prices, waste disposal costs and increasing regulatory burdens have all contributed to their decline. For independent pig farmers in West Dorset, our local abattoir is essential infrastructure. Without it, transport distances increase, haulage costs rise and farmers lose access to local markets. Supporting local processing capacity is therefore every bit as important as supporting primary production.
Farmers manage more than 70% of our land. They underpin our food security and sustain the economies of rural communities such as West Dorset. All they are asking for is fair markets, fair treatment, practical regulation, acknowledgment of all their hard work and the confidence to invest in their future.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Around one in five pigs in the country are reared in my part of the world: Norfolk and Suffolk. That means that when we talk about the future of the pig sector, we are not talking about an abstract issue; we are talking about thousands of local jobs, family farms, and a sector worth billions to our local economy. The industry faces plenty of challenges. Rising costs, global competition and pressure on farm incomes have been covered, so I want to focus on the one issue that could undo everything else if we get it wrong: biosecurity.
African swine fever remains the single biggest threat facing our pig industry. It has spread across Europe and Asia, but thankfully has never been detected here in the UK. We have a window of opportunity to keep it that way, but only if we take border biosecurity seriously. If ASF got into this country, the consequences would be devastating for farmers and could cost the industry an estimated £100 million. Once it is here, we cannot simply rewind the clock, so prevention has to come first. What consideration has the Department given to providing the public with more information about the risks of bringing meat products into the UK, strengthening checks on personal imports and introducing measures such as amnesty bins before customs clearance?
The previous Government created what many in the industry see as a weakness in our border arrangements by moving customs checks to Sevington, over 20 miles inland from Dover. That leaves a significant stretch between the port and the inspection site. Will the Minister look again at whether that arrangement provides the level of biosecurity our farming sector deserves? I would suggest that it does not.
Good biosecurity is not just about stopping disease at the border; it is also about making sure that farms are as resilient as possible if the worst should happen. The animal health and welfare pathway is a good example. It provides funded veterinary visits, including dedicated biosecurity advice, yet I understand that uptake remains at only about 7%. What more is being done to ensure that farmers know about the scheme and feel confident in accessing it?
Finally, I want to touch on vaccines. When witnesses from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate gave evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I asked about the resilience of veterinary vaccine supply chains. Their evidence highlighted the risk posed by manufacturing disruption, changing demand and wider global shocks. What is the Department doing in support of international efforts to develop an effective ASF vaccine and to ensure that, when one is available, we have resilient supply chains capable of getting it to farmers when they need it?
Our pig farmers produce world-class food to some of the highest welfare standards anywhere. They deserve a Government who match their effort by taking biosecurity just as seriously. If we get this right, we will protect livelihoods, strengthen food security and avoid an entirely preventable crisis. I hope the Minister will continue to make that his priority.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing the debate. We do not hear about pig farming as much as we hear about other farming sectors, but it is essential to our food system and rural economy. While this debate concerns the UK sector, I want to focus on the pressures facing producers in Scotland.
As we have heard, the Scottish pig sector is under enormous strain from low market prices, rising costs, processing constraints and competition from imports. Many farmers are now selling pigs well below the cost of production. NFU Scotland estimates that Scottish members of the United Pig Co-operative lost around £2.7 million in the first four months of this year alone. Some producers were losing up to £37 per pig, while a typical 500-sow unit could face annual losses approaching half a million pounds. Those figures are unsustainable for family farming businesses.
The consequences extend beyond individual farms. Scotland’s pig sector contributes around £300 million to the economy and supports around 2,200 jobs, as well as haulage firms, feed merchants, vets, processors and other rural businesses. Once that critical mass is lost, it will be exceptionally difficult to rebuild. In my constituency, farmers such as Adam Marshall in Berwickshire have spent decades investing in high-quality Scottish pork and adding value through local enterprises, including Reiver Country Farm Foods and Oink. That entrepreneurial spirit should be encouraged, but even innovative, well-run family businesses cannot absorb sustained losses indefinitely. If businesses such as Adam’s are struggling despite doing everything right, that should alarm us all.
I welcome the Scottish Government’s recognition of the crisis through their £2 million emergency package for independent producers, but the industry is clear that it does not go far enough; the losses being sustained are far greater than the support on offer. Further assistance will be needed to protect Scotland’s pig sector, rural jobs and domestic food production.
The UK Government must act too. Ministers should urgently convene an industry roundtable and resume regular engagement with the National Pig Association. It is concerning that no bilateral meeting has taken place since November 2024. The Government should review whether the fair dealing obligations are providing the protection that producers were promised, and farmers must not be left carrying an unfair share of commercial risk. We should also strengthen country-of-origin labelling, particularly in food service, so that consumers can support Scottish and British pork produced to high welfare and environmental standards.
Finally, biosecurity must remain a priority. African swine fever poses a serious threat, and robust border controls and disease preparedness are essential for protecting food security and the rural economy. Our pig farmers are resilient and innovative. They are asking not for special treatment, but for fair markets, sensible regulation, meaningful engagement and support proportionate to the crisis. I hope the Minister will listen and act.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this important debate.
I am very proud of the more than 500 farms in my constituency. Since I was elected, I have been delighted to meet with more than 100 of them. Many of them are predominantly arable, as one might expect in Norfolk, but we also have plenty of farms that include pigs as either a significant or a smaller part of their operations. Farmer Ed Lankfer, based at Wereham in my constituency, was kind enough to host an NFU roundtable that covered a whole range of issues facing the farming industry. It has been said that there are more pigs than people in Norfolk, so when there are issues in the industry—as there currently are—communities like mine very much feel the impact.
The UK pig sector is going through a difficult period due to an oversupply of pigs, stagnant demand and falling EU prices that have put a downward pressure on UK prices. At the same time, there are rising costs, exacerbated by the conflict with Iran, as well as the constant risk of disease such as African swine fever. We may not have seen the worst of it yet. As I highlighted at DEFRA oral questions last week, the National Pig Association anticipates that by November we could see 10,000 to 15,000 pigs per week without an outlet to be sold, placing a significant financial burden on farmers and risking animal welfare issues.
Sadly, as in so many aspects of farming, there is a huge unfairness in the pig industry. That unfairness in the supply chain is hitting independent pig farmers, including those in my constituency. Independent producers are responsible for roughly 50% of the pig herd in the UK, and very often they lose out first and are the most financially squeezed in the industry.
So often when I meet farmers, we talk about issues that directly connect with my Labour values, particularly around fairness and justice. I urge the Minister to consider those values when discussing what can be done to support the pig industry. There is a huge power imbalance in the supply chain, and a lack of credible contractual relations between far too many pig sellers and buyers. Specifically, will the Minister review whether the fair dealing obligations are being upheld and whether they are robust enough?
Tackling the power imbalance, not just in the pig industry but in farming more generally, needs to be at the forefront of this Labour Government’s fightback to support British farming. The commitment to co-operatives included in the farming road map could support a change in that direction, and I very much welcome that approach, but we need to move quickly to achieve the change we seek. Smaller family farms are increasingly being squeezed out of operation, and we must act before it is too late.
We should do this not just because we recognise the importance of food security, but because of our commitment to achieve economic growth in every postcode, including in rural communities like mine. There is huge growth potential in rural areas, and so often it is the family farm that underpins that growth. If the farm is doing well, it will invest in new machinery, undertake repairs and maintenance to buildings, and reinvest in the local environment. The lack of profitability and weakened resilience in the industry is hampering that growth and, by default, diminishing the prosperity of rural communities.
Later today, the Labour rural research group, which I am proud to be a member of, will publish its latest report, “The Future of the Rural Economy”. I will not give too much away, but it confirms that there is huge public support for farming, and for the Government to do more to support the industry, and it recognises that food security is national security. Some 87% of respondents to our survey agreed that it is very important to sustain a strong UK farming industry, and 77% welcomed increased Government investment in the farming sector. As a Labour Government, we have an opportunity to do much more to support the pig industry, farming more generally, and our rural communities. I look forward to the Government grasping that opportunity.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this important debate.
Since becoming the Member of Parliament for Melksham and Devizes, I have been extremely fortunate to visit a number of farms, including pig farms, and meet many outstanding local farmers, including Cameron Naughton at West End farm, an independent pig farm with an attached farm shop. Cameron recently wrote to me to share his thoughts and to ask me to represent him, as an independent farmer, in this debate. He told me that his business is losing about £5,000 a week. Operating a high-welfare, outdoor-bred, RSPCA-assured farm like Cameron’s inevitably carries a much higher cost of production, but what he finds incomprehensible is that prices to the consumer keep rising while the supermarket supply chains continue to make substantial profits that are not reflected in what farmers are paid.
Independent producers like Cameron are bearing the brunt of a market that has been declining since 2025, driven by a combination of factors: an oversupply of pigs, stagnating demand and falling prices to the farmer. With the UK pig breeding herd at a historic low, high-quality British products like Cameron’s risk being replaced by lower-welfare imported meat, which brings with it a heightened risk of diseases such as swine fever and foot and mouth disease. The European Food Safety Authority has reported a 76% increase this year in African swine fever outbreaks among pigs in the EU.
I urge the Government, and particularly the incoming Prime Minister, not to forget our farmers and our rural communities. I ask them to sit down with the industry, particularly with independent farmers like Cameron, to determine what can be done to secure the survival of this vital sector and to help secure our country’s vital food security.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to participate in this debate, Sir Christopher, and to have the Minister in his place.
I agree with practically every word that has been said by colleagues across the House about the importance of the pig industry. It is the largest agricultural output of Yorkshire and the Humber and worth more than half a billion pounds a year, but as colleagues have set out, there has been a gradual concentration into what is now no more than about four major processors across the United Kingdom. That puts up the costs of transport. More importantly still, it means a loss of competition and the potential for that imbalance in market power to be used in a way that is counter to fairness—as the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) mentioned when talking about Labour values—and to the interests of the consumer. If there is one thing the Minister needs to do, aside from keeping our pig industry safe from biohazards, it is ensure that there is healthy competition in the market so that the consumer is well served.
Earlier this afternoon, I spoke to a local Holderness pig farmer who was at the Great Yorkshire Show. She told me that she has had notice on contracts for the processing of the pigs, and she no longer has anywhere to send her pigs from 13 August. The pigs are literally going to be backing up on the farm, with nowhere to go.
Harriet Cross
13 August is obviously a very important date, because it is when the fair dealing regulations come in. There have been warnings from the sector that that sort of thing will happen and about why it is so important. I ask the Minister for a proper review of these obligations to assess how they are working for the sector, so that we do not have situations like the one that my right hon. Friend has just mentioned.
Graham Stuart
I have represented pig farmers in Holderness for 21 years—it has always been volatile, and the farmers accept the volatility, but never has there been quite such a concatenation of issues all at the same time, including the introduction of the regulations and the closure of abattoirs. Scotland was hit first, as my hon. Friend will know, with the closure of abattoirs there. The abattoir at Spalding has now gone. This is a very serious issue, which I hope the Minister will be able to look at.
Processors are also buying out the independents. Again, looking at the raw political elements of this situation, the truth is that independents who are struggling to find anywhere to have their pigs processed become more vulnerable and can be bought out, in which case competition will be further reduced.
I ask the Minister to use his good offices to get his officials to engage with major processors to ensure that no independent farmer is left unable to have their pigs processed, because that would create not only an animal welfare crisis, but a financial crisis for farmers, making them easy meat—pardon the language, Sir Christopher—for others to buy them out.
This genuinely is a crisis; the danger is that one hears that word too often, but this situation absolutely is one, not only for pig farmers, who are very important to my constituency, but for consumers in the long term. I hope the Minister will take that very seriously on board and will look to intervene, to ensure that every farmer has somewhere to have their pigs processed.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing this debate. The financial pressures facing pig farmers—indeed, farmers in every sector of our rural economy—are serious. Independent producers have seen prices collapse and contracts withdrawn, and it is important that we take time to recognise those challenges.
I will focus on something that is fundamental to the future of the pig industry and indeed to the health of our nation: biosecurity. Last month I asked DEFRA whether it had met the National Pig Association since the last recorded meeting, more than nine months ago, the response confirmed that Ministers have not met the NPA directly for a bilateral meeting. Perhaps if they had, they would be more aware of the NPA’s stark warning that the UK remains poorly protected when it comes to biosecurity.
An outbreak of disease here would devastate British agriculture and our supply chains, impacting the taxpayer to the tune of billions of pounds. We must learn from the past. The 2001 foot and mouth outbreak cost the public and private sectors the equivalent of almost £15 billion in today’s money. An outbreak of African swine fever would immediately close export markets worth around £500 million each year. Yet despite those risks, the NPA warns that large volumes of illegally imported meat continue to enter the UK from countries where those diseases are present.
I hope that the Minister recognises the severity and urgency of this matter. I urge him to set out what steps the Department is taking to ensure that staff at borders and checkpoints are appropriately resourced and trained to manage the risk of imports, and how DEFRA Ministers are working with colleagues from across Government, including the Home Office and the Cabinet Office, to ensure a cohesive and joined-up approach.
As the Government negotiate a new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union, we need reassurances from the Minister that the Government will not cave in any way on our world-leading biosecurity standards in an attempt to placate and pacify the EU. Reduced border checks under any future SPS agreement could undermine our market and increase the risk of animal diseases entering the UK.
Does the Minister recognise that risk? Would he consider providing multi-year funding for the Dover Port Health Authority and other agencies that protect our borders, to strengthen enforcement and deter criminal activity? British pig farmers have shown real leadership: they have reduced antibiotic use by almost 70%, invested in higher welfare standards and continually improved animal health. They are doing their part. DEFRA must now step up, match their commitment to our food security and wellbeing, and act accordingly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for setting the scene incredibly well.
It is a pleasure to champion a sector that is not only vital to my constituency, but a cornerstone of the entire economy of Northern Ireland: our fantastic, resilient yet deeply struggling pig industry. When we talk about agriculture in Northern Ireland, we are talking about the lifeblood of our rural communities. There are some 27,000 family farms across the province and our intensive sectors, particularly pork and poultry, punch vastly above their weight. Northern Ireland holds the highest density of pigs and poultry anywhere in the United Kingdom, and for a nation of some 1.9 million, we produce more chickens and pigs than Scotland and Wales combined—that is not to boast, but it is a fact of life and a statistic I want to put on record. We feed millions of people across the United Kingdom and the globe with world-class, top-quality, traceable pork products. As I stand here today, however our independent pig farmers are facing an existential crisis.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
As the hon. Member knows, small abattoirs are at breaking point in almost every imaginable way. One big issue is contradicting and inconsistent inspections. Does he agree that the Government urgently need to set out a clearer plan to streamline the regulation system?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do. That is one of the things that the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan and others have asked for, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Sadly, pig farming cannot simply be switched on and off like a tap. It requires immense long-term investment, precision and dedication, but it has been squeezed to the absolute limit. Our farmers have battled skyrocketing input costs: feed, energy and fertiliser prices have gone through the roof. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, which has been forced to hold emergency meetings with major processors such as Sofina Foods at its Cookstown site, because of severe contract reductions and reductions in weekly slaughter volumes. Our independent family farms are being left adrift in a sea of commercial uncertainty and Ulster Farmers Union has had to take those concerns directly to major retailers.
I ask the Minister in his speech to take up the issue of cost, and specifically what farmers are getting for their products and what Tesco—I name it—and other large supermarket chains are getting. The supply chain is simply broken, and we need intervention. The Northern Ireland Executive have to deal with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs back home, but macroeconomic stability, supply chain legislation and national food security are firmly the responsibility of this Government.
Our family farms need protection from immediate financial ruin and the Government must engage with the major supermarket giants to ensure that they are paying fair and reasonable prices. If we do not support our pig farmers right now, we will see generational family businesses shut their gates forever. Let us remember this one thing: if there are no farmers, there is no food.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this timely debate.
I grew up on a sheep and beef farm, and when I was about 11 years old, I bought 13 pigs from market to take home. They became more like pets; I used to play football with them—
Dr Chambers
No, I used to play football matches with them. They were a lot of fun, and I learned that of all livestock, they are potentially the most intelligent and certainly some of the most affectionate animals. I had a particularly interesting visit to Sparsholt agricultural college in Winchester with the National Pig Association. I used to love going there when I was a vet to treat the animals; now I go there as an MP to look at its teaching and facilities. It has a fantastic indoor, high-welfare unit that delivers piglets without the use of farrowing crates, and I pay tribute to the staff there for their teaching and the welfare standards that they maintain.
To touch on something that many Members have spoken about today, one of the top issues threatening the pig industry is biosecurity at the border. I have been to Dover and met the vets and border inspectors there who look at the potentially illegal meat coming in and the tonnes of it that get seized. The crazy thing is that currently, if I were caught smuggling meat into the UK, I could not be arrested and my vehicle could not be seized, but the meat would be confiscated and my vehicle would have to be cleaned, because it would be a biosecurity risk. The only deterrent to trying to smuggle illegal meat into the UK would be that I might get my van cleaned for free at the taxpayer’s expense. That is absolutely ridiculous. I totally understand that enforcing biosecurity at such a busy border is difficult and comes with huge challenges, there are not even suitable deterrents in place for people who get caught. I urge the Minister at the very least to look at implementing some.
One thing that the pig industry has done phenomenally well is to reduce antibiotic use by 72% since 2015—just over 10 years. That is hugely important, not only for animal welfare, but for public health. Antimicrobial resistance is like a slow pandemic; it never gets media attention, but it will kill 39 million people by 2050 if we do not take action. It is important that we do not undercut our high animal welfare and farming standards with products from countries that have lower standards. Countries that use antibiotics as growth promoters are not only farming with lower welfare standards, but contributing to this huge public health crisis, so we must do our bit to tackle that issue.
The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) mentioned labelling. It is hugely important that we can identify where meat has been produced. Consumers are currently being hoodwinked; they believe that they are buying products from animals reared in the UK, but it turns out that they were only processed in the UK. They want to support British farmers and high animal welfare standards, so it is completely wrong that they are being hoodwinked into buying products that potentially undermine UK standards.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) made a very important point about the lack of small abattoirs in the UK. Their closure is a huge animal welfare issue, as animals have to be transported further than necessary to be slaughtered, and a huge economic problem too.
I urge the Minister to see how the Government can work with the pig industry to move away from the CO2 stunning of pigs. It is a big welfare concern, and the British Veterinary Association and others are keen for the industry to make a sustainable transition away from it. It causes a lot of concern to a lot of constituents, and it really upsets me as a vet.
Finally, I urge the Minister to meet the National Pig Association as soon as possible to look at supporting UK farmers, maintaining high animal welfare standards and improving our nation’s food security.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this important debate.
The British pig sector is in crisis, and our pig farmers need our help. My hon. Friends the Members for Gordon and Buchan and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) rightly spoke the challenges north of the border. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) rightly called on the Minister to ensure that no independent farmer is unable to have their pigs processed. That is absolutely the crux of the issue.
Let us be clear about what is at stake. The British pig sector contributes about £14 billion to our economy—£2 billion at the farm gate, £7 billion in retail sales, and exports to 88 counties worth almost £500 million. It is a major part of our farming industry, and we cannot afford to let the current financial challenges go any further.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is right to outline the exports from the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, we export almost 80% of our product, so it is even more critical for us.
Robbie Moore
Absolutely. There must be a UK-wide approach.
The warning signs have been there for months. Since last autumn, the sector has been hit by oversupply, stagnant demand, falling European prices, factory disruptions and rising costs all at once. At one point earlier this year, around 100,000 pigs were backed up on British farms. That backlog has largely cleared now, but not without cost. The standard pig price has fallen by around 30p a kilogram, from roughly 208p to 178p.
That is only part of the picture, because the vast majority of independent farmers will be receiving much less than that, as was noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan. No market can survive on those terms. Without urgent action, the sector faces being pushed towards collapse. It is our independent producers who are bearing the brunt of the pressures faced by the sector, with thousands now seeing their contracts terminated early by major processors. Somewhere between 12,000 and 14,000 pigs a week are affected by notices being served on producers.
The Government simply cannot stand on the sidelines and hope that the market corrects itself, because by autumn, the industry fears that up to 10,000 to 15,000 pigs a week could have no market at all. If nothing changes, we know what follows—more farm closures, more herds reduced and more businesses walking away from the industry altogether.
The fair dealing obligations for pig contracts were brought in to fix the problem exposed by the last crisis—unequal bargaining power, poor contracts and a lack of fairness between producers and processors. We can all agree that those were worthwhile aims but if, during the implementation period, producers are still seeing contracts terminated early in record numbers and our farmers are still losing money on every pig they sell, the Government have to ask whether the regulations are doing what Parliament originally intended. Will the Minister commit today to an urgent assessment of whether the regulations are fit for purpose?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) noted, there are also longer-term challenges. The threat from African swine fever and foot and mouth disease is real and ongoing. Protecting our borders from illegal meat imports and strengthening our disease defences must be a priority. What are the Government doing to work across Departments, including with the Home Office, to make sure that these live issues are addressed?
The industry also needs a sensible workforce strategy. Like much of agriculture, pig farming is struggling with labour shortages. It needs a strategy that builds a workforce based on domestic skills and apprenticeships.
We must also address the issue of transparency. Customers want to buy British and retail labelling has come a long way, but food services still rely heavily on imported pork, often with far less clarity about where that pork comes from. British producers deserve a level playing field and British consumers deserve to know what is on their plate.
That is why the Conservative party has proposed closing the loophole that lets imported food, once merely processed or packaged in the UK, carry branding that many shoppers reasonably mistake as British. What progress has been made since the Government’s response on the food labelling consultation? Do the Government intend to strengthen country of origin rules?
British pig farmers are not asking the Government to solve every single commercial challenge, but they are asking for regulations that genuinely protect producers rather than leave them exposed. Above all, they are asking the Government to recognise the strategic importance of British food production before more independent producers simply disappear for good.
We cannot lose more of this vital industry. For the sake of our farmers, our rural communities and our country’s long-term food security, the Government must engage with key stakeholders. It is disappointing to hear that the last bilateral meeting between Ministers and the National Pig Association was back in September 2025. I call on the Minister to have an urgent meeting—I understand there may be one tomorrow. If that is the case, will the Minister guarantee that those meetings will continue at pace and at regular intervals with the British Pig Association, so that we can make sure that this vital industry is protected long into the future?
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing this incredibly important debate, and on the constructive manner in which she contributed this afternoon.
I am grateful to all Members who have contributed to the debate and for the thoughtful way in which they have raised a number of concerns currently facing the pig sector and their constituencies. As my hon. Friends the Members for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) passionately alluded to, the pig sector is woven into the fabric of the UK’s food system, underpinning food security, sustaining rural communities and driving agricultural productivity across the country. Beyond its economic importance, pork has long held a place at the nation’s table, from cherished regional specialities and traditional Sunday roasts to the everyday meals enjoyed by millions of families. As both a source of nourishment and a part of our culinary heritage, British pig production remains integral to what we eat.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk said, however, this is a moment of considerable pressure for the sector. Pig producers are navigating a period of profound difficulty, confronting a range of economic and structural challenges across all nations of the UK. I thank my Scottish and Northern Irish colleagues for their contributions this afternoon.
Recent reports have highlighted concerns about processors seeking to reduce pig numbers and producers—particularly independent producers—receiving notice that their contracts will be terminated. Those developments reflect a difficult market environment. A combination of increased production in recent years, changing consumer patterns and wider pressures in European pork markets has resulted in excess supply across parts of the sector. We recognise that this market adjustment is creating uncertainty for producers, particularly those affected by changes to supply arrangements.
That is why the Government will continue to engage with the industry as it responds to the challenges it faces. I personally assure all Members that I have prioritised meeting with the sector and, indeed, am meeting with the National Pig Association tomorrow to discuss the pressures that the sector is facing. I also note the NPA’s request for ongoing dialogue in its briefing for today’s debate. I hope tomorrow is the start of that relationship.
Turning to intervention powers, in the event of exceptional market disruption, the Government have powers under section 21 of the Agriculture Act 2020 to provide support to farmers in England. Agriculture is a devolved matter, and there are similar powers available to devolved Governments should they consider intervention in the sector appropriate. The powers under the Agriculture Act in England are intended to deal with unforeseen short-term shocks to agricultural markets, where there is a significant adverse effect on price achievable for one or more agricultural products. Section 21 powers were previously used during the exceptional disruption faced by the pig sector in 2021, when a combination of reduced processing capacity, the impact of the covid-19 pandemic, interruptions to CO2 supply and a shortage of skilled butchers led to a substantial backlog of pigs on farm.
We recognise the challenges facing the sector today, but our assessment is that the circumstances are materially different from those seen in 2021. The current pressures reflect broader market conditions rather than a breakdown in processing capacity or market function. As such, the threshold for intervention in England under section 21 of the Agriculture Act is not currently met. As it is a devolved matter, it is for devolved Governments to take a judgment on intervention.
Graham Stuart
I congratulate the Minister on the meeting he will have tomorrow and his offer to engage. I gently press him on reaching out. He has made it clear that he does not think that the current situation matches that of 2021. I accept that, but could he reach out and use his good offices to ensure that no farmer is left with pigs backing up on their farm? Could he lean, in the most genial manner possible, on the processors to ensure that farmers get those pigs off the farm and processed? They would be very grateful if the Minister could do so.
Stephen Morgan
I am very alive to the issues. That is why engagement with the sector is very important. I have powers available to me, if necessary, but we are keen to monitor the situation. That is why today’s debate has been so important.
We are aware that the sector experienced a temporary backlog on farms earlier this year. The industry took action to address the issue, including through increasing processing capacity, and the backlog has now been cleared. Although that was a welcome development, wider pressures remain and we will continue to monitor the situation closely.
Turning to points made by Members about Government actions to strengthen fairness and resilience in the pig sector, the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan rightly raised the Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025. They are designed to end unfair contract practices and give British pig farmers greater transparency and certainty in their commercial relationships. I will reflect on her points. The regulations will be fully in force from 13 April this year, when all contracts for the purchase of pigs will need to be compliant. While we are aware of some processors serving notice on their producers or reducing contract volumes, our understanding is that these notices are being issued in line with contractual provisions. The fair dealing regulations are enforced by the agricultural supply chain adjudicator, which producers can contact if they are concerned that their contracts are not compliant with the regulations. I assure the hon. Member that the regulations will be subject to statutory review processes that will assess their effectiveness and whether any changes may be required in future.
Alongside the UK-wide fair dealing obligation regulations, support is also available to pig farmers in England through the animal health and welfare pathway. Pig farmers can receive £648 for a vet on-farm to look at general animal health and welfare issues and carry out testing. Farmers can receive up to £1,087 for further testing and advice if their farm has PRRS. In 2026, £50 million was made available through the farming equipment and technology fund to help farmers in England to improve animal health and welfare, productivity and slurry management.
On the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk, the ambition of our farming road map is not simply to help farmers weather immediate challenges, but to create the conditions for a farming sector that is productive, resilient and profitable for generations to come. That means backing innovation, improving animal health and welfare, strengthening fairness across the supply chains and ensuring that farmers are better equipped to respond to changing and challenging markets. A strong domestic pig sector has an important role to play in delivering food security, supporting rural growth and maintaining the high standards that British consumers rightly expect.
By investing in productivity and resilience today, we can help to ensure that British pig farming remains competitive and successful in the years ahead. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk and the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan raised the important issue of African swine fever. I assure her that to help to prevent the uncontrolled movement of meat products into the United Kingdom, DEFRA has introduced safeguard measures that prohibit personal imports of pork into GB from the EU. The commercial import of pork from areas under African swine fever controls is not permitted. We are also funding the Port of Dover to ensure that illegal movement of meat into England does not take place. Since 2022, we have provided over £14 million of operational funding to the Dover port association.
I thank Members again for their thoughtful contributions to the debate. The concerns they raised have reinforced the importance of continuing to work closely with producers, processors and the wider industry. Our commitment is clear: to support a farming sector that not only is able to withstand future shocks, but is confident, profitable and able to seize the opportunities that lie ahead.
Harriet Cross
Given that there is a Division in the House, I will keep this very short. I thank everyone for participating in the debate. I hope the Minister’s meetings will be constructive. I ask him to go in with an open mind and listen to what the NPA is saying. It is not sounding a false alarm; it is genuinely very worried about the future of its sector.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for pig farmers.
Written Corrections
Ministerial Corrections
Transport
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the tragic collision between two passenger trains on Friday 19 June… I was particularly moved to hear of a ticket inspector on the Corby train who, despite being injured, radioed in to close the rail line while checking that everyone else was okay. As I have said before, I truly believe the best of us show up in the worst of times, and that was the case here.
[Official Report, 22 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 43.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander):
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the tragic collision between two passenger trains on Friday 19 June… I was particularly moved to hear of a train manager on the Corby train who, despite being injured, radioed in to close the rail line while checking that everyone else was okay. As I have said before, I truly believe the best of us show up in the worst of times, and that was the case here.
Business and Trade
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Baker
The EU is a key trading partner for Scotland, accounting for almost 40% of Scotland’s international exports. Can the Minister reassure my constituents in Glenrothes and Mid Fife that while we wait for a new date for the EU summit, this Government will press ahead with plans to align with more areas of the single market, so that we can continue to remove barriers for our businesses to trade with Europe?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, not least because in the most recent figures, our trade in goods with Europe has fallen by 2% in the last year, whereas our trade in services has grown by 7%.
[Official Report, 2 July 2026; Vol. 788, c. 1008.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, not least because in the most recent figures, our exports in goods with the EU have fallen by 2% in the last year, whereas our exports in services have grown by 7%...
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
When I visited NDT Equipment Ltd in my constituency, the director Dan Lenton showed me the ultrasonic test calibration blocks and reference pieces that it uses and supplies to manufacturers in a wide range of sectors in the UK and abroad. This steel is not manufactured in the UK; it is imported and is high grade. I know Ministers are being flexible and talking to hon. Members. Will the Minister please consider the grade of steel that the company uses, which I believe is EN3B, and exempt it from the tariffs?
Chris Bryant
We have already laid out our steel trade measures, which are there to ensure that the UK has a steel industry. This is vital for our economic future. I want to make clear that 73% of all steel imports into the UK are not in scope of the measure, but I will, of course, look at this specific issue…
[Official Report, 2 July 2026; Vol. 788, c. 1022.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):
Chris Bryant
We have already laid out our steel trade measures, which are there to ensure that the UK has a steel industry. This is vital for our economic future. I want to make clear that 74% of all steel imports by value into the UK are not in scope of the measure, but I will, of course, look at this specific issue…
Other Correction
Dr Shastri-Hurst
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
The following extract is from the Backbench Business debate on Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness on 8 July 2026.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I refer Members to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my participation in a parliamentary delegation to Ukraine in February with the UK friends of the armed forces.
[Official Report, 8 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 365.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst):
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I refer Members to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my participation in a parliamentary delegation to Ukraine in February with the UK Friends of Ukraine.
Written Statements
Deepening the UK’s Trade Relationships
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
Trade remains central to this Government’s mission to drive sustainable economic growth and to ensure that UK firms can access the opportunities presented by a rapidly evolving global economy.
This Government’s trade strategy places international partnerships at the heart of that ambition. We are focused on strengthening the UK’s position as a base for businesses to connect with global markets, while supporting high-value jobs, boosting investment and reinforcing our economic resilience. A key aspect of this pattern of international trading relationships is our membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.
Today, I am announcing the launch of a public consultation to inform the next phase of the United Kingdom’s trade relationships with four global partners—Indonesia, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates and Uruguay—as we explore how the UK should respond to accession talks with certain CPTPP candidate countries.
Parties to the CPTPP, including the UK, established an accession working group with Uruguay in 2025, and on 26 June 2026, CPTPP parties announced the start of preparatory discussions on accession with Indonesia, the Philippines and the UAE: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-06-29/hcws154 Uruguay’s accession working group is now well under way, with meetings scheduled
The Government therefore want to hear views on the opportunities, priorities and considerations associated with deepening the UK’s trading relationships with these economies. CPTPP accession represents the most likely route to deepening trading relationships with the majority of them, but the call for input does not assume a single route and also invites views on other appropriate trade policy mechanisms, including bilateral free trade agreements where applicable and relevant.
This consultation marks an early but important stage in the process of assessing future trade opportunities. The call for input published today provides businesses, civil society, consumers and individuals across the UK with the chance to share their insights and priorities, ensuring that any future negotiations are informed by a strong evidence base and reflect the needs of the UK economy.
The Government will carefully consider all responses alongside further economic and policy analysis. This will inform decisions on the UK’s overall approach to engagement with these partners. The call for input closes on 14 September 2026 and can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/deepening-uk-trade-relationships-with-indonesia-the-philippines-the-united-arab-emirates-and-uruguay
I will keep Parliament closely informed as this work progresses. Further updates will be provided in due course, including ahead of any decision to progress to an accession working group or other negotiations.
[HCWS235]
Horizon Family Members Redress Scheme: Registration
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
On 19 March, I updated the House about this Government’s preparations to launch a redress scheme for family members of postmasters most affected by the Horizon scandal.
As we approach the anniversary of the publication of volume 1 of the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry report, which recommended that financial redress should be provided to close family members of those most adversely impacted by the Horizon scandal, I want to reassure those awaiting updates that this scheme is progressing and that we remain committed to helping this group.
I am happy to announce that the Horizon family member redress scheme will open for registration on 16 July 2026. This will allow potential applicants to come forward and begin the process by submitting information that will support the assessment of their applications later this autumn. Applicants will be able to access the registration form, alongside further information about the scheme, here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/horizon-family-members-redress-scheme
Guidance for prospective applicants is also available at that link, setting out the type of documents that will be required to demonstrate eligibility once we start to consider claims. This guidance will help applicants to prepare the relevant documents in advance, so they are not unduly held up demonstrating their eligibility.
Processing of cases is expected to begin in the autumn of this year, once the Department has completed the necessary procurement steps to appoint an external supplier to manage this work.
At that point, cases will be dealt with in the order they were received. Those who register now will be among the first to have their cases examined. Those who are unable to register now or wish to wait until a later date are free to do so and this will not impact their cases other than them being considered slightly later.
[HCWS232]
Insolvency Service Annual Plan
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
The Insolvency Service is the Government agency that delivers public services to those affected by financial distress or failure by providing frameworks to deal with insolvency and the financial misconduct that sometimes accompanies or leads to it.
The Insolvency Service plays a key role underpinning confidence in our financial markets: maximising economic returns to creditors from insolvency situations, supporting those in financial distress, helping them to return to economic activity, and tackling financial wrongdoing through its investigation and enforcement work. Its enforcement role is increasing substantially to meet the Government’s ambitions to tackle economic crime.
This year, the Insolvency Service has reinforced its commitment to supporting businesses and citizens. They are supporting the delivery of the Government’s priorities in supporting regulatory reform, reducing administrative burdens on businesses, and driving forward economic growth, putting more money in people’s pockets and helping to rebuild Britain. This will ensure that the UK is a key destination for investment, with a regulatory regime that is fit for purpose and achieves value for money for the taxpayer. I have asked it to focus on:
Pro-active review of the key regulatory requirements which are placed on the insolvency profession, both to reduce burdens and to enable and facilitate use of new and emerging technologies.
Developing policy proposals to specifically support small and medium-sized businesses and ensure proportionate enforcement action that better supports growth.
Continuous improvement of its service delivery and interface with businesses through investing in and modernising its systems and processes.
The Insolvency Service’s agency plan for 2026 to 2027 will be published in full on gov.uk.
[HCWS231]
Sixth Assimilated Law Report
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
Today the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament pursuant to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 and published it on gov.uk. This report updates the House in line with the obligations under section 17 of the REUL Act, which requires a report to be published and laid before Parliament every six months until 23 June 2026 detailing all revocations and reforms of assimilated law. As this is the final (sixth) report being laid before the House, section 17 of the REUL Act removes the requirement to set out the Government’s future plans to revoke and reform assimilated law.
The report today summarises the data on the assimilated law dashboard, providing the public with information about the amount of assimilated law there is and where it sits across Departments. The dashboard was updated for the final time on 14 July 2026 and reflects the position as of 23 June 2026, showing a total of 6,921 instruments of REUL/assimilated law concentrated over approximately 400 unique policy areas. Since the previous update to the dashboard, 133 assimilated law instruments have either been revoked or reformed. In addition, Departments have undertaken further analysis and amended their record of assimilated law. As a result, a net figure of 2,700 instruments have been revoked or reformed in total. Section 17 of the REUL Act does not require the dashboard to be updated beyond the final reporting period of 24 December 2025 to 23 June 2026. As such, tracking and reporting of assimilated law, including publication of the assimilated law dashboard, will now end. After a six-month post-publication period, the dashboard will be taken offline and replaced by a downloadable version of the last dataset on gov.uk.
These steps are deemed proportionate as there is no clear policy rationale for continuing to track assimilated law once the statutory requirement expires. Any reforms to assimilated law would be made to truly support Government priorities.
The report provides details of 46 statutory instruments which were made by the Government using powers under the REUL Act and other domestic legislation since the end of the last reporting period. These statutory instruments amend assimilated law to deliver the Government’s priorities. This includes, for example, The Provision of Services (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026, which support this Government’s pledge to cut the administrative burden of regulation to business by 25% by the end of this Parliament. This statutory instrument supports an open, transparent, and proportionate licensing regime to reduce costs for business.
On 23 June 2026, the majority of REUL Act powers expired. The Government can continue making changes to assimilated law to support the national interest through other domestic legislation. Looking ahead, the Government will progress reform, where desirable, of assimilated law to ensure regulation creates the conditions for sustainable growth whilst upholding consumer and environmental protections.
[HCWS233]
National Resilience: Annual Statement
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
On 8 July 2025, the Government published our resilience action plan, committing to update Parliament with an annual overview of the UK’s resilience. Today I will fulfil that commitment alongside publishing an annual update on the implementation of both the resilience action plan and biological security strategy.
This resilience work is informed by the national security risk assessment, the Government’s assessment of the most serious risks facing the UK. Today we published a version of this document, the national risk register, which includes a summary of all but the most sensitive, classified risks. Ninety-five risks are listed in total.
For example, conflict in the middle east and Russia’s war in Ukraine have exposed the vulnerabilities in global energy supply chains and driven up energy prices, and the increasing sophistication and proliferation of artificial intelligence not only brings huge opportunities, but threats too if it is weaponised by criminals against us. This could include novel ways of developing or carrying out hostile cyber-attacks against businesses and our critical infrastructure.
As we saw with temperatures across the UK breaking records in May, only to be exceeded again in June, the risks we face from climate change cannot be underestimated, from our infrastructure, food and water systems or people’s immediate health. Climate change is also exacerbating the spread of high-consequence infectious diseases, alongside the changing boundaries of the human-animal interface. The incidence of highly pathogenic avian influenza, Ebola, and Andes hantavirus are examples from the last few months alone.
As we set out in the resilience action plan implementation report, also published today, having resilient public services and infrastructure is how we safeguard our national security. Under this Government, defence spending will rise to almost £80 billion a year by 2029—the biggest sustained boost to defence spending since the Cold War. We have also accelerated our home defence planning, including updating the Government war book and increasing the emphasis on aligning military and civilian efforts if international hostilities affect the UK. We will rigorously test these plans through the largest UK home defence exercise in several decades in 2027, to ensure that should the worst ever happen, we will always be ready.
Later this year, we will publish an energy resilience strategy to strengthen the resilience of our energy system in the UK and a transport resilience strategy, setting out how we will work across these sectors to deliver secure and resilient systems for the UK public.
While Government will do all it can, we can all play our part to keep ourselves and our loved ones safe. As the storms earlier this year showed, extreme weather events can cause significant and prolonged disruption to the essential services on which we all rely.
Today, I can announce that the Government will launch a national resilience public awareness campaign later this year, in order to inform the public of the small but important steps they can take to be prepared in case of emergencies and disruption—be that severe weather or a cyber-attack which can impact access to power, water, phone signal or local shops to get food.
The public sector resilience system is key and must continually evolve to the changing risk landscape. For over two decades, the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 has supported a consistent, co-operative approach to emergency preparedness and response across the UK, but it must keep pace to meet future challenges. To ensure this legislative framework remains strong and as relevant as possible today, we are launching a call for views on the Act’s implementation review of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to gather evidence from across the resilience community on where it may need updating to reflect the modem world we live in.
Turning to the UK Government’s biological security strategy, the biological security landscape has continued to evolve and the threats we face are more likely, diverse and interconnected. A future pandemic or the risk that hostile actors use biological weapons could permanently scar the UK’s social and economic resilience. Over the last year, we have made strong progress against our commitments on biological security, including:
delivering Exercise Pegasus: the largest tier 1 pandemic scenario simulation in UK history;
establishing a network of national biosecurity centres, backed by £1.83 billion of investment to ensure a rapid, holistic “One Health” response to future crises;
securing critical infrastructure with Moderna’s new mRNA vaccine manufacturing centre;
publishing a new pandemic preparedness strategy, supported by an additional £1 billion in health protection measures, and a new UK strategic approach to bio surveillance, to ensure that we are better positioned to detect biological threats; and
operationalising a biothreats radar to provide real-time data on biological incidents, while pioneering new approaches to monitoring the near-term convergence of AI and biology.
Today, I have published the biological security strategy implementation report, setting out further commitments to ensure that, by 2030, the UK is resilient against a spectrum of biological threats and a world leader in responsible innovation.
Copies of the following documents have been made available on www.gov.uk
today:
The UK Government Resilience Action Plan: 2026 Implementation Report
The UK Government Biological Security Strategy: 2026 Implementation Report
The National Risk Register and supplementary guidance
A Call for Views for Civil Contingencies Act 2004 Post Implementation Review
[HCWS244]
National Security and Investment Act 2021: Annual Report 2025-26
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
I am today laying before Parliament the annual report covering the operation of the National Security and Investment Act 2021 for the period 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026. This fulfils the requirements under section 61 of the NSI Act and a copy of the report will also be published on gov.uk.
The Government are committed to ensuring the NSI Act supports growth by facilitating investment into our most sensitive sectors in a way that protects our national security. It must also do so as effectively, efficiently, and transparently as possible. This will give investors the certainty they need to promote ongoing growth across the UK.
The report shows that the Government took a decision on whether to call in or clear all notified acquisitions within the review period’s statutory 30 working days, and the vast majority were cleared to proceed within this period. Of the 1,220 notifications reviewed, 95.6% were notified that no further action would be taken, and 4.4% were called in. In this reporting period, nine final orders were issued and four called-in acquisitions were withdrawn before a decision was made.
This report shows that notifications, call-ins, final orders, withdrawals, and final notifications covered many different sectors and acquirers’ countries of origin.
[HCWS238]
Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism: July 2026 Delivery Update
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
The Government are introducing a carbon border adjustment mechanism from 1 January 2027 which will ensure that highly traded, carbon-intensive goods which are imported into the UK face a comparable carbon price to what is paid by manufacturers producing the same goods in the UK.
Following Royal Assent of the Finance Act 2026, which provides the legislative framework for the UK CBAM, the Government consulted on CBAM secondary legislation in early 2026. After considering the responses to the consultation carefully, the first tranche of secondary legislation has been laid today, setting out the majority of the detailed design and administrative framework for CBAM.
Further secondary legislation, confirming details on how to monitor, report and verify emissions, will follow. Comprehensive guidance will also be published later in the year, which will further assist businesses in complying with CBAM.
The scope of CBAM remains unchanged, with the sectors included being iron and steel, aluminium, fertiliser, hydrogen and cement.
The Government recognise that stakeholders are keen to know more about the UK’s approach to setting default values. The Treasury is carefully considering the methodology for setting these values.
The Government will set out specific values in the autumn; ahead of that, I can reassure interested parties that in line with schedule 17 of Finance Act 2026, the Treasury’s guiding principle in setting default values will be to ensure liable persons do not gain an advantage from using default values over determining the actual embodied emissions of imported CBAM goods.
This means that default values will not be set as a simple global average, but will instead be based on a trade-weighted average. In order to best reflect the imports most likely to rely on default values rather than actual emissions, we will look to exclude data from jurisdictions with robust mandatory MRV systems such as the EU. Where appropriate, we will consider applying additional mark-ups to ensure the environmental integrity of CBAM.
The Government committed previously to consider the feasibility of moving to an alternative approach in future, and will set out more detail on future plans for default values in the autumn, alongside the full list of default values for 2027.
[HCWS245]
Naval Base Infrastructure
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I am today announcing the largest investment in the United Kingdom’s naval bases since the end of the cold war.
As set out in the strategic defence review, improving readiness and strengthening our ability to generate maritime forces at pace is central to the Government’s approach to national security in an increasingly uncertain world. Our naval bases are critical national infrastructure, and their condition directly affects the availability, credibility and effectiveness of the Royal Navy.
As confirmed in the defence investment plan, I can announce today that the Government are delivering Project Royal Oak, which is the collective name we have given to the extensive strategic investment we have committed for improvements to His Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde in Faslane, His Majesty’s Naval Base Devonport, and His Majesty’s Naval Base Portsmouth. Collectively, this represents approximately £26 billion[1] of investment over the next 10 years to increase the readiness, availability and lethality of the Royal Navy.
Investments at HMNB Clyde are governed by the Clyde Transformation Programme. This will see a multi-decade, multibillion-pound transformation of the site covering everything from dock infrastructure to training and accommodation facilities. It will also include Programme Euston which will see three new floating docks and shoreside infrastructure for submarine maintenance with a renewed focus on asset management that will sustain infrastructure over the long term. There will also be a separate, offsite engineering facility established to boost maintenance capacity. This comprises £15.1 billion over the next decade.
In the south-west, forecast investment of £7.1 billion over the next decade at HMNB Devonport will deliver major upgrades and new and replacement infrastructure across the naval base and dockyard. Devonport is the UK centre for submarine deep maintenance and supports the continuous at-sea deterrent, submarines, ships, sailors and the Royal Marine Commando Force. The programme includes upgrades to 15 Dock, modernisation of 10 Dock and work on 14 Dock to enable submarine defueling to recommence, and wider renewal and maintenance across the site. This reflects both previous under-investment in infrastructure and a changing operational requirement.
On the Solent, forecast investment of £3.9 billion at HMNB Portsmouth will ensure recovery from years of disinvestment alongside vital modernisation to meet the emergent demands of a hybrid Navy which is maximised for warfighting readiness. This includes Project Bentham to upgrade jetties, berthing and support systems; a capability accelerator to support the hybrid Navy and fast-track technological development; a skills development centre for apprentice and adult learning; and expansion of the Royal Navy warfighting centre.
Taken together, these projects will modernise docks, jetties and engineering facilities and support infrastructure across the naval estate, ensuring our bases are resilient, capable and fit to support current and future fleets.
In these uncertain times, this investment will ensure that the Royal Navy is better placed to meet the challenges it faces, strengthen deterrence, and protect the United Kingdom’s security and interests at home and overseas. The House will be kept informed as these projects progress.
[1]Some of this funding sits within the nuclear ringfence.
[HCWS236]
Armoured Cavalry Programme
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I am releasing this statement to the House today to provide Parliament with a further update on the armoured cavalry programme, commonly known as Ajax, following issues raised on Exercise Titan Storm in November 2025.
Since Exercise Titan Storm, there have been a number of reports and investigations undertaken to understand the causes of the issues presented. I can now provide an update on the status of each of these reports and the associated next steps:
Army Safety Investigation Team investigation—as I outlined in my previous statement to the House on 28 Apr 26, the ASIT investigation has concluded, and found that there was no single causal mechanism, but rather a combination of multiple factors. Work is already under way to progress the findings of this investigation.
Defence Accident Investigation Branch investigation—the DAIB undertook initial investigations at the scene in the immediate aftermath of the incident and passed responsibility for the further investigation to ASIT.
A ministerial review was conducted to examine the quality of advice given to Ministers, senior officials and military leadership—I provided an update on this in my statement to the House on 22 Jan 26, and on 28 Apr 26 advised that a further review had been commissioned. This further review will be chaired by Jonathan Simcock and will evaluate the four previous reviews, looking specifically at the events leading up to the declaration of initial operating capability. Jonathan Simcock has significant experience of Government major projects, having led the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, as well as holding a portfolio of non-executive and advisory positions across Government. This review is due to complete by the autumn. I will provide a further update to the House on this review in due course.
Ajax independent expert panel review—I can confirm that this review has now concluded and the findings have been provided to Ministers. The panel comprised 51 independent subject matter experts from defence, science, medicine and industry. The panel agreed with the ASIT report that the platform is safe when operated and maintained within the correct parameters, but noted that further action is required to improve the user experience. The report made 41 recommendations, which are categorised into four groups: technical and maintenance; training considerations; environment, motion sickness and psychological factors; and vibration and noise. All priority recommendations have been agreed in principle and work is under way to align with extant ASIT activity. This will be completed in the summer, including a timetable for resulting actions. We are also considering whether any of the recommendations have broader applicability against other programmes and platforms, as a precautionary measure. I will report back to the House on progress against the recommendations in due course.
The strategic case for Ajax remains extant. The capability is critical to a fully networked, persistent and lethal capability that sits at the heart of the British Army’s recce strike complex.
We have resumed acceptance of the Ajax vehicles, with 16 vehicles accepted. Trials have now restarted and Army training is planned to commence shortly.
The safety of our service personnel remains paramount throughout this process, and we continue to work closely with General Dynamics to deliver the vehicle that provides the world-leading capability they need. I will continue to keep the House closely updated on the progress of the programme.
[HCWS237]
Unpaid Carers: Cross-Government Action Plan
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
The Government are today publishing a cross-Government action plan for unpaid carers.
This action plan delivers on the Government’s commitment to strengthen support for unpaid carers across England. It sets out a co-ordinated programme of cross-Government activity to improve the visibility of unpaid carers, improve access to support, and ensure caring responsibilities are better recognised across public services and the workplace.
The plan has been developed collaboratively across Government with input from delivery partners. It responds to the need for more joined-up information and advice, improved data sharing between services, and stronger recognition of unpaid carers in workforce planning and service design. It also reflects the diversity of carers’ experiences, including the specific needs of young carers.
The action plan is structured around three core themes: recognise, refer, and reach.
Under the recognise theme, we will improve the identification and visibility of unpaid carers across health, education and employment settings. Key actions include developing “my carer” functionality within the NHS app to support self-identification and care management; improving the identification of young carers in education settings; embedding carer identification within personalised care planning; supporting NHS staff with caring responsibilities; and commissioning further research to better understand barriers to identification and improve data collection and employer support.
Under the refer theme, we will make it easier for carers to access the right support at the right time. This includes developing a cross-Government information and guidance resource bringing together support on finance, employment, health and wellbeing; exploring the use of digital notification systems such as NHS Notify and Diagnosis Connect to support targeted communications; promoting best practice on involving carers in hospital discharge planning; increasing awareness of employment rights and benefits; and improving transitions for young carers moving from children’s to adult services, including through initiatives such as the Local Government Association’s “No Wrong Door” memorandum.
Under the reach theme, we will support unpaid carers to reach their full potential alongside their caring responsibilities. This includes promoting flexible working and supportive workplace practices; reviewing the effectiveness of carer’s leave; supporting small and medium-sized enterprises to better support employees with caring responsibilities; strengthening and promoting carer passports; improving support for young carers in education; and ensuring carers’ needs are reflected across wider health, social care and employment reforms.
The action plan is underpinned by governance and oversight arrangements to ensure clear accountability, regular reporting, and ongoing review. This will support transparency on delivery and allow the plan to evolve in line with wider Government priorities and implementation milestones.
I am grateful to colleagues and officials across Government who have contributed to the development of this action plan, particularly in the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Department for Education. I am also grateful to delivery partners for their valuable contributions in shaping this plan. Delivery of this agenda depends on sustained cross-Government collaboration and continued close working with our delivery partners.
[HCWS234]
Quality Strategy for NHS-funded Care in England
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)
I am pleased to inform the House of the publication of our new quality strategy for NHS-funded care in England, developed by the National Quality Board, which sets out a clear and ambitious approach to improving the quality of care across the NHS in England, and represents delivery of a key commitment from our 10-year health plan.
The strategy reaffirms that quality must, once again, be the organising principle of the NHS. It sets a clear national objective that high-quality care should be available to everyone, everywhere, regardless of who they are or where they live.
The strategy makes clear that quality is defined across three inseparable and equally important domains: patient safety, clinical effectiveness and patient experience. While patient safety rightly remains the foundation, the strategy marks a renewed and explicit focus on the other domains of quality, so that our efforts drive improvements in outcomes and ensure a consistently high standard of care and experience for all patients.
The need for this renewed focus is clear. Too many people still experience variation in outcomes, fragmented care, and unequal access to high-quality services. The strategy responds directly to these challenges, with a strong emphasis on reducing unwarranted variation and tackling health inequalities across all three domains of quality.
Rather than introducing a new set of policies, the strategy provides a coherent framework for delivery, bringing together existing commitments from the Government’s 10-year health plan. It aligns national priorities and clarifies how improvement will be led, overseen and delivered across the system. It is a call to action for leaders, clinicians and staff across the NHS to treat quality as their primary purpose, to use data transparently, and to adopt value-based approaches that direct resources to the interventions delivering the greatest benefit for patients and communities.
The strategy sets out how the NHS will focus its efforts on the areas where improvements will have the greatest impact on outcomes, experience and value, including major conditions such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and severe mental illness. It also reinforces the importance of improving maternity and neonatal care, patient safety, and the consistent delivery of evidence-based care. The National Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce will be taking forward work to improve the safety, effectiveness, and experiences of maternity and neonatal care.
We are also placing a renewed emphasis on transparency, accountability and leadership. Quality must be owned at every level of the system: providers are accountable for the care they deliver, integrated care boards must commission on the basis of quality and population need, and national bodies must provide clear leadership and oversight.
Importantly, the strategy also places the patient voice at its centre, recognising that listening to and working with people and communities is essential to improving services and ensuring care is responsive, person-centred, safe and effective.
Delivery will be supported by a clear set of system enablers, including improved accountability, better use of data, and the wider adoption of innovation and technology. At its heart, quality is underpinned by leadership, culture, and a shared commitment to deliver high standards. The strategy is a clear call to action to collectively create the conditions needed for sustained improvement across all parts of the NHS.
I am pleased to confirm that delivery of the strategy is already under way, with the modern service framework for sepsis also being published today, and the MSF for cardiovascular disease having been published on 7 July. MSFs are intended to support the NHS in providing consistent, high-quality, high-value and equitable care across key clinical pathways. Where appropriate, they will span both health and social care services, including the points where services join up. In addition to the two MSFs already delivered, development is well under way on further MSFs covering severe mental illness, palliative and end-of-life care, frailty and dementia, and children and young people—this is one of the ways we are ensuring that the principles set out in the new quality strategy are translated into practical improvements for patients across the NHS.
[HCWS239]
National Policing Response to Antisemitism
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
Recent attacks on our Jewish communities are completely unacceptable. An attack on our Jewish community is an attack on us all, and we must take the safety of our Jewish community very seriously. Jewish people must feel safe and Government will strain every sinew to ensure that is the case.
The rise in antisemitism is a scourge on our society. In the year to March 2025, there were 2,873 religious hate crimes against Jewish people—106 per 10,000 of population—the highest proportion for any group by some distance. In the Community Security Trust’s recent antisemitic incidents report, for the first time ever, the CST recorded over 200 cases of anti-Jewish hate in every calendar month in 2025. Shockingly, the CST also found that the terror attacks in Heaton Park and Bondi Beach triggered immediate spikes in antisemitism, ranging from face-to-face taunting to antisemitic social media posts. The Government have heard loud and clear the experiences of Jewish people in our communities in recent weeks and months.
While tackling this hatred requires a whole of Government response and a whole of society response, the police have an important role to play. This Government have already invested an additional £25 million into policing patrols and protective security to support Jewish communities.
I can also confirm today that we are providing additional funding of £251.1 million for the police to tackle antisemitism in our communities over the next three years. Alongside the investment in protective security, this brings total funding for protecting Jewish communities to £309.5 million.
This will fund:
a recognisable, permanent policing presence in key Jewish communities across the country;
a national surge capacity to ensure all Jewish communities, wherever they live, can be protected;
stronger national co-ordination and specialised capabilities to deliver a consistent approach, with specified funding to deliver antisemitism training for all police officers in England and Wales and a centralised online hate crime investigations hub; and
additional protective security and other capabilities to be deployed by Counter Terrorism Policing, in recognition of the threat from state actors and proxies to Jewish communities.
The majority of British Jews in England and Wales live in London, which has the highest concentration of synagogues and Jewish schools in the country, and this community has faced significant threat in recent months. We are therefore providing £85.8 million to the Metropolitan Police Service to fund around 300 officers to support increased policing in Jewish communities. They will increase specialised capabilities, strengthen intelligence, investigative and co-ordination functions, all of which will allow for better operational deployment in response to specific threats. This is in addition to the £18 million uplift the Government announced in April.
A further £65.9 million will go to forces outside of London with a significant Jewish population to provide a permanent presence in Jewish communities and ensure they are equipped to provide the communities with the support they need. Of this funding, £22.5 million will be provided to Greater Manchester Police to sustain the increase in policing presence in response to the tragic attack in Heaton Park last year. The £43.4 million will be distributed across seven other forces with significant Jewish communities: Hertfordshire, Essex, Northumbria, Sussex, Thames Valley, West Midlands and West Yorkshire.
In recognition of the need to ensure consistency of policing responses to antisemitism across England and Wales, £40.8 million will be provided to support national policing co-ordination and capabilities. Jewish people and communities should feel confident that antisemitic crimes will face the full force of the law wherever they live. We will fund antisemitism training for officers in England and Wales and ensure surge resources are available to all forces to protect Jewish communities, during events or times of increased threat. This is in addition to the £2 million uplift the Government announced in April.
Finally, Counter Terrorism Policing will receive a further £58.6 million over the three-year period to provide further security to vulnerable communities, places and people.
Our Jewish community is an integral part of this country. To be antisemitic is to be anti-British. We will continue to do everything in our power to protect Jewish people, communities and places, and to bring those who seek to cause them harm to justice. This additional funding aims to establish a sustained police presence in Jewish communities, provide a national response to the threat of antisemitism, and most importantly reassure Jewish communities across the country at a time of great fear and concern.
[HCWS246]
Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences: Part Two
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dame Angela Eagle)
My noble Friend the Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint), has today made the following written ministerial statement:
I am pleased to inform the House that the Home Office is today publishing Jonathan Fisher KC’s second and final report from the independent review of disclosure and fraud offences, Fraud in the Digital Age. The report examines the effectiveness of the current fraud framework and the barriers that inhibit the detection, investigation and prosecution of fraud committed against individuals and businesses.
I would like to record my thanks to Jonathan Fisher KC for this significant and authoritative contribution, and for his sustained leadership of the review across both phases. This includes his earlier report, Disclosure in the Digital Age, to which the Government has responded.
Together, the two reports reflect extensive engagement across the criminal justice system, law enforcement, regulatory bodies, academia and the private sector, and provide a comprehensive assessment of how fraud is now perpetrated and how the system should respond.
This second report lays bare the scale and seriousness of the challenge. Fraud now accounts for nearly half of all surveyed crime, making it the most prevalent offence faced by the public, including businesses. It is not a victimless or technical crime: it strikes directly at personal autonomy, causes profound emotional harm to victims, imposes significant costs on businesses and the wider economy, undermines public trust, and poses a growing threat to our national security and economic resilience.
The report identifies a set of structural and systemic factors that have allowed fraud to proliferate. It describes an age-old crime that has been supercharged by digital technology: offenders can operate at scale, at distance and across borders; and the likelihood of detection and prosecution remains low. Lengthy investigations, the growing complexity of digital material, limited specialist capability and fragmented responsibilities have combined to weaken deterrence and to create the perception among criminals that fraud is a low-risk, high-reward activity. The report is clear that the Government must match criminals’ innovation with their own.
Against that backdrop, the report emphasises that enforcement alone will not be sufficient. It makes 47 recommendations which collectively argue for a decisive shift in posture: from a system that is predominantly reactive and post-harm, to one that is proactive, disruptive and preventative. The recommendations are grouped around strengthening upstream disruption; improving public-private partnership and data sharing; increasing corporate accountability; responding to emerging technologies; and ensuring that consequences for fraud and fraud-enabling conduct are swifter, more certain and more visible, in order to increase deterrence and reinforce public confidence.
As set out in the Government’s fraud strategy 2026-29, we are already strengthening the tools available to disrupt fraud earlier and at scale, including through the exploration of civil penalties and international sanctions against high-harm overseas fraud actors. We are expanding international co-operation, sponsoring the Global Fraud summit 2026, to tackle fraud as a transnational threat.
Alongside this, through the Online Safety Act 2023, we are ensuring that tech companies are responsible for preventing fraudulent content and adverts from appearing on their platforms. We are deepening public-private partnerships by launching the online crime centre to disrupt online and volume cyber-fraud at scale, and to make the UK a harder place for criminals to commit fraud.
We are also working to improve the sharing and use of economic crime data, including through a recent call for evidence, and will consider the effectiveness of whistleblower incentivisation as part of the Government’s broader approach to strengthening the detection, prevention and enforcement of economic crime. Trusted reporting channels can play a vital role in surfacing information on fraud, corruption, sanctions evasion and other illicit activity, enabling earlier intervention and more effective disruption.
The report’s recommendations cut across the responsibilities of multiple departments, agencies and sectors. The Government will now consider them carefully and will respond in due course.
Tackling fraud requires sustained collaboration between Government, law enforcement, regulators, industry and civil society. This Government are determined to build momentum in the fight against fraud: to support victims, to pursue those who profit from deception, to strengthen deterrence, and to make the UK a safer place to live, work and do business.
The report is being presented to Parliament today as a Command Paper (CP 1600) and will be available on gov.uk.
[HCWS240]
Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences: Government Response to Part One
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
Today the Government publishes “Modernising the Criminal Disclosure Regime”, setting out our response to recommendations made by the independent review of disclosure and fraud offences and the independent review of the criminal courts on the operation of the criminal disclosure regime.
We are grateful to Jonathan Fisher KC for his thorough independent review of disclosure and fraud offences which has been published in two parts. This Government response refers to part one of his independent review: “Disclosure in the Digital Age”. The Government response to part two on fraud offences will be published in due course.
Disclosure is a statutory regime that applies to all criminal proceedings in England and Wales and is central to the right to a fair trial. It governs how material gathered in criminal investigations is recorded, reviewed, retained and shared, ensuring that relevant material capable of assisting the defence or undermining the prosecution is identified and disclosed.
Part one of this review reflects extensive engagement across the system and offers a practical package to raise standards, embracing appropriate technology, strengthening case management with an intensive disclosure regime for the most complex cases, and consolidating guidance and learning so that good practice is embedded consistently.
We also thank Sir Brian Leveson for his work on the independent review of the criminal courts, which included proposals related to disclosure, set out in chapter 5 of part 2 of his independent review. Our response considers Sir Brian Leveson’s proposals, alongside Jonathan Fisher KC’s proposals, which have enabled the Government to evaluate and implement disclosure reform collectively, drawing on the findings of both reviews. The Government’s full response to Sir Brian’s independent review of the criminal courts will be published separately in due course.
The Government response to these recommendations sets out how we will improve the disclosure regime while preserving its core legal safeguards. In summary, it supports the responsible and transparent use of advanced technology to manage large volumes of material more efficiently; strengthens learning, training and consistency across law enforcement and prosecutors; and considers improved court processes, including exploring a pilot of the proposed intensive disclosure regime to support earlier, more focused engagement between the prosecution and defence in the most serious and complex cases.
Taken together, these measures are designed to reduce unnecessary administrative burden on police and prosecutors, improve the speed and accuracy of disclosure, support victims, and uphold the right to a fair trial. This will deliver a disclosure regime that is transparent, modern and fit for the future.
This response has been developed jointly with the Ministry of Justice, owners of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and its code of practice, and the Attorney General’s Office, which owns the Attorney General’s guidelines on disclosure. I am very grateful to the Solicitor General, the Courts Minister and officials across all three Departments for their close collaboration in producing a coherent, system-wide response.
The response is being presented to Parliament today as a Command Paper (CP 1601) and will be available on gov.uk.
[HCWS241]
UK Covid-19 Inquiry: Module 5 Report
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
The chair of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry has today published the inquiry’s module 5 report, which examined the procurement and distribution of key healthcare equipment and supplies, including personal protective equipment, ventilators, and testing equipment.
The chair finds that the lack of preparation ahead of the covid-19 pandemic meant that the UK’s stockpile of PPE was in a perilous condition, with shortages and expired stock. The chair adds that there were no proper plans for the procurement and distribution of key healthcare equipment in an emergency. Health and social care workers were therefore left without adequate PPE to protect themselves, and those for whom they cared.
The chair acknowledges the logistical challenges of simultaneously obtaining the same supplies as other Governments across the world. Those involved in the emergency procurement of healthcare equipment had to act under pressure with extraordinary speed, and were confronted with unenviable choices.
The inquiry identifies 11 recommendations to ensure that the UK is better prepared ahead of a future healthcare emergency.
I would like to thank Baroness Hallett and her team for their thorough work on this report. The Government will carefully consider the findings and recommendations of the report and respond in due course.
I have laid a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.
[HCWS242]
Revised Telecommunications Security Code of Practice
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital Economy, Baroness Lloyd of Effra.
The Government have today issued the revised telecommunications security code of practice, under sections 105E and 105F of the Communications Act 2003.
The draft revised code of practice was laid before Parliament on 3 June 2026, and the statutory period required under section 105F of the Communications Act 2003 has now ended without either House having resolved not to approve it.
The UK telecoms supply chain review 2019 identified the need to establish an enhanced legislative framework for telecoms security. In response, the Government established a stronger telecoms security framework, which consists of:
The Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021—primary legislation which established new duties on public telecoms providers to prevent security compromises within their networks and services.
The Electronic Communications (Security Measures) Regulations 2022—secondary legislation setting out specific cyber security requirements with which the public telecoms providers must comply.
The Telecommunications Security Code of Practice 2022—technical guidance on how providers can comply with the requirements set out in the regulations.
The UK’s future prosperity rests on the public electronic communications networks and services—PECN and PECS—that provide our telecoms and internet connectivity. It is important therefore that the telecoms security framework keeps pace with the scale of the threat to UK telecoms networks and services, adapting to evolving threats to network security and new innovations in telecoms technology.
This revised code updates some areas of the technical guidance provided within the “Telecommunications Security Code of Practice 2022” to:
Provide further clarity on specific security measures: in response to feedback from providers, the revised code includes updates intended to give clearer direction to support compliance with legal duties in the legislation. This includes clearer guidance on the use of privileged access workstations, approaches to security testing, and the encryption and protection of data.
Reflect evolving technology: since 2022, increased use of certain technologies warrants updated technical guidance to support safe adoption. The revised code includes new security guidance on the secure use of public cloud, automation, and application programming interfaces.
Reflect emerging security threats: recent hostile state linked attacks underline growing risks. Guidance to public telecoms providers must evolve to help ensure providers respond appropriately. The revised code includes updates to reflect the need for providers to take appropriate and proportionate steps to protect their networks against such threats.
The issuing of the revised code represents an important step in ensuring the UK’s telecoms security framework remains robust and effective in the face of rapidly evolving cyber threats and technological change. By providing clearer and more up-to-date technical guidance, the revised code helps telecoms providers to comply with their statutory duties, strengthen the security and resilience of the UK’s public electronic communications networks and services, and protect citizens, businesses, and critical services that rely on them.
[HCWS229]
Equal Pay and Pay Discrimination
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)
The Government have today published a consultation on equal pay and pay discrimination.
In our manifesto and plan to make work pay, we committed to strengthening equal pay provisions and eliminating pay discrimination. This is an important milestone in the Government’s wider plan to break down the barriers to opportunity and make work pay for women across the country, address racial inequalities, and champion the rights of disabled people.
The UK’s prosperity and long-term economic growth depend on a national renewal that is grounded in the principles of equality and opportunity. This includes reinforcing our commitment to upholding the fundamental right to equal pay for equal work. This Government’s ambition is to remove barriers to opportunity, provide greater certainty for employers, and reduce the burden on business and the justice system through less protracted litigation.
Concerns have been widely expressed by employers and employees that the existing law on pay equality has become excessively complex, costly, and protracted. With tens of thousands of claims stuck in the system and cases taking a decade or more to resolve, workers are trapped in endless litigation and employers face intractable uncertainty. No one benefits from this.
We know what the problems are: a system that fails to provide the data and tools needed to reliably and efficiently identify discriminatory pay practices; that places too much of the burden for enforcing the law on individuals; that incentivises arguments over minor details of a dispute, multiplying time, stress and expense; and that does not do enough to protect women or others who need it, such as ethnic minority and disabled employees and outsourced workers.
It is therefore crucial that we address the issues raised by workers, businesses, and the justice system, ensuring the pay discrimination framework works effectively for everyone.
This consultation seeks input from stakeholders regarding policy proposals designed to deliver the following commitments:
make the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people;
establish an equal pay regulation and enforcement unit with the involvement of trade unions;
ensure that outsourcing of services can no longer be used by employers to avoid paying equal pay.
In addition to these commitments, the consultation seeks input on the proposed introduction of allied pay transparency measures where the evidence shows that these are proportionate and effective in supporting a preventive approach to pay equality.
In April 2025, the Office for Equality and Opportunity launched a call for evidence on equality law which invited feedback on areas of existing equality legislation and possible equality law reform. This included questions on the equal pay commitments outlined above, as well as possible related pay transparency measures. The responses received, as well as Government-commissioned research on the socio-legal and lived experience impacts of the equal pay scheme, demonstrate a need for serious reform of the current system before broadening protections to address inconsistencies in the law.
That is why we are consulting on a phased and future-facing approach to reform which commits to fixing the system first, before broadening protections to ethnic minority, disabled and outsourced workers. In doing so, we would seek to protect employers from unforeseen liabilities for historic practices. We want to get this right, working in partnership with businesses, civil society and trade unions to make sure that our reforms account for all parties’ needs and circumstances. We also invite views from stakeholders on whether they think there are alternative ways to achieve our objectives. The launch of this consultation will inform how we can change the law for the better.
Specifically, the consultation includes proposed measures designed to proactively prevent pay discrimination, ensure enforcement agencies are empowered to drive good practice, and simplify the resolution of disputes when they arise. It also includes proposed measures to address gaps and inconsistencies affecting ethnic minority and disabled employees and outsourced workers. These measures are intentionally proportionate, prioritising targeted action that minimises administrative burdens and simplifies compliance.
As a result, these measures will support the Government’s ambition to remove barriers to opportunity, make work pay, provide greater certainty for employers, and reduce the burden on business and the justice system through less protracted litigation.
The consultation will be open for 15 weeks. In connection with the above, my Department has made the following documents available on gov.uk:
An independent analysis of the responses to the pay discrimination sections of the call for evidence on equality law, undertaken by an external contractor.
Independent research commissioned by OEO.
I will also deposit a copy of the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS243]
Office for Nuclear Regulation: Annual Report and Accounts 2025-26
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The Office for Nuclear Regulation’s “Annual Report and Accounts 2025/26” is being laid today. This document will also be published on the ONR website.
I can confirm, in accordance with paragraph 25(3) of schedule 7 to the Energy Act 2013, that there have been no exclusions to the published document on the grounds of national security.
[HCWS230]