House of Commons
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sarah Owen)
Ministers and officials are in regular contact with the Department for Transport on dual approvals for passenger vehicles and Northern Ireland’s automotive sector. The Government remain committed to ensuring that vehicle supply remains as seamless as possible across the whole of the UK. This was shown when the Government secured fairness on the tax treatment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, supporting dealerships and car buyers.
Mr Campbell
Northern Ireland car dealers pay their taxes to the UK Treasury and they must be able to compete on equal terms with dealerships across the rest of the country. At present, they cannot. Action is needed, not just complaints from others. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister meet representatives of Northern Ireland car dealers and talk to their Cabinet colleagues to ensure that cars approved for sale in Great Britain can also be sold new by Northern Ireland dealerships? How soon can this be delivered?
Sarah Owen
We are continuing to engage with Northern Ireland car market representatives, as well as the broader UK automotive industry, on issues faced by Northern Ireland car dealers. We want to see the sector go from strength to strength, and I am happy to meet with anybody who shares that mission. I also want to address the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised the lack of response to a particular letter from the National Franchised Dealers Association. I will ensure that that is rectified by the end of the week, and it will get a response.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)
The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which finished its remaining stages in this House yesterday, will deliver a reformed independent legacy commission with stronger disclosure powers that will be critical for families and victims seeking answers and access to justice. It will also repeal the immunity scheme and lift the bar on civil claims, which the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 wrongly introduced.
Ian Byrne
I know that my right hon. Friend is fully aware of the care we must all take over the language we use when we discuss troubles-related affairs. He may recall that the Law Society and the Bar Council have called recent references by some hon. Members to supposed “IRA lawyers” grossly irresponsible and said that it puts people at risk. Given the tragic history of the murder of lawyers such as Pat Finucane and Rosemary Nelson, will he join me in urging all hon. Members to take extreme care over their language and recognise that their words can have tragic consequences and completely undermine the confidence of bereaved families and victims, which is essential to ensuring a balanced and credible legacy process?
Chris Bryant
First, I would say that the legal profession is a noble profession and that—[Interruption.] I am not sure I have carried the Conservative Front Bench with that line. If we are to uphold the rule of law, we have to make sure that lawyers are protected in their ability to defend people in the criminal justice system. The idea that everyone is innocent until proven guilty is fundamental to our system. That is why I think it behoves all of us to be careful about our language.
Andy McDonald
The Bill we passed last night gives the Attorney General of England and Wales the power to override decisions on troubles-related prosecutions, yet the Secretary of State told the House yesterday:
“This is not to take anything away from the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 1018.]
But that is precisely what the Bill does. The Attorney General could effectively overrule a decision by Northern Ireland’s independent Public Prosecution Service. How can the Secretary of State reconcile that with the 2000 criminal justice review that flowed from the Good Friday agreement, which deliberately removed political interference from prosecution decisions?
Chris Bryant
Let me be absolutely clear: there will be no political interference in any of these decisions. We think that it is appropriate—as was recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, made up of Members from both our two Houses—that the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales both come to their conclusions. We will draw up guidelines on how to deal with troubles-related issues that may follow on from the legacy commission. But in the end, the final prosecutorial decision is a very simple non-political one: whether it is in the public interest and whether there is more than a 50% likelihood of getting a successful conviction. I am glad that yesterday evening the Committee of the whole House agreed that without a Division.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
How does the Secretary of State think victims of the Provisional IRA felt when they heard the Police Service of Northern Ireland confirm that the provos still exist and that the Chief Constable, and perhaps the Secretary of State, were influenced on Drumcree by the feelings of the Provisional IRA? What does that even mean—taking account of the feelings of the Provisional IRA?
Chris Bryant
Mr Speaker, I know that you would not want me to intrude on an ongoing judicial review. The judge reserved his judgement yesterday, so I will not do that, I am afraid.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Government’s Bill will undoubtedly open up the prospect of reopened coroners’ inquests into deaths that occurred during the troubles. What confidence does the Secretary of State have in the Northern Ireland coronial service to deliver truth and justice—and, importantly, access to the truth—for victims and veterans compared with the coronial system in England and Wales?
Chris Bryant
I note that the cast list for the Chamber today is very similar to yesterday’s and the day before, and that some of these issues were adumbrated in the discussions we had. There is obviously a difference in the coronial system in Northern Ireland. I have heard people make suggestions about how we might want to reform it. One of the reforms we have put in the Bill, which I think is important, is that inquests will no longer be allowed to repeat processes undergone elsewhere, just as the legacy commission will not be able to do so.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
As this is the Secretary of State’s first Northern Ireland questions, may I welcome him to his place? Victims and survivors of the troubles will, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said, be deeply concerned to hear that on Monday police intelligence documents produced in the High Court in Belfast referred to the ongoing existence of the IRA. Will the Secretary of State please tell the House: is it the Government’s understanding that the IRA is still active?
Chris Bryant
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is asking me to talk again about proceedings in the High Court in Northern Ireland, and I think it would be inappropriate for me to do so.
Alex Burghart
With all due respect, I was not asking the Secretary of State to comment on the case; I know that he cannot. I was asking him to tell us what the Government’s considered opinion is on whether the IRA is still active. That is important, because one of the documents produced on Monday revealed—
Alex Burghart
This is for context. The document revealed that the Secretary of State was told by the police,
“it is possible that dissident republicans have already accessed the firearms in the Garvaghy Road area, and it is possible that in the event of police removing protesters, firearms may be used to attack police.”
It would not interfere with the court process for the Secretary of State to tell us this: is it his understanding that the IRA has rearmed?
Chris Bryant
The shadow Secretary of State is asking me to comment on documents produced in the judicial review into my decision on Drumcree. I am not going to do that, because I think it would conflict with the judicial review process and I do not want to be held in contempt of court.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
As the Secretary of State said, the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill has now passed to the other place, notwithstanding the continuing concerns of senior generals and veterans associations; more still needs to be done. I than him for his sustained engagement and openness with veterans organisations, including the SAS Regimental Association, with whom I have been working closely. We must avoid any adversarial framing of the relationship between veterans and victims, as I remain convinced that a compromise to ensure proper protections for veterans can be achieved while delivering justice for victims. Will he commit to continuing to work with the SAS Regimental Association and its lawyers to ensure that the Bill delivers the vital safeguards that our veterans need?
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will know that Micheál Martin will apologise today to the family of Brian Stack, who was murdered by the IRA in 1983. They apologise 43 years later and they apologise after a failed criminal justice investigation with 194 errors and omissions. They are right to do so. Austin Stack, the son of Brian, has also asked that Sinn Féin, and Mary Lou McDonald as its leader, apologise on behalf of her counterparts in the IRA. One of the things that has not been mentioned over the last two days is how much confidence there will be that those who took lives and hold deep and dark truths will share them with the loved ones of victims. Can the Secretary of State give any confidence on that?
Chris Bryant
I heard the interview this morning on the radio, and I warmly welcome the fact that the Taoiseach will make that apology. It is entirely right and proper. This relates to some of the discussions that we had yesterday and the day before about how the Irish Government deal with the issues of the past. This was a prison guard from the United Kingdom who was killed in Dublin. I also heard the point that his son Austin made, when he said that the apology
“means an awful lot to us”.
It is incumbent on all of us to make fulsome, and not mealy-mouthed, apologies.
Gavin Robinson
One of the fundamental principles of the debate yesterday and on Monday was that of upholding the rule of law, and the Secretary of State will know our questions about how the rule of law is upheld in Northern Ireland. I know that he buckled when individuals suggested that the Government had bent the knee to terror, yet some of the revelations from the court proceedings over the last two days give greater clarity to the thought process that lay behind the PSNI’s position. My question is this: given the situation that we are in, will the Secretary of State engage, not only to uphold the rule of law and ensure that criminal sanctions go beyond blocking a road, but to provide political accountability for those who breach their pledge of office?
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman makes a strong point about political accountability. The rule of law is something that we all pledge to uphold when we become Members of Parliament. That is also true of Members of the Legislative Assembly and, for that matter, members of the Executive. I also think that we need to have political accountability for the finances in Northern Ireland. It is really important that we make sure that at some point or other, the Northern Ireland Executive get round to settling a budget. We have set aside more than £1.5 billion for the next three years. I look forward to conversations with the right hon. Gentleman and others tomorrow, and I very much hope that we might be able to settle that. He is right that we need to have political and financial accountability, and if that means changing the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to achieve that, I am up for that.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)
The hon. Lady asks what steps we are taking to replace the legacy Act of 2023. I refer her to the debates of yesterday and the day before.
Rebecca Smith
Yesterday’s vote on Third Reading on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill has reopened the door to continual vexatious cases against Northern Ireland veterans, including Alan, Ewen and Ivar from my constituency. Will the Secretary of State continue to work on the Bill, which many agree is not perfect, to ensure that there are adequate protections against lawfare?
Chris Bryant
It is important to say, not only after we have we completed our processes here but now that the Bill will go to the House of Lords, that I am happy, as I said to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), to work with all the different associations, including veterans in the hon. Lady’s constituency if she has people who want to meet me, to make sure that we end up with a Bill that really works. I urge her and all hon. Members to say to veterans in their constituencies: first, there will be answers for veterans’ families because many lost loved ones; and secondly, no veteran will be cold called, no veteran will be approached unless there is compelling new evidence and no process will be repeated unless it is essential. Those are guarantees for all, but in particular for our veterans.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The previous Government’s legacy Act failed to command the confidence of victims, survivors and many veterans. Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking the organisations that represent them that have engaged with my Committee, with Members across this House and with him?
Chris Bryant
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend, because she is absolutely right. Although sometimes I think our debates have felt as though the Bill was an armed forces Bill, it is actually a Bill that is primarily about families, including the families of veterans, of course. Joe McVey, who brought several members of his group here earlier this week, has very much informed the debate that we have had, but in the end, the most important thing is getting answers for families, and my hon. Friend’s Committee has led the way on that.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Government have united the SAS Regimental Association, the Special Boat Service Association and the Special Reconnaissance Regimental Association against the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, with the SAS Regimental Association dismissing the legislation as
“incoherent, contradictory, imprecise and muddled”.
They are rightly concerned about the potential impact of the Bill on special forces recruitment and retention, and yesterday the Government voted down the Opposition amendment that would have given Parliament proper oversight of this. As the Bill begins its passage through the other place, will the Secretary of State work with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that Parliament has sufficient oversight of special forces recruitment and retention?
Chris Bryant
As I said yesterday, it would be false to make a direct equation between special forces recruitment and our Bill. As I pointed out, recruitment to the armed forces is 7% up at the moment, for the first time. It is true, of course, that we want to ensure that confidence and morale in the armed forces are upheld, and I think our Bill will help to achieve that. I would just push back on one point. The hon. Gentleman says that everybody is united, but actually there are many different views on the Bill in the veterans community. I am very happy to work with all the different associations to make sure that we get to the right answers at the end of the process.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Bryant)
The Government are committed to supporting all our veterans, including those who served under Operation Banner, and to ensuring that they receive fair treatment and consistent support. That is why we are expanding the armed forces covenant to remove disadvantages and recognise sacrifices. The Ministry of Defence recently announced that the Brooke House health and wellbeing centre, which does brilliant work to support veterans, has been awarded £1 million to develop a Valour-recognised centre in Northern Ireland.
Sarah Pochin
Why does the Secretary of State think that he and his Government know better than the SAS, the SBS, all other Northern Ireland veterans and the former Defence Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who all warn that this troubles Bill will risk further prosecutions of our brave veterans?
Chris Bryant
Actually, I disagree with the hon. Member. I have had many conversations with a lot of veterans associations, and all of them have recognised many of the changes that we brought into the Bill. These include introducing the concept of compelling new evidence before anybody can be called as a witness; ensuring that the concept of “essential” is a high bar, not a low bar, for people; and ensuring that nobody can be cold called. I am very happy to work with all hon. Members to make sure that the Bill, in its final version, is one that everybody can support.
Andrew Ranger
Forty-seven years ago, Private Robert Vaughan Jones, the brother of my constituent Edward, was one of the 18 British paratroopers tragically killed in the Warrenpoint ambush. Robert’s parents passed away never knowing the facts of their son’s death, and Edward fears that he, too, might never know the full story of what happened. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government remain committed to providing closure to the families of troubles victims, and that the transferral of cases from the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to the new legacy commission will not impact or further delay the delivery of those answers?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to make sure that the legacy commission takes on the good work that has been done by ICRIR, even as we are improving it, so that it can get more answers for people. I also want to push back against the idea that there are veterans on one side and families on the other. Actually, a very large number of the people who are seeking answers—and will do through the legacy commission—are the families of veterans.
Peter Swallow
At the heart of this lies a really important principle. Can my right hon. Friend set out why those of us on the Government Benches do not believe it is morally acceptable to offer immunity to terrorists involved in killing not only innocent civilians but, as we have just heard, those brave servicepeople who served their country on Operation Banner?
Chris Bryant
One of the reasons we had a manifesto commitment and said this before the last general election was that we believe the legacy Act 2023 was morally and legally deficient—legally deficient as it was struck down in the courts, and morally deficient because it made an equivalence between the lawful action of our armed forces seeking to preserve the peace and the deliberate acts of terrorists. We think that was morally wrong and offensive.
Richard Baker
Fife is home to more veterans than any other part of Scotland, many of whom gave dedicated service to this country as part of Operation Banner. Can my right hon. Friend assure these veterans, whom many Members spoke of in the debates this week, that their rights and welfare will be not only always protected, but extended through our pledge to the armed forces covenant?
Chris Bryant
One of the things that I have campaigned on for many years is acquired brain injury. One of my anxieties about what has happened to veterans in this country over the years is that it has felt as though we have sort of left them to one side. It is shocking that we still have so many veterans who are homeless. I am proud that one of the first things our Prime Minister said was that he wants to end homelessness. We need to do that in Northern Ireland, just as anywhere else in the United Kingdom. We also need to ensure that our veterans get the real support they need to be able to live fruitful lives and work after their service.
Luke Akehurst
Veterans in my constituency were let down by the previous Government’s legacy Act, which offered nothing but false promises. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give to Operation Banner veterans in North Durham that they will not be subject to unnecessary repeat investigations and that the operational context of their deployment will be taken into account?
Chris Bryant
One of the key asks of all the veterans organisations was that we should introduce a change to the Bill to state that there was no equivalence between the lawful actions of our armed forces and those of terrorists, and recognise the operational context in which people were functioning, including their training, their command structure and so on. That is precisely what we have done in the legislation, and I commend my hon. Friend for the way he has raised many of these issues with me directly on behalf of the veterans in his constituency.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Secretary of State has made much of his support for veterans, and that is right, although it has come late. Will he give the same support and reassurance from the Government to the former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the police services who also served during the troubles?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Member makes a really good point about former members of the RUC. I was very struck when I visited the RUC memorial garden in Belfast, where we can see, decade after decade, the number of RUC officers who were killed in action. As we get closer to the ’60s, the ’70s, the ’80s and the ’90s, those numbers go from three, four or five to dozens. We owe them a debt of gratitude, and I say to them, as I say to everybody who served under Operation Banner: thank you for your service.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Can the Secretary of State reassure Operation Banner veterans that in recent legacy investigations and future ones the Government will seek all necessary records and evidence from the Irish Government, because we on the opposition side of the House do not believe that will happen? Could he ask the Taoiseach if he would make a public statement to reassure us that the Irish Government will release all their documents?
Chris Bryant
It is absolutely essential that the Irish Government fully co-operate with the process. I am very confident that they will do so. I have spoken directly to Jim O’Callaghan and Helen McEntee, the two Ministers responsible for these issues in the Irish Government. But they are partners of ours; we need to work with them to be able to get answers for the many thousands of people who lost loved ones during the troubles era.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Beyond the Battlefield in my constituency delivers care for those soldiers and veterans who fall under the radar and are not picked up by the charities—those who have PTSD, have had family breakdowns or have been in prison. What can be done to ensure that Beyond the Battlefield, which looks after the veterans who others forget about, has the necessary funding to allow it to do more and to help more people?
Chris Bryant
I did not catch all of that—I am not sure whether you did, Mr Speaker—but I think I heard “PTSD”. As I said earlier, one of the things I have campaigned on is acquired brain injury. I suspect that many people in the armed forces were told that they had PTSD but actually had an acquired brain injury that had never been properly diagnosed. It is one of the pieces of work that we need to do far more effectively. I want to look at how we properly look after those who are serving now in Northern Ireland into the future to ensure that they can have the most fruitful lives possible.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State twice refused to answer questions about documents referred to in judicial review proceedings in the High Court in Belfast that refer to the ongoing existence of the IRA. Can you confirm that there is no parliamentary rule, including the sub judice rule, that would have prevented the Secretary of State from answering those questions?
Mr Speaker
I can confirm that the sub judice rule does not apply to judicial review proceedings that relate to a ministerial decision, as in this case. However, the answers given by the Secretary of State are a matter for him and not for the Chair, so I will not be drawn into that.
Speaker’s Statement
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, may I extend a warm welcome to the Speaker of the National Assembly of Zimbabwe and his cross-party delegation who are with us today?
Colleagues will know that today marks the 60th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster, which claimed the lives of 116 children and 28 adults. As a child, I remember the shock that went across the nation when the news of the disaster broke, so last week it was very haunting to meet David Davies, the chairman of the Aberfan Memorial Charity and a survivor. Hearing his recollections of that horrific day was incredibly moving. I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to those who lost their lives, their families and the whole community in Aberfan and the surrounding area for their courageous spirit and dignity in the aftermath of that tragic event.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Prime Minister (Andy Burnham)
Today we welcome the Sultan of Oman on the occasion of the state visit, which is an opportunity to recognise the deep and historic ties between our countries and the vital role they have played regarding the strait of Hormuz.
As you say, Mr Speaker, today also marks the 60th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with that community today and with the people of Wales. I visited Aberfan on Monday and heard how the injustices the people suffered at the time and in the aftermath of the tragedy at the hands of the state still hurt. This is a day to recognise that and say sorry for it, but also to celebrate the strength and spirit of the community that has stood together through adversity all of these years.
I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others this morning. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Clive Jones
Like you, Mr Speaker, I have recollections of Aberfan and being at primary school myself at that time.
Too many patients are suffering because of treatment delays and having their cancers missed. My private Member’s Bill, the Cancer (Reporting and Strategy) Bill, would require annual reports to Parliament on cancer diagnosis, outcomes and delivery. Will the Prime Minister commit to supporting this Bill to ensure that his Government and all future Governments are held to account by this House for improving cancer diagnosis and outcomes?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and recognise his sincerity and personal experience in this regard. We have a national cancer plan to drive the improvements that he calls for. As part of that, we are also establishing an independent national cancer board, which I will ask to look at his proposal. Last week I met Archie Goodburn, with the Health Secretary, to look at how we can make the UK a world leader in trials for brain cancer treatments. There is huge progress, but we can work with him to deliver more.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that question. I think we all feel for Emma, given the position she is in. I can give him an assurance that she and many thousands of others up and down the country need wait no longer for leasehold reform. We will bring forward the leasehold reform Bill as soon as possible—hopefully this year.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
May I associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, and those of the Prime Minister on the 60th anniversary of the Aberfan tragedy? We express our heartfelt and continued condolences to that community.
Last week I asked the Prime Minister to stop faffing about, so can I thank him for finally approving the Jackdaw gasfield? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I notice that there were no cheers from Members on the Government Benches. The Conservatives first approved Jackdaw in 2022. Rather than fighting the leftie activists who tried to block it, Labour appointed one of them as Energy Secretary. So many jobs lost, and so much time and money wasted. Britain cannot be a serious player on the world stage if the Government dither for two and a half years over approving a single licence. We have the resources, the expertise and the people; what we have lost is the confidence to make tough decisions. Will the Prime Minister now overturn Labour’s ban on all new oil and gas licences?
The Prime Minister
Can we get something straight at the start of Prime Minister’s questions today? We have made a decision that the right hon. Lady’s Government messed up. That is why there was the delay: because they did not do the process properly. We have made a pragmatic decision that will allow us to do two things. First, it will allow us to build a bridge to a renewable future, because the resources that come in from this decision will allow us to invest in renewables, bring forward clean energy and, in this Parliament, substantially delink gas and electricity prices so that we can bring bills down. It will also allow us to do more to help people with bills. I can tell the House today that I have asked the Chancellor and the Energy Secretary to look at whether we can remove standing charges from gas bills and to report back to this House at the earliest opportunity.
Mrs Badenoch
I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister mention process—it almost felt like Keir Starmer was still standing there. The Prime Minister talks about renewables. Of course we need renewables, but we live in the real world—the world that still depends on oil and gas. If we do not produce it, Britain and Europe will buy it from Russia. In July, the Prime Minister said:
“The question isn’t whether Britain will still be using oil and gas, the question is where does it come from.”
He was right. Does the Prime Minister accept that every barrel of North sea oil that we produce is a barrel that Europe will not buy from Vladimir Putin?
The Prime Minister
Can I find a point of agreement with the right hon. Lady? This decision does strengthen our energy security. It will release gas into British homes and British industries, starting in the next few weeks, and it supports us in a difficult time. I appreciate that she wants us to take further decisions that she messed up when she was in government, but can I make something really clear? The reason why they messed up those decisions is because they are quasi-judicial decisions. We will run those decisions properly. The Energy Secretary considered that decision against our climate obligations and concluded that it was consistent, and she will oversee the same process in relation to future decisions.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister says that this decision strengthens our energy security, so that means that he should approve all new oil and gas licences. He blames the process and our decisions, but he is the Prime Minister now, and we are facing a global energy crisis. Drilling more oil and gas in the North sea would give us more energy, more jobs and more tax revenue, which is something we desperately need. There is a red warning light flashing on the economy. Just this morning, total Government borrowing hit £3 trillion, its highest level ever. That is £100,000 for every household in the country. Even the Prime Minister’s former economic adviser, Andy Haldane—not someone I always agree with—has warned that Britain faces a “precarious fiscal backdrop”, so what is the Prime Minister doing to get borrowing down?
The Prime Minister
On energy, can I just say to the right hon. Lady that she is displaying for the House and the nation today why the Conservatives got those decisions wrong, because she and they did not give any regard to our climate obligations? These things have to be considered in the round, and they have been considered in the round. That is why the decision the Government have made is the right decision.
On the economy, I am not sure that the right hon. Lady has read last week’s report from the International Monetary Fund, because if she had read it, she would see its clear conclusion that Britain is the stand-out nation for deficit reduction and the joint fastest growing country in the G7. Britain is the country that, only yesterday, saw unemployment down and improved labour market statistics. It is time that the right hon. Lady talked the country up, rather than constantly talking it down.
Mrs Badenoch
I asked the Prime Minister how he was getting borrowing down—he did not answer. He is talking about the IMF report. I have looked at it, but I do not think that he has, because it downgrades the forecast for next year. It also talks about deficit reduction plans in 2029, which is after an election. The Government are not going to be here after that election. They have not made any cuts. We are spending more on interest payments than we do on schools, the Army and the police combined. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is worrying about loud music on trains. This is not serious. The only solution to the challenges facing our country is to cut spending and cut borrowing. The out-of-work benefits bill is set to rise by £50 billion under this Labour Government, so will the Prime Minister get a grip and cut the welfare bill?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady asks me about cutting spending. I did exactly that on my first day in office with the digital ID programme, so that we could take action to support people and remove VAT from electricity bills, which is what we have delivered—a tax cut.
The right hon. Lady asks about the big decisions, and I want to come directly back to what she is saying. I am not going to apologise for doing the small things that help people have better lives, but I also take the big decisions that the Conservatives have avoided for many years. Let me go directly to one: social care. I grasped the nettle in a way that nobody on their side ever has. I made a difficult spending decision to lay a path towards a national care service. Have they had the time to read the covid inquiry report yesterday about the appalling state of social care as it went into the pandemic, the hundreds of thousands of British people who suffered as a result of that, and the lives that were lost? I need no lectures from the Conservatives about taking tough decisions on social care. I suggest they go away from this PMQs, read that report and have a period of reflection.
Mrs Badenoch
I asked the Prime Minister about welfare—he did not answer the welfare question. That is because he is not planning to cut welfare. This morning, The Telegraph exposed that the reforms he is talking about will not save any money before 2030; in fact, the Prime Minister’s plan is to save money on welfare by spending more money on welfare. This is ridiculous. He is talking about big decisions, but he has not made any decision on social care. Talking about it is not making a decision. He is going to keep spending more, and that means he is going to keep borrowing more. We know where that leads. This morning, inflation rose to 3.5%, the third rise in a row. Families are paying higher bills and more for their weekly shop, and it is leading to higher mortgage rates. Does the Prime Minister accept that his failure to control borrowing is contributing to higher inflation?
The Prime Minister
I do not think the right hon. Lady was listening to what I said. I did take a difficult decision to lay a path to the national care service, and it involves a change to the triple lock. I am happy to stand at this Dispatch Box and defend that, because I am confident that we should support older people financially, but with better social care support in later life. That is my decision. I am happy to stand here and defend it. Where is the Conservatives’ decision on social care? When are they going to respond to what the report said yesterday?
On welfare, I will do the same. I do not want to see anybody in their 20s on benefits in this country; I want to see them in work, in training, in education. That is the reform that we will bring forward on the back of the Milburn report. The right hon. Lady mentions inflation. She may notice that there is a situation ongoing in the middle east of which we do not have full control. What I can say to her is that the fundamentals of the British economy are getting stronger and stronger under this Government. We will take the right long-term decisions. She should wait for the Budget, when she will see that laid out in this House.
Mrs Badenoch
We are waiting for the Budget, and next week at the Budget the Prime Minister has a choice: he can cut spending, he can cut the deficit or he can cut tax. There is no other way. That is why that is the Conservatives’ plan. It is a plan that even his former economic adviser Andy Haldane says is the better way. Will he follow that plan, or will he bottle it just like Keir Starmer did?
The Prime Minister
As I have said, there are signs of growing strength in the British economy. Before the Budget next week, we will have a new book published about the mini-Budget of a few years ago. Opposition Members have gone quiet, because the authors of that mini-Budget are sitting on the Opposition Benches, including the shadow Chancellor. Does anybody on this side or anybody around the country believe that party, of all parties? The Conservatives have the audacity to come to this House and lecture us about how to do a Budget. People in this country—British households—are still paying the price of their disastrous Budget.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
The Prime Minister
We agree that the scenes from Gaza and the west bank are deeply distressing, and that is why the Foreign Secretary has taken the action that he has. We will not stand by when the viability of the two-state solution is threatened, and he has made a further statement in relation to that this week. The proscription of Palestine Action followed a rigorous and evidence-based process that came before this House and was endorsed by Parliament. The matter is a live legal case, so I will not comment further.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, and the remarks of others about the terrible tragedy in Aberfan 60 years ago? Our thoughts and prayers are with the survivors, their families, and the whole community there.
I find it amazing to hear the Conservative leader talk about the economy after everything that her party did to wreck it. The single biggest thing that the Prime Minister could do to fix growth is take the UK back into the European single market and the customs union, on which the Conservatives failed the country. That would boost revenues, so we could raise the personal allowance and give everyone a tax cut. When I pushed the Prime Minister last week on a new economic strategy based on trade with Europe, he said no. Is he really saying, after all that he has rightly said about the damage that the Conservatives’ Brexit has done to our economy, that he will wait until after the next election before considering the single market?
The Prime Minister
We have ahead of us a UK-EU summit on 20 November. It is an opportunity for the House to come together and get a good deal for food producers, for farmers in this country and for Northern Ireland in relation to energy costs there, as well as, hopefully, more co-operation on illegal migration. It is an opportunity to take an important step back to secure growth in the British economy and more control of migration. I am picking up the message that the right hon. Gentleman will give us that support. We are already working to reduce the risks from the Made in Europe initiative, and we are making good progress there. If the House were to come together—I wait for the party opposite to do so—it would put me in the strongest position to go to that summit and get a good deal for British farmers and British food producers, which is exactly what they need.
Ed Davey
We need to grow our economy. Without a proper plan—a more urgent plan—for re-engaging with Europe on trade, next week’s Budget will not be the growth Budget that our country needs.
This week, Ukraine’s defence system was seriously undermined by the US restricting access to Elon Musk’s Starlink system. Musk says that the order came from the White House, but The Telegraph and The Wall Street Journal have revealed that he put the idea to Donald Trump. I understand the Prime Minister’s reluctance to criticise the President of United States, but does he agree that directly aiding Putin in this way is beyond the pale? Will he work with European allies to prevent Elon Musk from obtaining the licences that he wants, because that would make our continent even more dependent on his satellite system?
The Prime Minister
Of course I have concerns about any move that diminishes the military capability of Ukraine in the position in which it finds itself. The right hon. Gentleman is right about that, and I am sure that the sentiment is echoed throughout this country, but the situation is currently fragile and needs careful handling. There were talks in Oslo yesterday at which the UK Government were represented. We need to handle the situation carefully so that we can bring back all sides to get the support behind President Zelensky and Ukraine. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the UK Government are working on every single level to bring that about.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise this condition in the House. I know that women across the country suffer terribly with it, and often feel that they are not seen and not listened to when it comes to the treatment that they need. Our women’s health strategy sets out precisely how we will improve treatment for conditions that uniquely or disproportionately affect women, including endometriosis. It is about redesigning clinical pathways and removing the need for repeat appointments. There is a lot to do, but I can assure my hon. Friend that this is very high on the Government's agenda.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Energy Secretary herself has admitted that Jackdaw will not bring down bills and will create only 27 jobs. The 2024 Labour manifesto said that the climate crisis is the greatest global challenge we face, and the UN has warned today that we are breaching safe climate limits, meaning more of the heatwaves, wildfires and catastrophic floods that killed thousands this summer. Can the Prime Minister explain why he is pouring more fuel on the fire of climate breakdown? Does he disagree with the overwhelming scientific consensus that fossil fuels must stay in the ground, or was the oil and gas lobby simply too difficult to ignore?
The Prime Minister
The gas would still be needed; it would just be imported from somewhere else if we did not use our own reserves. In these difficult times, when we have resources, the public would expect us to use them to secure jobs in Aberdeen, and I am sure that people in Aberdeen appreciate what has been announced. There is, however, a big difference between an ideological approach, which is what the hon. Lady is putting to the House, and a pragmatic approach, which is what I am announcing today. The truth of the matter is, the revenue that comes into the Treasury from this decision will enable us to speed up the roll-out of renewables and build towards a clean energy future. In the end, that will help us delink gas and electricity prices and get bills down.
Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right: Royal Mail’s service has been unacceptable for far too long. The leadership have been asked in to see Ministers on a regular basis. Ofcom is looking at the situation as well. Let us be clear: they need to bring forward a plan to restore service standards to the level they need to be at. They need to do it quickly, or we will consider further measures.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I answered the hon. Gentleman last week, and I set it out very clearly in the statement that I made. It was all covered in that statement, and there is no more I need to add.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The mental health strategy will do precisely that. It will confirm the plan to open 100 new community mental health centres across the country to get mental health support right into communities, and the Health Secretary is ensuring that we also bring forward 59 mental health emergency departments to give same-day support to people experiencing a crisis. I am pleased to say to my hon. Friend that there will be one of each in Sunderland.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I will ensure that a Minister meets the hon. Lady to discuss that proposal, because I find myself in agreement with it. The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) has been very powerful on this point about unpaid carers or family carers who often sink under their responsibilities and find it very, very difficult. Sadly, in the case of Matilda—the hon. Lady’s constituent—it is obviously a devastating situation, so I will arrange that meeting, and I thank her for raising the issue in the House today.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I recognise that Ian is obviously in a very difficult position. I am pleased to say the Exchequer Secretary has announced that we will bring forward a new approach to this issue. We have been working on a solution that will remove VAT as a barrier to free-of-charge donations of innovative medicines. It will be permanent, backdated to 23 June, so that it supports companies to continue to make donations. We will set out the details shortly, and I am sure a Minister will be pleased to meet my hon. Friend, too.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The second round of auditions, Mr Speaker! I saw Essex got a mention this week, but it was still a question about London. I did increase police numbers in my time as Mayor of Greater Manchester, but the right hon. Member will know it is not something you can do from the local level alone; you need Government support as well to do that. Sadly, that support for the Metropolitan police was not forthcoming in sufficient quantity during the period that he was in office—so he cannot come here and absolve himself of any responsibility in his quest to come second to Sadiq next year.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
The Prime Minister will remember that, in 2013, he met me to discuss the hormone pregnancy test drug Primodos, and he has supported the affected families since. One of them is his own constituent Marie Lyon, who has led this fight for decades. More recently, Marie suffered a heart attack—a stark reminder that time is running out for the families who have already waited a lifetime. Now that he is the Prime Minister, will he meet me and Marie to finally deliver the justice that these families deserve?
The Prime Minister
I will. Marie Lyon has been an incredible, indomitable fighter for women affected by Primodos. I pay full tribute to her. I was so sorry to hear about her recent illness, but I can say from this Dispatch Box today that, as Prime Minister, I will work with Marie and my hon. Friend to get justice for the Primodos victims.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman and colleagues will know that I did go to Northern Ireland shortly after coming into office to speak to all parties, including on this very important issue of the budget. I returned here and found more money for Northern Ireland, in a very difficult situation, I have to say, when we are finding more money for defence—despite what the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) says, we will fully fund the defence investment plan. Even in those circumstances, I found extra money. There comes a point when people have to work together to set a budget. It cannot always be our responsibility. We stepped forward and I ask all parties in Northern Ireland to do the same: set a budget and get Stormont functioning as it should.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
My constituent Joe Bennett, who is in the Public Gallery, has not seen his parents Craig and Lindsay Foreman since January 2025, when they were arrested and detained by Iran, and presented with fake charges of espionage. I thank the Foreign Secretary and his predecessors for their work on this case, but will the Prime Minister consider additional action, including a clear public condemnation of their detention as arbitrary and unlawful in international law, and provide them with diplomatic protection, as we have in other cases, to increase the pressure on Iran to bring Craig and Lindsay home?
The Prime Minister
My hon. and learned Friend is doing a sterling job in speaking up for his constituents. I agree that Lindsay and Craig’s sentence is appalling and unjustifiable. That is why the Foreign Secretary has raised this case directly with his Iranian counterpart. We will continue to pursue the case relentlessly until Lindsay and Craig are safely returned home to the UK and reunited with their family.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady makes a very strong point. Getting energy bills down, gas and electric, is at the very top of my list of priorities. It matters for households. She described the number of people in debt, which is an appalling situation for so many people to be in. It matters to businesses, too. Businesses are struggling with the cost of energy and to get grid connections. That is why the energy sector needs significant reform, and we will make it. We will go further, on the back of the VAT cut, and we will set out more in due course.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, you will remember that the last Labour Government established children’s trust funds, but sadly around 80,000 children across the country, including my constituent James Gilbert, are unable to access them due to an expensive and bureaucratic courts process for those who lack mental capacity. Will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring that this Government finally fix this problem, which has left our campaigners frustrated for over six years since they first raised it with Ministers?
The Prime Minister
I know how important this issue is. Child trust funds for disabled children are crucial, and they need to be unlocked quickly. I will ensure that Treasury Ministers are working with other ministerial colleagues to make progress quickly; hopefully we will have an answer for my hon. Friend soon.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Prime Minister
Yes, I am always happy to create more mayors. [Laughter.] I am not joking—yes. I would like to see a fully devolved south-west of England. I know Cornish Members were in No.10 North this week to discuss a devolution deal. I met Devon Members this week who are seeking the same. I will offer the same to Wessex Members. Let us move quickly to get a fully devolved Wessex and south-west of England.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
We know the Prime Minister likes a pint—including, as he told me, a pint of Burton’s finest, Bass—so he will be sad to learn of the news from Carlsberg of the planned closure of Marston’s brewery next year. This puts at risk 310 workers and our historic ales, like Bass and Pedigree, being brewed in Burton upon Trent. Will the Prime Minister meet with me to discuss how to safeguard the site and keep it as a brewery?
The Prime Minister
I do like a pint—sadly, I am spending less time in pubs these days, but I will certainly make up for that by meeting my hon. Friend and having a chat about the home of brewing in this country, Burton upon Trent. It is a proud tradition. I was sorry to hear about the potential job losses, and we will see what we can do to support my hon. Friend and his constituents.
Zoe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is right that we have to do everything we can to support our staff in the Probation Service right now. I will ask the Justice Secretary to look at those rules and come back to her.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
One hundred years ago this month, my family’s proud tradition of service and contribution to Britain began when my grandfather, Imam Mohamed, travelled from Indian Punjab to serve in the Royal British Hong Kong police force. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister share my concern that, in the light of ITV’s exposé of elected Reform politicians indulging in racist behaviour, families like them, of whom there are thousands in this country, will wonder who now represents them? Can he reassure me that the Government he leads will make sure that everyone’s contribution is respected and recognised?
The Prime Minister
I will always do that, and I pay tribute to the people who work in social care, who cared for my dad, and who come from around the world to provide support to people, and we thank them for their contribution. It is incumbent on all parties represented in this House to root out the politics of poison, which has seeped far too far into our politics. Where unacceptable, racist and discriminatory comments are made, the firmest of action should be taken on the back of those revelations. That should unite us all in this House, and we are still waiting to see the right level of action from the party opposite.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Indeed we will, and I am happy to make that clear again today. We will take the firmest of action to support the Falkland Islands—the right to self-determination of the islanders, who chose to remain British not so long ago. The Defence Secretary has met his counterparts to reiterate that position, and the Foreign Secretary too. I raised the matter with President Trump. There is no diminution in our strong support to keep the Falkland Islands British.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
North West Leicestershire has an out-of-hospital survival rate for cardiac arrest of just 3.5%—roughly a third of the national average. I have been championing greater defib access and hosting CPR training, and last week I hosted the British Heart Foundation, Resuscitation Council UK and Cardiac Risk in the Young, among others, for a roundtable in Parliament. Discussions focused on the importance of CPR education and defib provision and the benefits of heart screening among young people. October is Restart a Heart Month; will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss my mission to improve cardiac arrest survival rates and defib accessibility, and consider how we can reduce the shocking stat of 12 young people dying each week of an unknown cardiac arrest?
The Prime Minister
I strongly support my hon. Friend on that issue. Having had the training myself, and having used a defibrillator once before, I know that they save lives. We should commit to ensuring that they are clearly and publicly available in all communities—something that I have long called for—so I would happily work with my hon. Friend on that. The 10-year health plan talks of a shift from hospital to community. The Health Secretary and I are determined to make that a reality, and heart care is a prime example of where we can make a difference.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
This week, The Sunday Times reported on its front page how Ministry of Defence police attempted to prosecute five members of the SAS over bogus allegations made by our enemies. They arrested the soldiers and subjected them to continuous—and frankly incompetent—investigation for three years while they were fighting ISIS on our behalf. That action has travelled like a shockwave through Hereford, destroying morale and undermining one of our best fighting units. Nobody wants to put soldiers above the law, but will the Prime Minister speak to the Defence Secretary and stop British agencies acting with credulous complicity with enemies that are trying to use lawfare against our soldiers?
The Prime Minister
I am aware of the high levels of concern among those who served in the SAS, and the right hon. Gentleman has spoken to that. Without going into all the details, I am happy to meet him to discuss the case and see how we can resolve some of the issues that arise from it, giving an assurance to people who served this country that we will have their back and always treat them fairly.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
On Monday, the Children’s Commissioner found that Portsmouth is, devastatingly, the 12th hardest place in England to be a child, and the worst place in England to access post-16 education provision. However, Hampshire, the county that we sit in, is one of the best places to be a child. Does the Prime Minister agree that this must be a wake-up call for my Lib Dem city council, and that we must do all we can to ensure that this changes? Portsmouth’s children and young people deserve so much better.
The Prime Minister
I agree—they do. That is why we are going deeper than just thinking about how we help people in their 20s or late teens into work; we need to rethink how we support young people in the 21st century in Portsmouth and elsewhere. One of the things is an education system that balances academic and technical education, and that gives young people routes into good jobs. The Education Secretary is working hard on that. I know that that will give all young people in Portsmouth a path to a good life. It is the kind of change that will make a difference, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on delivering it.
Jackdaw Gasfield
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the statement on Jackdaw, I have to say to the Minister that I am sorry that I have to address you on this matter rather than the Secretary of State. It is shameful that this announcement was not made to the House first, and it is an immense discourtesy to the House that the Secretary of State is not here to make the statement. I am sorry that Sky News is more important than Members on both sides. This treatment is appalling.
The Minister will know that this issue has been of great interest to the House, as is evident from the many questions asked by hon. Members from all parts of the House, which have been asked and answered over recent months despite the concerns about a quasi-judicial process—so let me not hear that as an excuse. It is simply not good enough that the announcement was trailed in the press last night and announced all over the media this morning by the Secretary of State before it could be properly scrutinised in this House. It is not the first time that this has happened on this subject, and that is what makes it more shameful.
If this was a leak, I am sure there will be a leak inquiry, or is it that the Department is deliberately briefing out to the media? The Guardian and the BBC were covering it last night, and it was on the radio. It seems that Ministers once again need reminding of the Government’s own ministerial code, which makes it clear that important policy announcements should be made first to this House, especially when we are sitting. There is no excuse.
I hope the Minister is taking this on board. I am sorry that he is having to take the flak for a Secretary of State who does not care about Members on this side or that side of the House—wherever. In the end, we are elected by our electorate to hear statements here, not via the media. Am I getting the message through, Minister? We have had this conversation once before. I am sorry that you are being set up as the patsy who has to deal with this ridiculous situation. I want us to learn. I was hoping that we had changed what happened previously. I thought this was a new beginning—well, today is certainly a bad one, isn’t it?
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
First, Mr Speaker, I entirely respect your comments. I hope that in my time in this House I have always given you the impression that I take this House seriously. Your points have been noted, and I will absolutely take them back to the Department.
Mr Speaker
It would be different if we had not had this conversation once before—you promised me previously that these comments would be noted. I am sorry that you have been put up when the Secretary of State cannot be bothered to come, Minister. I am sorry that Aberdeen is more important than the MPs who have been elected.
Michael Shanks
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will now make a statement on the offshore Jackdaw gasfield and the Government’s approach more broadly to North sea oil and gas. This supplements the written ministerial statement that I made to the House on the topic earlier this morning.
The original grant of consent for the Jackdaw project, made in 2022 under the previous Government, was judged to be unlawful and was quashed by the courts. This was because emissions from the burning of extracted gas were not considered, and it therefore did not assess the full environmental impacts of the project. My right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary and the regulator have now retaken the relevant decisions, fully taking into account environmental impacts.
Today, I can inform the House that the Energy Secretary has decided in favour of the project and that the regulator, the North Sea Transition Authority, has now granted consent for gas to be produced at the licensed Jackdaw field. Given that the court permitted the developer to continue development at risk until a new consenting decision was made, the project will therefore start to supply gas to British homes and businesses by as soon as the end of this month.
In reaching her decision, the Energy Secretary considered all relevant information in the round. She looked at the project’s expected benefits to the UK, including its contribution to energy security, employment, impacts on other energy infrastructure and other economic benefits, and carefully weighed them against the potential environmental effects, including the effects relating to greenhouse gas emissions. The full reasons for our decisions are set out in detail in the decision document, which was published on gov.uk.
I want to assure the House that the Government remain committed to tackling the climate crisis and to moving away from fossil fuels and towards renewable and nuclear energy. The recent heatwaves and weather events we have seen demonstrate why that is critical, and the Secretary of State will be leading the UK delegation to COP next month to drive global action and build a credible pathway back to 1.5° of warming.
I want to be clear that this project will not prevent the UK from being able to meet its legally binding limits on carbon emissions and achieve net zero by 2050. But even on the path to net zero, the UK will still require oil and gas as part of our energy needs for decades to come. This decision is consistent with the Government’s manifesto commitments to end new licences, explore new fields and support the management of existing fields for their lifespan.
The Chancellor and the Energy Secretary have also announced that the Government will establish a new North sea energy wealth fund, which will use tax revenues from North sea oil and gas to invest in net zero projects and support the green transition. This will start with an initial £2 billion capital injection of funding, with future revenues from the North sea flowing into the fund over time. It will support our plans to delink gas and electricity over the course of the Parliament, ensuring that home-grown renewables and low-carbon power set the price of electricity far more than gas, helping to protect households and businesses from volatile fossil fuel markets and bring down bills for good.
The North sea future plan set out our approach to securing a managed, orderly and prosperous transition and set out how we will deliver our manifesto commitment to support the management of existing fields by introducing transitional energy certificates, and we will legislate for those reforms when parliamentary time allows.
However, a small number of tieback projects face urgent investment and operational decisions now, and I have therefore asked the North Sea Transition Authority to consider whether any such projects could benefit from similar measures now, before the legislation is in place. This is a limited interim arrangement for urgent cases where operators can demonstrate committed investment, credible delivery plans and near-term activity. Any decision will remain for the NSTA, in accordance with its statutory responsibilities.
Timely decommissioning is important for both the environment and the economy, and this Government are keen to unblock and progress decisions in a timely way. I can also announce today that the regulator has invited the decommissioning programme for the Brent installations, marking an important step in restarting another regulatory process that has been on hold for years.
My officials are also beginning discussions with industry leaders on a refresh of the North sea transition deal to ensure that future domestic oil and gas production continues to benefit the UK and to build the energy industries of the future. First agreed in 2021, the deal aims to provide a clear path for the industry to support the UK in reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050, while protecting jobs and supporting energy security.
Finally, as the Prime Minister said a few moments ago, we are looking at removing standing charges on gas bills at the earliest opportunity.
Today’s decision means that we will get more power flowing directly into British homes and businesses this winter as we continue our transition to renewables. I commend this statement to the House.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Finally, Mr Speaker—at last, after two and a half years, this Government have found it within themselves to do the right thing, after exhausting all the alternatives. We have arrived at this destination far later than we should have.
Jackdaw was first approved by us in 2022. When in government, we approved it in line with the law as we saw it at the time, and we were confident that we would win the appeal in the Court of Session and ensure that we could get British gas into British homes as soon as possible.
But then entered the former Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), who, in one of his first acts as Secretary of State, pulled lawyers from the appeal, ensuring and guaranteeing that it would fail. There was absolutely no reason to do that. Approving Jackdaw is about security, jobs and our economy. At every moment up to today, this Government have chosen to prioritise their own self-interest—and winning a by-election in Holborn and St Pancras—over the interests of the British people.
Jackdaw alone will provide enough resources to heat 1.4 million British homes—homes that will no longer need to rely on expensive and high-carbon emitting liquefied natural gas imports. Today we have heard the Secretary of State and the Minister talking about the pragmatism of the national interest. More gallingly, we have heard them talking about supporting British workers.
If the Government are serious about a new, pragmatic approach and serious about British jobs and British businesses, that surely means the forthcoming energy independence Bill will not contain measures to ban any new licences in the North sea—a purely ideological but unfathomable decision. If they really believe that a new pragmatism is needed in the North sea, that presumably means that the Chancellor will be announcing next week that he will be removing the energy profits levy.
This decision is welcome, but it should not have taken this long. Labour’s dither and delay over the past few years—and, indeed, the past few months—has cost us dear, with jobs lost, more businesses relocating and deindustrialisation. There is a reason the leader of the GMB union described this Department as the Department for P45s.
We have had oil downturns before, when global prices fell and jobs were lost in the UK. When it happened under our watch, we stepped up: we maximised recovery, cut taxes and turned the North sea into the most investable basin in the world. Today, there is no global downturn—prices are soaring across the world, and the oil and gas industry is expanding. Only in Britain, we now have a made-by-Labour, made-by-Miliband downturn. We have the only Government in the world who say, “Jobs being lost? Let’s speed that up.” We are the only country not maximising recovery and the only country choosing, in the middle of an energy crisis, to ban licences and exploration. Yet today, the workers in our oil and gas industry are to be thankful that after two and a half years of uncertainty, this Government—kicking and screaming—have finally done the right thing. I have no doubt that there will be more kicking and screaming from some of their Back Benchers today. Perhaps the prospect of more tax revenue will appease them—specifically the over £4 billion of tax receipts. That is revenue that we know the Chancellor desperately needs.
Today is a good day—finally. In the spirit of the Secretary of State’s new-found pragmatism, let us see a serious and pragmatic change of direction. Will the Government now approve Rosebank, lift the ban on exploration and new licences, end the crippling energy profits levy, and get Britain drilling?
Michael Shanks
In the two and a half years that the hon. Gentleman says that he has had to think about this, he might have come up with something better than that performance. The Conservatives’ lack of contrition for a decision that was quashed by a court is absolutely shameful. I reiterate that the Court was very clear in its judgment that while the decision did not stand, the project could continue to be developed, so there has been no delay in its development; that is why extraction from the Jackdaw field can continue.
The hon. Gentleman talked about dither and delay. That brings me to the truth of this, which is that the Conservative party left Britain with an energy system that was less secure, more exposed to international shocks and slower to invest than it should have been. I watched the Conservative party conference in great detail, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman seems to be shifting his party’s position back to what it was before the previous shadow Secretary of State’s time, and is supporting more renewables. I really welcome that, and I look forward to working with him to make that a success, because we agree on that.
This decision is important for our energy security and jobs, but the long-term pathway for Britain is towards not fossil fuels, but building the clean power system that we need, electrifying the economy, and building the nuclear that the hon. Gentleman claims to care so much about, although he did not build any in his two years as Nuclear Minister, due to dither and delay. We fell behind as a country on the energy security that we needed. This decision is part of our response to energy crises. To have a secure long-term future, we must build up the industries that come next. That is important for Britain’s energy security, jobs, and opportunities in his constituency and right across the country. That is what this Government will get on and do.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement and the commitment to going ahead with Jackdaw. The Select Committee has heard evidence time and again about the damage done by the chaotic deindustrialisation of the ’80s, and the failure in the 2010s and early 2020s to take action in the North sea. The phrase “North sea energy wealth fund” has striking echoes with what Norway did right to avoid disastrous consequences of deindustrialisation.
The Committee has heard just how important supply chain companies and North sea oil and gas workers are, and how important they will be, when working with renewables, in the future. The Minister announced the fund and the North sea transition deal. Does he agree that the fastest, most effective way of delivering the energy transition is to support existing operations, supply chains and workers in North sea and oil and gas, so that they are available as we gear up on renewables and nuclear?
Michael Shanks
I agree with my hon. Friend about the transition. The vast majority of jobs in the oil and gas industry are in the very supply chains that we need to build the renewables and networks of the future, so it is important that we hold on to those; that is a huge opportunity.
Pragmatism has to go both ways. We have to be pragmatic about oil and gas in the North sea, but it would be irresponsible not to make the investment needed in clean power and the long-term future of jobs. We are seeking to do both. We will make sure that the transition is managed, by investing the revenues from this gas project—that is £2 billion initially, but additional revenues will flow into it—and will invest in the clean power projects that will help us to get off fossil fuels in the long term, while retaining the critical workforce in the UK.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Today’s approval of Jackdaw, in the midst of a climate crisis, is proof that Britain has not moved forward nearly fast enough on reducing our reliance on gas and oil. The Supreme Court judgment requires analysis of scope 3 carbon emissions of gas and oil licences, so the Government must demonstrate that their decision to approve Jackdaw is compatible with our climate commitments, not just our net zero targets.
What is not compatible with our climate targets is our continued dependence on gas: 80% of UK households still heat their homes with gas. Heat pumps provide heating for just 2% of households in the UK. We hear that the Government plan to cut heat pump subsidies to homeowners who want to come off gas. The world has changed; we have had two global energy crises in five years. About a quarter of UK gas demand is supplied by imported liquefied natural gas. Our energy security is not strengthened by the fact that 70% of that comes from the US, given that Trump is prepared to turn that gas off.
Let me be clear: Jackdaw will not bring down bills. It will meet about 2% of UK gas demand. It will play a limited, short-term role, while displacing more polluting and insecure imports. This decision must be the tipping point for transformative investment in renewables and electrification. With respect to our climate obligations, what will the Government do to account for scope 3 emissions, beyond the territorial emissions in our net zero targets? Will the Minister commit to £15 billion of funding for the warm homes plan, and support the Liberal Democrats’ call for a national electrification strategy to drive down our dependence on gas for good?
Michael Shanks
I am genuinely confused about the Lib Dems’ position, because my understanding was that they were now in favour of the Jackdaw field. Maybe that will change again by the end of the day. I hear the point that she makes. We are not waiting for a tipping point. We have been getting on with electrification and building the clean power mission for the past two and a half years.
I would gently say to the Lib Dems that there were 10 sites for new nuclear projects in 2009. After Labour left office in 2010, the leader of the Liberal Democrats was Energy Minister for a period in which no new nuclear, which would have helped us, was built.
I agree with the hon. Lady’s point about climate. In making the decision, all those factors had to be weighed up. The full decision notice is available, and it goes into this in great detail, but the Secretary of State was very clear that her assessment is that the decision does not prevent the UK from meeting legally binding limits on carbon emissions, or from achieving our net zero target. A managed transition recognises that moving to a low-carbon economy will involve balancing climate objectives, the deployment of clean power and the electrification of heat and industry with ensuring energy security in the short term, in which we will be required to use oil and gas across our economy. This is about doing both, and getting us to the end point as quickly as possible.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Today’s decision is probably not a surprise to most people. It will make a relatively limited difference to energy security, and probably very little difference to pricing, but I very much welcome what the Minister said about it being part of a transition, and about us not ripping up the policy commitment to no wider exploration. I agree with him that this decision is consistent with our manifesto pledge.
We need to move to heat pumps and electric vehicles, and to make other changes for industry, but does the Minister agree that the absolute priority is bringing down electricity prices and getting us off the fossil fuel rollercoaster? What else will he do, in this Budget and Budgets to come, to make sure that we achieve that?
Michael Shanks
I agree with my hon. Friend about the absolute priority. He is absolutely right to say that this decision will not take a penny off bills. We have been consistent on that throughout. We are a price taker as a country, and no number of consenting decisions will change the fact that gas is traded on the international market and the decision is of marginal impact on the overall price; it does not have an impact on that. Nevertheless, the gas resulting from this decision will account for around 5% of domestic gas production, so the decision is important from a security point of view.
My hon. Friend’s wider point is about how we move many more people over to electricity and then bring down the cost of electricity. We are doing all we can to break the link with gas; that is absolutely critical. Electricity bills have gone up in the last two price caps because of our exposure to fossil fuels. That is affected by a war thousands of miles away that we had no part in.
We are already making progress. A few years ago, 90% of the electricity price was set by gas. The figure is now 60%, and is going down all the time, but we have much more to do on that. Evidence from the past few months has shown that the people who are being supported to take up heat pumps or solar panels are off-grid households, which face the impact of heating oil prices. They have taken up those opportunities. The public are behind us on this; we just need to make it as straightforward as possible. That is what the warm homes plan will deliver.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
Like Mr Speaker, I was angry and frustrated to find that the Secretary of State was not making the statement. I first learned that the Secretary of State was in my constituency when I saw her on TV this morning; that is being completely disrespectful to another Member.
The decision on Jackdaw is a victory for common sense. It is also a victory for the voters of Aberdeen South, who sent a clear message to this Labour Government in what was the most important by-election this year. Will this decision streamline the process for other North sea developments? We need a pipeline of projects coming through to protect jobs and to keep the lights on.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I bring in the Minister, may I respond to the hon. Member? Mr Speaker has been very clear on numerous occasions that the rules on courtesy to Members apply equally to all, across the House. If a Secretary of State is visiting a Member’s constituency, they must inform the Member beforehand.
Michael Shanks
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a fellow by-election MP, I can agree with the hon. Member that we need to dine out on our by-elections as much as we can; he was quite right to raise that.
The hon. Member is right about the process. I will not comment on timelines for upcoming decisions, but over the past two years, we have put in place a process to allow consideration of scope 3 emissions and consultation on that, and then to get the consenting decisions back into the process. That has all now been done, so now, the process will be just consideration of individual applications, rather than us having to go through all that again. Obviously, there is consideration to be given to upcoming consenting decisions. That consideration will be based on the evidence submitted, and not an artificial timeline.
The hon. Member talked about common sense. It is really important to make this point. The common-sense, pragmatic position for the future of the north-east of Scotland is to say, as I do, that oil and gas will continue to be important for a long time—I have been in Aberdeen often enough to know how important it is to the jobs there—but that must go hand in hand with us investing as much as we can in the long-term industries that will create jobs there. That is why I talked about decommissioning in my statement; there is a huge opportunity there for jobs and the supply chain in the north-east. I hope that we can get a bit more cross-party consensus, maybe not on everything to do with oil and gas, but on the need to invest in supply chains and industry, so that we can build the renewables of the future.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I thank the Minister, and recognise how much time he takes to talk to the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee; he is barely ever out of the chair in front of us. He is very dedicated. Today’s decision is one that the Tories could not get over the line, but under this Prime Minister, a rapid decision has been made that will protect jobs and, critically, ensure that skills will be retained for a changing supply chain. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will continue with investment and equally rapid decision making for clean power projects?
Michael Shanks
I love my appearances before the Select Committee; I gently point out that other Ministers in the Department would love to come and give evidence as well. Nevertheless, I am happy to do so, and I always appreciate the conversations.
My hon. Friend is right. We moved as quickly as we could to put in place the process that responded to the Supreme Court judgment on Finch and the Court of Session judgment on these applications. We have done that, and we considered all the evidence to make this decision today. Whatever people’s views, the critical thing is that the decision can stand on its merits, and it was is right and proper that we took the time to get this right.
My hon. Friend’s broader point was right. The real prize of the energy transition, if we get it right, is tackling the climate crisis while creating jobs in every single part of the country. We have to do both. She is a fantastic champion of her community and of this industry. If we get this right, we will create the next generation of good, sustainable jobs for young people growing up today. They will not have a long-term career in oil and gas, but could have a good, long-term career in renewables, carbon capture, hydrogen and other areas. I hope that we can work together to make that a reality.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Minister said in reply to the shadow Secretary of State that the delay in the decision on Jackdaw was fiscally neutral because, in essence, the investment was made at risk.
Steve Barclay
The Minister shakes his head, but he said that there was no cost from the delay. Does he accept that the delay in a decision on Rosebank comes at a cost, both in terms of investment and in terms of taxpayer revenue? If so, will he set out what that cost is, in revenue, ahead of the Budget?
Michael Shanks
Just to be clear, I said that there was no time delay because the projects were not ready to extract in any event. It is for the developer to speak to the details, but my understanding is that the Rosebank project is not ready to extract now, either. My point was that, although we had to retake the decisions made by the previous Government that were quashed by a court, the developer was allowed to continue the development of the project at its risk. That means that, now it has the consent, it is ready to extract by the end of this month. The Rosebank project is obviously subject to a separate regulatory process, which I will not comment on just now.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s announcement and remind others that this is not just a question for the north-east or for Aberdeen South. There are only two postal code areas in the UK that do not have a jobs connection to the North sea, so despite the scant appearance of the Opposition Benches, this affects every constituency.
I welcome the £2 billion investment in the transition, because we need those skills, that workforce and that supply chain as stepping stones to the transition to new industries. I caution my hon. Friends to ensure that we are not remembered as the Government who let down the North sea workforce in the way in which the Conservatives let down the coalfield workers. May I ask the Minister to detail, and encourage him to rush through, the tiebacks and the decommissioning that will keep us in the North sea for years to come?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend’s point about postcodes is really important for us. I hope that through the transition we can collectively get to a similar place, where there is not a single postcode in the country that does not have jobs associated with clean energy. That is our aim in driving forward the supply chain investment and everything else.
My hon. Friend is right to centre the whole conversation on the workers. For 60 years, workers have done incredibly difficult and dangerous work in the North sea to bring energy ashore. I pay tribute to all of them, some of whom lost their lives in that process. It is our duty to ensure that there is a long-term legacy for that workforce in oil and gas, in decommissioning and in other technologies that we need to invest in now. That is the prize if we get it right—but, frankly, it is also our responsibility to that workforce now and the workforce of the future.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Today is not a good day for any campaigner pressing for urgent action on climate change. I know that many of my Bath constituents—particularly young people—will be deeply concerned and disappointed. The Government have justified their position by saying that Jackdaw will create new jobs and boost growth. Will they clarify which jobs will boost growth? I do not mean jobs that rely on a Jackdaw worker buying a sandwich—anybody working in any sector can buy a sandwich—but jobs that will be directly created by Jackdaw and otherwise would not exist.
Michael Shanks
I am sorry; I am hurriedly trying to work out what the Lib Dems’ position is. I am sure that I will have clarity at some point. On the point about jobs—these are the developer’s figures—there are 27 direct jobs from the project, but it is also about safeguarding 273 existing jobs. It is actually about something much broader than that: it is about an industry that is in transition, and we have to do what we can to protect that industry while we build what comes next. I have been clear on that throughout my time as Energy Minister.
I gently say that we should accept that the wider economic impact of jobs does go down to the person buying a sandwich in the shop. When we see big industry leave towns—I am a Lanarkshire MP, and I know the impact of coalmine closures and steel closures in my constituency—we do see those small businesses leave and, with them, the important jobs that a community relies on. I do not think we should talk down the importance of the wider economic impact of this decision.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
As a member of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, I have looked in detail at both Jackdaw and Rosebank. It is important that we in this House do not confuse the two. My main concern has always been the impact on carbon emissions of any gas taken from Jackdaw. Will the Minister tell me what impact Jackdaw gas will have on emissions? Will he reassure me that this decision will not have an impact on the speed or scale of the low-carbon energy transition?
Michael Shanks
I give my hon. Friend that assurance. The amount of gas that will come onshore into our UK supply is about 5% of our production—6% at the peak. We have a diverse range of suppliers from the UK continental shelf, from Norway and from LNG imports. This decision will not change the fact that the country became a net importer of fossil fuels 20 years ago, but it does play a part in the security of supply. That was part of the balancing act against the environmental considerations that my hon. Friend rightly notes. As I have said before, the determination made by the Secretary of State is that we are able to do that while meeting the climate objectives. I absolutely give my hon. Friend the assurance that the decision does not move us away at all from those commitments; in fact, the £2 billion committed from the revenues will help us turbocharge the investment in clean energy.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I want the people who sell sandwiches in my constituency to have jobs, just the same as I want the people who work in the energy industry in my constituency to have jobs. Both types of job are important.
It is good to see the UK Government creating a future generations fund from North sea revenue. We have been calling for that for 50 years, so I am glad that they have finally got with the programme. Will the Minister provide reassurance, because we have not had any details of where that money will be spent? Will the money generated from North sea revenues in fields such as Jackdaw in Scotland go into renewables projects in Scotland? Will it support jobs in Scotland? Will it ensure that people in Aberdeen have their futures protected, or will it, like GB Energy, focus on delivering solar panels in England?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Lady speaks about 50 years; I am not quite sure what the SNP’s energy policy is right now. It changes from minute to minute, and it changes depending on whether the First Minister is in Aberdeen or somewhere else in the country. I cannot quite fathom it. The Scottish Government put out a statement today, which I read three or four times, and I still was not clear whether they support Jackdaw or not. The hon. Lady is a good supporter of the industry and I recognise that, but as for the rest of her party, I am not quite so sure.
The point about investment in renewables is important. We have been clear that the revenue from this project will be invested in renewables projects across the UK. For the vast majority of those, we are already seeing the investment going into Scotland, in supply chains as well as in the infrastructure itself. It is easy for the hon. Lady to talk down Great British Energy, but its headquarters in Aberdeen is already helping to deliver investment in supply chains in Scotland. That is £1 billion of investment so that we are not towing in renewables infrastructure to the “Saudi Arabia of renewables”, as the former leader of her party called it, that is all built somewhere else, but building it in Britain. That is where the jobs come from.
That is really important, and I hope we can all get behind this idea. I thought the hon. Lady’s party agreed that public ownership of energy is important, that public investment in energy is important and that the transition needs investment at every stage, so I hope that there are clearer areas for us to work together. However, as I say, we are still waiting on the SNP’s energy policy three years on, so I am not quite sure what it is at the moment.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
My hon. Friend knows that actions have consequences, but so does inaction. Ultimately, the consistent failure of the Conservatives over many years to address the challenges in the North sea has seen 70,000 jobs lost. I welcome the statement, which was clearly focused on energy security and jobs. As my constituency neighbour, the Minister knows the importance of supply chain jobs in Lanarkshire, not just in oil and gas but in clean energy projects such as RES, which we both visited recently. Does he agree that the new £2 billion energy wealth fund represents a serious step towards supporting our transition effort and delivering high-quality jobs in Lanarkshire?
Michael Shanks
I will always agree about high-quality jobs in Lanarkshire. It was a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency to see the opening of the RES facility in Bellshill. It is an important example of a part of his constituency that will not have renewables projects directly deployed, but which can still get the jobs from the operations and maintenance of wind farms across Scotland, along with the jobs and apprenticeships being created as a result.
The jobs that go along with the energy transition are at the heart of the Government’s agenda to deliver reindustrialisation and growth in every postcode. For too long, Governments have been agnostic about where we build things and we have seen manufacturing capacity depleted in communities such as my hon. Friend’s and others right across the country. We are seeking to reverse that with the investments we are making and to get good jobs in every single part of the country.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister quite rightly said that if we do not use our own resources, we will only have to import oil and gas. The Minister, in his statement, rightly said that we will be reliant on oil and gas for many decades to come. Though today’s decision on Jackdaw, albeit late, is welcome, with the answers that the Prime Minister and the Minister gave earlier, the Minister surely has to agree that any delay on new oil and gas licences is damaging to the national interest.
Michael Shanks
I said in my statement that in the transition to clean energy, we will continue to need oil and gas. The UK continental shelf continues to be an important source of that, but we have been a net importer for more than two decades and no amount of consenting decisions will change that fact. It is important, however, and I have said that that 6% of production matters. That is why we have made the decision we have made today.
The important thing about pragmatism—I have said this a number of times—is that it has to work both ways. We previously had a consensus that oil and gas and renewables went hand in hand, in the transition to what comes next. The Conservatives built lots of renewables and now dismiss the fact that they are important to the system. I welcome the investment the previous Government made in renewables; it is just a shame that they have lost their way so much that they do not support it now.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The previous Tory Government blundered through an unlawful consent process, which required this decision to be reconsidered, unless we adopted the licence revocation policies of the Greens, which would have accelerated significant job losses and irrecoverably deindustrialised the north-east. Although I have previously opposed this project, the energy security situation has changed radically this year due to the significant consequences of the US and Israel’s illegal war in Iran. Will the Minister explain how that direct impact on our short-term energy security in the UK influenced the decision, and will he clarify exactly how many direct and supply chain jobs the decision supports?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is a great champion for making sure that the transition has workers at its heart, both in his constituency and across Scotland. The developer estimates that there will be 27 direct jobs on the project, which is all that we are able to take into account with regard to the decision that I can talk about today. Of course, a significant number of jobs in oil and gas come from the wider impacts on the supply chain—things such as travel to and from offshore rigs and wider jobs in the north-east of Scotland—and jobs that might otherwise have been lost are also safeguarded. It is important to look at both sides.
On the question of jobs, I have always been really clear that we cannot just look at one side of a balance sheet and the jobs being lost. Energy transition means people moving from one part of an industry to another. We should not just look at jobs being lost in one area without following through to where those jobs end up, whether it is in other parts of the energy industry, in nuclear, in defence or in advanced manufacturing. One of the things we will launch soon is the future jobs service, which will support workers all the way through that process, giving them the necessary retraining so they can take up the opportunities in the future. That is how we will keep the workforce delivering in energy in Scotland.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Drilling at Jackdaw is an act of climate vandalism. As we have heard, it will not bring down bills and it will create only 27 jobs. Today’s announcement also reiterated the Government’s support for so-called tiebacks, which are a dodge to allow yet more drilling without new licences. Does the Minister not recognise the UN’s countless warnings that we must leave all new fossil fuels in the ground? Will he admit that allowing both Jackdaw and new tiebacks is utterly at odds with the climate science?
Michael Shanks
No, that is where we fundamentally disagree. We agree on the need to tackle the climate crisis, but our response has to be based in reality. The reality is that however much I want us to be able to get off fossil fuels tomorrow, that is not going to happen. We have to build the infrastructure that helps us get to that place. I am afraid that the Greens oppose the very infrastructure—they oppose wind farms, they oppose pylons, they oppose solar farms, they oppose nuclear—that gets us off fossil fuels, then they come here and complain that we are reliant on fossil fuels for longer than we have to be. They are the problem in building the transition that we need.
I am glad to see the hon. Lady, because the Greens very rarely turn up to energy debates in this House. Across the country, so-called Green politicians have stopped renewable energy projects getting off the ground. It is always, “Not here, somewhere else,” or, “Not today, some other time.” The time to build is now and they have to get behind it if they want us to get off fossil fuels.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
With everything going on in the world right now, having strong home-grown energy matters more than ever. Like many in this House, I have had a number of constituents across Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock reach out about energy security. Will the Minister elaborate on how today’s announcement helps the country move towards energy independence, and how that makes us stronger as a country?
Michael Shanks
I had a great visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency recently to see the importance of solar panels in a project there. We need to see much more of that investment, because our energy sovereignty in the long term comes from us being able to produce the energy we need here in the UK. That means electrifying the economy and generating that electricity through a decarbonised power system, but the transition to get there, not least on heat and in industry, will still require gas for a long time to come—we, as a Government, have been clear on that from the beginning. We are not about turning off the taps in the North sea, so our energy security has to take both those directions at the same time: building the industry we need for the future now while ensuring that we have the supply we need for the here and now. The Government are focused on both.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
We all want to secure the future employment prospects of those working in our world-leading oil and gas sector, and one of the richest possible opportunities for that is transitioning them into working in deep geothermal in constituencies such as mine across the country. However, despite repeated cross-party meetings with Ministers, going back years now, I am afraid that we are still billions and billions behind the money being invested in this technology in other parts of the world. Does the Minister agree that it would be crazy not to create a set-aside fund, from the money that has been announced today, that is purely dedicated to developing deep geothermal in our country?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman is a great champion of the industry, and I know that he does a huge amount on this. I agree with him entirely: geothermal is a huge opportunity and I know that there are projects starting to come much closer to delivery. We want to see much more of that, and I recognise there is more we need to do. I do not want to get into discussions on ringfences within the fund, because the danger is that that could hold back the money from projects that are ready to deploy, but I am certainly happy to speak to him about other projects and what more we can do.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome this decision. People in Ayrshire are proud of the role that Scotland has played in powering our nation. Can he say a bit more about what the decision means for supply chain jobs in the North sea sector in Scotland and right across the country?
Michael Shanks
It is good to hear from the MP for my old home—he is my mother’s MP and a great champion for Ayrshire. Ayrshire has a critical role, and it could have an even more important role if we were to build new nuclear at Hunterston, which, if it were not for the objections of the SNP, we could be looking at much more seriously. He is right to point to the fact that there are huge opportunities around supply chain jobs. We have had a meeting at a port in his constituency to talk about the opportunities there. The real drive behind this is the clean energy transition for our energy security, but reindustrialisation off the back of that will create good jobs in every single part of the country. We need to dispel the idea that we cannot manufacture things in Britain and actually get back to building things in every single part of the country.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I want to be kind to the Minister, because I am sure he is still smarting from the verbal caning that he received from Mr Speaker earlier. I want to clarify that I welcome this decision, my constituents welcome this decision and the Scottish Government’s statement welcomes this decision. We also welcome the creation of the energy wealth fund—albeit 50 years too late, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said earlier—but he will be aware that electricity bills are going to go up twice later this year. Can he give me a reassurance from the Dispatch Box today that he will accelerate the Government’s commitment to the Acorn project at St Fergus? Will he give me a commitment that he will accelerate the approvals for ScotWind projects, which are beside my constituency? Finally, will he give me a better answer than the one he gave my colleagues earlier: how much of this £2 billion will be spent for the benefit of the people of Scotland?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman talks about needing to have set up wealth funds a long time ago. I probably would not disagree with him on much of that, but I would just point out that the Scottish Government have the ScotWind fund, which they are currently drawing down to meet the deficit in their own spending. That is not building a legacy for the future; it is using it to paper over the cracks in the fiscal competence of the SNP Government. The hon. Gentleman might welcome this decision, but I am genuinely still not sure what the SNP’s position is more generally. Nevertheless, I welcome his support for it.
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the Acorn project. He and I have had useful conversations about it, and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), who is next to me on the Front Bench, is the Minister responsible for carbon capture, usage and storage now. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, a sales process is now going through, and we continue to be very supportive of that process. We have set aside funding to support the project.
The hon. Gentleman is also right to flag the question of approvals for projects. Some of that sits with us, but most of it at the moment is involved in a bottleneck on consenting decisions, which are the responsibility of the Scottish Government. I know I have done a bit of point scoring here, but in line with the problem solving driver for this Government, I would just say that I have a really good relationship with Stephen Gethins, the Scottish Government Energy Minister. We are working together on a lot of these things, but we need to get the consenting decisions made much more quickly so that projects can get out and get built.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement on approving Jackdaw. Particularly during the current global instability, it is going to help strengthen our energy security, and protect skills and jobs. More importantly, it will start supplying British households and businesses by the end of the month. Does he agree that if we are serious about energy security, decarbonisation and the faster roll-out of electrification, the SNP must rethink its ideological opposition to nuclear energy? It is a vital part of the energy mix to deliver reliable, low-carbon power for Scotland.
Michael Shanks
I agree with my hon. Friend. I have visited Torness and met the incredibly skilled workforce there. What I find difficult about the Scottish Government’s position on jobs in Scotland is that they are willing to completely turn their back on the skilled workers in nuclear power, who are going searching for jobs in nuclear projects in England or elsewhere, rather than supporting and nurturing those jobs in Scotland today. Never mind the fact that every single day of the week, Scotland’s energy security relies on the firm nuclear power coming out of Torness nuclear power station. We have to remove that ideological block, which is just an anti-science approach to technology. That will help us to get off fossil fuels and deliver clean power and incredibly good, well-paid jobs in Scotland, and I really hope the SNP will change its position.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Do the Government now accept that the former Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero got this important policy seriously wrong, and if so, why was he promoted to become Foreign Secretary?
Michael Shanks
I am tempted to say that it is certainly not a question for me, but I will answer the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question. To be really clear, we came into Government with a judgment by the Court of Session that quashed the decisions, which required us then to put in place a process that considered the scope 3 emissions as part of a consenting regime. We had to design that process, consult on it with industry, get to a place where it was a practical process and then consider the applications. We have done that, and we have done it as quickly as we possibly could.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I welcome this decision. Can the Minister elaborate on why this pragmatic decision does not impact on the Government’s target to meet net zero by 2050?
Michael Shanks
The pathway to net zero by 2050 has to accommodate the fact that we will require oil and gas, one way or another, while we are in that transition. The choices open to the Government are to continue extraction from the North sea, which we will do with existing fuels and existing consented fields, or to import from other places. We are obviously importing from Norway, which has generally cleaner imports than anywhere else, but we also rely on LNG imports, which have a higher carbon intensity. The decision therefore involves a balancing act on how we deal with the requirement for oil and gas from different places, and the Secretary of State’s decision has been made after weighing up all the evidence on the fact that we are able to make this consenting decision within the boundaries of our legally set carbon budgets.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I do not know how many people in this place know this, but I used to work in the oil and gas industry—not for a holiday job, but for years on end. I worked at Kishorn, at Nigg, at Sullom Voe and in Aberdeen. I married, my wife and I brought up our three children in my hometown and my children went to my old school in Tain, so I suggest to the Minister that I am a living example of the good that oil and gas have brought to the highlands. My plea to the Minister and to His Majesty’s Government is that they do as much as they can to spread the benefits from today’s decision as far as they can into the highlands and all those communities that have gained so much from North sea oil.
Michael Shanks
It is a great pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman back and looking so well. He is genuinely an hon. Gentleman and it is always a pleasure to speak with him.
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I suspect that there are lots of things that he could bring to this House from his long and experienced life. He is also a great champion of nuclear and the difference that made in his constituency, and I agree with him on this. It is helpful, of course, that he has taken the line much more closely of the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey)—I have done some research—who said:
“Jackdaw, I personally have always felt made sense because we’re going to need a lot of gas in the transition.”
So I think the Lib Dem position is actually to support today’s decision.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
The facts are that approving Jackdaw will neither lower energy bills, nor bring thousands of jobs, and it certainly will not improve the UK’s energy security, but a Government-owned company shaping the new renewables industry and exercising market control over it certainly would. The Prime Minister has said that he wants to reindustrialise the country, and when he comes to Grangemouth to meet me and the local community, we very much look forward to hearing exactly how he plans to do that for the benefit of our town. People in Grangemouth are sick, tired and exhausted of empty promises. They do not want to hear any more about energy transition funds or sovereign wealth funds, because £200 million from the National Wealth Fund has still not been spent. My people and communities across Scotland need action now. Does the Minister realise that the Labour party is in danger of losing working-class communities through inaction?
Michael Shanks
Let me say to my hon. Friend, as I have said to him repeatedly, we regret the process that was underway when we came into government and the lack of planning for the workforce in his constituency. Contrary to what he says, we have in fact invested a significant amount of money in supporting that workforce to find alternative employment, and we are continuing to spend money on developing the projects that will take advantage of the £200 million from the National Wealth Fund. Unfortunately, I cannot magic those projects up out of thin air, so we are doing everything we possibly can to support them. We have set up Great British Energy as a publicly owned energy company. It is already investing in supply chains, in supporting the North sea transition, and in investing and taking a stake in the projects that we are supporting across the energy space and that will bring jobs to his constituency and across the country. I hope he will get behind some of the initiatives that the Government are driving forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I remind Members to think of each other and speed up their questions, so that we can get in as many people as possible.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Time after time, the previous Energy Secretary stood in this House and told us that drilling in the North sea would not bring down domestic prices. Just today, the Prime Minister has stood at that Dispatch Box and said that prices will come down as a result of drilling in the North sea. Who is right: the former Energy Secretary or the Prime Minister? [Hon. Members: “No, he didn’t.] Yes, he did.
Michael Shanks
I am certain that the Prime Minister did not say that, because the truth is that although this decision is important for energy security reasons, it will do nothing to bring down prices. Prices are set on an international market, and no amount of extraction from the UK shelf will change the price—those are just the facts of the matter. It is important we do this. I say to the hon. Member and his party that we have never been a “turn off the taps” party in the North sea, but his party is for drilling for every last drop and ignoring the tens of thousands of jobs, in constituencies that it represents, that are currently relying on offshore wind and other technologies. He would turn his back on all those jobs, and it is absolutely shameful that his party would leave this country not more energy secure, but vulnerable at the very moment we should be building up our energy sovereignty.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
This decision will be welcomed by skilled energy workers across Scotland and the UK, who will have a key role in making our transition towards renewables successful. For that reason, a positive decision on Rosebank in the future would also be welcome. This project, though, will create and sustain some 300 skilled energy jobs. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will work with the Scottish Government to ensure we have the right training in place for our energy workers for the future? Could some of the resources within the North sea wealth fund contribute to that aim?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right on his point about jobs, although I reiterate that direct jobs are often not the whole story with such projects, as there is a whole ecosystem around jobs. Skills is one of the most important things, and it is an area devolved to the Scottish Government. We have had a good partnership working on a lot of the transition support for workers. We have joint funded projects for North sea workers and will continue to do that because it is important that we match together the UK Government’s responsibilities with the Scottish Government’s responsibilities. Clearly, there is, however, a real issue in Scotland with the hollowing out of further education, which is the route for many of the skilled jobs we need in our economy, not least building the transmission system of the future, which needs highly skilled welders more than anything else. We need apprenticeships and further education, and I hope that the Scottish Government will invest even more in colleges across the country.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Minister says officials are starting talks with industry leaders on refreshing the North sea transition deal. Will the Minister commit to putting money for retraining offshore workers, such as those in my constituency, at the core of that deal, funded by money from the new wealth fund?
Michael Shanks
I can give the hon. Member that assurance, but she does not need to wait on the new wealth fund; we have already committed funding to doing that. We published the North sea future plan, which charts a course for the future of the North sea, focused on not only oil and gas but the industries that come next and with the workers right at the centre of it. It is focused on how we provide the training support so that we can recognise the huge read-across from oil and gas skills into a lot of the other energy jobs and into defence and advanced manufacturing. We need to deploy those skills so that we can support workers the whole way through that process. We are already getting on with delivering it, and the North sea future jobs service should launch early next year.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the statement, especially the word the Minister has used several times—pragmatism—and how that stands apart from the ideology we see, especially from the Green party. Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot decarbonise our economy, make steps towards a fully renewable energy generation mix, or achieve energy security by relying on importing oil and gas from overseas, which is often more carbon intensive and which in some cases enriches authoritarian regimes such as Iran? Also, as the representative for North Northumberland where 14,000 households are off the gas grid, what more can his Department do to help heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas households to access less carbon-intensive products, such as hydrotreated vegetable oil?
Michael Shanks
Both are important questions. First, I recognise the point my hon. Friend makes around energy independence. We do require gas in the system at the moment, so this decision is partly around how we increase domestic production. But the long-term energy security and our energy independence do not come from oil and gas, which we will always be a net importer of at this point on, and so we have to build a way to get us off that fossil fuel rollercoaster in the future.
Secondly, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that off-gas-grid households have felt the significant impact of the war in the middle east as heating oil prices have skyrocketed. We very quickly put in place a fund to provide support for those households—much quicker than the previous Government did when Russia invaded Ukraine. I encourage all his constituents to ensure they have accessed that fund as people will be starting to refill tanks at this time of year, but we are also doing as much as we can to support, through the warm homes plan, the decarbonisation of those households who, of course, have access to the electricity grid and so can take advantage of solar panels, batteries and heat pumps, and we will say more about that in due course.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Gas can help balance the grid, but if we are serious about energy security and decarbonisation, we need a clean and reliable source of baseload power—something the Jackdaw field cannot provide. Does the Minister agree that the Gwyndod nuclear project on Ynys Môn can help meet that need, and will he work with me to ensure its smooth delivery so that the energy security benefits can be realised as soon as possible?
Michael Shanks
It is a well-timed question because I am joining the hon. Lady in her constituency tomorrow to speak to some of the supply chain businesses that will help build the Gwyndod power station and to visit the site where Gwyndod will be built. It is an important example of where the last generation of nuclear power can turn into the next generation of apprentices in this new power station, with the grandchildren of people who worked at the Wylfa power station before. It is a huge opportunity, and I want to work with her and the Welsh Government on ensuring that we get as much economic opportunity from the Gwyndod project as possible with the supply chain jobs in her constituency and across Wales.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I know this is a difficult area to work in, not least because the Scottish Government do not yet know their policy on oil and gas drilling. Yesterday, The Scotsman reported that the Scottish Energy Minister has said it will take a year for them to reach a conclusion on that. I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for their engagement with me. They were open to listening to my constituents’ many concerns about this decision. I hope my constituents are reassured that so much of the money from Jackdaw will be invested in renewables. However, to some extent, Jackdaw is just a sideshow because it is really Rosebank that many people are concerned about. Will the Minister confirm that despite media speculation, the decision today will not set a precedent for Rosebank and that it will be judged on its own merits or otherwise?
Michael Shanks
I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the importance of investing in renewables. On his broader question about consenting decisions, every single individual application is considered on its own merits, with its own evidence base and its own consultation process. The Rosebank decision is separate from the Jackdaw decision. We have concluded the evidence stage and the Secretary of State will make a decision in due course.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Last week the Government declared severe drought across parts of Somerset. Experts suggest we need at least seven months of above average rainfall to recover from droughts across the country. There can be no question that we are in a climate emergency and the approval of Jackdaw shows that as a country we have not moved fast enough to switch to renewable energy. Do the Government agree that the only way we can stop depending on gas is to generate more of our own clean power? Will the Minister listen to the Liberal Democrats and implement our 10-year emergency home upgrade programme so that Britain is less dependent on projects like Jackdaw in future?
Michael Shanks
I agree with the hon. Lady absolutely that we are in a climate emergency. We all lived through a summer that demonstrated that more than anything we have seen. I have heard many people say it was the warmest summer on record, but in the future it will probably be seen to have been one of the coldest summers. We have to do something about that. I am fed up with hearing people say that we should just work on adaptation. We do have to work on adaptation, but we also have to do everything that we possibly can to stop the situation from becoming worse. That is why we are doing all that we can on an international level and why we are building renewables as quickly as possible. I agree with her that the cheapest energy for homeowners is the energy that they do not use, and that the more we can do to upgrade our homes in this country the better. That is what the warm homes plan is all about. By devolving it to local areas, they can make their own local choices about what works for them.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I have been an enthusiastic supporter of the Government’s policy on developing alternative energy sources, successfully undertaken by the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), and now incredibly skilfully developed by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh). We always knew that there were three key decisions that would have environmental implications, politically and physically: today’s decision on Jackdaw; the decision on Rosebank; and the decision on the third runway at Heathrow. Will the Minister take into discussions with colleagues my concern that approvals in the decision-making process for Rosebank and/or a third runway at Heathrow, could permanently damage our environmental credentials?
Michael Shanks
I will not comment on future decisions, but the decision I am outlining today is clearly taking into consideration environmental impact, and all other decisions will do likewise. The Labour party has a proud record of passing the Climate Change Act 2008 and setting world-leading targets. For those who say that Britain should shrink from the world stage, those decisions have been hugely important for driving the transition to clean power in countries across the world. We are not alone in doing this and we have to do that even more. With consensus across the political divide, we cut emissions enormously. I was there at the closure of our last coal power station. We have made great progress, but there is a huge amount more to do to ensure we break the link with gas, to bring down people’s bills and to tackle the climate emergency, which is no longer some future threat but an ever-present reality.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that today’s decision on the Jackdaw gasfield will do nothing to reduce people’s bills. Many of the people I represent have done everything they can to reduce their heating use, but are still paying more than they can afford. Will he say more about the Government’s intention to look at removing standing charges from people’s gas bills?
Michael Shanks
We have heard loud and clear that the standing charge is the most frustrating part of the bill for people, because it is not driven by the individual choices they make about energy use but by a fixed price on the bill. The challenge with gas in particular is that we want people to use less, but there is little incentive to do that if the standing charge remains the same. I do not pretend it will be easy: the standing charge still has costs that have to be paid for and the gas network still has to be funded, but the Prime Minister has committed to working through how we can make the standing charge fairer and encourage people to make decarbonisation choices for affordability reasons. That is important for all of us and, crucially, it will bring down people’s bills.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will know that the climate science is clear that opening any new North sea oil and gasfields is incompatible with achieving our Paris climate agreement goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. He will know that Jackdaw alone is worth 35 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, and Rosebank a further 250 million tonnes. What can he say to my constituents in Walthamstow who are still clearing up after the wildfires that burned down their homes and damaged their houses, and are now terrified about flooding from El Niño, about how this decision, our work on reducing emissions and the fund that he has mentioned will help to protect their future?
Michael Shanks
I hear what my hon. Friend says. On her last point, we are absolutely seized of the fact that the wildfires and the impact that heatwaves have had on people’s lives is evidence enough, if anyone ever needed it—I know she certainly does not because she has been a champion on this issue for a long time—that we have to take firm action on tackling climate change. That requires us to design a pathway to get to net zero that recognises the fact that we will need oil and gas as part of that transition, and that there are lower emissions coming out of the North sea than otherwise, but balancing that against significant investment, which must be made as quickly as possible, in renewables, nuclear and other technologies that help us get off the fossil fuels on which we are currently dependent. That is the only long-term pathway to energy security and to tackling the climate crisis, and we are doing everything we can to get there as quickly as possible.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
There is consensus in the House that Jackdaw will benefit the good people of Aberdeen, but do absolutely nothing about the rising energy bills of millions of households up and down the country and provide absolutely no benefit for those facing winter fuel poverty. My concern is that the gas will be sold on the international market and the profits will flow to the energy tycoons, whose tax returns will be, let us say, very interesting. Will the Minister admit that the lobbyists have won over the Labour Government on this one? When will my constituents in Leicester South see any benefit to their energy bills?
Michael Shanks
I think the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will be very surprised when they reach to turn on their heating or their gas cooker that they do not rely on gas—a significant number of his constituents will rely on gas. We want to get off that gas supply as quickly as possible, but we will continue to require it for a number of years, so I hope that he can recognise why the decision is important for energy security. I agree with him about the fundamental point: contrary to any other noise around this, no new oil and gas drilling will ever take a penny off bills. It does not impact bills. It brings in tax revenue to the Government that we will invest in the clean energy that gets us off fossil fuels. Breaking the link with gas will bring down his constituents’ bills, but I agree that it will not directly reduce bills.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
My main concern is for working people—working families and working communities. As a former coalminer, I witnessed the promises from Government with regard to a just transition, which failed, in every measure, to materialise. The devastation to communities that had their hearts ripped out is a testament to that failed transition, and we still bear the scars. I welcome the Government’s commitment to invest revenues in a just transition, but communities and workers in the oil and gas industry need cast-iron guarantees of secure jobs in renewables, with comparable wages, terms and conditions. Will the Minister meet me and others who share experiences of failed transition so that we can help to develop a road map that delivers a genuinely fair future for workers and working communities?
Michael Shanks
I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend and any other hon. Members from across the House who have experience that they want to raise or ideas about how we can do this. I chair the North sea future board, which has trade unions at its heart to bring the story of workers to the heart of the decisions we are making, not just because we owe that to those workers, who are powering the country right now and have done for decades, but because they are the critical workforce that will help us build what we need in the future. He is right to point to failed transitions—we will all have experience of that in our communities, but some more than others. There is a lesson from history that if Government do not actively engage in building the next part of the transition, we will not support those workers. We are doing everything that we can on that, but there is a lot more that we can do and I am happy to work with him on it.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
My colleagues and I have consistently called for electricity prices to be decoupled from the wholesale gas price. The Minister has accepted that approving more domestic gas production will not in itself protect households from international price shocks, but doing that might. Will he accelerate the decoupling? Can he offer a timetable in which he will do that?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Lady is right to point to that fact. We have renewables in the system, but we are not getting the benefit of the pricing, because the last margin unit that we need in order to meet our supply is often gas. That used to be 90% of the time, but it is now less than 60% of the time. We are making huge progress; since the closure of the strait of Hormuz, we have been saving £50 million or more a day on displaced gas costs, because of the renewables that we have built. We are going as fast as we can, but I cannot just pull a lever and make decoupling happen, because the marginal price setting is important to ensure that we can meet our supply every single day. We are doing everything that we can on that issue. It is a No. 1 priority to ensure that people feel the benefit of clean power coming through on to their bills.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
In an earlier answer, the Minister talked about the fact that the summer we have just experienced has been the hottest on record, but we fear that it may look cold in comparison with what is to come in the future. As a response, a lot of my constituents are becoming very engaged with issues of the environment. I have held several MP eco-forums, and attendance at them is going up week by week. My next forum is in the next two weeks, and I can predict a question that will be put to me, so I hope that the Minister can help me by giving me the answer on the Floor of the House. What does today’s decision mean for the UK’s leadership on the global stage when it comes to tackling climate change?
Michael Shanks
I will say two things. First, we are absolutely clear that tackling the climate crisis is an absolute priority for the Government. It is vital for our national security, our energy security and our children’s futures, and we need to do even more. This decision is about the transition period, in which we will need oil and gas to build into where we go next, but that is not the whole story. The absolute clear direction from this Government is that in order to tackle the climate crisis, we have to break the link with fossil fuels so that we are not importing from other countries and driving up climate problems for future generations to deal with, but have home-grown, clean energy here in the UK. We are already making enormous progress on that. People should rightly feel that the Government have to do more, but one of the really important things to recognise is that we are making progress in climate action. We always need to do more, but people should not feel that there is absolutely no route out for us. If we can work together and build some more consensus, we can tackle climate change.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and I welcome the decision to approve the consent for Jackdaw gas production, which will secure energy supplies for homes and businesses across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at a time when global conflict is putting pressure on energy prices. In a reply to another hon. Member, the Minister referred to the renewables sector benefits that will be used for all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Will the Minister specifically outline the benefits that will come to Northern Ireland and help it to reduce its energy costs?
Michael Shanks
I often have to start with the refrain that energy policy is devolved to Northern Ireland, but there are points to make on two fronts. First, our interconnector with Ireland, which takes gas from Great Britain into Ireland, will benefit from the security of supply that we are delivering through this decision, which is important. Secondly, although I do not have responsibility for decisions on energy policy in Northern Ireland, we have said from the beginning that the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy will operate and invest in projects in Northern Ireland. I can confirm that the £2 billion we have set up today will be part of that picture and ensure that we can invest in projects in Northern Ireland.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The decision on Jackdaw has been taken in the context of communities across the country meeting to watch screenings of the “National Emergency Briefing” on climate change. The briefing has been prepared by scientists, and I have not heard any credible dissent on the science in the film. It would be very difficult to watch the film and conclude, for example, that drilling in the Rosebank oilfield should be allowed to go ahead. What are the Government doing to ensure that there is a comprehensive and effective approach to public education on climate change so that everyone across our country has an accurate, science-based understanding of the peril that it brings?
Michael Shanks
That is a really important question. As a former teacher, I used to teach pupils who would come to school worried about this issue, because they had seen things in the news and felt a sense of threat. That is why it is important that people understand that the Government are taking the issue seriously and are determined not to only tackle climate change at home, but to play our international role abroad, rebuilding some of the international consensus to make climate action a reality.
Factual information is always really important in these debates—at times, I think that it might help in this House as well. People should seek out information about what we are trying to do and about the progress that we are making as a country towards decarbonising our energy system.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I am incredibly disappointed in today’s decision on Jackdaw; I believe that it flies in the face of all the evidence and will do nothing to lower people’s energy bills, create jobs or improve our energy security. The Minister has a strong record in making the case for Britain to be a renewable energy superpower, so can he confirm that today’s decision in no way implies or means that the approval of Rosebank will automatically follow?
Michael Shanks
Let me be clear that that is a separate consenting decision. I am not making any comment at all today on the Rosebank decision, which will be made in due course. We are absolutely committed to tackling climate change. There is no change at all in my commitment or the Government’s commitment to delivering the clean power mission and improving homes so that we can get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible, but the reality is that Britain will need oil and gas for decades to come as part of that transition. Today’s decision is about a particular project that helps us to get those things out of our own continental shelf. My hon. Friend is right to say that that will not bring down bills, but it will provide energy security benefits, jobs and investment coming in through tax receipts, which we are deploying to deliver more clean power.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
I warmly welcome this statement from my hon. Friend and the focus on investment, jobs and resilience not just in the North sea, but in all parts of the United Kingdom. He will know the critical role that Peterborough plays in our national gas networks, having visited the gas transmission and compression site last November to welcome the £870 million investment that National Gas made in the network and in my city. Alongside me, on that visit he also met GMB representatives and apprentices—people I often listen to when it comes to energy policy. Will he join me in thanking GMB members across the country for their commitment and their contribution to the energy debate? Will he confirm that workers will be critical to any future discussions about our energy balance and how we get the mix right for the future?
Michael Shanks
I declare an interest: I am a member of the GMB, and I am very happy to celebrate the role that it plays in this area. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter of National Gas and the transmission system, because we often talk about oil and gas workers offshore, but I have met a number of those workers who help to get the gas to homes and businesses across the country. It is an incredibly skilled job, and I pay tribute to the work that those workers do. He is absolutely right; during the transition between what is here now and what comes after in the oil and gas industry, workers have to be right at the centre.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I know that many people across Portsmouth will welcome today’s measured and responsible announcement; at a time of global instability, energy security is crucial to our national resilience. Home-grown energy is better for Britain, because we can attach strong environmental conditions to it and use tax receipts from it to fund renewables. Can the Minister say a little more about how he plans to make energy independence a key part of our national resilience plan? Will he also say that today’s announcement will not affect our warm homes plan or slow the pace on our path to clean power for all?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of national resilience. That is front and centre in my mind as the Minister responsible for energy security and resilience, particularly as we go into the winter months. This decision is part of how we ensure that we can absolutely meet the standard that is expected for our gas supplies as we go into the winter—we will say more about that in the coming days.
This decision is also part of the wider picture of the transition, because our long-term energy security and resilience cannot come from our being dependent on a fossil fuel that we will always be a net importer of. We have seen the price spikes that have been caused by a war in which we have no part, and they are affecting people’s bills right now. The long-term answer is the clean power that my hon. Friend talked about. She is right to raise the point about warmer homes and how we get more homes to use less energy. That is absolutely critical for our consumers to live in warmer conditions and to spend less on their energy bills.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The Government claim that approving Jackdaw will help fund clean energy—making them, if you like, both the arsonist and the firefighter. The North sea is a declining basin, though, meaning that it is a rapidly shrinking tax base. The Office for Budget Responsibility expects the North sea to provide just £100 million in tax per year by 2030. At that rate, the oil and gas sector would take 20 years to match the Government’s injection into the energy wealth fund today, so does the Minister see that approving Jackdaw is a false economy?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right that the North sea is a declining basin—I have said that on a number of occasions. That is not going to be turned around by decisions that we make, but none the less, we were elected on a manifesto that very clearly said that we would
“not issue new licences to explore new fields”,
but would manage existing fields for their lifetime. This decision is on an already licensed field, so it is compliant with our manifesto, and the investment resulting from it will allow us to build the clean power that will get us off fossil fuels. It is about recognising that we have to do both—the long-term future comes from reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and phasing them out completely, but we will need oil and gas in the interim.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with the Minister about the price spikes and the rollercoaster of oil and gas, but I am concerned by his talk about coming off oil and gas. As he knows, some sectors in this country, whether they be glass, metal, cement or, of course, ceramics, are always going to have to use gas because there are no alternatives. With the Minister talking about how this decision will not bring down industrial gas prices, and with the Government having decided to exclude gas-intensive industries from the British industrial competitiveness scheme and supercharger schemes, what are this Government going to do to make sure that those industries that are dependent on gas and are crucial to our reindustrialisation get the help and support they need?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to raise that point, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary hears it. We are doing everything we can on industrial prices as well as domestic prices, but I know we need to do more. Breaking the link between gas and electricity prices is crucial for the electricity bills that those industries face, but I know that my hon. Friend is particularly focused on the gas they use. I have talked about phasing out gas; we have always been clear that a strategic reserve will be necessary for particular industries and parts of the power system, but we should be using it much less. We need to support industries by finding new ways to decarbonise, be it with hydrogen or other fuels, but some will continue to require gas. I recognise that fact, and will continue to work with my hon. Friend and others to make sure we are doing everything we can to support those industries.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s pragmatic decision on Jackdaw; it makes sense to use gas from the North sea, rather than import it from abroad. I also welcome the Minister’s comment that the funds it raises in tax revenue will be used to support the green transition, hopefully with a view to bringing down energy bills in the future. However, my constituents know that their energy bills will go up in January, and they want help with that now. Given that the Minister has ruled out using those funds to support them through direct help with their energy bills, can I encourage him to use any mechanism available to him to get people the support they need with their energy bills in January, and possibly to have conversations with the Treasury too? As he knows, the cost of living crisis is biting now.
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right—the affordability crisis is the No. 1 thing facing all our constituents. I am not going to cut across what the Chancellor may or may not say next week in his Budget, but I hear what my hon. Friend says. We have already taken action by removing VAT from electricity bills, as well as the £150 of costs that we took off bills previously, but the first point he made is critical, because the situation in the middle east is what is driving up everyone’s bills. We can continue to take action to reduce those bills, as the previous Government did when Russia invaded Ukraine, but if we do not fix the fundamental problem, we will have to bail people out every time there is another fossil fuel price spike. While deploying clean power will not immediately affect everyone, every wind turbine we switch on and solar panel we plug in helps reduce our dependence on gas and brings down people’s bills.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on backing British industry in the North sea, but as he knows, industrial communities such as mine in Pembrokeshire face existential threats from high energy costs and high carbon costs. What measures are the Government taking to support good, unionised, well-paid jobs and industry right across the country?
Michael Shanks
I welcome my hon. Friend’s appreciation of the decision we have made today. The longer-term impact of climate change will be felt by his constituents as much as everyone else’s, so it is in all of our interests—as I know he appreciates—for us to take action to tackle it. While this is an important decision, the action we have taken to deploy clean power and break the link with fossil fuels is also really important.
My hon. Friend is right to centre this discussion on jobs. We have worked not just to create new jobs in the clean power of the future, but to make sure those are good jobs. With offshore wind, for example, we are making sure there is fair work for offshore workers, in conjunction with trade unions and the workforce. We want to grow the number of jobs in clean power, but we also want them to be good, well-paid and sustainable jobs.
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
I am concerned about the message this decision sends about how serious we are about tackling the climate emergency and protecting our hard-won international reputation as a world leader on climate change. However, I am even more concerned—as are my constituents—that this is a prelude to the bigger decision on Rosebank that is to come. Can the Minister confirm that when that decision is taken, the climate emergency and our international climate commitments will be at the forefront of his mind, and that we will have a chance to debate that decision in this House?
Michael Shanks
On the international point and the message this decision sends about the climate emergency, I cannot be clearer about how central tackling climate change still is to the wider agenda of our energy policy. The transition to a non-fossil-fuel economy will require oil and gas for decades to come, and this decision is about where we get that from, not about the end goal, which is to remove our exposure to fossil fuels in the long term. We continue to take action on the climate crisis in a whole range of other ways. For instance, the Secretary of State will lead our delegation to COP to make sure we continue to press for international collaboration.
On the wider point, consenting decisions are regulatory decisions for the Secretary of State to make, and then it is for the North Sea Transition Authority to make the final decision and issue the consent. Those decisions are not subject to debates in this House—they are quasi-judicial decisions. However, I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that that decision, like this one, will be based on a whole range of factors, and the environmental impacts will be absolutely central.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
I hear what the Minister says, but a generation of young people are growing up in the shadow of a growing climate crisis. Countless constituents have written to me setting out their concern—a concern that I share—about this decision and a potential decision on Rosebank. Can the Minister say more about how the energy wealth fund will support this Labour Government’s mission to tackle the climate crisis and drive net zero? What can he say to reassure my constituents, many of whom are coming to my climate and nature town hall at the end of this month?
Michael Shanks
I am glad that people across the country are engaging in those kinds of discussions. It is really important that people get together, discuss this issue and recognise the absolute centrality of climate change to our lives right now, as well as its future impact. I would say two things: first, this Government take the climate emergency very seriously and are taking action right now to tackle it, whether that is building the clean power that gets us off fossil fuels or improving homes so that people use less fossil fuel energy to heat them.
Secondly, young people right now should believe that their Government are taking this issue seriously. Despite the noise of the political debate, this Government take climate action seriously, and we are delivering good, long-term jobs in every single community for those young people in the industries of the future—jobs in clean energy that we as a country can be equally proud of. I hope the young people who attend my hon. Friend’s meeting will see some of those opportunities as a real chance, not only for a career in this country, but to help us tackle the climate emergency.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Today’s decision feels like a backwards step in our efforts to reduce carbon emissions and our reliance on fossil fuels, but one of our biggest challenges is the £88 billion-worth of UK pensions that are invested in this dying market—some 10 times what those funds invest in clean energy sources. What pressure is the Minister bringing to bear to wean our pension funds off those damaging fossil fuel investments?
Michael Shanks
As a Government, we are making it as attractive as possible to invest in clean energy sectors. That is why we have seen more than £100 billion-worth of private investment in the clean energy transition since we came into Government—£110 billion of investment in two and a half years. It is clear that people see the clean energy transition as a route for investment and helping to build our energy security. I would say to all those, pension funds or others, who do not take the economic opportunity seriously that there is a huge opportunity here to build the country we want to see and to get good economic returns as a result. We have set up things such as the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy to help crowd in that investment.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
It is not quite the response to catastrophic climate change, wildfires and drought that I had in mind, but I accept that that appears to be a minority view in this place. Nevertheless, despite all the sophistry, the inconvenient truth remains that this choice means that more fossil fuels that are currently buried will be extracted and burned to pollute our planet. Does the Minister understand why so many people find it hard to believe that the hope of a liveable planet will win out against short-termism and deluded self-interest?
Michael Shanks
I do not agree with that, actually. I will give the same answer that I gave to the Green party. We absolutely believe in tackling the climate crisis and in building our way out of a dependence on fossil fuels, but I cannot just click my fingers and make that happen overnight. We have to build this infrastructure over time, and there is a transition period in which gas will remain the main source of energy for people heating their homes. We have to move even faster to change that by electrifying heating to bring down people’s bills and get us off fossil fuels. I am open to any ideas my hon. Friend might have on how we can go faster on that.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I warmly welcome this decision. New drilling in the North sea is good for energy security, national security and jobs, including jobs in my constituency of Hartlepool and in the supply chain. Jobs in Hartlepool have been created in new nuclear and renewables, too. Does it frustrate the Minister, as it frustrates me, when certain populist politicians put their ideology ahead of fact and would destroy jobs in renewables, nuclear and North sea oil and gas in my constituency and across the country?
Michael Shanks
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I am grateful for his putting on record the fact that there are jobs in oil and gas in Hartlepool and in towns like it across the UK. Although there is a concentration of jobs in the north-east of Scotland, it would be wrong to say that this is a problem for the north-east of Scotland to solve. There are such jobs all across the country. We must get this transition right.
As for the oil and gas workers, the new nuclear that we want to see in his constituency, and renewables, I make the point that the workforce is the same, and we are going to support them to retrain and bring their immense experience into what we have to build in the future. It is in our self-interest to centre this transition on the workers who currently power the country through oil and gas and who will take us through into the future. He is right to call out those politicians who talk about pragmatism, but who want it all to be one way. Pragmatism means being clear that oil and gas will be important for decades to come and that we have to invest now in the jobs of the future, in his constituency and across the country.
Antisemitism in Schools and Colleges
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Lucy Powell)
With permission, I will make a statement on Sir David Bell’s review into antisemitism in schools and colleges in England. First, let me just apologise for some of the reporting in the media. The full report and Government response were laid in the House this morning and were not given to the media first. I have ordered a leak inquiry into this matter.
Today, Sir David has published this seminal review, exposing the shocking scale of antisemitism in British society and how that is reflected across education. Almost three in five Jewish young people and half of Jewish teachers have experienced or witnessed antisemitism. That cannot continue. Let me place on record my sincere thanks to Sir David for his excellent report and to the reference group for their support.
Make no mistake, this is a report for every teacher, every staff member, every education leader and every student listening today. All children and teachers should be able to go to school or college free from fear, but there is a wider responsibility for education as a whole to teach our young people British values of tolerance, acceptance and respect for one another. Collectively, we have a duty to educate this generation and the next on what antisemitism is, on why it is wrong, and on what happens when it takes hold in society. Whether or not there are Jewish staff and students in your school or college, this report is for you. This generational challenge belongs to us all.
We all know that antisemitism is an ancient evil. Today it remains as pernicious as ever, but its modern mutation is in many ways more prominent and more prevalent. Perhaps most concerning of all, that is especially true among young people. Old tropes have found new life in the modern world. The fallacy that Jewish networks control the global economy and other such delusions once confined to the fringes have found a new home on social media. Antisemitism is now normalised and amplified in echo chambers online, reaching directly into children’s bedrooms. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport for her leadership and commitment in tackling this issue, and I am grateful for her collaboration.
As Sir David’s report also identifies, the conflict in the middle east has significantly fanned the flames of division here at home. Misunderstanding, ignorance and deliberate misrepresentation can quickly lead to antisemitism—at times casual, at others more serious, and all too often unreported and unchallenged. As a House and a Government, we must be clear: blaming British Jews for the actions of the Israeli Government is antisemitism; assuming British Jews have a particular political standpoint because they are Jewish is antisemitism; and targeting British Jews out of concern for Palestine is antisemitism. When such views and behaviours are expressed in any school or college, whether or not they are aimed directly at a Jewish person, they are antisemitic, and we have a duty to challenge them.
Sitting at the centre of our communities, schools and colleges have a leadership role in fostering tolerance, compassion and respect for difference. Let me be clear: teachers should not bring their own political views into the classroom. That is a fundamental of education. However, this principle should not lead to a shying away from difficult debates. In fact, as Sir David’s report clearly recommends, schools and colleges should be the place for important discussions, but school leaders often fear reprisals, protests or accusations of political bias, so they avoid discussing and addressing important topics. I want to empower our teachers and school and college leaders to tackle these issues head on. Our young people have to learn how to navigate contentious debates thoughtfully and respectfully, and to understand that antisemitism and other forms of racism are wrong. That is a job for education, but we all have a responsibility to set the tone, here in this House and in the media too—robust debate and challenge matched with respect, tolerance and disagreeing amicably.
A new approach is needed. Antisemitism is unique in both historical context and its reach today. It demands a unique response. That is why this Government accept all 27 recommendations from Sir David’s review. I thank everyone who contributed their views and experiences, but above all, I want to recognise the Jewish community directly for their bravery in engaging with the review. I do not take lightly the personal cost they have paid in recounting their deeply hurtful experiences. They have not only my thanks but my word that their voices will be heard. Change will come.
I turn to the report’s recommendations. First, definition matters. Combating antisemitism starts with identifying it. I agree with Sir David that the use of a common and consistent definition will improve understanding and confidence. I will therefore write to all schools and colleges to set out my expectation that they adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism. As Sir David recommends, we will strengthen the safeguarding guidance to make it clear that antisemitism is a distinct risk and therefore requires a distinct safeguarding response. I also accept the recommendation that all education settings should record antisemitic incidents as a specific category. Sir David also says that school and college leaders, as well as head and teacher unions, need more support to identify and challenge antisemitism. We will develop and roll out high-quality training, good practice guidance and practical resources, as well as dedicated support for leaders managing complex and serious incidents involving antisemitism and other forms of racism, including support for escalation when it is needed. We will also give schools and colleges clear and specific support when it comes to how and when controversial and sensitive issues should be discussed.
We will update and strengthen Holocaust education, so that this generation and the next can better understand the horrors of the Holocaust, how it came about, and why that should matter to us today. I can confirm that such education will continue to be compulsory in the national curriculum. However, as Sir David has recommended, while it is right that every child should know about the Holocaust, that should not be the only thing that they know about Jewish people and their history. We will ensure, through the curriculum, that the contribution, culture and history of Jewish people in Britain are well understood and appreciated. Judaism is a diverse, modern and generous faith tradition, and the curriculum should reflect that as well.
However, this is not just about what happens in the classroom. One of the most shocking findings of Sir David’s review was that following the Heaton Park synagogue terrorist attack, educational visits to the Manchester Jewish Museum in my constituency fell by half, just when those visits were needed most. We will boost opportunities for engagement with Jewish cultural experiences. The testimonies of Jewish teachers and leaders in Jewish schools about how much of their time was spent on safety and not teaching were particularly concerning. We cannot build ever higher walls around our Jewish institutions, but we will continue to work with the Community Security Trust and the Home Office to ensure that children and staff can be safe, happy and supported.
Sir David looked closely at the issue of political symbols displayed by staff and students. He found it not to be a widespread issue, and therefore concluded that extending existing legal duties on schools would be disproportionate. I accept his recommendation, but as Education Secretary, I should make it clear that I would not expect to see teachers coming to school or college wearing or displaying any political material.
There are further important recommendations for leaders of schools and colleges, and for teachers, staff, parents and unions, among others. I will ensure that we work to do what needs to be done and to maintain momentum. I have set up an implementation group, which will get to work immediately, and I have asked Sir David to conduct a one-year review of the implementation of his recommendations.
Although universities are not in the scope of the review, I want to make it clear to the House that the rise in antisemitism on our campuses is completely unacceptable. I wrote to all vice-chancellors earlier this month about the steps that they need to take to combat antisemitism, and I will continue to act wherever I can.
This is an incredibly important moment for education and for our country. It falls to our generation to educate the next on what can happen to a society when antisemitism is allowed to take hold, and why we all have a duty to root it out. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement, and also for taking the time to brief me on the report yesterday.
This is an important and timely review, and I pay tribute to Sir David Bell and his team and those brave individuals who came forward to share their experiences, many reliving deeply distressing events. It is a great sadness and a failure on the part of all of us, as a society, that such a review is necessary in 2026. I have met many Jewish parents who have been left with an impossible choice between sending their children to mainstream schools where Jewish pupils are heckled, bullied and singled out, and sending them to Jewish schools with prison-like security, under constant threat from outside. I cannot imagine the fear that parents feel every day about what their children might face at school. If we are to address this stain on our society, advocacy across the House is vital, and I welcome the review’s recommendations, including on the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, and on the strengthening of guidance, teacher training and teachers’ standards, something that I have consistently called for.
I want to raise two points that I hope will be picked up in the implementation review. The first concerns enforcement. Many of the instances that the report describes go against existing guidance. The problem is that when impartiality guidance is breached, nothing happens. The case of the hon. Member for Bristol North East (Damien Egan) demonstrates the problem. His visit to a school was cancelled following opposition from pro-Palestinian campaigners and members of the National Education Union. When Ofsted representatives rightly inspected the school afterwards, they could not investigate the very incident that had prompted the inspection; they could only check, at the time of the visit, whether all obligations were being met. What is the point of an inspection if inspectors cannot examine the incident that triggered it? Will the Secretary of State agree to close that loophole, and will she please explain, in her response, what she expects to happen to a school that does not appropriately address instances of antisemitism?
My second point concerns the role of unions. I welcome the review’s examination of their role, but I do not think that the recommendations are strong enough. Asking unions to examine their own actions is allowing them to mark their own homework, and we already know that that does not work. In the case of the banning of the Labour MP, it was an NEU official who put pressure on the school to make that happen. Michaela Wilde, a senior NEU official, reportedly said that she was “very proud” of having forced the school to cancel the visit, warning critics: “don’t mess” with the NEU because
“we are not here to play”.
And what has happened to her? She appears to remain on the NEU’s national executive, representing Bristol and the south-west. That is shameful. How can someone who campaigned for and celebrated preventing a Jewish MP from visiting a school continue in such a senior union position? Where is the accountability? It is deplorable. Will the Secretary of State commit today to investigating the individuals who have stood by such views and made such statements, and, when warranted, have them removed from schools? Otherwise we might as well go home, because without accountability, nothing changes.
Schools do not exist in a bubble. Things that happen outside are too often mirrored in the classroom. The despicable antisemitic Green party motion encourages such sentiments to be brought up in schools. Labour Ministers must reflect on their responsibility: lack of action on hate marches, inflammatory language from the Foreign Secretary and unenforceable performative bans on Israeli goods help no one, and cause a surge in antisemitism.
However, today’s measures are welcome. I hope that the Secretary of State will address my points about implementation, unions and enforcement, and accept that we all have to exercise responsibility. My final question is this. The Secretary of State rightly acknowledges that the number of instances of antisemitism is rising, not only in schools but in universities, so will she commit today to repeating this exercise for universities?
Lucy Powell
I thank the right hon. Lady for what she has said, for discussing these issues with me yesterday, and for her contribution to the review; I know that she spent time speaking to Sir David, which he really valued. As she has said and as I have said, this is an issue that we should address collectively, with one voice and as one House. I think we all agree that we do not want to hear any testimonies such as those to which she has just referred, although she was right to do so.
I will pick up on a couple of the right hon. Lady’s points. Enforcement and data collection and measurement will all be absolutely critical to ensuring both implementation and, more importantly, change. In a year’s time, I hope I am able to come back to the House and say that the situation has improved. That is why we are updating the teacher standards, and why we are including in the safeguarding framework the obligation to have regard to antisemitism. She will know that safeguarding is a key issue that Ofsted looks into and inspects. We are updating and boosting the requirement to report, because when things are reported, action can follow. If we need to go further, we will, but today we have set out, in response to Sir David’s review, a number of ways in which these things will be measured and enforced.
Sir David looked into the issue of trade unions in his review, and he was clear in his report. I asked him to do the review, and I fully take what he found in that. He is clear that he does not believe that any education union is inherently antisemitic, and he is also clear that the education unions should have robust policies and processes in place to tackle these issues, and to ensure that members are sufficiently trained. I have discussed these matters with the education unions, and I know that they are keen to put things right.
In the spirit of coming together on this issue, I gently say to the right hon. Lady that the fear of reprisal, and of media or political attention, when it comes to being politically impartial—we have heard this testimony time and again—has led to many school leaders and teachers fearing to tackle these issues head-on. They do not want to go into debates on the subject when they hear some of the age-old tropes in the classroom, for fear of reprisals, or of not being supported. Sir David’s review is very clear that schools and colleges absolutely should be places where issues can be debated, challenged, discussed and brought to life. We have to get the balance right. If anything, I would say that things have moved too far in the other direction. The fears about not being politically impartial is hampering our teachers and school leaders, preventing them from doing what they need to do.
I am glad that the right hon. Lady mentioned the Green party; I see the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) in her seat. We Labour Members are absolutely clear that the motion passed by the Green party is wrong—it is antisemitic. The Green party leadership has a much deeper responsibility here, because it has such reach with young people. The motion is being repeated in campuses, councils and colleges, and that is causing widespread fear. It has resulted in ever increasing antisemitism since the report was published. I ask the Green party to consider these issues very carefully.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and I thank Sir David Bell for his work on this important review. I pay tribute to him for the thoughtful approach that he has taken, and thank him for taking the time to meet me during the review, which gave us the opportunity to discuss a disgraceful antisemitic attack on a child in my constituency that occurred in recent months—an abhorrent and devastating incident, the like of which should simply never happen.
The review highlights the important role of schools and colleges in tackling antisemitism, and in helping children and young people to navigate difficult, complex and challenging issues. This is ever more important in the age of social media, and in the context of extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. How will the Secretary of State ensure that teachers have the capacity and skills to rise to the scale of this challenge, and to meet their obligations on political impartiality, while helping our children and young people to navigate the serious and complex challenges in our society? We must ensure that education plays the fullest possible role in stamping out antisemitism, fostering community cohesion and creating the engaged, thoughtful and responsible citizens we all want to see.
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for her leadership, and for the work that she continues to do as Chair of the Education Committee. I know of the incident involving her constituent, which we have discussed a couple of times, and I was as horrified as she was to hear of it. I hope that the students and schools involved in that incident are listening today and understand that they should have gone further. They can still go further in challenging what happened to her young constituent, and take action.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we must support teachers and school and college leaders in developing capacity, skills and confidence, so that they feel supported in challenging these behaviours and creating an environment where this can be discussed. It is absolutely critical that students understand that certain ideas are wrong, and what it means when they are expressed. As she knows, we are in the middle of updating the curriculum. A new citizenship curriculum is coming on stream in primary and secondary schools, and we will ensure this issue is included. We will also update teacher training, as well as doing all the other things that I have announced today, that were in the report.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her very welcome statement, and Sir David Bell for all his work on the review. Importantly, I thank all those who bravely shared their experiences with Sir David.
Antisemitism has no place in our society, and we Liberal Democrats reaffirm our commitment to rooting out this evil in all its forms. We welcome and accept all the recommendations in the Bell review, some of which we have been calling for, and we are committed to working with the Government to support its implementation. As set out in the report, the scale of the challenge is alarming. Just last month, a teenage boy was attacked at Belsize Park tube station on his way home from Hasmonean high school, a Jewish school in north London. It is being treated as a hate crime.
When I met children and young people who attend Richmond synagogue, they told me about their horrendous experiences of bullying, both physical and verbal, at school and university. Most of them are having to hide their faith. No one in this country should have to hide their faith. Our schools and colleges should be safe and welcoming places to learn where every child feels they belong, not places of fear.
I thank the Community Security Trust for its tireless work protecting the Jewish community. Although extra support for security at Jewish schools is welcome, my Jewish constituents tell me that they do not want ever higher walls built around them. I particularly welcome recommendation 17, on support for discussion of sensitive topics. Some of my young constituents have told me that they were not allowed to discuss events in the middle east at school. We know that shutting down debate in what should be a safe space only pushes it into darker spaces.
My main question for the Secretary of State today is whether she will provide any extra funding to help schools, colleges and local authorities in implementing the recommendations, or whether they will have to rely on existing budgets. As she said, this generational challenge belongs to all of us, Jewish or not. All the individual recommendations are important but, crucially, we need a culture change across our society, and that starts with education.
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for her powerful contribution. She is absolutely right to suggest that antisemitism has got worse, not better, since David Bell began his review a few months ago. We have all seen and heard of the horrors that have been reported, but many unreported incidents are happening across the country, and education settings reflect that. As I said earlier, there is a particularly shocking rise in antisemitic views among our young people, and such views are distinct from other forms of racism that are sometimes expressed by different generations. That is why this needs to be tackled as a generational issue for all of us, and for every single school and college, not just those that represent Jewish communities. She is right in what she says about those attending Jewish schools and colleges, and I hear the same testimonies as she does about having to hide one’s faith and hide one’s identity.
We are taking forward a plan of action with the British Transport police, so that buses and other forms of travel to and from school can be made safer. There will be funding attached to what I have outlined. I will ensure that schools and colleges have the funding they need to do the jobs we need them to do. However, I think this is really about leadership at the moment, and ensuring that schools do feel that they can address these issues and are confident that they will be supported. There are often counter-protests and reprisals when action is taken, which is why I want every school and college leader to know that I will back them. I will back them on having debates in their schools, and I will back them in any action they need to take.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I welcome this important report. I am a Zionist, for Zionism is the belief that Jewish people have a right to self-determination in their ancient homeland—nothing more, nothing less. Let us teach that to our children. Our Government have rightly recognised the state of Palestine, and it too must have a sustainable and secure future. However, does the Secretary of State agree with me that we must refute other spurious definitions of Zionism fabricated for political purposes? Let us teach that to our children, too.
Lucy Powell
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s words. Zionism is not racism, which is why the motion passed by the Green party is so wholly wrong and is antisemitic, and I want people to hear that loudly and clearly. The IHRA definition of antisemitism is clear that denying Jewish people the right to self-determination is antisemitic, which is why it is really important that schools adopt it. I thank him for that contribution.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I cannot disagree with anything she has said or with the clear passion with which she said that the Government wish to tackle antisemitism in this country. However, I put it to her and to the House that the scale of the emergency that we are facing is absolutely alarming. I speak to Jewish constituents who are living in fear, and they have reported to me that they are removing all visual identifiers of their Jewish faith. The Secretary of State opened her statement with the statistic that almost three in five Jewish young people and half of Jewish teachers have experienced or witnessed antisemitism. That requires a hyper-urgent response.
Although I appreciate the Secretary of State’s undertaking to report back in a year’s time, can she give greater confidence that there will be month-by-month, or even week-by-week, tracking of the way these actions and recommendations are actually implemented, to give British Jewish communities the faith that the urgency is absolutely there, and so that we do not potentially find ourselves, in a year’s time, wishing that we had done more?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Member for that question, and he is absolutely right about the scale and the urgency. How this exists everywhere in every part of society is absolutely shocking and something we must all really take hold of. That is why I have fully ensured that I, as Education Secretary, am the one leading on this in my Department. We have had cross-Government meetings and action taskforces on antisemitism across a range of issues, and he will be aware that a number of other reviews are happening of other aspects of public services.
There are really important recommendations in this report, and we accept them all and will implement them all, but this is bigger than one report or one set of recommendations and their implementation. We must have a big national conversation about what contemporary antisemitism looks like, where it is appearing and why it is appearing, and we must be calling it out and explaining to the next generation what goes wrong in a country and a society when we fail to do that. That is a job for every single one of us, not just me.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I thank Sir David Bell for his report, which is as depressing as it is unsurprising. Its finding is that antisemitism in our schools is on the rise, but we know it is rising not just in our schools, but across societies and across the world. What is perhaps most depressing is that it suggests that, if we do not take forward the recommendations, antisemitism will be embedded for generations.
As the UK’s special envoy for post-Holocaust issues, I particularly welcome the recommendations on Holocaust education and on the adoption of the IHRA definition. I would like to say that it is a working definition of antisemitism. It cannot just be put on a shelf; it needs to be used. And in order for it to be effective there needs to be training for all those in our schools who are using it. Will the Secretary of State commit to supporting schools to make sure that training is provided?
Lucy Powell
First, I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done on these issues over many years and for the role he is currently playing on the board of the IHRA. I am glad that he welcomes the updating and enhancing of Holocaust education, and we will be working with the Holocaust Education Trust. Its chief executive sits on the implementation taskforce, and I know she will be doughty in ensuring that we do that very well. He is absolutely right that the IHRA definition is a working definition. It is a practical guide, but it comes to life only when it is taught, when it is implemented and when people use it as an everyday tool to navigate the issues they may be facing in their school or college.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on what, in my opinion, is the best statement I have heard from any Government Minister on any subject since the last general election. It has rightly brought forth supportive comments from both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers and from Back Benchers.
I have an interest in the question of impartiality in schools. It is rather disconcerting to realise that 40 years ago, in May 1986, I was working with a group of peers, led by Caroline Cox—Baroness Cox—and the late professor Lord Beloff, to amend the 1986 Education Bill. Two provisions put forward in that Bill were carried forward as sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996. Section 406 bans political indoctrination in schools, and section 407 lays down that, when politically contentious subjects are discussed in schools, they must be presented in a balanced and appropriate way, with opposing views fairly discussed. May I suggest that the Secretary of State, when she writes to all schools, should include, as an annexe, a single page setting out the provisions of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Act, because they are as germane today as they were when first formulated for the previous Act 40 years ago?
Lucy Powell
As ever, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for all the work he has done on this issue over many years. I must say that I find it hard to believe that he has done so for over 40 years; it cannot possibly be so long. He makes a really important point, and I will certainly look at those sections. His history of the Education Acts is better than mine, but I will look at including those sections as an annexe because he is absolutely right.
When people go into teaching and become school and college leaders, they absolutely know they have to leave their own political views at the door and they want to educate the next generation on all these issues. We have to regain the confidence in schools and classrooms to have debate, to disagree amicably and respectfully, and to hear each other’s opinions in a balanced way. That is what I want all our schools to feel able to do. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for amending that Bill. I know he will continue to amend Bills in times to come. I will look at those annexes and include them in my letter.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Antisemitism has swept across the UK and I am so sorry to see the report confirm what I think we already knew, which is that schools are yet another battleground against the world’s oldest hatred. That is why I commend the Government for their swift acceptance of all the recommendations set out in Sir David Bell’s review, as well as the Secretary of State’s excellent answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) on anti-Zionist antisemitism and why it should be condemned. On one particular recommendation, treating antisemitism in schools as a safeguarding issue will create an explicit duty on all schools to address it as they would a threat to any other child’s safety. How will the Government support schools to enact that duty and how will they ensure they are accountable for delivering it?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution and for agreeing with the findings of the report. Absolutely, Sir David has recommended the safeguarding as an explicit duty and we have accepted that completely. Making safeguarding a statutory issue is a way we can ensure that it is reported, measured and understood, and that there is then explicit training on it for teachers and staff. All the resources, materials and training to implement the report will be available for our schools and colleges within the year.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Joining my local Jewish community to celebrate Sukkot in Berkhamsted and seeing how the children were joyously celebrating was heartwarming, but then seeing how they have to have security there to stay safe is heartbreaking and hearing how they have to hide their faith is absolutely devastating. Sir David Bell’s survey revealed that many students believe reported antisemitic incidents will not be addressed. What steps will the Secretary of State take to rebuild student trust, and how will she improve the reporting system so that it leads to proper accountability?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for another testimony from students who feel they have to hide their faith. Indeed, we heard many accounts in the review of teachers doing the same in their schools and colleges. That is why we are accepting all the recommendations, we want to put this issue centre stage, and we are having this important debate and showing cross-party resolve to see schools and colleges take action. But we also want society as a whole debating, discussing and understanding the difference between maybe some of their political views and what then can quickly become antisemitism.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for accepting all the review’s recommendations. Antisemitism and all forms of prejudice and racism undermine public order and safety, and they need to be challenged wherever they appear. I am currently working with a community leader, Joe Burchell from our local synagogue in my constituency, to campaign to reintroduce faith officers to local police forces. Does the Secretary of State agree that faith officers could help to counter hate in our schools? Will she agree to look into this and to work with her Home Office colleagues?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and for all the work she is doing in her community with Joe Burchell and others. There are, obviously, big questions for all our public services. This is something that every single one of my colleagues around the Cabinet table takes incredibly seriously. I will certainly pass on to my counterpart her suggestion for faith officers in the police.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I commend the right hon. Lady for her statement. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) that it is a remarkable statement and I commend Sir David Bell’s review. I also commend the response by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) from the Opposition Dispatch Box.
In 2004, I was asked, with others, by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to carry out a review of antisemitism in the UK. What we discovered then was an appalling rise, even though it had not been figured out prior to that, and we made our recommendation. The problem is that each generation seems to have to keep on looking at this issue and making recommendations, yet it erupts again. The Green party’s terrible conference motion is a part of that problem: isolate them, blame them, attack them, ban them. I suggest that the Government put into every school, where teachers are reluctant to engage, Pastor Niemöller’s poem. The critical lines are:
“First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out –
because I was not a Jew…
Then they came for me”.
Lucy Powell
As ever, the right hon. Gentleman makes a profound point and he is absolutely right to do so. I remember his review from 2004. It was important then and he is right that every generation needs to learn, relearn and keep on learning to ensure the next generation are taught the horrors of antisemitism. With every generation that passes, the horrors of the Holocaust get further and further away in the rear-view mirror. That is why we need to update that learning. We need to ensure that Holocaust education remains on the national curriculum, but that it is updated for the modern era. His words are really powerful. I am sure like many colleagues in this House, I went on the Auschwitz visit with the Holocaust Educational Trust a few years ago with school students from Manchester. The profound learning from visiting Auschwitz is that many, many, many good people turned a blind eye to what they knew was happening, which is how the murder of so many Jews, on an industrial scale, was allowed to take place. Many good people turned a blind eye. We are not going to be that generation of good people, I can reassure him of that.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
Sir David Bell’s review lays bare the extent of antisemitism within our education system. The Government are funding a partnership between the Archdiocese of Birmingham and the Board of Deputies to help pupils recognise and challenge antisemitism, including conspiracy theories spread through online gaming. Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing its results and explain how successful approaches will reach every school in Birmingham, including in the constituency of Edgbaston?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for what sounds like incredibly important inter-faith work in Birmingham. She is absolutely right: modern, contemporary forms of antisemitism—the conspiracy theories she talked about—which are now, I am afraid, rife online, appear in gaming and on other social media. They are, therefore, in children’s bedrooms, living rooms and other rooms where their screens are. That is why we need to ensure that every school in Birmingham and across the country is well-trained and well-versed, and is adopting the recommendations we are setting out.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I really welcome Sir David’s review and the Secretary of State’s response. Antisemitism is an ancient poison. It is why my nan had to flee Germany to come to this country in the late 1930s and it is, as the Secretary of State said, the responsibility of all of us to tackle it. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I am in my 20th year of being a primary school governor. The review and the recommendations talk about the role of school leadership, but I noted that the Secretary of State did not mention school governors. I wonder if she could say how she sees the role of governors in tackling this issue? I welcome her earlier assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) that money will be made available. Will she confirm if that is new, new money, or if it is money that has already been allocated to our schools, or already allocated to tackling antisemitism?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for sharing her family history. It is really important that we do keep sharing those stories as well, and I thank her for being a governor of what I am sure is an excellent school in Hazel Grove, as there are many excellent schools in Hazel Grove. She raises a good point about governors, and I will take that on board and ensure that training and other resources are available to governors as well. What we are talking about is new funding, as well as new resources for training, suggested classroom resources and so on. That will be available, and I hope schools will feel fully supported in taking this forward.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I pay tribute to Sir David Bell for his review into antisemitism in schools and colleges. Unfortunately, Bournemouth has recently seen antisemitic incidents, and I want my constituents to know that I stand against that every single time, and we must root out that ancient evil in Bournemouth. I also want to ask about what the Government will do to encourage positive engagements with Jewish cultural experiences. The Russell-Cotes gallery and museum in Bournemouth is about to open a new exhibition about Jewish Bournemouth called “waves of change”. My right hon. Friend is of course very welcome to come and visit; equally another Minister from the Department for Education is very welcome to come and see the exhibition. What more would she like to see happen to encourage positive engagement with Jewish cultural experiences?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and once again put on record my thanks to Sir David Bell and his team for the way in which they conducted themselves, not just for the outcome of their review. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: positive engagement, cultural experiences and cultural exchange are absolutely critical to our fostering an environment of acceptance, tolerance, respect and understanding. It sounds like the exhibition at the Bournemouth gallery is one such event, and we will be supporting with extra funding schools to take part in more of these cultural experiences.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I have no Jewish schools in my constituency of Surrey Heath, nor any formally constituted places of Jewish worship, but I do have a proud and active Jewish community and am also the father of two children. As the father of two teenagers, I am deeply concerned about their exposure to deeply problematic mis and disinformation that exists online, including conspiracy theories. So I wonder whether the Secretary of State can, in pursuance of recommendations 4 and 12b, say a little bit more, because these are complex recommendations. They talk about staff being informed about the
“nature and risks of harmful antisemitic content”,
when we do not really, even as a society, fully understand the nature and scope of that antisemitic content, because it can be explicit, but it also can be insipid and implicit. Recommendation 12b mentions embedding
“high-quality teaching on media literacy…to recognise and confront harmful online content”.
These are difficult, very challenging things for any teacher to do. In supporting those teachers, will the Secretary of State say more about how this set of recommendations dovetails with this Government’s broader interest in tackling mis and disinformation online, because in truth we need a whole-of-society approach to tackle this scourge?
Lucy Powell
That is an excellent question and it raises a very good point. The hon. Gentleman talks about being a father. As a mother, I too have had to have these conversations at home and it is important that we do. That was in part why I wanted to be absolutely explicit and clear—as we all need to be—in my opening statement about how antisemitism is revealing itself in modern times. But the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: this is hard; it is not easy for anybody.
I have great faith in our teaching workforce. We have some of the best teachers in the world in our schools, but we will be working with experts and the teaching profession to design a lot of the resources and the guidance and advice that we need. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in addition to what I am announcing today we are on the cusp of our big curriculum review, and at the heart of that review will be media and digital literacy and equipping our young people with the ability to discern dis and misinformation and to ask the right questions and to understand where information is coming from and therefore what it might mean.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and Sir David Bell for his report. As a former teacher, I welcome the training being provided to teachers so that they have the skills and the toolkit to challenge this stain on our society. For once, I agree with many of the things said by the shadow Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott); anecdotally, I was so good at being politically neutral in school that a year 11 girl once accused me of being a Tory, so that is possible. It is right that school often acts as a mirror to things we see in the wider society, and that is something which the Harlow Jewish community is very concerned about—I had a conversation with a local rabbi about this at the weekend. What will the Secretary of State, working with Cabinet colleagues, do to tackle antisemitism, online and in wider society?
Lucy Powell
Well, that must have been some politically impartial class, and I thank my hon. Friend for allowing us to end this statement on that note, sending a very important signal to the country, and to our teaching workforce as well, that this is something we stand together on, shoulder to shoulder, resolutely as one Parliament, as one country, as one Government.
It might be helpful if I remind colleagues of one thing that was exposed in Sir David Bell’s review: in a survey of secondary school teachers who teach about the Holocaust, 40% reported encountering antisemitism coming into those classes among their students. This really is an issue that we all have to take forward, and I thank every single colleague here today for their contributions.
Multi-Academy Trusts (Governance)
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about financial transparency, expenditure approval limits and governance of multi-academy trusts; and for connected purposes.
When parents up and down the country think about their children’s education, and their worries and hopes for school, “multi-academy trust governance” will probably not be the phrase foremost in many of their minds, but families across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages know that when governance goes wrong, it is pupils and teachers who pay the price. That is what this Bill seeks to address.
Before I was elected to Parliament, I taught for almost a decade across the west midlands before working for the NASUWT, one of our teaching unions, but I really did not expect this Bill to be the first that I presented to the House—until that is, at the start of this year, when I became aware of just how bad things were at Arthur Terry Learning Partnership.
ATLP is a multi-academy trust running 24 schools across the west midlands, including six in my constituency. It was established in 2011, shortly after the Conservative-led Government passed legislation to significantly increase the rate at which council-run schools could be turned into academies. In recent years, the trust grew rapidly, almost doubling in size since 2010. Then things started to go very, very badly wrong. In 2024, the Department for Education was forced to give the trust an emergency loan to help it bail out a £4 million deficit, but ATLP insisted it was fixing its finances. Scarcely a year later, its deficit had ballooned to £8 million. The trust leadership blamed an accounting error. The idea that £8 million had gone missing because of a mistake was hardly reassuring to me or any of my constituents, and many of us were somewhat sceptical.
In 2022, ATLP announced that it would acquire 11,000 iPads—one for every pupil across its 24 schools. Exactly how had it paid for 11,000 iPads? I put those questions to ATLP’s leadership over and over again in meetings, alongside my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) and for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards). We never got a straight answer, and the way that ATLP displayed its financial data—particularly graphs that it was using—really seemed to be designed to hide and obfuscate, rather than explain where the trust’s finances were. Believe me, as a former physics teacher, I am more than comfortable with a graph, and it was clear that these were not quite right.
Last autumn, things got much worse. After taking yet another Government loan, the trust needed to cut costs to get its finances on track. Its leadership decided that teachers and support staff would be the people who paid the price. As many as 100 jobs were put at risk of redundancy across the 24 schools. As much as I know that teachers hate going on strike, in that case, ATLP staff at the National Education Union felt that they had no choice, and the risk of redundancy led to nine days of strike action in a number of the trust’s schools. Nobody across any part of the constituency or the communities affected wanted to see iPads prioritised over teachers, teaching assistants and school support staff. Families were right behind the teachers standing up.
Closer scrutiny of ATLP’s accounts at that time showed that the iPads were a symptom of a deeper problem. Most comparable trusts asked schools to pay about 5% of their budget into a pot for centrally procured services. It is often called a top slice—in some schools, there is a slightly different system known as general annual grant pooling. ATLP was asking its schools to fork out eye-watering sums—as much as 25% of their budgets—for these services. At the same time, it was preserving well-paid roles in head office while teachers and teaching assistants were at risk of losing their jobs.
By February, things had unravelled. After those nine days of strike action, ATLP’s chief financial officer and chief executive had both resigned. An interim leader, with experience helping failing trusts, was brought in, swiftly changing tack on teaching cuts and instead slashing the iPad policy and cutting down the head office. Following that, there were no compulsory redundancies at Arthur Terry Learning Partnership at the end of last year, bringing the figure down to zero. The scale of Arthur Terry Learning Partnership’s failings finally became clear: the trust had spent its reserves on iPads—one of a number of financial missteps that had bankrupted it.
In May, after many discussions with me and my colleagues, the Department for Education announced the break-up of Arthur Terry Learning Partnershiop—one of the biggest trust closures our country has seen. Throughout the process, the stress for pupils, parents, teachers and the community across my area has been serious. Families have feared for the future of ATLP schools, worried that great teachers would leave during this time of uncertainty and upheaval. I thank the amazing staff and school leaders at Arthur Terry schools, and I am pleased that we now have a clear plan for those schools to move to other local trusts, where they can thrive and get the support they deserve.
What unfolded at Arthur Terry was unacceptable, and it cannot be allowed to happen at trusts in other parts of the country, but, unfortunately, that is precisely the risk we face. There are not enough financial safeguards in the Academies Act 2010—there are not enough guardrails to stop this happening again. Earlier this year, the Department for Education found “serious” financial issues at SAND Academies Trust in Gloucestershire. The trust’s explanation, blaming “accounting errors”, will be eerily familiar to far too many of my constituents. The boss of St Ralph Sherwin Catholic Multi Academy Trust, based up the road in Derby, quit in June, after the trust accrued an even bigger deficit: over £9 million.
Those are just some examples. There are further example of other trusts that go beyond finances. Analysis by Schools Week found that most trusts put in special financial measures by the Department for Education end up sliding further into the red. Make no mistake, this is a national issue. I have been campaigning for a change in the law to ensure that there are stronger rules on multi-academy trust governance, so that no area has to go through what mine did.
Half of all schools in England are now part of a multi-academy trusts like Arthur Terry, yet research by Parentkind—the national charity for parents—shows that fewer than one in five parents feel that their trust listens to them. I think many parents are shocked by the lack of oversight of trusts; many families in my area certainly asked me at public meetings why the local council could not step in and take the schools back on, particularly when things had gone so wrong at ATLP. The National Governance Association says that that is replicated up and down the country; parents understandably assume that councils still play a significant role in school oversight, when in reality, for academy trust schools, they simply do not.
When the Conservatives aggressively expanded academisation, they said it would drive up standards. What they failed to recognise is that when school leadership fails, pupils suffer, and the Conservative Government failed to put in the adequate safeguards. It is shocking that it took until this Labour Government in 2026—more than 15 years after the Academies Act—for inspections of trusts to be introduced. For almost a decade and a half, the Conservatives presided over a system where Ofsted had no powers to inspect the trusts that ran the schools. In my area, we have seen the problems that that failure of oversight has led to.
We must now go further. Since the break-up of ATLP was announced, I have been consulting experts across the education sector, including: teachers’ unions, such as the NEU, NASUWT and Community; unions representing school staff, including Unite and GMB; the Association of School and College Leaders; the National Association of Headteachers; the Local Government Association; the National Governance Association; the Confederation of School Trusts; and Parentkind. My hon. Friends and I have written to multi-academy trusts to seek their views, and, crucially, I have been working with parents, carers and teachers across my constituency who have first-hand experience, as well as running a survey and holding a townhall meeting earlier this month. I thank everybody who has given their time to this. Together, we have crafted a Bill that makes practical proposals that would put the proper safeguards in place.
The Bill starts with a financial transparency section. Parents need to know if trusts are skimming off sums that could be spent in classrooms, or if their reserves are running low—and they should not have to pore over accounts like a forensic accountant to find out. The Bill would mandate that trusts publish details of the money they are taking from school budgets, and, if they pool and redistribute that, how they are doing so. They would need to include how they plan to spend reserves on their website and the website of every school they run. They would also have to publish details of the reserves they hold in the same place. If trusts cannot explain their decisions to parents, it is a warning sign.
We need stronger oversight, too. Our experience with iPads at ATLP has shown that one big mistake can cost pupils. The Bill would make such purchases subject to additional sign-off. If trusts cannot justify the cost on an education basis, it should not be able to happen. We also need better scrutiny at board level; governors should have better skills to ask those questions. The Bill would compel the Secretary of State to draft statutory guidance to make local governing boards mandatory for trusts and set out the competency that trust boards should have, with specific guidance for chairs of finance committees.
There is more to say, but I am aware of the time, so let me close by saying that the Bill has been a community effort, and it exists to help ensure that no other community goes through what families at Arthur Terry Learning Partnership schools did. Its provisions would build on the Government’s work in strengthening multi-academy accountability. We know the problems, we can see the solutions, and now we need to grasp them.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Dave Robertson, Sarah Edwards, Paulette Hamilton, Rachel Taylor, Taiwo Owatemi, Jacob Collier, Jonathan Davies, Josh Fenton-Glynn, Leigh Ingham Jon Pearce, and Mark Sewards present the Bill.
Dave Robertson accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 164).
Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill: Allocation of Time
Wednesday 21st October 2026
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill 2026-27 View all Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text
Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill
Wednesday 21st October 2026
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill 2026-27 View all Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Ms Cummins. I have a question about the possible hybridity of this Bill. A hybrid Bill is when a Government Bill—a public Bill—is used to affect only one person. As we see in paragraph 13 of the explanatory notes,
“The Prime Minister professes the Roman Catholic faith. He is therefore prevented from fulfilling his constitutional role”—
exactly. The Bill is therefore specifically referring to one person.
I know that in answer, Madam Deputy Speaker, you might say that this will also benefit Catholics and Jews in the future, but we have to deal with the situation as we find it now. We cannot deal with hypothetical issues. It is rather as if we had a Bill to address a condition that has affected only one person in the past 500 years. Of course, we have not had a Catholic Prime Minister for 500 years. Indeed, there was not a Prime Minister who was Catholic 500 years ago; there was not even a Prime Minister 500 years ago. The chance is therefore vanishingly small that in the immediate future, this Bill will be activated.
Of course, I never try to cause trouble, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am not asking for an answer now, but I think it is a moot point that you might ask your Clerks to investigate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and he can have his answer now. The Bill removes a disqualification from two categories of persons as set out in clause 1. The number of people who currently fall into those categories for the purposes of the Bill is not relevant to the test of hybridity. I am sure that the Clerk of Legislation will be happy to discuss the matter further with the right hon. Gentleman.
I call the Minister.
The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to open today’s debate on this straightforward yet important piece of legislation, which I hope will command broad support across the House. The purpose of this Bill is to remove historical legal barriers that prevent a Prime Minister who professes either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faith from advising the sovereign on Church appointments or a Minister from making appointments in their own right.
For the benefit of the House, it may be helpful to briefly set out the constitutional and historical context. Since the formal establishment of the Church of England in the 16th century, archbishops and bishops have been appointed by the sovereign as Supreme Governor. Over time, they came to do so on the advice of Ministers, and now the Prime Minister, as the sovereign’s principal adviser, provides advice on these and other Church appointments that the sovereign makes. In practice, the Prime Minister does not choose between candidates, but rather provides formal advice on candidates following a selection process. Separately, certain Ministers—for instance, the Lord Chancellor—have, by virtue of their office, rights to act as a patron in parish-level Church appointments directly without the involvement of the sovereign. Again, this is following a selection process.
To understand why these restrictions remain on our statute book today, it is helpful to look briefly at the 19th century, when Parliament passed the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858. After the reformation, many people believed that religious unity under the Church of England and Church of Scotland was essential to maintain the peace. Gradual progress was then made to remove restrictions on worship outside of the established Churches and expand the role of non-Anglicans in political life.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. It was the great Daniel O’Connell—elected Member of Parliament for County Clare in Ireland in 1828 but unable to take up his seat because he would not swear the Oath of Supremacy—who famously achieved Catholic emancipation through that 1829 Catholic relief Act. O’Connell was known as “The Liberator”, and Gladstone called him
“the greatest popular leader whom the world has ever seen”,
and yet to this day, there is no statue or portrait to O’Connell in this House. Does the Minister agree that today, 197 years on, the legacy of Daniel O’Connell, the Liberator, will finally be complete with full equality in elected office for both Catholics and Jews?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend makes a powerful intervention. She is right that the effect of this Bill will be to remove the last remaining discriminations against Catholics and Jews on the statute book. It is a historic moment, and I am very glad of it.
Sir Edward Leigh
Surely it will remain on the statute book that a member of the royal family cannot marry a Roman Catholic and inherit the Crown?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) was making a point about the active role of Roman Catholics in public life, including in this place. I suspect that the Father of the House and I are not going to agree totally on this Bill, but as constituency neighbours I want to say that he does, as a professing Catholic, play a very active role both in this House and elsewhere. This Bill would take all force away from the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and mean that none of its provisions have any force. That is slightly different from the question of the line of succession. For the purposes of this House and normal political activity in this country, the Bill will remove all restrictions.
Deirdre Costigan
Would the Minister agree that this Bill is about removing discrimination in elected office and not about inherited office?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is pithier than I am. Yes, this is about elected office. I will make a little progress, if right hon. and hon. Members do not mind.
Let me take you back to the reformation, Madam Deputy Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall said, until the mid-19th century, there were considerably more restrictions on Catholics and Jews, including an effective prohibition on becoming a Member of Parliament. The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 removed many but not all of these legal barriers to Roman Catholic and Jewish participation in public life. This included permitting people of those faiths to become MPs and to serve in various civil and military offices, but the legislation retained certain exceptions, which this Bill seeks to address.
Under section 18 of the 1829 Act and section 4 of the 1858 Act, individuals professing the Catholic or Jewish faiths are restricted from giving advice to the sovereign in relation to Church appointments. The penalty for breaching these restrictions is being prevented from holding a civil or military office under the Crown, which includes serving as Prime Minister.
Until now there has never been a Prime Minister professing either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faith while in office. Following the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) as Prime Minister in July, these 19th-century legal restrictions are now having a practical effect for the first time. To ensure that Church appointments can continue smoothly, the Prime Minister has temporarily transferred his responsibilities for advising the sovereign on Church appointments to the Lord Chancellor. But it would not be right to continue these arrangements indefinitely. I am sure that the whole House will agree with me that, in the 21st century, one’s faith should not be a barrier to carrying out any of the duties of high office.
Removing these restrictions from the statute book is the right thing to do. Moreover, it is important to uphold one of our core constitutional principles that the Prime Minister is the sovereign’s principal adviser and should be able to advise on Church appointments just like his predecessors.
This Bill resolves a live, practical issue and removes an outdated restriction that has no place in our modern parliamentary democracy. With hon. Members’ support, I hope that it will not detain the House for long.
I understand that some Members might raise questions about why non-Anglican Prime Ministers or Ministers should be able to advise the sovereign on appointments to a Church whose faith or denomination they do not share. However, the Government firmly reject that view. The legal restrictions that we are seeking to repeal only apply to individuals professing the Roman Catholic or Jewish faiths. They do not apply to people of other faiths, other Christian denominations or no faith at all. That is why former Prime Ministers Rishi Sunak, a professed Hindu, and Sir Keir Starmer, a professed atheist, as well as many other non-Anglican Prime Ministers in the 20th century were able to advise the sovereign on Church appointments without risking disbarment from office.
While the Church of England is the established Church, one of our country’s great strengths is that it is made up of people of different faiths and backgrounds, who should all enjoy equal treatment under our laws. To suggest that a Minister must personally share the faith of the established Church in order to convey its advice would be to misunderstand the constitutional role of the Crown’s principal adviser.
As a modern parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy, the King is the Head of State and acts on the advice of his Ministers, who are accountable to the electorate and to this place. It is therefore right that the Prime Minister, regardless of his religious beliefs, is able to advise the King on Church appointments.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
I support the principle of the Bill and obviously will not oppose it. May I ask the Minister to unpack the point he just made about the role of the Prime Minister in conveying the advice of the Church on appointments? That is exactly how it works at the moment. As the Minister said, the Prime Minister is the principal adviser to the sovereign, and ultimately it is the sovereign who has authority to make episcopal appointments. Does he agree that the Prime Minister has a function to play in the advice given to the sovereign, or does he think this is purely a procedural matter in which the Prime Minister is simply transmitting advice that he receives from the Church hierarchy?
Mr Falconer
The point I was seeking to cover is that it is an important constitutional principle that the Prime Minister is the principal adviser to the sovereign, including in his role as the head of the established Church. Clearly, in practice—I think this is well known to the House—the Prime Minister does not take an active role in selecting members of the clergy, but that does not mean that it is wise to continue with this discrimination, in particular against Catholics and Jews.
Clause 1 makes provision to repeal sections 17 and 18 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and to repeal the Jews Relief Act 1858 in its entirety, lifting all statutory restrictions on Ministers advising on or making Church appointments. Crucially, the Bill treats and removes restrictions on Roman Catholic and Jewish individuals in exactly the same way, ensuring complete parity and equal treatment between both faiths.
The clause also removes outdated restrictions on making Church appointments, referring to rights of patronage such as those held by the Lord Chancellor to directly nominate vicars to parish benefices. While those provisions have been partially repealed and are generally no longer of any practical effect, completely repealing them removes any lingering legal uncertainty.
Clause 2 sets out the UK-wide territorial extent and provides for commencement immediately on Royal Assent.
Members may recall that last year we passed a similar piece of legislation: the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Act 2025. The Government’s approach is both principled and pragmatic. We address archaic, centuries-old statutory restrictions such as these as and when they have a live practical impact on public life. Last year, we acted to facilitate the historic appointment of Lady Angiolini—a practising Catholic—to the office of Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. We are bringing forward this Bill now because these 19th-century provisions are having an impact on ministerial advice for the first time.
No doubt, there may be questions about whether we will need a third Bill to address further historical religious restrictions. Let me reassure hon. Members that, with the passage of this Bill, the job is complete. Following this legislation, I assure the House that there will be no remaining religious restrictions affecting Ministers and other individuals appointed by the Crown, and we are confident that no further such action will ever be required.
There we are: a short, simple and straightforward Bill. While it will take up only a few lines of our statute book, this legislation corrects an archaic historical wrong and ensures that our constitutional arrangements reflect a modern, equal society where no Prime Minister, regardless of his religious beliefs, is restricted from being able to advise the sovereign. I hope that the Bill will receive support from all sides. In that spirit, I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Divisions.
On the draft Railways (Interoperability in Northern Ireland) (Convention on International Carriage by Rail) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 345 and the Noes were 108, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Code of Practice on Access and Unfair Practices During the Recognition and Derecognition Process, the Ayes were 295 and the Noes were 111, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 345 and the Noes were 108, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
Before we move on, just a note to the Minister: I am sure that he meant to refer to the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton. I call the shadow Minister.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Let me be clear from the outset that His Majesty’s official Opposition welcome the Government’s recognition that this anomaly needs correcting, and we will not oppose the Bill. We fully support the principle that no Prime Minister should be legally prevented from discharging all their constitutional duties because of their faith.
The restrictions in the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 are, as the Minister said, plainly outdated and have no place in a modern democratic society. The idea that someone should be prevented from exercising the full responsibilities of the office of Prime Minister simply because of their religious belief is clearly not fit for the 21st century. Indeed, it is remarkable that almost two centuries after those Acts were passed, provisions remain on our statute book that distinguish between those who are permitted to advise the sovereign on Church appointments and those who are not, purely on the grounds of their faith.
When one looks at the provisions that the Bill repeals, both their severity and their inconsistency are striking. The law as it stands prevents persons of the Roman Catholic and Jewish faiths from being involved, directly or indirectly, in advising the Crown on appointments in the Church of England or the Church of Scotland. Moreover, the punishments written into those laws are severe. Under the Roman Catholic Relief Act, a Catholic advising the sovereign on a Church appointment is
“deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and disabled for ever from holding any office, civil or military, under the Crown.”
The Jews Relief Act contains a similar threat.
As the existing laws discriminate against Jewish people and Roman Catholics only, they have created the glaring inconsistency that the Minister referred to: my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), the former Prime Minister, a practising Hindu, and his successor Keir Starmer, an atheist, were not legally prevented from advising on Church of England appointments, as the current Prime Minister, who is a Catholic, has been. At a time when we rightly celebrate religious freedom, tolerance and equality before the law, it cannot be right that the holder of the highest political office in our country should face a legislative bar if they are Roman Catholic or Jewish.
Though we agree with the Prime Minister that these laws are an “archaic anomaly”, as shadow Minister I cannot let the occasion pass without a gentle reminder of the Government’s rather sudden conversion to treating the Bill as an urgent priority. On 5 March last year, the Lord Privy Seal wrote to Members of the other House, stating that the Government were considering how to address historical restrictions on Roman Catholics and Jews advising the Crown on appointments in the Anglican Church, but when asked about progress in parliamentary questions last autumn, the then Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), said that though the Government would keep the matter under review,
“given other pressing issues, this is not a current priority.”
It is hard not to notice that removing this statutory bar remained “not a current priority” for the Cabinet Office right up until a Roman Catholic Prime Minister took office.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) observed last week, some people looking at the challenges facing the country today may well feel that there are more important things for the Government to do, although when he rose to make his point of order at the start of this debate, I wondered whether he was going to declare an interest—an ambition for No. 10 that might be affected by this legislation. However, the Bill is rightly before us today, and on this issue, as on any issue of constitutional change, it is important that the Government proceed with clarity and care.
In the interests of scrutinising the legislation constructively, could the Minister clarify three points for the House? First, can he confirm that the Bill is strictly and narrowly focused on removing these discriminatory restrictions, and that there are no unintended knock-on effects elsewhere in statute? Secondly, after becoming Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) transferred responsibility for Church appointments to the Lord Chancellor to ensure that such appointments could continue. Can the Minister confirm that this arrangement is temporary, and will remain in place only until this legislation has received Royal Assent and come into force? Thirdly, can the Minister reassure the House that this legislation will not alter the wider constitutional relationship between the Crown, the Government and the established Church?
Finally, while we support removing the statutory bar, we also believe that it is important to maintain sensible constitutional practice, so it is the Opposition’s clear recommendation that it would be sensible for Prime Ministers who do not consider themselves to be part of the congregation of the Church of England to delegate the active decision-making on appointments to others, as recent prime Ministers have done, while retaining their formal constitutional role in advising the monarch. His Majesty’s official Opposition look forward to scrutinising the Bill in Committee and in its later stages, but we will support its Second Reading.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I first want to put on record my strong support for this Bill, which removes discriminatory provisions preventing people of the Roman Catholic or Jewish faith from advising the monarch on certain Crown appointments. The Bill is based on the rightful principle that everyone in society, regardless of what faith they follow, or of whether they follow a faith at all, should be treated equally in public life. It is unconscionable that anyone of a certain religion, be they Prime Minister or otherwise, should face legislation that gives them inferior treatment—or, on the flip side, preferential treatment—to those of different faiths, or of no faith at all.
Once we have accepted this principle, however, it is clear that there are other areas where work needs to be done to remove differences in treatment in our society based on religion, and I would welcome a broader Bill from the Government on these topics. Census data from 2011 and 2021 showed that we are now an exceptionally religiously diverse country, largely due to the rise in those who report having no religion—they are up 8.5 million to 22.5 million overall, or over a third of the population of England and Wales.
I am a secularist, and while I am not religious, many religious people are secularists, too. I believe that politicians with a faith should be free to speak from the perspective that that faith gives them, but that no faith should be privileged. This Bill firmly aligns with that secularist principle. In my view, the logic of the Bill forces us to ask some other questions about religion in public life. Why, for example, do we have guaranteed seats for clergy of a certain faith in the House of Lords? While I have no doubt that many of them are knowledgeable and dutiful in their work—and I know many personally—I do not believe that their religious position should warrant a seat in Parliament. I ask the House how that can be seen any differently from the discriminatory provisions that the Bill rightfully seeks to repeal.
That is not unlike certain other things that happen. In collective worship in state-funded schools, children may be forced into religious practices, such as class prayers or singing Christian hymns in the morning, regardless of their faith. That is a matter of law at present. The need to challenge religious discrimination in the public sphere is, I would argue, another subject that arises naturally once we accept the principles of the Bill, so I want to make a couple of brief points on that subject.
I want to make it clear that secularist principles are not opposed to religion in any way. I believe, as I am sure we all do, in the freedom to have whatever faith, or lack thereof, one might choose—in freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion. For that principle to be fully realised, however, we need a level playing field. This Bill is based on an idea, and I would welcome further discussion of what logically follows from that in public life as a whole.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Liberal Democrats have long advocated for modernisation and improvement across the Houses of Parliament. We continue to support legislation that modernises, and hope to see many more moves towards ensuring that Westminster is representative of the country as a whole.
For almost 200 years, the law has said that a Roman Catholic Minister, or later a Jewish Minister, may not advise the monarch on appointments in the Church of England or the Church of Scotland. Those restrictions never applied to people of other faiths or no faith at all. They were aimed squarely at two communities and are rooted in the anti-Catholicism and antisemitism of the age in which they were written. The Prime Minister has called this an “antiquated and archaic anomaly”, and of course he is right to do so. It cannot be acceptable in 2026 that someone who holds the confidence of this House should be barred from part of their job because of their faith. We are told that Church House is content with the change, and the National Secular Society has said that the ban is
“increasingly difficult to justify in a modern liberal democracy”.
It is rare to find that much agreement on a question involving Church and state, and the Government are right to make this change in the law.
Liberal Democrats believe in freedom of belief. Everyone should be able to practise their faith, or none, without fear of discrimination or state interference. That principle should apply at the very top of public life as much as anywhere else. Removing this bar sends a message that the highest offices in our country are open to people of every background. But I note that this is the very first Bill brought under this Prime Minister. It is a sensible fix to a problem he faces personally, but there are more widespread problems with how our democracy works—problems that affect every one of our constituents—and they still await action.
Take the other place. Liberal Democrats have long called for a House of Lords with a democratic mandate—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I urge the hon. Lady to stay within the scope of the Bill. The previous speaker, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), escaped me leaping to my feet by carefully tying his comments to the provisions of the Bill; I trust she will do likewise.
Lisa Smart
I am always grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for guidance on what is in and out of scope, and I am always pleased when we are able to talk about modernisation, as this Bill does. I encourage the Government to go further, faster—an encouragement that the Liberal Democrats always give when they are on their feet talking about political and constitutional reform.
On prime ministerial advice and appointments, which I hope you will agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, is very much in scope, these appointments often ingrain patronage and reinforce elitism, which causes many people to lose faith in politics. We would encourage the Government to get to considering proposals such as the Burns report, which looked at cutting the House of Lords to 600 peers. We think the Government could do far more, but that is perhaps for another debate on another day. None of the changes that we Liberal Democrats would encourage, whether it is putting the ministerial code into law or ensuring a fairer voting system, are terribly complicated. All they do is restore trust in politics.
We support the Bill. Discrimination on grounds of faith has no place in our law, and I am glad to see the change come in today, but I hope the Minister will very much treat this as a starting point, rather than the limit of his ambitions for political and constitutional reform. If the Government are serious about modernising our institutions, they should go further, faster, and the Lib Dems will keep pressing them to do exactly that.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
As an Anglican, there is a little bit of me that would always like to see an Anglican as Prime Minister, but I recognise that that is not always desirable or possible. In fact, despite the historical measures relating to Catholic emancipation that we have discussed today, of course Roman Catholicism never did go away. Catholics practised their faith in private, often in fear of their life. The secret of the success of the Church of England is that it is the original broad church. Even within the Anglican communion, there are people who hold a whole variety of views, and allowing our Prime Minister, a Roman Catholic, to perform his constitutional function of advising the monarchy is very much in keeping with that tradition.
A week last Sunday, I attended the High Sheriff’s legal service at Derby cathedral. It was for Dr Syed Yusuf Iftikhar, an NHS consultant who came from Pakistan and served for over 40 years in the NHS. It brought together people from different faith communities, and was led by the Dean of Derby, the Very Rev. Peter Robinson, but we had representatives from the Muslim, Sikh and Hindu faiths. That is the Church of England at its best, particularly at a time when we see division in our society. We have talked about antisemitism today, but recently we have unfortunately seen racist aspects to our political parties here. The Church of England has an excellent role to play in bringing communities together, and many of us will see that on Remembrance Sunday next month.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Gentleman is making an important speech. Does he agree with me that the value of this Bill is that it could strengthen the Church of England and reconnect it with the political community of which it is properly a part? Does he agree with me that, as I said when I intervened on the Minister, it is not right to leave the appointment of bishops purely to the bureaucrats at Church House and committees there, and that it is a proper subject for politics? We have heard the suggestion that this is a second-order priority, and I recognise that there are more pressing concerns for the country, but this stuff matters—Gladstone thought the most important part of his job as Prime Minister was appointing bishops. My concern about the debate so far is that the Bill has been interpreted as some great step of progressive modernisation that clearly ends with the exclusion of Christianity from political life altogether. Does he agree that what we actually we need to do is strengthen the role of the Church of England in the political community and remind the Prime Minister of this very important part of his or her job?
Jonathan Davies
Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Church of England is strengthened by bringing in more voices. It often does that already through the use of ecumenical canons in some cathedrals. The Bill is a step forward that will ensure that the Church brings in those perspectives, which will strengthen its hand in the future and bring our communities together in the way that it does so well.
I thank the Minister for bringing this legislation to the House. It is an important step forward. I wish the Prime Minister well—from an Anglican to a Catholic—as he takes forward the important constitutional role of advising the monarch on the future leaders of the Church of England.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Before I begin my speech, I had better declare an interest, because I know it is not widely known that I am a Roman Catholic. I do not oppose the Bill. The discrimination that we suffered for centuries was absolutely horrible. It was not discrimination as we understand it in the modern world—my direct ancestor, the blessed Richard Leigh, was hung, drawn and quartered simply for denying that Elizabeth I should be the head of the Church in England. Obviously, I welcome anything that ends discrimination.
However, I hope the Minister will forgive me if I make a few points to try to find out why he is moving this Bill now. Obviously, it is because we have a Catholic Prime Minister, but as the Opposition spokesman said, there has been little enthusiasm for such legislation until now. If we are to have such a Bill, particularly when there are many other pressing matters, it should achieve something, but this Bill will change absolutely nothing.
Although in theory one name is pushed across the Prime Minister’s desk, when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister he effectively ended the veto. The last time the veto was exercised was by Tony Blair, shortly after the 1997 election when he objected to two candidates to be Bishop of Liverpool. John Major exercised his power on one occasion, I think. As hon. Members might expect, Mrs Thatcher viewed the process with immense enthusiasm and exercised her power rather more regularly. If we are to have a Bill, it has to achieve something, but frankly this power of the Prime Minister has fallen into abeyance.
That did not occur in the past. As we have heard, in the 19th century Prime Ministers viewed this part of their job as having great importance—we have heard about Gladstone—but it was worse than that. It was not that they were simply trying to appoint the best people to the job; they viewed their role as entirely political. Those of us who love Trollope will know the novel “Barchester Towers”. The central plot is that the Government change and the candidate—I forget now whether he was a Whig or a Tory—is promptly prevented from taking up a bishopric.
Viscount Palmerston packed the bishops’ Bench with low-church evangelicals. Given that there were 26 bishops in the House of Lords and therefore they had important political power, successive Prime Ministers deliberately packed the episcopal Bench with their appointments, which caused some upset. To heed the lessons of 19th century history—a fascinating subject—[Interruption.] Ah, I see the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) wishes to intervene.
Danny Kruger
I am sorry to jump up again, but I want to challenge the right hon. Gentleman. That was no doubt the case in the 19th century, but if he reads the brilliant book by Mark Vickers called “God In Number 10”, which is a history of 20th century Prime Ministers from Balfour to Blair, he will see that it is an opposite story. The book is a remarkable account of how very different Prime Ministers all took their responsibilities seriously, as the right hon. Gentleman said, right up to John Major. They honoured the fact that different dioceses had different traditions, and they tried to ensure that there was ecumenical balance in the Church of England. I do not think it is beyond a Prime Minister of any party to take their job seriously, think about the right balance of the Church of England and maintain the broad church. What we do not want bureaucrats in the Church of England appointing each other, which is what we have at the moment—that is why they are all left wing. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that we need a genuinely broad church that includes people from different political traditions.
Sir Edward Leigh
That is a very interesting point of view from our Reform colleague. It is interesting to think that at some future date the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) might appoint bishops, but we will see—it may or may not happen.
Jonathan Davies
I hope that we will be appointing Anglican bishops and not bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church if the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) becomes Prime Minister.
Sir Edward Leigh
My wife is a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. [Laughter.]
The Oxford movement of the 1830s was established precisely because faithful Anglicans grew disturbed that a secularised, reformed Parliament that included non-Anglicans held absolute power over the doctrine and leadership of the Church of England. Indeed, the House of Commons historically had an enormous interest in the matter—there were huge debates in the 1920s over the nature of the prayer book, and these Benches were packed with people who were interested. What a pity that these wonderful debates do not attract similar attention. In his many reflections on the relationship between Church and state, Cardinal Newman, who was central to the Oxford movement during his time as an Anglican earlier in life, feared that the state would reduce the Church to nothing more than a Department of Government.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We are now 200 years on from that time, and legislation is coming forward for Church appointments. Given what the House is trying to achieve through this Bill, we must reflect the changes in today’s society and its cultural and religious make-up. The fact is that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has changed greatly. That being the case, what the House is trying to achieve today is to be welcomed.
Sir Edward Leigh
We of course have to reflect changes in society.
I have made the point that this measure will make no practical difference, so I wonder why it is really necessary. My other point is that it would be extremely unwise and would dig up past controversies if any Catholic Prime Minister were to appoint an Anglican bishop. I hear what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) says, but I do not think it makes sense for somebody who is an atheist, like Keir Starmer, or a Hindu or a Catholic to appoint an Anglican bishop. I just cannot see the logic in that. Frankly, the practice has been discontinued, and it will not happen again.
Jonathan Davies
The important thing for the Father of the House to remember is that the Anglican Church is not like the Roman Catholic Church; we would not send a Protestant representative to the conclave to pick a pope. We are talking about the state Church of this country, which is answerable to Parliament, and the Prime Minister, as the most senior member of the Government, therefore has a role to play in advising the monarch. At the moment we have a situation in which a Hindu, such as the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), could advise the monarch, but a Roman Catholic could not. That is why we need to move this legislation forward.
Sir Edward Leigh
By the way, I just want to make the point that I love the Anglican Church. I love the fact that we have an established Church. I think it is wonderful that in our country we proclaim the value of religion and that bishops sit in the House of Lords—although I have to say to most of them seem to spout rather woke rubbish most of the time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I admire the right hon. Member enormously, but I might have to give him the same warning about staying in scope this afternoon.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Will the Father of the House give way?
Mike Kane
The poor Anglican bishops. The old joke is that they have only two good days in their whole career: their consecration day and their retirement day. The Father of the House mentioned one of the great converts to the Church of Rome in the 19th century, Cardinal Newman. We also had Cardinal Manning in the 19th century, whereas the 20th century produced for us Widdecombe and Gummer. I was wondering what his opinion of that was.
I think the whole House should join me in congratulating the Father of the House on becoming a knight of the Pontifical Equestrian Order of Saint Gregory the Great, effectively becoming a papal knight, which is a rarely bestowed honour. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I think we are all very proud of him for that. As we gallop towards 200 years since Catholic emancipation in 1829, I note that there is no piece of artwork in this House dedicated to Daniel O’Connell and that campaign. Does the Father of the House agree that we should rectify that in the next three years?
Sir Edward Leigh
I am very grateful to my good friend, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), for that intervention. Actually, I see him on my fridge every night, from when we were introduced to Benedict XVI—there we were in the row. Every time I open my fridge, I see the hon. Gentleman. He is an ornament of this House.
I am coming to the end of my speech, but I want to make one final point. I have asked whether it is actually wise for a Catholic, a Jew or a Hindu to appoint an Anglican bishop, or to have any say, but there is a wider debate about whether—although we believe in the established Church, and the Prime Minister in effect is not involved—there is any reason why the Prime Minister should be involved. I am afraid I have to tell the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that although I agree that in any other organisation, people rise through committees, it is all quite dull and there are safe options, the intrusion or lack of intrusion of the Prime Minister makes no difference. If we were going to have an entirely logical Bill, surely we would remove this power of the Prime Minister altogether—although it is never exercised, so the Bill is not going to achieve anything—and pass the role of final arbiter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, for instance. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire will not agree with me, but that would be entirely logical. I just do not see the logic in having a politician appoint the head of a Church nowadays, not that they ever do it. I apologise for my comments, but I hope that they give a different perspective on this Bill.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), although I fear I might not be able to provide such an entertaining and historical perspective.
I had intended to speak in this debate as I thought I might be the only Anglican to do so, but the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) has beaten me to it. As a member of the established Church, I—unlike my right hon. Friend—agree for once with Reform. I would actually like some political input into appointments to the bishops’ Bench and one or two other Church appointments. I would like to think that whoever we elect as Prime Minister, he or she would take a very serious view of making appointments to an institution that not only has a vast historical perspective, but plays a major part in education, for example. I cannot remember the number, but the Church of England has many schools in virtually every constituency up and down the country, and the bishops can often play a major part in that. [Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I see that you are reminding me to stay within the scope of the Bill.
Turning to the argument about the appointment of bishops, like the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), I think we should return to the system in which the Prime Minister is offered a choice, and the points I have made should be taken into consideration during that process. I know that my right hon. Friend the Father of the House loves the established Church. Indeed, when I was his constituency agent, I used to build in visits to choral evensong in Lincoln as often as I could.
Coming back to the substance of the Bill, I fully support the fact that a Prime Minister of whatever faith should have an input into senior appointments in the Church of England.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
This has been one of the most interesting, wide-ranging and perhaps unexpected debates that I have had the pleasure to listen to in this House, with fascinating contributions from the hon. Members for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) and for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies), the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers). I thank everyone for their contributions this afternoon.
As we conclude Second Reading, I am pleased to reaffirm our support from the Opposition Benches for the changes before us. The provisions that are being repealed go against our principles of religious freedom, tolerance and equality before the law. To single out Roman Catholics and Jews and prevent them from carrying out the responsibilities of public office solely because of their faith is not a distinction that has any place in modern Britain.
As a Roman Catholic, I find it extraordinary that such a restriction has remained on the statute book for so long, but this is not ultimately about any one faith; it is about the fundamental principle that a person’s religious beliefs should not prevent them from discharging the responsibilities of public office. As an Opposition, we are also clear that constitutional change, however sensible, should be approached carefully. We therefore welcome the narrow scope of the legislation and look forward to confirmation from the Minister regarding the preservation of the wider constitutional relationship between the Crown, the Government and the established Church.
There remains a sensible distinction between the Prime Minister retaining their formal constitutional responsibility for advising the sovereign and, where appropriate, delegating active involvement in the appointments process. That respects equality before the law and the particular constitutional position of the established Church.
We can respect the traditions and institutions that have shaped our country while ensuring that they are updated to remove discriminatory or outdated practices. Two hundred years ago, I would not have been permitted to enter this Chamber or to speak from this Dispatch Box. Progress towards equality has been made throughout our history, and I welcome this latest step. On behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I am therefore pleased to support this Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mark Ferguson)
It is a pleasure to close what has been a genuinely fascinating debate. I give thanks to hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House for their thoughtful contributions, in addition to their support for this worthwhile and historic piece of legislation. As we heard earlier from the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), this important Bill will facilitate the removal of an outdated 19th-century restriction. We have spent a lot of time today talking about history, and who does not enjoy a little conversation about history? I certainly do, and I know the Minister of State would agree. It is enjoyable to be involved in preparing for a debate where someone uses a phrase like “not since the reformation”. It reminds us of the scale and scope of what we do in this place, but we are here to talk about where we are in 2026.
This Bill ensures that any Prime Minister, regardless of their religious beliefs, can advise the sovereign on Church appointments. We have heard in this debate a number of views and contributions from Members across the House. I welcome support for this Bill from across the House, including from the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. Religious freedom and tolerance of faith before the law are crucial principles that we must uphold.
In response to why we are bringing forward this legislation at this time, when there are undoubtedly more important issues, I simply say two things: one, the Government are handling this in a pragmatic way, tackling minor constitutional issues as and when they arise. This is an obvious problem with an obvious solution. The legislation is pragmatic, quick and will not detain the House long, despite the enjoyable history lesson that we have had today. Secondly, I am a strong believer that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and our ambition is a matter of public record: to rewire the state and to deliver the largest re-industrialisation of our nations and regions in at least a generation and the biggest redistribution of power our country has ever seen.
In response to the specific issues raised by the Members of the official Opposition, let me say that this is a narrowly focused Bill without knock-on consequences. The temporary arrangement in respect of the Lord Chancellor will be brought to an end once this Bill has been passed, and there are no wider constitutional changes. I am happy to give a firm commitment in that regard. This is not a wider constitutional change, and the existing arrangements between the Crown, the Government and the established Church will remain.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) talked about the wider role of religion in public life. It was an interesting contribution, but this is a tightly focused Bill which deals with this issue and this issue alone. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) also entertained the House, although I should say that I do not express a preference for any particular religion in No. 10, and I say that as a lapsed Methodist, if one can even be such a thing. I am very happy to have a Catholic Prime Minister, although once a Methodist always a Methodist—much like “once a Whip, always a Whip”.
The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), entertained us with a historical tour de force. I am afraid I do not have any historical forebears such as his to call upon, so I will simply say that it is right and proper that the senior adviser to the sovereign, the Prime Minister, should be able to advise the sovereign.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) talked about political input. That is not what we are talking about today, so in a sense we may differ on that point, but it was nonetheless a thoughtful contribution.
The debate has indicated that there is clear support for this legislation on both sides of the House. When I speak to my constituents, whether at Gateshead’s Jewish Kehilla or at Cardinal Hume Catholic School, I want the students there to know that they can play a full role in democratic life, where their faith is no barrier, and I know that that view is shared across the House. I look forward to hearing further from hon. Members during the remaining stages due to follow shortly, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill
Wednesday 21st October 2026
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill 2026-27 View all Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Mr or Madam Deputy Speaker, but should use our names. Madam Chair, Chair and Madam Chairman are also acceptable.
Clause 1
Repeal of discriminatory provision concerning the making of appointments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Second Deputy Chairman)
With this it will be convenient to consider clause 2 stand part.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mark Ferguson)
I hope that I will not detain the Committee for long in dealing with the two clauses.
Clause 1 is the only operative clause of the Bill. Its purpose is to remove the restrictions that prevent a person who professes either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faiths from advising the sovereign on Church appointments. It also removes parallel restrictions that prevent a person of those faiths from making Church appointments, when they have a right to do so by virtue of their office. Some office holders appointed by the sovereign, such as the Lord Chancellor, have the right to nominate someone directly to a benefice—for example, the right to nominate the local vicar of a parish. The sovereign has no involvement in those appointments. The clause achieves that by repealing sections 17 and 18 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 in their entirety. It also contains some consequential repeals of Church legislation that cross-referred to some of these provisions. Finally, the clause provides that once it comes into force, no person can be convicted under the provisions in section 18 of the 1829 Act or section 4 of the 1858 Act.
Clause 2 sets out the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill. The Bill extends to the whole United Kingdom, and applies UK-wide. It will come into force on Royal Assent, which will ensure that the Prime Minister can assume his constitutional duty to advise the sovereign on Church appointments without delay.
It is clear that the Bill commands broad consensus, and I am grateful to colleagues for their approach to it. I look forward very much to the rest of today’s debate, and to seeing the Bill on the statute book soon.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I rise briefly on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition to confirm our support for clause 1 standing part of the Bill. Clause 1 is the operative heart of this legislation and repeals the remaining provisions to which the Minister referred. In some ways, it feels rather fitting that the Committee is considering this clause on 21 October, Trafalgar Day, because although the nation rightly remembers Lord Nelson today, another great hero of the Napoleonic wars, the Duke of Wellington, who was Prime Minister, together with Sir Robert Peel in this House, drove Catholic emancipation on to the statute book through the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829.
At the time, the Act was seen as a radically progressive measure. Indeed, such was the strength of feeling that Wellington was only able to overcome the fierce opposition of King George IV and peers in the House of Lords by threatening that his Tory Government would resign and warning the King and their lordships that the incoming Whig Administration would be immeasurably worse. As students of parliamentary history will know, the resulting split in Wellington’s party ushered in a decade and a half of Whig dominance. I am bound to say that I am rather pleased that there is considerably more cross-party consensus on today’s reform.
There is, however, an important historical lesson in how we view the statutes that clause 1 amends. Both the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the subsequent Jews Relief Act 1858 were seen in their own day as wildly progressive steps forward that tore down centuries-old barriers to public life. The restrictions they left behind on advising the sovereign on Church appointments were the political compromises of the 19th century, but nearly 200 years on, what was introduced as a 19th-century compromise is now an archaic anomaly and unacceptable discrimination.
Over the decades, Parliament has rightly repealed or amended many of the other restrictive measures originally contained in both the 1829 and 1858 Acts, and clause 1 simply finishes that long historical journey. By removing these final statutory prohibitions and their draconian penalties, it ensures that the legal bar on a Roman Catholic or Jewish Prime Minister fulfilling their constitutional duties by advising the monarch on Church appointments is similarly consigned to history. His Majesty’s Opposition therefore support clauses 1 and 2 standing part of this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Third Reading
King’s consent signified.
The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I will keep my remarks brief. As we have heard, this Bill’s purpose is to lift archaic historical restrictions that prevent an individual of the Roman Catholic or Jewish faith from advising the sovereign on Church appointments, or from making Church appointments where their office gives them the right to directly nominate someone. The Bill will therefore ensure that the current Prime Minister and, indeed, any future Prime Minister who professes either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faith can perform their constitutional responsibility to advise the sovereign on these matters without risking disbarment from public office.
I give heartfelt thanks for the insightful contributions of hon. and right hon. Members, particularly the Father of the House and my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I thank the Opposition for the spirit with which they have approached the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) acknowledged, today’s debates have featured some very thoughtful contributions about the development of our constitutional arrangements.
I am grateful for the support of hon. Members from across the House for the approach that we have taken. I know that the House will agree that although the Bill is modest, it is an important step forward in ensuring that our laws reflect our belief that a Prime Minister’s faith should not restrict their ability to undertake their role. I commend this Bill to the House.
Mike Wood
As we reach Third Reading, I am pleased to again reaffirm our support for this measure, as we work to ensure that this particular anachronism will soon be consigned to history. Our constitutional arrangements are the product of centuries of history, and we on these Benches believe we should always approach changes to them with appropriate care. Our constitution has evolved considerably since the 19th century, reflecting the changing character of our country and the diversity of the people who serve it, and it is entirely reasonable that our laws should evolve with it.
Respect for our history does not require us to preserve every historical anomaly. There is a clear distinction between respecting our constitutional traditions and allowing outdated 19th-century restrictions to remain on the statute book simply because they have always been there. At the same time, the established Church occupies a distinctive place in our constitutional settlement, and the relationship between Church and state is one that has developed over centuries. In correcting the historical injustice, it is vital that we preserve both our established constitutional arrangement, and the independence and integrity of the Church appointments process.
In practical terms, when appointing bishops and archbishops, the Church of England presents a candidate to the Prime Minister, who then advises the monarch on who to install in that role. For nearly 20 years, the Prime Minister has not had much of a role in the selection of Church of England bishops, and Downing Street’s involvement in the process has become largely a formality. That is why, alongside supporting this Bill with the repeal of these discriminatory criminal provisions, His Majesty’s Opposition has suggested that the clear and respectful convention for the future, following recent precedent, should be that Prime Ministers who are not members of the Church of England should retain their formal constitutional role in advising the sovereign while continuing to delegate any active involvement in the decision-making process to others.
The ability to serve as Prime Minister and to exercise the full responsibilities of that office should depend on the confidence of this House and the ability of the individual concerned, not their religious belief. On that fundamental principle, the whole House can unite today, so we support the Third Reading of this Bill and wish it well as it proceeds to the other place.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Opposition Day
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Support for Farmers
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:20 - The House divided: - Ayes: 57 / Noes: 279 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House regrets the Government’s chaotic opening of the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) 2026 application window on 22 September 2026; notes that the scheme’s budget was exhausted within hours, leaving many farmers unable to apply after months of preparation; further regrets the previous Government’s decision to design the SFI on a first come, first served basis and its post-Brexit trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, which fundamentally undermined British farmers, their £358 million underspend in agricultural budget, and decisions to effectively cut farmers’ incomes in their approach to phasing out direct payments; further notes that the Government’s decision to accelerate the direct payments phase-out whilst stop-starting new schemes like SFI has left farmers with no universal payment offer for the first time since 1945; also regrets the Government’s changes to Agricultural Property Relief and cuts to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and farming budgets; also notes that the lack of an effective payment scheme for farms has undermined their profitability and the UK’s ability to produce food, recover nature and adapt to climate change; notes that farmers are deeply concerned about surging input costs, the impact of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism on fertiliser costs, the impact of consecutive bad harvests and the looming crisis in the pig sector; and calls on the Government to guarantee long-term funding for all eligible SFI26 applicants, reverse the family farm tax, and commit to an additional £1 billion a year to properly fund environmental land management schemes.
If there was a thin silver lining to Brexit—and that is an “if”—it was the opportunity to design our own bespoke system to reward and support farmers, to care for our environment and to feed our country, but every farmer, certainly in England, knows that at the heart of this debate is the utter, inexcusable failure of both Conservative and Labour Governments to deliver an effective post-Brexit farm payment scheme. That failure has undermined farm profitability and the UK’s food security. It is two and a half years since the Conservatives left office, yet, as Halloween approaches, that Government still loom as a spectre over our rural communities, haunting us all, because this Labour Government refuse to exorcise that ghost, clinging instead to the ghastly Conservative policies that did so much to damage our farmers in Westmorland and beyond.
I am in no risk at all of overstating when I say that the last Conservative Government did more harm to British farmers and British farming than any other in UK history: trade deals with Australia and New Zealand that threw our farmers under the bus; a botched Brexit deal that ended overnight British farmers’ access to their biggest external market; and the reckless, rushed removal of the basic payment scheme while new schemes were falteringly introduced at a snail’s pace. Those new schemes have mostly placed hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money into the hands of huge non-farmer organisations, while family farmers saw their incomes plummet, such that hill farmers in Cumbria now “enjoy” an average income of less than half the minimum wage—and that is if you assume that they work for 40 hours a week, when it is nearer 90.
I do not know if the Conservatives’ attack on our countryside, taking money away from family farms and putting it into the hands of a few large landowners, was deliberate or incompetent, but the results are the same either way—those who we rely on to feed us being treated like dirt. The Liberal Democrats tabled this motion today because I want farmers to know that this House cares about them; that we think that those who get up early each day to feed our country and to protect our planet do the most awesome job in the world; and that they are valued and respected, and that we want a system that reflects that in practice.
This debate follows the debacle of the sustainable farming incentive window in September. That catastrophically short window was a long time coming.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I left party conference when that SFI window had just opened. I went straight home to speak to my Wiltshire farmers, but by the time I got to the meeting, the window had closed. That is not acceptable, and what happened last year is also not acceptable. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to give our farmers some certainty, so that they can plan accordingly around when that window will be open next year and how much money will be in it?
Tim Farron
I very much agree. My view is that we should be seeking to reopen a window this year, given the number of farmers who were carved out.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree with the point, made by Latteridge Green Farm in my constituency, that decisions about how public funding is spent should be made on the merits of an application and the benefits it can bring, rather than an ability to click quickly?
Tim Farron
That is an issue I will come to, but what my hon. Friend says is absolutely the case. If we have a first come, first served system, then there is no assessment of the quality of bids. I am sure that pretty much all the applications were of a high quality, but differential merit was not taken into account. Farmers were excluded simply because they were milking or otherwise doing their job before the window closed.
The SFI was—I think the record will prove this—essentially set up to replace the basic payment scheme. It was implemented disastrously because it was designed disastrously. The Conservative Government failed even to spend the SFI budget when they were in power, underspending the allocation by £358 million. That is money that should have gone to support our farmers and to keep the promises made to them during Brexit—promises that have been broken.
Then, in March 2025, with absolutely no notice, this Labour Government closed the SFI programme for the year, leaving hundreds of farmers outside with absolutely nothing. The Minister at the time, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), is not in his place. I must say that, before his removal, he was becoming an increasingly important advocate for farmers within Government. He apologised for the closure of the SFI, explaining that the scheme was a good one, but that because the application process inherited from the Conservatives was first come, first served, funds were being allocated neither wisely nor fairly, as my hon. Friends have already highlighted.
I remain outraged at that closure in 2025, but the former Farming Minister’s point about the Tory’s first come, first served process is well made. A first come, first served process means that Government funding is allocated randomly at best, not achieving best value for the taxpayer. Even worse, it means that funding disproportionately goes to those farms that are big enough to be able to afford land agents, to be able to have a large farm staff, or to be able to spend much time away from farming to fill out forms. Meanwhile, farmers working 90 hours a week up Langdale, up Longsleddale or in the Eden valley, producing our food, caring for our countryside, with low incomes, get systematically shut out by accident or by design; the impact remains horrific either way.
The Government pledged to learn lessons from the 2025 disaster, so along came 22 September this year, when sustainable farming incentive funds ran out and the drawbridge got pulled up after less than six hours. I have spoken to hill farmers, protecting some of the world’s most epic landscapes but struggling with dodgy wi-fi in their valley so they got nothing. I have spoken to dairy farmers who just popped out to tend their cattle and got back to their computer to discover that they had got nothing. I have spoken to land agents, heartbroken and ashamed that the majority of small farms that they bid on behalf of had got nothing. There are farmers who had all their basic payment taken away and had literally nothing else to look forward to apart from the SFI, yet the system closed in less than a day and they got nothing. The Government have learnt nothing from the damage the Conservatives did, so will the Minister return with a scheme this autumn that ensures that farmers who had viable SFI applications are funded and not left out in the cold?
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I think the hon. Gentleman missed out SFI window 1 in his description.
Tim Farron
There was indeed an SFI window earlier in the year, but the bulk of applicants were aiming for SFI window 2 in 2026, and of course a huge number of them were cut out simply because of the way in which the system was set up.
Liberal Democrats are determined to put this right. With our biggest parliamentary presence in this place in more than a century, we humbly seek to be in government after the next election. Should we be so, we will be determined to lead the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and we would reform the SFI so that every farmer was allocated a sum via the SFI consistent with the capacity of their farm. That money would be theirs to claim within a long window, so long as they submitted a compliant claim that demonstrated delivery of public goods. There would be no competition as to who could press “send” the quickest.
The failings of our farm payment system go far beyond the SFI disaster. At its foundation, this Tory-designed, Labour-delivered scheme is woefully flawed for one fundamental reason: they have given us a farm payment scheme, the bedrock of our agricultural policy, that—would you believe it?—actively disincentivises the production of food. What utter and complete madness. When Britain’s food security is more at risk than at any time since the last war, we now have a farm payment scheme in England that fails to support farmers to produce food. At a time when every other country in the UK and every country in the European Union does provide that support, England is the odd one out. We are failing our farmers and we are failing our people as we sleepwalk into no longer being able to guarantee that we can feed our country.
Effectively locking small farmers out of the farm payment scheme is socially unjust. It damages our food security, and it also damages our environment. Many farmers I have spoken to in Westmorland and beyond who have been excluded from the SFI and other schemes are so utterly demoralised and angry that they will now just turn their back on environmental schemes altogether. These are people who have been champions of nature-friendly farming, and whose parents and grandparents have spent decades promoting environmental responsibility on their farms. They do not want to turn their back on sustainable farming, but they have got to pay the rent and feed their kids somehow. An SFI delivered well could have brought every single farmer who had received the basic payment in the past into the environmental big tent. Instead, this combination of cruelty and incompetence leaves thousands outside in the cold, and we cannot now blame them if they choose to intensify and undo the good environmental work of generations that preceded them.
Liberal Democrats would reverse the banking tax cuts from the last Parliament and use a portion of that revenue to boost the environmental land management scheme budget by £1 billion. We would allocate an SFI sum to every farm, which would be theirs to claim. We would therefore maximise the number of farms inside environmental schemes, protecting nature, improving water quality, sequestering carbon, protecting urban areas from flooding, and providing access and enjoyment to the millions who visit the lakes, the dales and the rest of Britain’s beautiful countryside. We would revoke the Labour-Conservative consensus by finally making the production of food a public good, funding it as we should and starting the journey back to food security.
To be parochial for just a rare moment, the English Lake District was awarded world heritage site status in 2017. When UNESCO made that award, in its assessment of the beauty of those towering landscapes it gave as much credit to the farmers who shaped them as it did to the glaciers that carved them. For a millennium at least, our land has been curated, tended, moulded, protected and nurtured into producing the food that fuels each one of us. How short sighted is it to put all of that at risk?
To be personal, the loss of a basic payment, and the failure to include thousands of family farms in replacement schemes as funds instead gravitate to the big estates and the huge non-farmer organisations, has left many families back home in Cumbria bereft. I mean not just financially bereft, but deep heartbroken despair. Just think what it might feel like for if someone’s family had farmed their valley for generations, maybe centuries, and yet now it looks like the farm will be lost on their watch because of all this. Imagine the anxiety and the shame, the isolation—in every sense of the word—and the overwhelming desolation that there is nowhere to turn.
Thanks to the Farmer Network, RABI and young farmers’ clubs there are places to turn. But in this House today, we can choose to say to our farmers that we will stand with them too, that we are grateful to them for feeding us and keeping Britain beautiful, and that we will match those words with actions. Maybe there are Members who think, “Well, I haven’t got any farms in my constituency, so this isn’t relevant to me,” but I will tell them this: 100% of our constituents eat food, and so farming matters to them and to all of us—yet this place too rarely acts like it believes that. Today, we give Members the opportunity to affirm that they do.
Seventy per cent of England’s land mass is agricultural. If we are serious about tackling climate change and protecting our environment, we must start there, by motivating and including all of our farmers to be on the frontline for that fight, not locking them out, or demoralising and excluding them. In an increasingly volatile and uncertain world, Britain is less than 60% self-sufficient in food. That is terrifying. And yet we have thousands of farmers out there ready to meet the call, if only we did call. The Liberal Democrats present this motion to the House because British farmers are the best in the world, and the best farmers in the world deserve the best support.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter)
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for his speech. Farming is not simply another industry. Farmers produce the food that sustains us, manage much of our countryside and underpin a wider food and drink economy. Agriculture alone contributes £14.5 billion to the economy, while the wider food and drink sector contributed £153.2 billion in 2023. That does not just matter to the economy; maintaining domestic food production to at least current levels is integral to our national security.
As the Prime Minister said in this House last month, farming and food production are part of this country’s sovereign production and manufacturing capacity, which we will need to strengthen in the years to come. We will need to depend on it, and therefore we need to strengthen it—that is a clear commitment. That is why this Government are committed to backing British farmers and maintaining domestic food production to at least current levels.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
On the point about maintaining domestic food production, the Minister will no doubt be aware of the problems facing the pig sector. We have had tens of thousands of pigs backed up on farms, contracts cancelled, and farmers losing up to £50 a pig. What discussions have the Minister and colleagues had with the pig sector, and what plans do the Government have to support our Great British pig farms?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank the hon. Member for that important question. I can confirm that the Farming Minister and other colleagues have been in active conversation with the National Pig Association and are continuing that dialogue.
Our farming road map sets out a long-term direction for the sector that is more profitable, productive, sustainable and resilient, and better able to withstand climate, market and geopolitical shocks.
I want to acknowledge just how difficult this year has been. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson set out the extraordinary combination of pressures that farmers have faced this year alone: drought and water shortages, reduced grass and forage growth, difficult crop conditions, and higher irrigation and feed costs. At the same time, the conflict in the middle east has put further pressure on fertiliser and fuel prices.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Minister highlights fertiliser costs. Last week, this Government pushed through the fertiliser tax, which will put up the price of fertiliser by between £80 and £90 a tonne, which the Conservatives voted against. The Liberals sat on their hands and did not oppose the tax, which was, frankly, shocking. Does the Minister not recognise the pressures that farmers are facing and the fact that this additional tax that this Government have imposed will do nothing to help?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I will remind the hon. Member that the last UK ammonia production facility closed under the Conservatives without any Government intervention.
We recognise that resilience is not evenly distributed and that some farm businesses have significantly less capacity than others to withstand those short-term shocks. The impacts of climate change and drought have been particularly severe, with more than 80% of the country now in drought. The south-east and south-west experienced their driest period from April to September in more than a century, and pressure on water resources continues despite the rain that we are seeing today.
We understand what that means on our farms—less grass, lower forage growth and new crop yields, pressure on irrigation and reservoirs, greater demand for livestock water, and, ultimately, greater uncertainty about the year ahead—so we have acted. In August, we introduced a package of drought support measures including temporary adjustments to environmental land management agreements so that farmers affected by drought could continue receiving payments while taking practical steps to protect their businesses. We also reminded farmers and growers that they can apply to the Environment Agency for temporary abstraction flexibility through local enforcement protections to help them to access water during dry periods where environmental impacts can be appropriately managed.
Liberal Democrat Members ask now what we are doing on water and climate resilience, but the last time they were in government, they cut flood defence spending by a fifth within six months of taking office. We are taking water and weather extremely seriously.
However, responding to one dry summer is not enough; farmers need greater long-term water security. That is why we are making up to £15 million available through a further water management grant to help to build farm reservoirs, which allow water to be stored when it is most readily available and then used to support food production during the drier periods. This will help to reduce reliance on direct abstraction when rivers and groundwater are under greatest pressure. We are also making it easier to build reservoirs by updating planning guidance and working with industry to review whether further planning reforms are needed.
We have also simplified applications for longer-duration abstraction licences, helping farmers to secure finances for on-farm reservoirs by better aligning licence duration with investment and loan repayment periods. We have also brought forward the reservoir refill season from November to October for this year. We are also encouraging farmers to work together through water abstraction groups to strengthen local water resilience, while trialling dynamic abstraction in places like Cambridge, using real-time monitoring and data to help farmers to access water when it is available while also protecting the natural environment.
Drought and climate change are not the only sources of uncertainty, though; the middle east conflict remains a significant source of disruption to fertiliser and red diesel prices. The continued pressures underline something fundamental: our farming system needs to become less exposed to global shocks and expensive imported inputs. That means not simply telling farmers to absorb higher costs, but helping them to become more productive and more efficient, with farming schemes including actions supporting variable-rate nutrient application, companion cropping, legumes and herbal leys, all of which can help to improve nutrient efficiency and reduce reliance on synthetic fertiliser.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Does the Minister agree that it is simply unacceptable for farmers to be expected to deliver the Government’s environmental ambitions when they have less than six hours to secure the funding to do so? Will she commit to a fairer system for the SFI scheme, with sufficient funding and guaranteed opportunity to apply—for North Devon farmers especially—instead of leaving farmers’ livelihoods subject to a scheme operated on a first come, first served basis?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I will tackle the SFI later in my speech. The Farming Minister has been clear on many of the lessons that will be learned, but I will set them out further shortly.
Across the sustainable farming incentive, countryside stewardship and higher level stewardship, 534,000 hectares are already using precision applications of fertiliser and manure. We have also increased fertiliser market monitoring and encouraged greater use of nutrient planning to help farmers optimise fertiliser use, and we are rolling out an online tool to help farmers use fertilisers more efficiently.
Beyond DEFRA, the Treasury reduced the duty on red diesel earlier this year in response to price increases resulting from the middle eastern crisis. We are investing in innovation, because lasting resilience must ultimately come from producing more efficiently. For ’26-27, £123 million has been allocated to the farming innovation programme, with support for technologies and approaches that can raise productivity and strengthen resilience.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I will make progress, because I am coming on to something important.
I want to address the issue of SFI26 frankly. I really do recognise the disappointment and frustration caused by the closure of the second application window on 22 September. The SFI is a scheme that the Government inherited from the previous Conservative Government. They designed this first come, first served scheme, sent a quarter of the money to 4% of farms and now complain that it was oversubscribed.
When we inherited it, the scheme had no budget control and no proper alignment of SFI actions to environmental and sustainability targets, and it included that first come, first served application process. For 2026, we made improvements to the offer to ensure that more farmers could access funding. We made the offer simpler and more focused, with fewer actions while retaining actions for all farm types. We introduced a £100,000 per annum max agreement value cap to spread the availability of funding more widely.
We also gave priority access to the scheme for small farms and farms without existing ELM revenue agreements. Those two groups had been under-represented in the SFI previously. This priority access through SFI26 window 1 remained open for two months. The SFI26 window 2 was open to all eligible farmers and land managers. It experienced exceptionally high demand and closed after around six hours once available budget had been allocated.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I have met with a lot of farmers since the deadline closed, and there is an overwhelming feeling of anxiety, but because they are practical the main thing they want to know is that we are going to learn the lessons of this. Could my hon. Friend please let me know what lessons we will learn and how we will move forward on that basis?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank my hon. Friend for the work he is doing to engage with his local farming community. I will be talking about that more, but work is already under way to make those improvements and scrap the first come, first served element of the scheme.
We anticipated stronger demand and increased the window 2 budget significantly over this summer. An additional £50 million was announced by the Prime Minister in August as part of the response to the dry weather that we saw, and a further £20 million was added before window 2 opened.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I will give way because it is the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to my former colleague on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—these links are important. Can she tell the House how many applications the Department expected? It was modelled by some that there would be somewhere in the region of 40,000. In fact, there was money available for 12,000. Did it come as a total surprise to the Department that it got as many applications as it did?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
The right hon. Gentleman is correct that modelling was undertaken. As a result of that modelling, a further £50 million was announced by the Prime Minister and a subsequent £20 million was announced by the Secretary of State.
I recognise that the substantial demand remained unsatisfied when window 2 closed, and I understand how difficult that was for farmers who were ready to apply but did not have the opportunity to secure an agreement. Let me say this clearly: there will be future SFI offers, and we plan to make an SFI27 offer available as soon as possible.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I am sorry; I am going to make progress.
To that end, we are working with the farming sector on how the scheme can be improved, and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South, confirmed that we will scrap the “first come, first served” application.
It is important to stress that the SFI is only one part of our support for farming. Across this Parliament, the Government have allocated a record £11.8 billion to sustainable farming and food production. That includes £788 million this year alone in new funding for farmers to boost farm productivity, develop cutting-edge technologies that will drive future growth, and maintain a healthy natural environment. Capital grants have provided £225 million this year for practical environmental improvements on farms. At least £50 million is available for new countryside stewardship higher-tier agreements. We have also committed £173 million in 2026-27 for productivity, equipment and innovation through the farming equipment and technology fund and the farming innovation programme. That represents an extensive ongoing commitment to farm adaptation and improvement. I hope that the Opposition support those aims.
Our Government support is not only about grants. Farmers need thriving markets and fair returns for the food they produce. That is why we have established the Farming and Food Partnership Board, which brings together leaders from farming, food, retail and finance to focus on productivity, profitability, home-grown produce and national food security. We are taking action on fairness in the supply chain, too. Fair dealing regulations have been introduced for dairy and pigs, with further work covering eggs, fresh produce and crops.
Our farming road map makes our long-term approach clear: we will maintain domestic food production at least at current levels; we will protect productive land for food production; we will support investment in technology and skills; and we will build resilience to the climate and geopolitical shocks that farmers are increasingly having to manage. That is because healthy soil, reliable water supply, efficient use of nutrients and profitable farm businesses are not competing objectives but the foundations of our food security.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I am going to make progress.
Farmers have endured an exceptionally demanding period. We recognise the pressure that many businesses are under, and I recognise the real frustration for those who have been unable to secure an SFI26 agreement, but our commitment to farming has not changed. We will continue to invest in farmers, support productivity and innovation, improve water resilience, make supply chains fairer and work with the sector to build businesses that can withstand changing weather and an uncertain world. Above all, we will continue to back the people who produce our food, because supporting British farming is not simply about supporting one sector; it is about our food security, our economic security and our national resilience. The Government are determined to secure all three.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Yesterday, the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), and I were once again out and about in the fields, talking to our hard-working farmers, this this time in Newbury. We spoke to them about the many hardships they face at the hands of this Labour Government. Week after week, from farm to farm, the message is the same: farmers are exhausted; they are worried; and they feel incredibly betrayed by this Labour Government. They do not feel that the Government are on their side or value the work that they are doing. They feel that the Government have turned their back on rural Britain. I welcome the debate, because it gives us an opportunity to say out loud in the House what every farmer in the country already knows: on Labour’s watch, it is our hard-working farming families who are paying the price.
Let me begin by addressing the fiasco that has been the sustainable farming incentive. As I said in this place just last week, I cannot stress enough how badly the SFI has been mishandled under this Labour Government—it has been a complete and utter debacle—and once again our hard-working farming families are the ones suffering. Let there be no doubt: this did not come out of the blue; there were plenty of warnings. The Government, having closed the scheme in March 2025, caused chaos, huge anxiety and additional financial pressure for our farmers.
James Naish
Does the hon. Member think it is better to close a scheme because it has overspent, or to underspend the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’s budget by £358 million?
Robbie Moore
What Government Members do not seem to understand is that when a highly sought-after scheme is closed, which is exactly what happened under this Labour Government in March 2025, demand inevitably builds up. That was coupled with the budget being reduced significantly. There was 18 months of this Government sitting on their hands, enabling demand to build. What was the result? When the scheme finally opened, it became a competitive scheme. On this Labour Government’s watch, it was “first come, first served”; those who got in were those who could press “send” the fastest. This Labour Government knew what the consequences would be, as was reported in The Times yesterday, but they carried on regardless. The result: approximately 40,000 farmers tried to get into the scheme, but only 12,200 were successful. The application window was slammed shut after just five and a half hours, all because the money had gone.
Last week, I stood in this Chamber and asked the Farming Minister very simple questions, but there were no answers. I will try again, so that he can address these in his summing up. The expiring agreements were worth more than £520 million, yet the SFI budget was cut to just £310 million. Where has the additional £210 million gone? It is vital that clarity and reassurance be given to our farmers. When will the Minister open SFI27? It is not good enough to say, “As soon as possible”; we need clarity. What will the Minister do for those who have agreements that are expiring, to stop the cliff edge in their cash flow? What budget has the Minister set aside for SFI27?
We must all remember that this situation comes on top of the Government’s disastrous decision to reduce de-linked payments dramatically, far more quickly than was ever agreed, to a measly £600 per farming business. I suspect that it costs the Government more in administrative charges to distribute those payments than it benefits each farming holding. Our farming businesses now feel the pain, financially and emotionally, as they struggle with their cash flow.
SFI is not some isolated incident; it is part of a pattern. Before Labour broke the SFI scheme, it crushed the family farm with its disastrous family farm and family business tax. Before the election, those on the Government Benches looked farmers in the eye and told them that they had no plans to change agricultural property relief and business property relief. In Labour’s very first Budget, which was its first opportunity to show rural communities up and down the country that it cared and understood them, it did not. It brought out the family farm and family business tax—a vindictive tax that strikes family farming businesses at their worst moment.
Each and every Labour MP who voted again last week to keep the family farm and family business tax should be ashamed of themselves. The narrative is, rightly, that there has been a partial U-turn—the threshold at which the tax applies has been raised from £1 million to £2.5 million—but that simply does not go far enough. Now, bizarrely, a person’s marital status can raise the threshold to £5 million. That seems ridiculous. Once the farmland, the farmhouse, the growing crops, the stocks, the machinery, the crops in store and the livestock have been valued, the value of a traditional farming business will be well above the £2.5 million threshold. That exposes any hard-working family farming business to an inheritance tax liability that they simply will not be able to afford. This was completely ill thought through.
That brings me to the Liberal Democrat motion before us, which only states that they regret
“the Government’s changes to Agricultural Property Relief”.
It makes no reference to business property relief. I thought that we were aligned on this issue, but clearly we are not. Many farming businesses rely heavily on business property relief. It covers trading assets not covered by agricultural property relief, including machinery, livestock, harvested crops and any rural diversification projects, including farm shops and holiday lets, so I am incredibly surprised that the Lib Dems do not also regret the Government’s changes to business property relief.
Tim Farron
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is at least as au fait with Liberal Democrat manifesto policies as I am, so he will know that we oppose the family business inheritance tax changes as well. He will also know, having been here a reasonable amount of time, that there is a word limit on these motions; that is why those changes are not mentioned.
Robbie Moore
This is a Liberal Democrat Opposition day debate. The Liberal Democrats have had many opportunities to prepare for it, but their motion excludes a crucial issue: business property relief. I take the hon. Member at his word when he says that the Liberal Democrats are also concerned about the impact that business property relief will have on many of our farming businesses, but given the huge impact the issue has, I am very surprised that it is not included in their motion.
Let me be clear: the Conservatives absolutely regret the continued roll-out of both the family farm tax and the family business tax, and we will continue to demand that the Government scrap both and put back in place the 100% relief on APR and BPR. On behalf of our farmers, our growers and our wider agricultural sector, we urge the Government to ensure that the Prime Minister does the right thing next week in the Budget and axes the family farm tax and family business tax.
Sir Ashley Fox
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am glad that he is brave enough to take an intervention from a Member from Somerset. He is absolutely right to emphasise our commitment to scrapping the family farm and family business tax, but does he agree that the fertiliser tax that this Labour Government will introduce on 1 January, and which the Liberal Democrats are too timid to oppose, will hit farmers and increase the price of food in our country?
Robbie Moore
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is completely right to outline the impact of the statutory instrument that was voted on just this week, which all Conservative Members voted against.
I was just about to come on to the point that this does not stop with the family farm and family business tax. As if the dramatic drop in de-linked payments, the SFI debacle and the family farm and family business tax were not enough, from 1 January next year Labour will hit farmers with yet another tax—the fertiliser tax—through the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Industry warns that this new fertiliser tax could pile up a further £75 a tonne, if not more, on current fertiliser prices. This is simply unfeasible. It adds an additional cost to many of our farmers at a time when they are already being pushed to breaking point. The fertiliser tax should not have been introduced, and the Conservatives voted against it last week.
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Member will be aware that the carbon border adjustment mechanism was started under the last Government. The consultation was launched in 2023. With the benefit of hindsight, does he think it might have been a good idea at that stage to take fertiliser out of it?
Robbie Moore
I pleased that the right hon. Member, for whom I have great respect, has raised this point, but I will gently push back and say that we are two years into this Labour Government. He makes reference to a consultation that was started under the previous Conservative Administration, but we voted on the fertiliser tax this week, and it was predominantly Conservatives who voted against it. I have to say to the Liberal Democrats: where were you when we voted to stop the fertiliser tax? Not one Liberal Democrat MP voted to stop it.
Yet again, the Liberal Democrats are all over the place. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) said in a debate that I attended last week:
“We Liberal Democrats support the carbon border adjustment mechanism.”—[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 12 October 2026; c. 7.]
However, in today’s motion, the Liberal Democrats propose that the House
“notes that farmers are deeply concerned about surging input costs, the impact of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism on fertiliser costs”,
but they cannot bring themselves to be concerned enough to vote to stop it.
Far from protecting our farmers in this House, the Liberal Democrats simply demonstrate that they are Labour enablers, helping those on the Government Benches bulldoze their plans through while outside this House, I suspect their leaflets will be portraying a very different message to their constituents to try to keep everybody happy, but we see through that.
To conclude, the record of this Labour Government is clear for us all to see. They broke the SFI scheme and cut its budget. They taxed family farms and now are taxing fertilisers and assets. We have a Farming Minister who faints at the sight of meat. We have a countryside Minister who thinks that anyone who has a black Labrador and enjoys a warm pint in one of our rural pubs is far right. What an absolute nonsense. Farmers feed this nation—they deserve a Government on their side. It is clear that farmers can no longer afford another day of this Labour Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Members will be able to see that many of you wish to contribute. With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Terry Jermy.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to her place. I am so pleased to see her there, and I know that her rural credentials are strong.
As the Member of Parliament for South West Norfolk, one of the most productive farming constituencies in the country, it has been a privilege to spend a significant amount of my time over the past two years meeting farmers, landowners, growers and rural businesses across the area. Farming is not simply another sector in South West Norfolk; it shapes our landscape, supports our local economy, underpins food production, contributes to environmental stewardship and helps to define the very character of our communities. Since being elected, I have made a conscious effort to get out on to farms and to listen, and I firmly believe that good policy starts with understanding the reality on the ground. That means standing in fields and walking farmyards, and hearing directly from the people who deal with the practical challenges and the opportunities facing farming every single day. I welcome that our Farming Minister has been undertaking that engagement, too, and I know that it has been valued by the industry.
I have now met more than 100 South West Norfolk farmers, and from those meetings I have been struck by their resilience, dedication and innovation. Agriculture today requires farmers to balance a growing range of responsibilities. Alongside producing high-quality food, businesses manage environmental outcomes, adapt to changing weather patterns, embrace new technologies and respond to market pressures. The scale of that challenge demonstrates the professionalism and adaptability of modern farming, and many are doing that while operating on extremely fine margins.
The concerns of a farmer in Weeting will likely differ from those in Nordelph. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for farming, and one clear theme from my visits is how important confidence, clarity and certainty are for farming businesses making long-term decisions.
Sir Ashley Fox
In the hon. Gentleman’s discussions with farmers in South West Norfolk, are they content with the Government changes to agricultural property relief, or do they still think the family farm tax should be abolished in its entirety?
Terry Jermy
The vast majority of farms in my constituency are small family farms. It was campaigning from constituency MPs like myself and others that got the changes to that policy so that it now works for the vast majority of those impacted.
Over the past decade or so, farmers have been at the sharp end of changing political landscapes, with Brexit and its fundamental change to farming policy being the most profound, because farming is an industry that plans years ahead. Decisions made today on investment, machinery, water infrastructure, environmental delivery and succession have consequences that last decades. Farmers can adapt to change and seize new opportunities when there is a clear direction of travel, but it becomes difficult for businesses to plan with confidence when there is a lack of certainty.
In countless conversations, farmers have told me they are desperate for that clarity, consistency and long-term thinking from Government. I hope that the farming roadmap developed under this Labour Government is the start of that approach. One of the biggest issues raised has been around profitability. The fundamental challenge that remains is in ensuring that farming businesses can generate sustainable returns. While discussions often focus on environmental schemes or regulation—this scheme or that scheme—as is the case with the Lib Dem motion before the House, neither environmental ambition nor long-term investment can be achieved if a farm business itself is not financially viable.
Farming continues to be treated as a political football. Cosplay Reform Members may have a Barbour jacket and a flat cap, but do they actually have a single farming policy? I note their absence from today’s debate. And what of the Tories, desperate as ever to be the face of rural Britain like it is some divine right, while completely ignoring the demise of farming under their watch? It was their withdrawal from the common agricultural policy that left our farmers exposed with no plan in place. It will be some years before many farmers will forgive that level of betrayal by the Conservatives.
Many farmers tell me that despite producing world-class food, margins are often squeezed by factors beyond their control. That limited agency over their destiny feeds into their frustration and the poor mental health of many farmers, which is a real concern.
Looking forward, I remain optimistic about the future of British farming. There are many significant challenges, but there are opportunities too. We have some of the most productive farmland to be found anywhere in the world, we have farmers who are innovative, entrepreneurial and committed to producing high-quality food, and we have growing opportunities around technology, precision agriculture, water management and sustainable food production. However, success is not guaranteed. It will require a recognition that food production and environmental improvements are not competing objectives. Done properly, they can and must go hand in hand.
To conclude, I have three main asks of the Government. First, with the Budget looming, we must raise the annual investment allowance and consider what I have called the green investment allowance, because incentivising investment in rural areas into things like reservoirs and revamping poultry sheds will deliver greater environmental benefits than many SFI schemes.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
Yesterday I had the great delight of meeting with members of Derbyshire National Farmers’ Union. They agreed with my hon. Friend about making it easier for them to access capital, not just to invest in items like tractors, but in buildings and things such as reservoirs, to help them manage the change in climate. Does he agree that meeting regularly with our NFU members is a fantastic use of our time, and that they help to shape the recommendations we make to Government?
Terry Jermy
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Government cannot pay for everything, but we can and should create an investment framework that encourages famers.
Secondly, we must significantly improve the availability of on-farm water collection and storage through amending planning laws and providing capital grants. Without that, land currently farmed will become unviable, with increasing drought and water scarcity. Thirdly, we must also focus on supply chain fairness, turbocharging a more co-operative model, such as that in New Zealand, using public procurement powers and tackling imports that have lower environmental and animal welfare standards than those that we permit here in the UK.
I could go on, but if food security really does mean national security, there needs to be tangible action and we need it now.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy). I can endorse his asks to the Chancellor and I could probably add a few of my own. Like him, I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter), to her place. She has maybe had a slightly rocky start at some moments, but I know from her time on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that she has knowledge about and a concern for the industry. It is in everybody’s interests that the Government should be successful, so we wish her and her colleagues well.
I am not going to say a great deal about the sustainable farming incentive. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), is coming to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee next week and we will doubtless spend some time on it then. It would be worth him and others reflecting on the full extent of the damage and the nature of the damage that has been done by that particular episode, because we are already seeing an unpicking of land that has been managed in a way that was beneficial for nature, sometimes for decades.
Farmers have found themselves overnight with massive holes in their budgets. When they ask, “Well, what is going to happen next?”, it is simply not tenable for any of us to turn around and say, “Well, it is okay—just trust DEFRA. They will come up with something in the next financial year.” I am pretty sure what most farmers would say if we turned around to them and said that.
The real impact is another nail in the coffin of financial investor confidence in the industry, at a time when there is a perfect storm for British farming. We have seen a price spike in input costs from earlier in the year, as a consequence of what happened in the strait of Hormuz, particularly in relation to urea for the production of fertiliser and diesel. The Food and Drink Federation told the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in May that that would take another 10 months to feed through into price inflation, so we still have the worst of that to come in the new year.
Since then, we have had a long, hot summer, in which many arable farmers have been through the third bad harvest in succession, with yields down. Let us not forget that many of them chose not to plant in the spring in the first place, because it made more economic sense just to sell the fertiliser and not plant the seed. The usual sources of replacements, at the time of a bad harvest in continental Europe, are going through exactly the same things that we are going through. Our livestock farms are already feeding winter forage, because they have not had the grass available for their cattle and sheep. Parenthetically, let me say that that is not the case in Orkney, where the problem we have with our winter forage is getting it off the fields after a long, wet summer.
In the red meat sector, our livestock numbers continue to decline in a way that risks threatening the critical mass of the industry. If that were to fall over, it would have a massive ripple effect through the rural economy—through the marts, hauliers, abattoirs, vets and merchants of all sorts. The chicken and pork sectors are under serious pressure. I had a conversation just last week with Cranswick, one of the biggest operators, which told me that between it and 2 Sisters, something in the region of £1.5 billion of planned investment is held up in the planning system. In many ways, that sums up the frustration of the situation in which we find ourselves.
Despite this perfect storm, there are people in every sector of this brilliant industry who continue to want to farm and invest. We have spoken about all the different agricultural policies that have an impact on the sector, but there are policies across nearly every Department of Government, especially in relation to the planning system, that could free up investment opportunities that would generate growth. The Prime Minister speaks about growth in every postcode, and a lot of postcodes are in farming communities. The rural economy presents a real opportunity to generate the economic growth that we all know we need.
For all the downsides that there are in the industry at the moment, I remain optimistic for one reason only, which has nothing to do with anybody in this Chamber or in government: despite everything that happens to our farmers, they continue to want to produce food to feed our nation, and they are better than almost anybody else in the world at doing that.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
To start off, we need to talk about the SFI scheme, which has been a painful subject in conversations I have had with my farming community. There is no way of sugaring this issue. I know that the Minister will diligently look at the process going forward, but I fear that this debate will focus on the symptoms, not the cause. The overapplication that we have seen is because profitability does not exist in the system of farming. We have so few schemes available that ensure that our farmers can get that profitability back, and we need to solve that problem.
I put it to the House that one thing we should consider is removing as many financial and regulatory burdens as we can from our farming community. Let us look at our Australian colleagues, for example. The Labour Government of Australia set themselves a farm gate value of 100 billion Australian dollars by 2030, and they have hit that figure three years in advance, because they have the farming resilience fund, which they have expanded over recent years. That ensures that in good years, farmers can put aside a tax-deductible lump sum. I believe we should be pursuing that on a greater level within the United Kingdom—maybe up to £500,000 a year—but there is something that we should do differently from our Australian cousins. We should ensure that if a farmer draws down on that scheme for reservoirs, new silos and grain stores, or investment in their livestock, for example, that remains tax-deductible. I estimate that would cost the Treasury about £100 million, and it would allow us to show our farming community, in good faith, that we are giving them a leg up, not trying to cut them down.
I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) that we need to streamline the planning process, and not just for on-farm reservoirs; we also need to look at how we can support diversification of our farming sector. However, this debate is not just about financial issues—it is bigger. We have the veterinary reform Bill coming up as well, about which I have had quite a few conversations with the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson). It cannot just be about domestic animals; we also need to look at how we support our veterinary practices to ensure that we can get profitability into the farming sector, because if we do not have a secure veterinary sector, the farming sector will fall apart very quickly.
The other aspect that flows from that point is biosecurity. I welcome the investment that the Government have made in our biosecurity systems over the past two years, but I still have concerns, especially about the port of Dover. A 27-mile gap until the inspection of meat and produce takes place is dangerous. When I visited the Agriculture Minister in Australia, I heard about the Australians’ concerns regarding the first flight of bird influenza to their country. They have been able to solve such problems because they take biosecurity so seriously. African swine fever is the real concern for us, and I would like it if the Minister could, in his winding-up remarks, expand on what we will be doing on that.
Beyond that, we also need to look at our trade arrangements, which are addressed in today’s motion. The motion mentions the Australian and New Zealand trade deal secured by the previous Government—which has been disastrous, especially to our upland farmers—but there have been good trade deals secured by this Government, such as the Indian trade deal. To be honest with the House, as a Member representing a huge sugar beet production area of the United Kingdom, I was extremely worried that a free-for-all on Indian sugar would fundamentally undermine our market. However, the Government took the right action and ensured that there was a carve-out. They have also taken the right action with the US trade deal, giving access to the beef market but not flooding our market. I do, though, politely recommend to Government Front Benchers that we ban Brazilian beef within the UK market; that would also be a gesture of good will to our European partners, who have done exactly the same. As we approach the sanitary and phytosanitary trade agreement, which will be vital to expanding our food sector, that sort of action would be extremely helpful to the UK.
Samantha Niblett
My hon. Friend is making an incredible speech without any notes, demonstrating his knowledge of this space. It is super impressive.
I met representatives of Derbyshire NFU yesterday. One of the things they talked about, as well as their concerns about Brazilian beef, was how often a consumer can go to the shop and think they are doing the right thing because they are buying something that has the Union Jack on the front—our proud British label—but if they turned over the label, they would find that the product is not from this country. Does my hon. Friend agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), who has done a huge amount of work on fair labelling, that we in this country should be doing more to let people know where their food comes from, so that they can make the right decision and buy British?
Ben Goldsborough
My hon. Friend makes an impassioned plea against the flag-washing that we see in the United Kingdom. One of my concerns is that we are getting into a very easy situation of exporting our morality when it comes to food production. We cannot continue down this alley of increasing our standards to a certain level while other nations are undermining theirs. All that does is put our farming communities in a situation where they cannot fight against that race to the bottom. I would appreciate it if, when the Minister winds up, he would say what discussions he and his colleagues have had with our European partners, especially on the SPS agreement, to ensure that there will be a level playing field—when, for example, neonicotinoids are used in Hungary. Also, vitally, what are they doing to ensure that there will be a long transition period in the United Kingdom? We have an issue with black-grass, and if we lose our herbicides from our market, our yields will be harmed hugely.
In conclusion, today’s debate looks at the symptoms, not the causes. I urge the Minister to explain in his winding-up remarks what we are going to do to fix the underlying profitability issues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I call John Lamont, after which the speaking limit will drop to four minutes.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I am pleased to be able to speak in this important debate. For many parts of my constituency in the Scottish Borders, farming is not just part of the local economy; it is the backbone of the community. Across the Scottish Borders, farming families produce the food we eat, look after the countryside and keep our towns going. Today, they are being squeezed from both ends by a Labour Government here at Westminster and an SNP Government in Edinburgh.
Let me be clear from the outset that the sustainable farming incentive applies only to England. Farm support is devolved, and farmers in my constituency could not apply for the SFI, but how a Government treat farmers in one part of the country reveals a great deal about how they regard farmers everywhere. With the two issues that hit every farm in the United Kingdom—the family farm tax and the fertiliser tax—Borders farmers are being hit just as hard as farmers here in England.
On the SFI, the facts speak for themselves. In March 2025, Ministers shut the scheme overnight without warning. Then, after more than a year of uncertainty, the new application window opened at 10 o’clock on 22 September. By 4 o’clock that afternoon, the entire budget—around a quarter of a billion pounds—was gone. Thousands of farmers lost out, including around 12,500 who already had agreements in place. Months of preparation, advisers’ fees and business plans were wasted in just under six hours. Farmers cannot run their businesses around a Government lottery. Decisions on cropping, stocking and investment are taken years in advance, not between 10 in the morning and 4 in the afternoon.
This Labour Government’s record on farming has been appalling. They created one of the biggest threats facing family farms in recent years with the family farm tax. Even after last December’s partial climbdown, which raised the threshold to £2.5 million, farms above that level, including many in my constituency, still face an effective 20% inheritance tax bill. Farmers are asset-rich and cash-poor. The value of their land does not pay a tax bill; selling the land does. Families in my constituency are still asking whether they will be able to hand the family farm on to the next generation. A Conservative Government will restore agricultural property relief and business property relief in full.
Farmers in Scotland are being let down by the SNP, too. Just last week, NFU Scotland warned that the agricultural support budget of around £677 million a year has lost some 20% of its purchasing power since 2014. The union is calling for an increase of around £183 million in the next Scottish budget, and NFU Scotland has also made it clear that a budget being eaten away by inflation is simply not good enough. Farmers in the Borders are sick of consultations and complicated new frameworks being dished out by Holyrood. They need a properly funded scheme that backs food production, encourages investment and lets their businesses make a profit.
That brings me to Labour’s fertiliser tax. From January, the carbon border adjustment mechanism, known as CBAM, will impose a new charge on imported fertiliser. Some have suggested during this debate that the carbon border mechanism was first proposed under a Conservative Government. Its purpose was to stop the British industry being undercut by high carbon imports, but there is no British ammonia industry left to protect.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
My hon. Friend and I were in the Committee that discussed the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Does he share my surprise that the Government did not seem to realise that it would affect fertiliser? There was much focus on cement and steel, but it seemed to come as a shock to them that it would put as much as £70 or £80 on a tonne of fertiliser.
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour Minister did not seem to understand the impact that the mechanism would have. I was even more shocked that the Liberal Democrats decided not to vote against the proposal, unlike Opposition Members.
As I was saying, the ammonia that our fertiliser depends on is now just about all imported. For farmers, the fertiliser tax is not about protection, but is simply a further tax on growing food. As the NFU has warned, food grown overseas with exactly the same fertiliser will come into this country with no tax being paid. British farmers will be put at a disadvantage in their own market by their own Government. This tax will hit every farm in the United Kingdom, including the farms on the Scottish Borders that the SFI never reached.
As we have heard, the Conservatives tried to stop the fertiliser tax, but where were the Liberal Democrats? They were sitting on the fence. When I challenged the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings)—she is not in the Chamber, but she was a member of the Committee that was considering this regulation last week—she accepted that there were concerns about the uncertainty and the additional costs; but when it came to the vote, the Liberal Democrats sat on their hands. They refused to oppose the measure imposing this additional tax on our farmers.
John Lamont
The right hon. Member had his time to have his say, but he refused to deal with this issue. The Liberal Democrats have had their say, but have refused to justify their failure to stand up for the farmers and try to stop this. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Member is obviously not giving way.
John Lamont
According to the Liberal Democrat motion, farmers are “deeply concerned” about the impact of CBAM on fertiliser costs. Too right they are, and I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ late conversion, but noting concerns in a motion is no substitute for standing up for farmers when it counts, and that is when we vote. The party that tells farmers it is on their side does not then stand up to stop these extra costs, but just walks away. You cannot champion farmers in this Chamber and then abandon them when the vote comes.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am now introducing a four-minute speaking limit.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Farmers should be able to make a decent living producing excellent food while being properly rewarded for stewarding the land on which we all depend, and those things should not be in competition with one another.
Farming sits at the heart of our rural economy, our national security and Britain’s identity. Farmers put in incredibly long hours, often with no respite. They carry considerable financial risk and take decisions that can affect their families’ livelihoods for generations. This has been an exceptionally hard year given the drought, and the driving up of fertiliser and fuel costs by the war in Iran has compounded that. The Government have offered some respite through flexibilities in ELMS agreements, £15 million for on-farm reservoirs, a cut in duty on red diesel and an extra £70 million for this year’s sustainable farming incentive. The SFI supports farming in harmony with nature, from enriching soils to one of my loves: supporting our wonderful farmland birds.
I want to share a hopeful, positive story from my constituency. The Oak Tree Farm smallholding, started a few years ago by Sarah and Jay Taylor just outside Slitting Mill near Rugeley, secured funding in the first SFI26 window. They are excited new entrants, and plan to plant fruit trees and establish new hedgerows. I had the chance to visit them recently, and their love of their animals and the brilliant relationships that they have with their loyal customers was so uplifting. We should remember that that first window did succeed in allowing farms like Sarah’s and Jay’s to get in for the first time. There are, however, many lessons to learn. After closing within six hours, the second £233 million SFI26 window demonstrates the sheer level of demand from farmers wanting to participate, but also—let us be frank—desperately needing Government support to tide them over after a series of torrid growing seasons. The window opened at 10 am. For many farmers, that is well into the working day. Many will have been tending livestock or out in the fields, so the timing and the IT system were, in fact, unnecessary barriers.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to reopen the SFI as early as possible in 2027, and to scrap the first come, first served approach. I hope that Ministers will consider assessing applications on clear criteria, including environmental benefits, value for money and fair access. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for public sector efficiency, I would be keen to be involved in those discussions—alongside, of course, the sector itself, which needs to be heard first and foremost.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could make the SFI system more accessible to farmers by publishing a timetable of when those windows will open well in advance, and circulating it so that farmers could be ready to apply when the next round arrived?
Josh Newbury
I do agree with my hon. Friend. I wonder whether there was a hesitancy about creating too much demand on the pretty inadequate IT system in one go, but that will always be the case, as long as people know the date. I think that we should have much earlier notice and that the system should take account of the realities of farming, which I am afraid this year’s scheme did not.
A farmer should not have to be the quickest with a keyboard and mouse to secure vital cash for margins or pastures. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to the SFI, but we also must not shy away from asking fundamental questions about its structure and communication.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Josh Newbury
In the interests of time, I am afraid I will not, because I know that many Liberal Democrat colleagues want to get in.
I also want to raise the wider contribution that farmers make to rural communities. During severe weather, they are often the first to spring into action. I admire the example set by the last Welsh Labour Government in financially recognising what farmers do for our communities, particularly during heavy snow, fires or other emergencies. As we set out to improve the SFI, I hope we will place greater emphasis on measures that promote resilience to extreme weather, and perhaps even flag those to farmers in badly affected parts of the country. The Government could also take measures to support farms of all shapes and sizes ahead of SFI27, such as the Treasury-backed loans that the National Farmers Union is calling for in next week’s Budget. I hope that the DEFRA team are making the case for rapid, flexible assistance, given the myriad pressures that have come this year.
I am optimistic about the future of British farming because of the ingenuity, determination and passion of the people who work in it, whom I will continue to listen to and champion. We will have our differences in this place, but I believe there is a consensus in the House on much of what needs to happen to support our brilliant British farmers. I hope we can bear that in mind in the months ahead, because they are getting on with their job and it is time for us to find common ground so that we can get on with ours.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I am pleased to be able to speak in my party’s Opposition day debate; I am less pleased about the context in which it takes place. Both Conservative and Labour Governments have failed to deliver an effective post-Brexit farm payment system. The consequences have been severe, not only for the viability of British farms but, ultimately, for our nation’s food security. The most recent example is the farce of the SFI window 2. After almost a year without access to the sustainable farming incentive, farmers were given little warning of its return, only for the scheme to slam shut in under six hours. A budget of just £233 million was never going to touch the sides.
What is most damning is that this outcome was entirely foreseeable. A first come, first served application process, combined with inadequate funding, was always going to create a scramble. In that scramble, those with greater resources, more sophisticated systems and stronger connectivity enjoyed a clear advantage.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I heard from many farmers in Winchester and Hampshire who desperately wanted to apply for the SFI, but most of them had to work during the day and it had closed by the time they got back. One of them compared it with trying to get Oasis tickets. As my hon. Friend says, the process clearly favours very large businesses that have full-time managers and admin staff. It puts family farms at a disadvantage, because individual farmers have to work outside.
Rachel Gilmour
I was about to comment on the fact that my farmers on Exmoor were immediately put at a disadvantage, because they have limited broadband and limited connectivity. I was contacted by a farming family from West Bagborough who were in complete despair. They made the self-evident point that farmers cannot simply abandon the working day at a moment’s notice and spend hours online desperately trying to secure support before the window closes.
Farmers have endured a perfect storm: inheritance tax, soaring energy costs, bluetongue, drought and now this latest SFI debacle. Farmers’ trust in the Government was already on the floor, and this recent episode has undermined whatever scintilla of trust remained. Once again, farmers have been left with the impression that Whitehall neither understands nor appreciates the realities of farming. What remains particularly frustrating is the ongoing lack of certainty. Farmers still do not know the shape of SFI27: what it will contain, when it will begin and what level of support it will provide. The farmers of Tiverton and Minehead are not interested in hearing about jam tomorrow; they need to know what support is available today.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I thank the hon. Lady for her speech, and I agree that it is absolutely crucial for farmers to have confidence in long-term policy support. My farmers in Waveney Valley tell me they want to invest in measures that support natural flood management, restore nature, such as new hedgerows, and improve soil health, which are critical for food security. Does she agree that the window 2 debacle shows the level of interest there is, and that far more funding is needed in the SFI funding pot?
Rachel Gilmour
I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, we discussed it at the Public Accounts Committee just last week.
Farmers cannot operate in the dark; they need certainty. Farming is not a short-term enterprise. Decisions taken today affect planting, stocking, investment and land management years into the future. On the Public Accounts Committee last week, we examined the resilience of the UK’s food supply chain to disruption, and the session reinforced what many of us have long argued, which is that food security is national security. As co-chair of the APPG on farming, I heard the same message in our meeting with representatives from across the sector on Monday. That is why it should never be lost on us that farmers are on the frontline of climate change. They see changing weather patterns, degraded soils and seasonal disruption before anyone else. The woodlands, wetlands and grasslands they manage are essential to our biodiversity and natural environment.
Farmers are famously stoic and resilient, yet even the strongest shoulders can carry only so much. The financial pressures, the uncertainty, the long days, the drought, the extreme heat, bluetongue and now the recent SFI disappointment have combined into an overwhelming burden for many. For some, that burden has led them to take their own lives. I conclude with a simple message to the farmers of Tiverton and Minehead: “I am with you.” What my farmers and I want to know is whether this Labour Government are with them.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
To be honest, I am not a big fan of Opposition day debates in Parliament. I made my discomfort clear in a debate on farming in 2024, when I put the Government on notice of my intention to vote against the APR Budget measure. That evening, as the news that I had voted against the official Opposition’s motion was circulated on social media—a motion that quite rightly called for the Government to halt their planned changes to APR, but also appeared to claim that the last Conservative Government were the greatest gift to farming since Jethro Tull’s seed drill—I noted the way my vote was being reported by Conservative Members. One said I had “misled the chamber” and had “voted to impose the family farm tax”. As all Members know, Opposition day motions do not enact change. They are expressions of opinion, not instruments that alter policy or law, or as “Erskine May” says, they do not bind the Government.
It was the same last week. In a debate in which the Conservatives tried out their new theory that sticking the word “family” in front of a tax makes it unpalatable and ripe for scrapping, I objected to the idea that a £175 million penthouse flat could be exempt from tax. For this, I was accused by Conservatives on social media of “nit picking”, being spineless and of “toadying” to get my Whip back—which I have had back, by the way. The post was accompanied by a meme that made reference only to family farms. I would like to be explicit: I want to see the end of the family farm tax, and I urge the Chancellor to do so in the Budget, but I do not believe the plight of my farmers should be conflated and used by politicians who want to give tax breaks to the mega-rich.
Let me now turn my attention to today’s word salad. I like tomatoes, and I agree that the APR changes should be scrapped. I like olives, and I agree that the SFI has been a disaster. Lots of Members like olives, even those on the Labour Benches. The end of universal payments seems like a missed opportunity. Farmers are perfectly candid about how many in the industry who received the basic payment were doing very little for it, but I am increasingly of the view that a universal offer linked to delivering key public goods as a baseline, with a top up ELMs-style offer, would be preferable. It would give all farms a chance, and provide a buffer that they may rely on when times are hard. The farmers I have engaged with since my election have described how they take risks with every investment decision. Bad weather or market conditions can change and do change. A universal payment could not only provide a cushion, but help reassure those considering an investment that they are safe to do so.
Last week I read an article in the Financial Times, which described issues faced by some farmers in accessing SFI. It quoted one Cambridge farmer as saying:
“I will literally take a plough to everything… We will have to go back to farming more intensively than the 1950s.”
It worries me that we may see farmers reaching the end of existing schemes simply plough up the good work they have done and look for what is commercially best for them. I believe a universal offer could, if implemented properly, prevent that from happening.
I do not object to everything in this salad and I am quite pleased it has been served, but everyone has something they do not want in a salad—fennel, just in case you were wondering, Madam Deputy Speaker—and in the case of this motion it is the Liberal Democrats’ inclusion of a commitment to
“an additional £1 billion a year to properly fund environmental land management schemes.”
It sounds tasty, but having sat through a large number of debates in the House, I know that at the heart of their Budget plans is their claim that re-entering Europe would pay for everything. That is as silly as claiming that we could pay using lithium mined on Mars; its presence does not preclude the fact that there is one hell of journey before we get there. These motions are a con: a word salad full of things that Members across the House love, but ultimately containing an ingredient which makes them edible only to the author.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Gareth Snell, changing your seat in the Chamber does not mean I cannot hear or see you.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Agriculture accounts for around 15% of economic activity in my constituency, from the Howe, the bread basket of Fife, to the coastal farms of the East Neuk and down towards Leven, as well as the banks of the Tay. Despite its relative proximity to the central belt of Scotland, it is very much a rural constituency. It hosts both single family farms and larger producers such as Kettle Produce, specialists in prepared vegetables for major retailers, and Quaker Oats in Cupar, which is supplied by arable farmers across the area.
I regularly visit and engage with people across the sector in North East Fife and I want to take a minute to remember the Earl of Lindsay, lately of the other place, who passed away earlier this month and who was a constituent of mine. A Fife farmer, landscape gardener, conservationist and a Scotland Office Minister under John Major for the three Fs—farming, fishing and forestry—he was a dedicated person in the industry post 1997. My thoughts are with his widow Diana and family at this time.
I commend the local mid-Scotland and Fife NFUS for organising regular sessions with both MPs and MSPs to keep us up to date. Just last week, I was at Balbirnie Home Farms learning about their low-input farming approach. Before our recent recess, I visited South Straiton Farm in Balmullo, meeting Duncan Pickard. He was very keen that I say in this Chamber that I had met a happy farmer, and now I have, but the reality is that farming is in many respects a precarious endeavour and for some, it is increasingly hard to make the numbers work.
Back in 2024, I secured a Westminster Hall debate on the barriers farmers face in accessing universal credit. It should concern us all that the very people who put the food on our tables are often forced to rely on a welfare system that seems stacked against them. I look forward to the Timms report with interest, having engaged with the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms). If anything, the challenges facing farmers have become more acute. I say to the shadow Minister that we both stood outside Parliament during farmer protests with signs saying “Family farm tax” and I think we all knew what we meant: both the changes to inheritance tax and to business property relief. There is no doubt that those things have left families worrying about the future of their businesses.
I also want to highlight the recruitment of seasonal workers, which is badly needed to harvest the excellent produce grown in North East Fife. I would like assurances from the Minister that the seasonal agricultural workers scheme will extend beyond 2029. Farmers cannot invest in the future if they do not have the certainty that they will have the workforce they need to get food out of the fields now.
In Scotland, we have the future farming investment scheme, which is intended to provide certainty for farmers through to 2030, but Scottish Ministers need to set out how the proposed four-tier system will deliver fair, accessible and adequately funded assistance. Yes, it should reward positive action on nature restoration and climate resilience—that matters, of course—but it is vital that it sustains food production, rural livelihoods and smaller or remote farming businesses.
Farmers across my constituency continue to face significant financial pressures and it is clear that both the UK and Scottish Governments need to do more. Sometimes, frankly, that means getting out of the way, and encouraging innovation and expertise to develop organically. I have not met a farmer yet who does not care about the land and the animals they rear, or who is unaware of their role in mitigating against climate changes. On that note, I would like to invite everybody in the Chamber, at the conclusion of the debate, to attend the 25th anniversary of the Voluntary Initiative, which meets in the Churchill Room this evening.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I refer colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
When the Labour Rural Research Group polled rural voters in the summer of 2025, 75% of them told us that their communities had been neglected over the past 15 years. Over half, 51.3%, said that agriculture and the rural economy should get more Government spending—a higher share than for any priority except the NHS. People really do care about this agenda, and it is important that we on these Benches remember that.
There is no doubt that there was exceptional demand for SFI26; that demonstrates farmers’ desire to invest in their soil, hedgerows, crops and wildlife. That was partly anticipated, which is why the Government allocated an additional £20 million in window 2, on top of the £50 million announced by the Prime Minister in August. I am pleased that, through this scheme, we have nearly £1 billion of investment in nature-friendly farming, as part of the £11.8 billion in funding for sustainable farming in this Parliament.
The good news is that SFI26 was allocated; the Tories did not manage that. But farmers had been preparing for months, and some were left part of the way through applications that could not be completed. The Government have acknowledged that too many farmers who hoped for an agreement have been left disappointed. I welcome that acknowledgement, but acknowledging a problem is where fixing it must begin, and we need to see the co-design of a new system very quickly. We need the IT systems at the Rural Payments Agency reformed, and we need a much clearer and more transparent road map for future application timelines.
I agree with the part of the motion that covers some of the failings of the previous Government. The motion
“regrets the previous Government’s decision to design the SFI on a first come, first served basis”.
It also regrets the trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, and it is true that the Conservatives left a transition that was half built and half funded. On trade, the former Secretary of State, Michael Gove, has admitted that the Conservatives negotiated poorly with Australia and New Zealand.
There are therefore serious questions that need answering ahead of next year’s scheme. First, the National Farmers’ Union has said that any decrease in income jeopardises future business planning, so when will the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs commit to a date for SFI27? Secondly, there is potentially the gap mentioned earlier today: £520 million of agreements are due to expire. In the Minister’s view, is that accurate? If so, what are the Government doing about it? Thirdly, I seek clarity on the timing for those whose applications failed because of the system’s technical problems. Fourthly, on horticulture and smaller farms, SFI must work for market gardens and smaller growers; the 3 hectare minimum for SFI26 shut some of them out altogether. Can that be reconsidered?
Mr Carmichael
I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman is saying, but we neglect at our peril the sheer extra cost of administration for SFI, as compared with the basic payment scheme. Baroness Batters has remarkable figures on that in her report. Does he agree, to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), that one of the advantages of a more universal system is that it would be hardwired in for food production, and would be much cheaper to administer?
James Naish
The right hon. Gentleman speaks from a position of expertise. He is right that the more complicated we make a system, the more expensive it is to administer. I know that Ministers are looking into how a system that is not “first come, first served” might work; there are risks with that, and we should acknowledge that in this place. It is not a silver bullet by any stretch of the imagination.
I notice that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), did not mention the word “profitability” in his contribution. However, that is an essential point in any debate on farming. Baroness Batters’ “Farming Profitability Review” notes that the farming budget in England has hovered around that £2.4 billion figure since 2007, but the input costs are forecast to be 30% higher this year than in 2020. We need to be clear about the essential mission for farming. The aim is a countryside where farms are less dependent on subsidy and scheme windows, and more independent, resilient and sustainable—for people, profit and our planet. That is the thread that ran through the Batters review, and it is also the thread that ran through the Labour Rural Research Group’s report on the rural economy.
Samantha Niblett
My hon. Friend is talking about recommendations for the SFI going forward. When I met Derbyshire NFU yesterday, there was some concern about a proportion of SFI that was not accounted for—I am sorry, I do not have my notes to confirm the figure. Derbyshire NFU said that one of the key challenges was that when we were part of the EU, there had to be clarity about what money was spent where, whereas now it finds it much harder to get transparency on money that has been invested. Does my hon. Friend agree that this might also be a recommendation to Government?
James Naish
Absolutely. There is a lot of muttering from the Lib Dem Benches, but I am sure that the Minister heard that point.
I will conclude, because plenty of people want to speak. We should be clear that we need to fix the SFI system, and I am pleased that the Government have given indications of how they plan to do that. We must end “first come, first served”, so that the system works more fairly, but we must also collectively recognise that we must do better on the issue of profitability. I welcome the work that the Government have done to date, but we must accelerate the implementation of the Batters profitability review. I hope that we can work across this House to put those points into practice.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
In Wiltshire, farming is at the heart of our rural economy, our landscape and our community. Farmers do not just produce the food on our tables, but support local jobs and businesses, and play a crucial role in protecting and restoring the natural environment. Farmers in Wiltshire are not asking for special treatment; they are merely asking for the certainty that every business needs. I recently spoke to Anna, a livestock vet in my constituency who works with farmers across Wiltshire, and she put the problem very simply: farming businesses plan years ahead, not months ahead. When support schemes change without warning, farmers cannot make decisions about environmental improvements because they simply do not know what resources they will have available. Wiltshire’s mixed agricultural landscape, which combines arable farming and dairy and livestock businesses, is exactly the sort of environment where sustainable farming practices thrive. However, if a farm does not know what support will be available, it cannot confidently plan for the future.
In Wiltshire, we have already seen what can be achieved when farmers are supported to work alongside nature. The Bremhill Vales Farmers Group brings together 50 farms covering 5,000 hectares between Chippenham, Calne and Lyneham. It works with the Environment Agency and Wiltshire Wildlife Trust to improve water quality and reduce flood risk through natural management. Those farmers know that being productive can sit alongside environmental stewardship, but only with the right tailored support.
As well as the SFI debacle, I will raise a couple of other things that are affecting my farmers. One is the rigidity around the machinery grant; the Government application windows are so tight. Another issue is how complex and difficult the guidance can be—even veterinary professionals, who deal with those programmes regularly, struggle to navigate the guidance and the application process. I looked through the welfare pathway website recently with a local vet. I found the forms difficult to locate and the timelines unclear, and minor administrative errors meant that access to support was lost entirely. If the experts struggle to navigate the system, Ministers should ask themselves how easy and accessible the system is to a busy family farm. Wiltshire’s farmers are ready to play their part; they deserve a Government who are ready to play theirs.
I have two questions for the Minister. What assurance can he give farmers in my constituency that when they commit to long-term environmental improvements, this Government are willing to provide the long-term funding certainty needed to support that work? Will the Minister commit to publishing a clear, single-page timeline that sets out the application windows, the eligibility criteria and the payment timeline for the farming scheme well in advance, so that farmers can make the long-term business decisions that modern agriculture requires?
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
This is an important debate about support for our farmers. A few weeks ago, I was absolutely delighted to speak to the Towcester Young Farmers Club, in a room full of our best and brightest—our custodians for the future. We talk about supporting them, and I want to do that; however, I also want to recognise the support that they are giving back to us already, at their young age. Whether it is Rosie Burt, who ran a gruelling 50k ultramarathon in aid of Macmillan Cancer Support, or the young farmers organising their charity Halloween tractor run on 1 November to raise money for the Cynthia Spencer hospice, they give so much back to our community already, and I think it is very important that we recognise that.
That is why I am so hurt and saddened that in the face of such optimism from this younger generation, we are having to fight so hard against the Government to make them realise the impact of the choices that they have made. We have already rehearsed the family farm tax, the family business tax, the issues with SFI, the increase in national insurance contributions and the fertiliser tax. Rather than speaking about rejoining the EU and the options on the table, or about electoral reform, as the Prime Minister is doing, why not prioritise these decisions that can make a massive difference to our farmers here and now? I urge the Minister to take the message back to the Prime Minister that this is what we should be focused on. As we have said, farming is a vocation, and it needs long-term planning and certainty for the future. At Prime Minister’s questions today, the PM talked about the EU summit bringing a better deal for farmers, but the proof ultimately will be in the pudding.
We have had zero details about the upcoming sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. We have asked the relevant Minister numerous times to come before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to answer questions, but we have been refused on numerous occasions. The SPS agreement is very important, because we will potentially be moving to a system of dynamic alignment, and that will have a massive impact. We are well ahead in this country on matters such as precision breeding and on our animal welfare standards. We all want to understand exactly what this deal will mean, and I do not think it is right that we are not being given a chance for full scrutiny before it comes around.
The market is talking about the importance of implementation periods. Our farmers need to know what is happening and when. Again, I urge the Minister to give us more transparency on the future SPS agreement. Forgive me if I am slightly concerned about these matters, given that the Government have sold us out on our fishing rights and we could not even agree Security Action for Europe funding.
I want to finish on a more positive note. While many farmers are struggling as a result of the Government’s decisions, they are none the less very industrious, and want to come up with measures to support themselves. One great measure that I think we could all support is that of Ben Aveling, of Radmore farm in my constituency, who is trying to encourage support for farmers by bringing back the Sunday roast. The idea is that we can all sit together and chat as a family while also buying British products. I think we should support that wholeheartedly. Can we please recognise that?
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Food and good land stewardship for nature, environment protection and, indeed, our enjoyment are not luxuries, but essentials. Agriculture has enormous economic potential: the industry supports 334,000 jobs in the agriculture labour force alone and sits at the centre of the wider agrifood industry, which is worth more than £153 billion. Agriculture also supports many other industries, such as feed, energy, fertiliser, chemicals, logistics and professional services, with £20.9 billion of intermediate inputs, yet the sector seems to be treated as a luxury, rather than as something totally essential to everything that we need in our country to succeed, and farmers do not get the attention and consistent and coherent support from Government that they deserve.
Even before the latest sustainable farming incentive farce, farmers in my Oxfordshire constituency already faced so many challenges and headwinds. Given their role in causing many of those problems, it is rather concerning that the Conservatives seem to be suffering from more amnesia than was portrayed in Christopher Nolan’s “Memento”.
The challenges faced by farmers include: the current Labour Government’s agricultural and business property tax relief changes; the uncertainty and impact of Brexit; trade deals based on proving the so-called benefits of Brexit, no matter the impact on our farmers; constantly changing Government incentive and payment regimes; the impact of recent worldwide inflation on fertiliser prices and equipment costs, now made even worse as a result of Trump’s idiotic middle east war; labour shortages also as a result of Brexit; pressures from the supply chain driving down prices for produce; and the worsening impact of climate change, which we have seen particularly gravely this year.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I would like to add one more thing to that list of Conservative disasters. The underspending of the farming budget by more than £350 million has led to this disgraceful situation where the SFI has seen a huge demand because our farmers are scared that that will happen again. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Minister to commit that the budget will not be underspent by this Government?
Olly Glover
I do join my hon. Friend in calling for that. It was a shame that that, too, was missing from the shadow Minister’s speech.
When designing the sustainable farming initiative and the system for allocating it, it would appear that the Ministers and officials concerned may have spent too much time here in Parliament, where Members wanting to get slots for some types of Bill have to become proficient in efficient use of Microsoft Outlook. That is similar to the bidding contest for SFI, which becomes as much about mastering process, IT savviness and a race against the clock as about the substance. This is a particular problem for smaller farms, where farmers will often have to be out on their land and not sat at their computer at a time convenient for DEFRA.
Calum Miller
My hon. Friend is making a good case about the shortcomings of the SFI system. One of my farmers told me this week that he is facing a choice between seeking SFI for direct drilling and seeking SFI for preserving waterways by having a grass verge before we get to the waterway. Does he agree that pitting carbon sequestration against the protection of our waterways from nitrate is not a good way to proceed and that we should instead be supporting both these environmental objectives through the allocation of the SFI funds in future rounds?
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend has clearly been listening carefully to farmers in his constituency and makes some strong points.
The Government have said that SFI will be offered again in 2027 and that it will work with farming organisations on potential changes to the scheme. However, a timetable, budget and detailed arrangements for SFI 2027 have yet to be announced. As well as ending the bidding war process for SFI, they need to move beyond an annual settlement. Investment in farms and agriculture is not an annual exercise. It is a multi-year and often multi-decade labour of love that requires hard work, forward planning and long-term thinking. That is why the Government should look at some good practice that they have implemented elsewhere, such as moving to multi-year local government funding settlements, and embrace the same approach for SFI.
The Government have an opportunity to in part make amends in the forthcoming Budget, and I hope that it is one that they will seize. There are many requests from the sector for the Budget, and I will talk about three briefly. One is to increase the annual investment allowance to at least £5 million and extend its scope to include assets qualifying for the structures and buildings allowance. This would support longer-term investments in efficiency and productivity improvements, including with regard to energy and water usage. The annual investment allowance allows businesses to reduce their tax bill by deducting the full cost of qualifying purchases—plant and machinery—from their profits. Currently, such buildings and fixed structures do not qualify for AIA and instead generally qualify for the structures and buildings allowance, which provides relief at 3% per annum on qualifying expenditure. This does not incentivise investment in farm buildings when other forms of investment are relieved at a much faster rate. Similar reliefs are offered in competitor countries. For example, in Ireland such farm buildings can be written off over a period of seven years, and in the USA 100% relief is currently available for five-year periods.
Our second ask of the Government relates to what we have already said about the approach to the carbon border adjustment mechanism introduction. The National Farmers’ Union estimates that fertiliser inclusion in UK CBAM will add up to £70 per metric tonne in extra costs.
Finally, the Government could provide or underwrite the capital required for a temporary programme of interest-free farm crisis loans. That would really help the sector as it is suffering from current crises to do with inflation. It could be delivered through accredited commercial lenders and targeted at viable agricultural businesses that are suffering temporary cash flow pressure because of the current situation. I hope that the Government will listen to those requests and use the Budget to help our farmers and get SFI in a much better state for 2027.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
Since my election, I have stood up for my farmers. We have been in fields together, we have marched together and we have lobbied together. Today, they stand with me. I am proud that my party has used this Opposition day debate to hold the Government to account for the latest shambles, which follow on from last year’s shambles. It really does seem that lessons have not been learned.
My farmers cannot speak in the Chamber, but I can, and I want to make their voices heard. Their verdict is blunt. Tim Hayward, who has managed a 3,000 acre farm in South Fawley for over a decade, described the SFI as “flawed” and “not fit for purpose”, popular only because the sector is in such a dire circumstance that many farms have to embrace it to survive. His countryside stewardship agreement expires at the end of the year and, despite trying to secure a new SFI agreement, he has received no support. He faces the prospect of putting precious pockets of land—habitats that have taken years to establish—back into production.
James, another experienced West Berkshire farmer, had an expiring SFI agreement and costed alternative business plans. As he put it,
“I now regard the government as an unreliable trading partner.”
George Brown, a farmer who farms Priors farm and is the chairman of the British Farming Union, told me that the six-hour window was simply impossible for a family farm to prepare for, let alone submit the precise land mapping, rotational forecasting and multi-layered action planning that an application needs.
With the introduction of the family farm tax and the sudden closure of the SFI in 2025, farmers feel that the rural communities they represent are not understood. Farmers play a crucial role in rural life. From environmental stewardship to hosting community events that reduce isolation, clearing roads of snow in the dark winter months or lifting a villager’s car from a country ditch, they are the backbone of rural communities. If we do not back our farmers, we are not backing rural life.
The farming road map rightly attempts to provide clarity, but, after September’s mess, distrust is as strong as ever. Nor can we look to the Conservative party for inspiration—Conservative Members may turn up in my seat for photo ops with farmers, but they have never apologised to them.
I recognise that the Government inherited serious problems, but chaotic windows and abrupt closures have compounded those. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to work with the NFU and move away from a first come, first served basis.
To conclude, may I ask the Minister three things? First, will he publish a clear timescale? As George Brown put it:
“The Government created a funding race that left us all wondering when the starting gun would actually fire.”
If the next window is to be different, the Department should open SFI27 early, with a phased arrangement starting on 1 April so that those who diligently prepared but were shut out get a fair second chance.
Secondly, will the Minister ensure that the budget matches the number of agreements that are ending? More than 21,000 farm businesses have environmental agreements ending by March and only about 8,800 applied for SFI26. What transitional support will the Government provide to close that gap? Thirdly, the Government should use next week’s Budget for a clear injection of support and back the Liberal Democrats’ call for an extra £1 billion a year for farming.
The Government have said that they are determined to rebuild trust across rural communities. If they take those steps, that could mark a turning point and give the custodians of our countryside the confidence and clarity they desperately need.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I am pleased that the Liberal Democrats are leading from the front for our rural communities by having this debate. Norfolk is a rural county and a farming county. It is also a county right at the forefront of the climate and nature emergency. Right along our coastline, which is the fastest eroding in north-west Europe, we see residents facing the loss of their homes and villages facing the loss of their identity as rising sea levels increase the speed of erosion in villages such as Happisburgh and Trimingham. Our precious natural environment with rare chalk streams and species found nowhere else in the country is at risk of collapse without action on the emergency facing them.
One of our strongest allies in tackling the climate emergency is farming, and that is why the SFI is so important. Farmers are custodians of the natural environment; they care for it, they look after it and they will pass it on to generations after them. They want our natural environment to be protected and our climate to remain stable, not just for the greater good but because it is vital to keep their farms viable.
The importance of the scheme cannot be overstated. It is a crucial part of keeping our rural environments healthy and protected, and of enabling farmers to do so too. How on earth, then, can it be right that the process for securing the funding was such a catastrophe? A mad rush, online queuing and effectively a sell-out event in a matter of hours. I know the Prime Minister is keen on Manchesterism for the whole country, but I do not think my farmers knew that meant making SFI applications follow the same system as getting Oasis tickets.
That farce speaks to a much deeper issue. I strongly believe that there is a lack of understanding of the workings of rural life and rural communities because they do not fit neatly into Whitehall’s prescribed models or spreadsheets. Securing funding for sustainable land management might make the difference between a farm being able to employ someone to work the land and not. If that person is not employed, they will not bring their family to the local village to live. That means that perhaps their children do not attend the village school, which then cannot make the numbers work within the funding formula. Those young people would not be able to stay and start a family themselves even if we were to tackle the cost of living crisis, which is significantly sharper the further from a city someone is. When working-age people cannot afford to live and thrive in rural and coastal areas, everybody loses.
As things stand, our communities are as vulnerable to erosion as our coastline, and we need powerful representation at the heart of Government to stand up for them. Just like in our natural environment, our rural communities are deeply interconnected. We are an ecosystem: we rely on symbiotic relationships, on food chains and on a stable environment. When the science of rural life is disregarded and the knock-on effects are ignored, we end up with calamitous decisions such as this.
So much of this situation is down to how Whitehall works, or does not. Food security, climate change, coastal erosion, flooding, farming policy, environmental protection, rural communities—in North Norfolk all our affairs are rural. Yet real change on these issues cannot be handled by DEFRA alone. Those are the things that matter to people, to the lives we lead, and they cut across the silos of Government. I firmly believe that if we had a better understanding of rural life across Whitehall, disasters such as the one we saw with the SFI scheme would just not be allowed to happen. An urgent, fundamental reassessment of how the state is supposed to work for rural communities is needed, because at the moment it simply does not.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call John Cooper, after whom we will drop the time limit to three minutes.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Food security is national security, as the mantra from the Government Benches goes. Yet the reality, I am afraid, is that it is much spun and little done. The family farm tax sent a chill through my rural Dumfries and Galloway constituency and underscored yet again the disconnect between this urban-centric Government and rural Britain.
Now we have the fertiliser tax coming along and again, like the family farm tax, it is deeply flawed. In fact, we had an admission that the family farm tax was deeply flawed from a former Government Minister who pressed its case in this House—incredible! On the price of fuel, there has been much back slapping about the cuts to duty for red diesel. That is certainly helpful, but the reality is that red diesel is up by as much as 60%, and that is an enormous input cost for farmers. It is a big difficulty as well for the fishing sector. I have asked the Fisheries Minister if he will convene a meeting with the fishermen, because British boats are afraid to put to sea when French boats are able to access finance from the French Government to fish in British waters.
Funding in Scotland, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), is devolved for farming and agriculture. However, we have also seen in Scotland the SNP Government exercising sleight of hand with the agricultural budget. Money that was intended for farming— supposedly ringfenced—magically disappeared, only to reappear. That is not good enough. Devolve and forget is the order of the day with this Government. We must have more accuracy about what is going on in Scotland. The block grant and the Barnett consequentials go north. This place should have some say in what goes on there.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) opened this debate with his usual paean to the EU. The EU funding settlement is changing and the envelope under the common agricultural policy is shrinking, such that farmers in Ireland are protesting about it. I can assure the House that the farmers in Dumfries and Galloway are in no hurry at all to return to the EU and the idea of a shrinking common agricultural policy.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Three minutes is not a long time to represent over 1,000 North Shropshire farmers, many of whom have been in touch with me in the wake of the shambles of the second window of SFI 2026. John, who farms in Whitchurch, was distraught when he contacted me after he was unable to get on to the latest iteration of the scheme. He could not apply first thing in the morning because the window was not open, and when he returned later after doing some farming, he found that applications were already closed. Now he is afraid that he will have to remove acres of herbal ley as he no longer has the funds to manage them, and he tells me it would be cheaper to rip up the hedgerows that he preserves around his farm and put fences in instead. That is not what we are trying to achieve here. Another family farming in Weston Lullingfields watched the website repeatedly crash as the funding was scooped up, leaving them with nothing.
What is most frustrating to farmers is that everybody could see this disaster coming from a good country mile away. A budget of £233 million for farmers across England was insultingly short of the public funding needed to recognise the hard work and stewardship that our farmers undertake. One farmer said to me:
“Why bother going through the pretence? The chaos of the first-come, first-served funding allocations, disadvantaged small businesses and family farms. Hardworking farmers cannot afford to take huge chunks of time out of the day to sit and watch a computer screen that won’t load.”
This total disregard for, and failure to understand, agricultural life and business did not start with this Government. This year’s SFI failure is a direct consequence of the Conservative Government’s weak attempt to patch up the abrupt removal of the basic payment scheme following their botched Brexit deal. They added insult to injury by signing the UK-Australia free trade agreement in 2023, which undercut British farmers and threatened to flood our markets with low-cost imports but offered no protections to ensure that there was a level playing field for our world-leading UK animal welfare standards. It set a dangerous precedent for future deals, as we have seen with the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. Farmers have felt increasingly under threat.
Every meeting I have had with local farmers centres on how difficult farming has become, including regular meetings with farmers and NFU members from across North Shropshire and indeed the whole of Shropshire. At my most recent meeting, held in Ruyton-XI-Towns in my constituency, their frustration at the SFI system failure was obvious, but they also raised concerns about upcoming changes to water abstraction licensing. After this summer’s devastating drought, which left crops in North Shropshire shrivelled and livestock farmers in a desperate situation with their winter feed, the link between food security and water security is stark. They raised concerns that the hierarchy of water abstraction will propose prioritising water for data centres over water for food production. In what sort of world is that sensible? Will the Minister confirm that will not be the case this year? Will he also confirm that we will not see a repeat next year of the shambles of the bluetongue issue and the SFI? Will he actually take British farming concerns seriously for once?
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The farmers of Ely and East Cambridgeshire fill the breadbaskets of England. They also provide really good, tasty, healthy vegetables. You would think, therefore, that we would treat them with respect and try to support them, but one of my farmers told me that the mapping system did not agree with his maps. He had been trying to sort that out for some time before the SFI window opened, but having failed, he was unable to put in for the SFI. Will the Minister undertake to sort out the mapping system so that it works for farmers, and they do not find themselves in the situation that that farmer found himself in?
Another farmer told me that he and his agent were sitting at the screen trying to get his application in, but eventually the window closed before they had managed to do it. He is asking the Minister to have a proper long-term plan that not only says when the various windows will open but is also clear and up front about how much money will be in the various windows. If we keep opening the schemes with not even enough money to cover those people who already have environmental schemes, this is not going to work. There are going to be many, many farmers who fail to get the money that they need. These are people who are feeding the nation and managing our environment. In my area, that is a really fragile and beautiful environment and we should be helping them to continue to preserve it.
I do not think the Conservatives have anything to boast about. They promised that farmers would get the same amount of money after Brexit as they had done before Brexit, but what did they do? They came up with a scheme to take away the basic payments, and they stuck to it rigidly—that was one plan they could manage. What they did not do was bring in the promised environmental schemes and, as we have heard, they actually underspent by £350 million. That is utterly disgraceful.
My farmers hoped that with a change of Government, they were going to get a change of attitude and more support. Instead, they have seen the farce of the SFI scheme and the family farm tax. The changes the Government have introduced to that are welcome to some degree, but with land prices in Cambridgeshire, it will still affect an awful lot of family farms in my constituency. This Government need to put themselves behind our farmers.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
May I first apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House for missing the very start of the debate? I am sorry that I missed the speech of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). The bit I did hear was excellent, and I am sure that he will agree with many of the points I am about to make.
I rise not in support of the motion, as much of the text concerns matters that are devolved to the Scottish Government. However, there are a number of points that are relevant to Scotland but reserved to Westminster. I will briefly set these out in the form of questions directly to the Minister.
First, no one has yet been able to properly explain to me why the Treasury cannot identify the difference between family farms being handed from generation to generation, and tax-dodging individuals and companies. If that could be explained, surely some tweaks could be made to the Budget that is coming next week. Secondly, why cannot the Treasury extend the annual investment allowance and capital allowances for things like sheds and buildings so that they are fully incentivised? That would surely increase investment and, ultimately, food production. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly for our farmers in Scotland—they lobbied me last week and this was the point they wanted to make—will the Government consider pausing and reviewing the carbon border adjustment mechanism due to come in next year, so that it does not become an additional tax on UK food production through higher fertiliser costs? My final ask of the Minister is that the Government maintain the reduced fuel duty rates for red diesel. This is the kind of measure that will support farmers, secure lower food production costs, reduce food inflation and enhance our national security. It surely is a no-brainer.
On 9 July, I asked the Minister to address problems in the pig industry by referring suspected matters to the agricultural supply chain adjudicator or the Competition and Markets Authority. He said from the Dispatch Box that he would follow up on those issues. As far as I am aware, he has not done so yet. Furthermore, a much-anticipated roundtable with the pig farming industry in Scotland has not yet happened. Perhaps I have got that wrong, but I am sure the Minister will correct me. I ask him to respond to the matters raised here tonight.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
As has been brought home to us in the most powerful terms since world war two, food security is once again a matter of national security, and the Prime Minister has said as much. Just like our defence capability, farming requires long-term funding and a lasting framework to operate in. The last SFI window opened at 10 o’clock on Tuesday 22 September and closed at 3.48 later that afternoon. If you popped out to the shops, you would have missed it. DEFRA has made the excuse that demand was unprecedented compared with previous ELMS, but setting a benchmark based on a previous flawed Tory scheme that nobody really wanted is not exactly a great metric. The Minister argues that the £100,000 cap makes the scheme fairer because a quarter of the funding used to go to 4% of claimants. Yes, that is true, but a fairer way of rationing a budget that is too small is still a budget that is too small.
For decades, farmers did what Governments asked of them. After the war, food production rightly came first, but the cost was paid in soil, hedgerows, wildlife and our rivers, with policymakers recommending the use of harmful chemicals. The SFI exists because that was not sustainable in the long term. We can see this as a repair bill now come due for the policy that farmers were told to follow for many years. Farmers are now weighing up whether to step back from wildflower meadows, field margins and buffer strips. Peter Hatley, who farms in Cambridgeshire, was quoted in the Financial Times yesterday as saying:
“I will literally take a plough to everything…We will have to go back to farming more intensively than the 1950s.”
Proper farm funding has other benefits too. Ministers told the House of Lords in April that SFI actions that keep soil covered and build organic matter improve its ability to hold water, and that 35 of the 71 actions in this year’s SFI would target flood and drought resilience, including through the use of cover crops. Those 35 recommendations on flood and drought resilience are welcome, but £200 million less in the budget is not.
There are practical changes with very modest price tags that would help now. Farmers want to store their own water, but the Country Land and Business Association says that only 34 on-farm reservoirs have been built in the last five years. When we realise that it costs an average of £45,000 just to achieve planning permission, we can understand why there are so few. I hope that the review of permitted development rights will report swiftly.
I am sadly out of time. If food security is national security, fund it like it is. Give farmers the certainty to plan and let them get on with feeding the country.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I had hoped to share some of the many, many stories about my farmers’ experience with the SFI, as they have written to me in the days and weeks following the closure of the window. However, in the interests of time, I shall try to be constructive and just talk to the action that is vitally needed.
Many farmers raised concerns about technical problems within the application system itself. One farmer, who has experience in software as well as farming, reported that some options appeared without the base options needed to support them. They raised concerns about the process for measuring hedgerows, arguing that the time and cost involved could outweigh the value of the payment. If DEFRA already holds land parcel information and uses satellite imagery to monitor land, it should explain why relevant information cannot be provided to farmers in advance, where appropriate.
The Government have said that the overall SFI26 budget has increased by £290 million, but that does not answer the question of whether enough money is available to meet demand. We need a clear account of how the funding has been allocated, including by farm type, farm size and region. There are also concerns that the options and payments available do not adequately reflect the needs of livestock farmers compared with arable farmers. The Government should publish the evidence and assess the impact on food production. Farmers whose existing agreements are expiring need to know when they can apply for replacement agreements and what support will be available in the meantime. Without clarity, environmental work already under way risks being stopped, not because farmers do not want to continue to do it, but because they cannot afford to do it.
My asks to the Government are as follows. First, they must publish a full account of the technical problems experienced during the application window and explain what remedial action will be taken. Secondly, they must make additional funding available for eligible farmers who were locked out when the budget was exhausted, rather than leaving them to absorb the financial consequences of a process that failed them. Thirdly, they must review the first come, first served system, and consider alternatives, including allocating funding more fairly when they know that demand exceeds the available budget. Finally, the Government must properly fund the roll-out of the environmental land management schemes, including the SFI, with an additional £1 billion a year that we believe is needed to give farmers the sustainable and stable basis for planning and investment.
My farmers in West Dorset are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for a system that works, funding they can rely on and a fair opportunity to apply. I hope that Ministers will listen to farmers today before they are staring at empty plates tomorrow.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Farmers in Taunton and Wellington have been hit incredibly hard by this debacle. For residents, farmers and visitors to my part of Somerset alike, the hedges, field margins and wildflower meadows funded by the sustainable farming incentive are the very fabric of the countryside that we know and love, from the Quantocks to the Blackdown hills and across my constituency. Yet all of that has been put under threat simply because of a badly mismanaged system that this Government could and should fix.
I met local farmers out on the levels in my constituency the week before last. I want to thank them for the work that they do 365 days a year, putting food on our tables, caring for our countryside and bringing employment to our rural areas. Let me relate just two of the cases that they raised.
The first case is that of James Hebditch of Lillesdon Court. He is not a last-minute farmer—his fields have been registered with the Rural Payments Agency for years—yet on 22 September, a glitch on the Government portal suddenly rejected one of his fields. He was faced with an impossible choice: apply without it or try to amend and resubmit his application. By the time that he could navigate the error that the portal had made, the whole thing had closed and his entire application was lost. He was caught out by the Government’s own system on land that the RPA already had on its books. When farmers are fighting a failing portal, they do not have time to sit on hold for hours. The consequences of that failure are devastating. The hedges and habitats that James maintained for years under previous schemes will likely have to be ripped up just for his farm to remain viable and profitable.
Tom Pope of Staple Farm said:
“With no replacement scheme we will be forced to consider ploughing up some of our environmental areas…to return them to arable production. Some of these areas have a huge variety of wild flowers and provide a brilliant habitat for insects and birds. It will break our hearts”.
Somerset is one of the hardest hit areas for bluetongue, with 156 confirmed cases. Add to that the fact that direct payments are capped at just £600 this year, diesel has topped £2 per litre, the heavy burden of the family farm tax, a 32% spike in ammonium nitrate costs and the Conservative-designed upcoming carbon border charge on fertiliser from January, and the result is that farmers have been pushed to the very brink of viability and much else. To make matters worse, the Government ran all this scheme on a first come, first served basis. That is not a serious way to run a £930 million public programme. At least if people do not get Glastonbury tickets, they are not required to plough up a wild flower meadow afterwards.
Finally, I call on the Government to take four key actions. There should be no cliff edge. They must extend agreements to SFI27, provide a second chance and certainty on the SFI, and protect farmers from substandard imports. Our farmers protect our countryside—
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will permit me to quickly put on record my thanks to the broadcasting unit in Parliament, which has been so helpful in providing me with additional support while I have been trying to speak in the Chamber while struggling with vocal cord paralysis. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
I am privileged to represent nearly 200 farmers in Frome and East Somerset. They are critical not only to the rural economy of Somerset, generating hundreds of jobs in the wider economy, but to providing the UK with much of the dairy and other food products that it relies on. Every time I meet farmers in my constituency, I hear the same thing: that this Government do not understand rural communities and do not see that penalising farmers undermines their own goals of growth and stability.
In order to survive, many of my farmers are running a range of side hustles, from cafés to ice cream companies and farm-stay accommodation. They are stretching themselves to extremes to try to keep their farms going. The SFI is one of the few forms of funding available to those farmers but, as we know, after spending precious time preparing long and detailed applications, in September farmers in my constituency were not even able to load up the application form, because the money had already gone. Money was not awarded to the best farms with the best plans to feed the nation and restore nature; it was awarded to whoever clicked the fastest. Surely, regardless of attempts at political point scoring, we can all agree that despite any improvements that the Government have made to the SFI, that is not a fair or smart way to spend public money.
As a result, for the first time since 1945, many UK farmers now have no universal payment offer. At the same time, the Government are chopping and changing the agricultural property relief and making cuts to DEFRA’s farming budgets.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
You are summing up what so many of my farmers are facing. I have one farmer in Sandridge who says that he is closing his doors because he feels that the Government are not listening. There is also an impact on the environment. For Guy and Susannah in Great Gaddesden, the shortfall because of the extreme weather means that there are 6.6 million fewer bowls of porridge from one farm. Does my hon. Friend agree not only that that is important, but that this is a crisis moment? The Government have to listen, because this is about not only farmers, but our food security.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Ms Collins, I was not summing up, because I was not speaking. “You” and “yours” do not count.
Anna Sabine
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
Funding decisions such as those really matter for farmers in rural communities, but they also matter for the environment. Today the Government have announced that Jackdaw is going ahead—a stark reminder of the UK’s continuing dependency on gas and how far we must still go to reach net zero. If we are serious about getting there, farmers are part of the solution. The SFI rewards the kind of sustainable choices that we want farmers to make more of, yet many of the farmers who want to protect nature are being locked out of the very funding that makes it possible.
British farmers are the foundation of rural communities such as mine, and they are key allies in tackling climate change in this country. The Prime Minister promises growth in every postcode, but he cannot even ensure that farmers in my postcode receive funding to help to feed our country. Will the Government finally support farmers and guarantee long-term funding for all eligible SFI26 applicants?
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
The absolute shambles that was window 2 of the SFI is just another example of farmers being let down by Government after Government. I have already mentioned this in the Chamber, but Tim, who farms near Yeovil, was locked out of the SFI window 2 on the same day that he was given the water quality farmer of the year award. You could not make it up, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Tim, and many farmers like him in Yeovil, are now left in a financial hole. He said that the buffer strips around fields would now have to be cultivated in the hope of making some money, as long as the weather, markets and business costs all play ball. It is clear that he is gambling with terrible odds, but as Tim told me, what other choice does he have? That sums up the terrible situation that so many farmers in Yeovil and across the country are facing—extreme weather from heatwaves and flooding, the spiralling costs of fertiliser, fuel and equipment, and growing biosecurity threats from bluetongue and tuberculosis. When we throw in terrible Government policy, that is a perfect storm waiting to happen.
In the time I have, I will touch on a few issues that have been raised a lot at my farming forum. First, on sustainable farming, while DEFRA is saying that it has learned lessons for next time, farmers including Tim, Chris, John and Ollie and many more want to know whether they are going to get recognised for implementing sustainable farming practices now.
Richard Foord
My hon. Friend talks about DEFRA learning lessons for next time. My constituent from Butterleigh in Devon wrote to me about the sudden withdrawal of the SFI. That was not this year—it was last year. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government, and DEFRA in particular, cannot seem to learn to get this right?
Adam Dance
I totally agree with my hon. Friend—they cannot seem to get it right, and they are failing our farmers across the country. Lots of farmers are saying that their only option now is intensive farming. That is really worrying for us in south Somerset as winter comes around and it begins to flood, because our farmers are the frontline when it comes to preventing ever-worsening flooding. More broadly, as we have already heard, farmers need more clarity about how the SFI and other schemes are going to develop in the future, so that they can plan ahead.
Secondly, farmers hit by bluetongue and TB want to know what more Government are doing to improve our readiness and communication systems for future outbreaks. I hope the Minister can set out when the Government will bring in the new TB strategy. Finally, farmers from Yeovil are really worried about the future of farming more broadly. We have an ageing workforce and a recruitment crisis, so what steps are the Government taking to promote pathways into farming for young people and reduce the financial and admin burdens that are currently stopping farmers being able to take on young people? If this new Government really are committed to problem solving, I can think of no better place to start than farming. We all know the problems; it is time to finally get on with the actual work and support our farmers.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for opening this debate. In introducing the motion, he was right to speak about the chaotic handling of SFI by this Labour Government, and also to outline the catastrophic mismanagement by the Conservatives post Brexit. They bear responsibility for the system we have today.
In 2016, prominent Tories—including the now Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)—said that
“if we leave the EU the level of subsidy to the farming community will remain exactly”—[Official Report, 26 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 617.]
the same. Tell that to my farmers now. Vote Leave told the Treasury Committee that farmers would get paid “at least as much as they get now” and the former Tory Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a former holder of my seat in Henley, said that he could “100% guarantee” that farmers’ subsidies would continue or increase after Brexit. I think I have just shown why the good people of Henley and Thame no longer wish the likes of Johnson and the Conservatives to represent their interests. Betrayed by the Tories, they said, “Enough is enough.”
However, farmers in my constituency have told me how disappointed they now are with Labour, and with a Government who just do not get farming. APR and BPR were the prime examples of that, but there are more, and the SFI is the latest. One of my local farmers put it best: applications should not be like a scramble for Oasis tickets. He told me that it is an
“appalling way to treat farmers and how they can care for the farmed environment.”
Another, Jack Burchmore, who leads the Henley young farmers group, said that they did not even know what time the window was going to open, so they sat there waiting for it. This is not a serious way to treat people, is it?
Another of my wonderful local farmers has described to me how lucky they were to apply for SFI26 in the short window that it was open. They received the agreement, but now describe a feeling of guilt when so many others are in even more dire financial situations. I would like to put their ideas directly to the Government. First, there should be an early application window for SFI27, with applications open in February, ready to start as soon as we hit the new financial year. Secondly, there should be priority for those farmers whose existing SFI or mid-tier agreements are ending. Failure to do so quickly will mean farmers ripping up their environmental areas in the spring and planting crops instead. Thirdly, there should be a better application process than fastest finger first. Fourthly, there should above all be a larger budget for the SFI. Farmers face a perilous time, and further extreme weather could push many more farms out of business. With such global uncertainty, is it not time to back British farmers?
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Farmers in my constituency and across the country have been left totally bewildered and deeply anxious by this Government’s handling of the SFI. The scheme, although flawed, was meant to reward good farming and environmental stewardship. Instead, farmers who had spent time preparing applications logged on, ready to apply, only to discover that the available budget had been exhausted almost immediately. This is no way to treat the people who produce our food and who are doing what they can to care for our countryside. The Government’s approach has reduced what should be a strategic, long-term partnership with farmers into a lottery. Farmers need certainty and the confidence to invest. They need to know that when the Government ask them to change how they farm, the support will be there.
One of my constituent farmers summed up the mood when they contacted me, writing:
“Morale is rock bottom within the industry. Many farm businesses are on the brink… We need a sensible payment system to give us confidence”.
We should also not ignore what this prolonged uncertainty means for farmers’ mental wellbeing. When we know that mental health challenges are widespread within the farming community, Ministers should be doing everything possible to provide stability and reassurance, rather than creating uncertainty. To wait until 2027 is deeply unfair to farming and to nature. Will Ministers make additional funding available for eligible farmers who were excluded through no fault of their own, including my constituents?
How will farmers continue to deliver the environmental outcomes that the Government expect if access to the very schemes designed to support the work can disappear in a matter of hours? These failures come on top of cuts to DEFRA’s budget and ongoing uncertainty over the future of environmental land management schemes. Farmers are being asked to do more with less, while receiving fewer guarantees about the support available to them. Instead, farmers should be rewarded properly for delivering food security, restoring nature, capturing carbon and tackling climate change, but they need support. They need a Government who have got their back. Ministers must work with the sector, learn from this shambles and ensure that never again are farmers forced into a first come, first served scramble for support. Our farmers deserve a Government who see them as partners and treat them with the respect they deserve.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We seem to have gained some time, so Charlie Maynard has five minutes. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”]
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.] The latest round of the sustainable farming incentive was a disaster for small farmers, including many in my constituency. They were counting on this money as a lifeline after another impossibly difficult year. As one local farmer wrote to me:
“It is madness to set a deadline and then require a field-by-field online application process with a limited budget and first come first accepted”.
No public money should be allocated this way, let alone money that farmers were relying on to stay afloat. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to scrap first come, first served for 2027.
What is most disappointing is that this chaos was entirely predictable. The Government abandoned the rolling scheme. The sector warned loudly that the Prime Minister’s extra £50 million would barely touch the sides, and the scheme ran out within six hours. Of course, the Conservatives laid the groundwork for this. They began phasing out the basic payments scheme the support farmers had relied on for years, long before its replacement was ready. They cut farmers’ income first and asked questions later, while hundreds of millions in the farming budget went unspent. Labour has inherited that mess, but it certainly has not fixed it.
Farmers now face a perfect storm. The summer’s heat and drought are projected to cause the worst harvest on record. That follows a drought-hit 2025 harvest, and a 2024 harvest that was washed out. Farmers expect to balance bad years against good years, but three awful harvests in a row is unsustainable, and as the climate crisis deepens, there is no reason to think that next year will be better. Meanwhile, farming costs are rising at about twice the rate of inflation, with fertiliser up by about 35% in a year. The Government list food as one of the 13 critical national infrastructure sectors, yet the farmers who are at the start of the chain receive support that is wholly inadequate.
Farmers need a payment system that rewards both growing food and restoring nature. They also need help to invest in resilience measures, such as better irrigation and on-farm reservoirs. Will the Government not only review the process and budget for next year’s scheme, but say what additional funding they will provide, to help farmers adapt and future-proof their businesses?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is an honour to close the debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. We chose to use our Opposition day to discuss support for farmers because farmers are the backbone of rural communities across the country, and today’s debate has shown just how deeply that is felt.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) opened the debate by explaining that the Liberal Democrats would reform the SFI so that it allocated every farmer a sum that was consistent with the capacity of their farm. That sum would be theirs to claim within a long window. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the Chair of the Select Committee, reminded us that we, and farmers, are in the middle of a perfect storm. We have heard from Members in all parts of the House about farmers who prepared SFI applications for months on end, only to be shut out in an afternoon. In Glastonbury and Somerton, this is not an abstract issue. It is about whether family farms can plan not just for next year, but for the years and generations ahead.
On 22 September, the second window opened, with £233 million in the fund. By 3.48 pm, it had shut. Farmers deserve better than a Glastonbury ticket scramble. At least festival-goers know when the fallow years are coming; farmers who missed out have been handed one with no warning at all. One farmer from Curry Rivel wrote to me describing the process simply as a “disaster”. The money has been shared out badly, not just too thinly. Window 1 left £3 million unallocated, but window 2 was oversubscribed within hours, and it was not an even scramble. A recent survey conducted by the Select Committee found that 60% of respondents could not submit before the window closed. Only 31% of those running farm businesses were successful, compared with 68% of land agents. That is a two-tier system. Those who can afford an adviser are waved through the farm gate, while those who cannot are left out in the field. Until it was privatised in 1997, ADAS gave farmers free independent advice, provided by the state. Today, those who cannot afford an agent are on their own.
That was not just bad luck. DEFRA’s own forecasts, made in April and May, modelled the window’s closing on its very first day; it predicted 12,200 applications. On the day, 12,204 were submitted, just four more than were forecast. DEFRA saw it coming, and nearly 2,900 farmers started applications that they were never able to submit. Others were let down by DEFRA’s IT systems. Tom Kimber, who farms at Higher Stavordale farm in Charlton Musgrove, had an SFI agreement that was coming to an end. He applied in window 2, and missed out because of technical problems. He was assured that farmers like him would be given a route back in, but he has heard nothing since. Tom wants to deliver for the environment, and demand for the SFI proves that thousands of other farmers want to, too, but their commitment is not matched by a Government who understand the scheme.
Last week, the Minister told the House that “first come, first served” will end. I welcome that, but one cannot feed a whole farm herd from a trough that is simply too small. The expiring agreements are worth over £520 million, but the budget across both windows is just £310 million; as the NFU has asked, where has the missing funding gone? Around 8,800 of this autumn’s applicants have agreements ending in February. Clare, who farms near Puckington, is one of them. For years, she has protected the river margins on her land, thereby slowing run-off, filtering pollution and giving wildlife space to thrive. SFI was meant to be her way forward, but now those margins have no funding.
Before I move on to the Conservatives’ utter failure to support British farmers, I remind the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), that the Liberal Democrats were the first party to oppose the family farm tax, which includes BPR and APR. The Conservatives cannot escape their share of the blame for the chaos that farmers face today. They designed SFI on a “first come, first served” basis, botched the transition from basic payment schemes, let farming budgets fall behind inflation, and signed trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand that undercut British farmers. However, this Government cannot keep hiding behind their predecessors. They chose to accelerate the phase-out of direct payments while stop-starting SFI, so farmers have no universal payment offer at all for the first time since 1945. The Government imposed the family farm tax, and cut the DEFRA and farming budgets.
The Liberal Democrats warned that this would happen. I wrote to the former Secretary of State in July, before the first window closed, to ask how the Department would stop window 2 meeting this exact fate. All of this is happening as our farmers face one of their worst years in memory. Mark Humphrey, who farms at Isle Brewers and chairs NFU Somerset, has described a torrid 18 months. Milk is down at 32p per litre, selling for 8p less than it costs to produce, and maize yields are down by 10% to 15%. Our farmers must be profitable.
However, Somerset shows what is possible with long-term certainty. Last week, I met Damon Bridge of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Greater Sedgemoor landscape recovery team on North Moor, near Langport, where farmers and conservation groups are working together across 4,000 hectares. This involves 20-year agreements, not a window that slams shut in an afternoon, but only a handful of landscape recovery projects have reached delivery. Farmers need to know that they will actually happen, because food security is national security.
All this comes back to one question: can this country feed itself? We produce only about 60% of the food we eat. Between 2019 and 2024, the farming budget was frozen at £2.4 million, while input costs rose by 44%. With war in Ukraine and conflict in the middle east, food security is national security, yet the Government still do not treat it as a priority.
Sarah Dyke
I will not, given the time.
I brought forward my Food Bill, which is now Liberal Democrat policy, to tackle this issue. It has binding targets for domestic food production, would ensure that an annual food security audit was reported to the House, and would take action to drive down food waste. We have long called for an extra £1 billion a year for environmental land management schemes, so that every eligible farmer who applies in good faith gets an agreement, there is a proper bridge for the 8,800 farmers whose agreements are ending, and we invest in the training and technology that cut farmers’ costs in the long term—not fairer rationing, but a bigger pot. The Chancellor has the perfect opportunity to deliver that money in next week’s Budget.
I have four simple questions for the Minister. First, what will be different next year to ensure that a family farm without an agent has the same chance as an estate with one, and will he look at restoring free independent advice services for smaller farms? Secondly, will he guarantee that farmers like Tom, who missed out because of DEFRA’s IT failures, will not lose out again? Has any money from window 2 been left unallocated, and if so, how much? Thirdly, will the Minister open SFI27 early in the new year, or even before that, and publish its budget now, so that no farmer with an expiring agreement faces a gap from April next year? Fourthly, will he press the Chancellor to use next week’s Budget to properly fund the schemes on which our farmers depend, and can he confirm that the DEFRA budget will not be cut?
Our farmers have kept their side of the deal. They have adapted to the end of the basic payment scheme, prepared for scheme after scheme, and kept growing our food despite soaring costs, extreme weather, disease outbreaks and attacks that threaten their livelihoods. What they have not had is a Government, Conservative or Labour, who keep their side of the deal. This motion offers a way forward, with long-term funding for every eligible SFI applicant, a reversal of the farm family farm tax, a comprehensive national food strategy and an extra £1 billion a year for the schemes our farmers depend on, because a nation that cannot feed itself cannot protect itself.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)
I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions throughout the debate, and for sharing issues raised by farmers and rural communities across our country. I also thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for raising these important matters.
Let me reiterate the words of my excellent fellow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter), in her first speech at the Dispatch Box: we know how hard this year has been for farmers. Behind every statistic about drought, input prices or farm income is a family making difficult decisions about crops, livestock bills and their future. We set out our farming road map because farmers have repeatedly asked for clarity and certainty, and we are delivering that. The road map sets out this Government’s strategic vision for farming. We want profitable, productive farms that are better able to withstand volatile weather and markets, and geopolitical shocks. The road map also sets out that domestic food production will be maintained at least at current levels, while nature recovery, economic growth and the responsible use of land and resources are supported. That is supported by the strong financial settlement that DEFRA secured in the 2025 spending review.
Across this Parliament, the Government have allocated a record £11.8 billion to sustainable farming and food production, including £788 million this year alone in new funding for farmers to boost farm productivity, develop cutting-edge technologies to drive future growth, and maintain a healthy natural environment. Where this year has exposed vulnerabilities, this Government have responded. We have made drought flexibilities available, supported investment in farm reservoirs and added funding to the SFI26.
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) —he is back in his place—for his interventions. I think he is right to recognise the optimism and resilience of our nation’s farmers. I wholeheartedly support that view, as do so many Members in this House. I very much agree with what he said about the value of providing greater certainty to the sector; we are very much doing that through our farming road map. It sets out the Government’s vision for driving more a profitable, productive, sustainable and resilient farming sector, and we are doing that in partnership with the sector, via our partnership board and the sector growth plans.
Members spoke about the SFI, this year’s two windows and the learning for future years, and I thank all Members who have offered practical ideas for its delivery in future. We also recognise where things have not worked as farmers would have wished. The speed with which the SFI26 window closed last month caused real disappointment, and I do not dismiss that frustration. I recognise the concerns raised by Members across the House, and the specific examples that they have given. Demand substantially exceeded the funding available, and we must learn from that experience as we work with the sector in partnership on SFI27. Working through the options, following my confirmation that we have scrapped the “first come, first served” approach, is absolutely a priority of mine.
Tim Farron
In March 2025, the last time the drawbridge was pulled up with no notice, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said that we must not do first come, first served again. We have just done that, so what guarantees can the Minister give us that next time around it will not be first come, first served? All the same, can he ensure that the window will come very, very soon?
Stephen Morgan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He will know that we made a number of changes to improve the scheme this year. He briefly mentioned those in his opening remarks, but I have been very clear that we need to learn lessons from this year’s scheme and that means a commitment on scrapping the first come, first served approach and bringing forward SFI27 as early as possible.
A number of Members also expressed concerns about the impact on farmers of trade deals done by the previous Conservative Government. Let me be clear: this Government will always act in the national interest to protect Britain’s farmers and secure our food security. We will never lower food standards and we will uphold the high animal welfare standards that our country expects. In the last year alone, we have reached agreement on new trade deals with India, the Republic of Korea, the Gulf Cooperation Council and Switzerland. All those deals strike a balance: they open new opportunities for UK businesses and help diversify supply chains, while also protecting the UK’s most sensitive sectors.
A number of Members have been interested in the SPS agreement with the European Union. I want to thank the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) who is not in her place currently—[Interruption.]—there she is—for the issues she raised. The EU remains the UK’s biggest and closest export market, offering major opportunities for British food and drink businesses to reach millions of consumers. Yesterday, I was at the SIAL trade show in Paris, meeting businesses from every corner of the UK who want to increase their exports to Europe. The SPS agreement will reduce costs and delays for both UK and EU exporters and importers at the border, supporting the UK’s food supply chains and security. It will make agrifood trade with our biggest market cheaper and easier, cutting costs and red tape for British producers.
Ben Goldsborough
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the huge things we must protect in the SPS agreement is precision breeding—not just the research and development aspect but how we get it to market? From other conversations we have had, I know that he has been working hard with our European colleagues. Can he explain what action he is taking to ensure we can keep precision breeding as that benefit to the UK?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It was a real pleasure to spend time with him at the Royal Norfolk Show earlier this year, where I heard very clearly the value of our innovation and world-leading technology in this space. I take this opportunity to reflect on the points he made earlier on the importance of working with our international partners and showcasing the best of British around the world, and thank him for that. He will appreciate that I cannot provide details on the ongoing SPS negotiations. The Prime Minister set out that the Government will be completing those negotiations before the next EU-UK summit on 20 November.
A number of Members expressed concern about the impacts of the reforms to agricultural property relief on inheritance tax, which came into force earlier this year. I recognise that when the Government initially announced the reforms in 2024, there was significant concern in the industry about their impact. The Government listened to those concerns carefully, considered the feedback, and the previous Chancellor acted. That is why last year the Government went further to protect more farms and businesses, while maintaining the core principle that the most valuable agricultural and business assets should not receive unlimited relief. This is a fair and balanced approach that protects the family farm while also fixing the public services that we all rely on.
Stephen Morgan
On these matters the Government’s view is now settled. I recognise that the previous Chancellor made the changes as a result of the engagement that she and others had with the farming community up and down the country, but the hon. Gentleman would have been keen to place his views on the record and he has successfully done that.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) raised a number of constructive points as a result of his continued engagement with the farmers across his constituency. I understand he has now visited 100 farms in his patch, and I know that he is hosting a very important event in his constituency later this week on the future of farming, and I wish him well with that. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) spoke about the importance of profitability and the value of learning from international partners, and I thank him again for his insights. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) gave a very eloquent speech about the importance of co-designing the future of SFI. I can assure him that directly, and through officials, I and the Department are already working with the sector on exploring options and trade-offs as we consider what SFI ’27 will look like.
To conclude, farmers deserve security, fairness and confidence to invest in the next generation and they have a Government who listen when times are hard and work in partnership with the sector to deliver on the commitments set out in our farming road map. That is our commitment: to back British farming; to maintain domestic food production; and to ensure that those who produce our food have a resilient and profitable future.
Question put.
Point of Order
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This House may be aware of alarming press reports that Jeffrey Donaldson, a former Member of this House and my predecessor in Lagan Valley, is under police investigation over allegations of rape within these Houses of Parliament. This follows his sentencing last week to 15 years for 18 charges of non-recent child sexual abuse crimes, including the rape of a child under the age of 13.
Clearly, this is a live police investigation, and I would not wish to prejudice it. However, I know that former and current members of staff on the estate may be deeply affected by these reports. What advice can the Chair give on how we can support those who are distressed by this news and on how we can encourage anyone with concerns to come forward?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing the point of order to my attention. These will, of course, be highly concerning allegations for all in the parliamentary community. The Parliamentary Health and Wellbeing Service can advise and assist on the range of support available for anyone affected by these reports, and there are established mechanisms for anyone with concerns who wishes to come forward. Any criminal allegations should, of course, be made to the appropriate authorities.
Business without Debate
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Civil Service Pension Scheme
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I present this petition regarding the severe delays in the administration of the civil service pension scheme. The petitioners request
“that the House of Commons urges the Government to take urgent action to restore a reliable pension service for current and former civil servants, by publishing its assessment of whether Capita met its 30 September commitment, setting out what action it will take following the missed 30 June deadline, prioritising bereavement cases”,
by setting a firm date by which all outstanding claims will be resolved, and strengthening oversight so that public servants are never again let down by a failing outsourced contract.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton,
Declares that former civil servants in Glastonbury and Somerton, who have given decades of service, are being left worrying whether their pension will arrive on time; notes the situation of widowers who have been left for nearly a year without the pensions of their deceased spouses; further declares that since the Civil Service Pension Scheme transferred to Capita, many newly retired civil servants have been left without an income for months and struggling to pay their bills; further notes that Capita missed the Government's 30 June deadline to deliver the full terms of its £239 million contract, and that on 8 July 2026 its executives committed to Parliament to restore contractual service levels by 30 September 2026; further notes that Capita is still being propped up by a Cabinet Office recovery taskforce of more than 140 officials; and further declares that 1.7 million current and former public servants deserve the peace of mind that a pension earned through years of public service will be handled competently, fairly and with dignity.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take urgent action to restore a reliable pension service for current and former civil servants, by publishing its assessment of whether Capita met its 30 September commitment, setting out what action it will take following the missed 30 June deadline, prioritising bereavement cases with a firm date for clearing that backlog, and strengthening oversight so that future public service contracts do not suffer the same fate.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003250]
Mineworkers’ Pension Schemes: Nottinghamshire
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, before I start I want to say something about today’s date. Sixty years ago, a colliery spoil tip gave way above the village of Aberfan and slid down on to Pantglas junior school. One hundred and sixteen children and 28 adults were killed. Anyone who grew up in a coalfield community knows the name Aberfan. It is part of our shared history, and the people of that village have carried it every day since. I know that the whole House will have this in their thoughts today.
I am grateful for the chance to raise an issue that matters a great deal to people in Mansfield, across Nottinghamshire and in former coalfields right across the country: the pensions of the men and women who worked in our pits, and whether we are finally going to give them everything that they are owed.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Steve Yemm
I will give way, and I am going to take as many interventions as possible, but I would ask Members to be brief please.
Lee Pitcher
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I had one of those dreaded calls this week from a family member to say that a resident of mine had passed away without getting justice. These people gave blood, sweat and tears for our country. Is it not time that they got justice?
Steve Yemm
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. It is long overdue. For years, a group of campaigners from Nottinghamshire and right across the country refused to let this issue go.
Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend join me in acknowledging the similar work of campaigners in Hamilton and Clyde Valley who have worked so hard, diligently and steadfastly on this matter?
Steve Yemm
I absolutely agree. There are too many people to thank and mention individually, but one of the campaigners—Mick Newton—a friend of mine for over 40 years, is here in the Gallery watching the debate tonight. Some of the campaigners are, sadly, no longer with us. I hope that their families know that their work is being recognised in the House tonight.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
While Nottingham born and bred, I have lived in Derbyshire for 20 years and am proud to represent South Derbyshire. Many ex-miners who I have met in this place, in South Derbyshire and in Derbyshire more broadly would like to thank you for your leadership on this matter in our neck of the woods.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I do not require to be thanked, because I am not speaking in the debate.
Steve Yemm
I thank my hon. Friend for that recognition. It is important that we recognise those campaigners who are still fighting. I have to say this to every one of them: you have made a difference and a lot of what I am about to describe would not have happened without you.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that for former mineworkers and their families in Sherwood Forest, these pensions are deferred wages earned through years of hard and dangerous work, and that, with many members now facing ill health, there is no time to waste? Will he join me in urging the Government to use the Budget to secure a fair agreement on surpluses and ensure that bonus pensions are protected and rise with inflation?
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I know that my hon. Friend just said there are too many people to mention by name and how sad it is that we have lost so many of the campaigners, but would he like to join me in celebrating the work of Tommy Christopher, who did so much to lead the campaign, and his nephew John—I have the pleasure of calling him a constituent—who is now chairing the campaign? Without them, we would not have got as far as we have. Will he join me in thanking them?
Steve Yemm
I join my hon. Friend in thanking those he mentioned.
In Mansfield and across the rest of my constituency, whole communities were built around the pits. My constituents’ fathers and grandfathers went underground—and plenty of them went underground themselves. They kept the lights on and the factories running for this country. It was hard, dangerous work, and many of them are still living with what it did to their health. The least we owe them is a decent pension. For a long time, they did not get that.
When British Coal was privatised in 1994, the Government of the day agreed to guarantee the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. In return, the Treasury took a share of the surpluses. Over the years that followed, billions of pounds went into the Treasury while a lot of former miners and their widows got by on fairly modest pensions. People in our communities never thought that was fair, and they were right. I am proud that this Labour Government have started to put it right.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
On 2 November, I will be meeting MPS members in Cumnock town hall. I encourage colleagues to attend local meetings. The progress so far on mineworkers’ pensions is thanks to this Labour Government, and any further progress will be from Labour Members on these Benches. Does my hon. Friend agree that our presence at those meetings as elected Members sends an important signal?
Steve Yemm
It is certainly important to raise those meetings and to have that conversation with members and trustees as frequently as possible.
One of the first big decisions that this Government took was to hand the £1.5 billion investment reserve of the mineworkers’ pension scheme back to its members. That meant a 32% increase in their pensions. Last year, the Government did the same for the British Coal staff scheme, transferring the £2.3 billion reserve. That is the best part of £4 billion back where it belongs, and thousands of families in my constituency have felt that difference.
What is left is the question of surpluses: what happens to the money that builds up in these schemes in the future and the money that is sitting in them right now? The trustees of both schemes have put forward proposals and I think they are sensible. The mineworkers’ pension scheme trustees have asked for three things: first, that around £1 billion of surplus that is locked up in the scheme is used to give members a new bonus pension now; secondly, that 100% of future surpluses will go to improving members’ pensions; and thirdly, that the bonus pensions awarded in 2024 are protected so they cannot be taken away
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his leadership in this campaign. The three things as outlined are no more than what our miners deserve. Just a few weeks ago, I went to an event celebrating 40 years since Whitwick colliery closed. I can feel in the community, every time I go to see them, just how much they need the money in their pockets as quickly as possible, so that they get to live out the rest of their lives with the funds that they have so rightly earned.
Steve Yemm
My hon. Friend raises such an important point about the urgency of this question. The third point that I raised really matters to people in my constituency. Members of the British Coal staff scheme have bonus pensions that are protected; members of the mineworkers’ scheme do not. I do not think that anybody could explain to a retired miner in Mansfield why his bonus should be less secure than the one paid to someone he worked alongside at the same colliery. We should fix that.
The British Coal staff scheme’s trustees have made similar proposals, such as clear valuations showing whether the scheme is in surplus or deficit. I want to be clear about one thing: neither set of trustees is asking for the Government guarantee to be removed. Nobody wants to put pensioners’ security at risk and nobody is suggesting the schemes pay out money they might need to meet their commitments. We cannot, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) pointed out, keep telling people in their 80s that fairness is coming at some point in future.
Dr Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent work. It was my privilege five years ago at Labour conference to second the National Union of Mineworkers’ motion on this matter. Five years on, many of the miners I represent are still waiting to see some of these things come to fruition and, sadly, any members of my family who worked in the pits are no longer with us. He mentioned people in their 80s, so will he join me in urging the Government to take this action as swiftly as possible? Does he also share my disappointment that there is nobody on the Opposition Benches? We on the Government Benches cannot be the only people who represent mineworkers.
Steve Yemm
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments and I share that disappointment. I have also to recollect that at the general election in 2019, Boris Johnson stood on the town hall steps in my constituency and committed to putting this right. Those on the Conservative Benches spent five years doing nothing for mineworkers.
There is an economic point too. When we increase the pensions, that money gets spent in our constituencies, in communities that have had decades of decline since collieries closed, and that matters. I have had very good discussions with Ministers and with the trustees of both schemes and I know that a lot of work is ongoing. The Budget is next Wednesday, so I want to put four questions to the Minister.
Josh Newbury
I thank my hon. Friend. He and I both represent thousands of MPS and BCSSS members in our two constituencies alone who, alongside those who have sadly passed away before seeing that full justice, have been fighting this battle for years and years. Does my hon. Friend agree that with a coalfield Prime Minister and a coalfield Chancellor, next week’s Budget is the time to do right by them once and for all?
Steve Yemm
Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend; it is very timely indeed.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I compliment my hon. Friend on his excellent presentation of the arguments. Indeed, all the interventions have been absolutely to the point. I am the son and grandson of miners. Sadly, my father passed away and my mother, a widow, passed away before she received the benefits of last year’s increases. I am directing my remarks to those on the Treasury Bench when I say that this country owes a debt of honour to the miners who made sacrifices. It is the anniversary of Aberfan, and we have just marked the anniversary of the terrible disaster at Easington colliery in my constituency, where 83 men were killed. There was a price to be paid by those miners and those communities, and that historical debt can be repaid in part by the Chancellor in the Budget next week. I beseech the Minister to take that message back.
Steve Yemm
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for his magnificent leadership on this issue over many years.
I shall return to my questions for the Minister. First, I am curious to know whether the Government will commit to resolving the surplus sharing for both schemes. Secondly, will he confirm that both sets of trustees’ proposals, including protecting the mineworkers’ 2024 bonus pensions and using the undistributed surpluses, are being considered by the Treasury? Thirdly, will the Government work with the trustees to ensure that genuinely available surpluses can be paid out as they arise, rather than have elderly pensioners waiting years for the next valuation? Fourthly, will the Government work with the trustees to look at the long-term future of both schemes to ensure that they keep serving their members as well as possible as the schemes get older?
For mining communities, this has never been purely about money. It is about whether this country respects the people who did the hardest jobs and empowered everything else in the economy. People in Mansfield and in all our communities have heard a lot of promises over the years. This Government have kept more promises on mineworkers’ pensions than any that went before them, and all of us on the Labour Benches should be genuinely proud of that, but we should not stop short at this moment. We have given back the reserves. Now let us sort out the surpluses, while the men and women who earned these pensions are still here to enjoy them. After more than 30 years, they have waited long enough, and I hope that the Minister can give them some hope tonight.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this debate, for his leadership on behalf of miners and also for taking the time to recognise and remember today’s anniversary. The poet Ron Cook described Aberfan as the day
“when the world stood still and the mountain moved”.
Aberfan was one of those tragedies that so overwhelming in its injustice that it is painful to think about, but that is precisely why it is essential to remember.
My hon. Friend’s speech also brought to mind a story I read of the Victoria colliery disaster in my own constituency, where 63 men and boys were killed. The bodies were laid out in the churchyard of St John’s church in Barrhead, where the local women faced the unimaginable horror of having to identify the remains not just of a husband but of a son. I will come to what miners are owed in a moment, but it is right that we recognise at the start of this debate that those debts cannot be repaid by anyone. My hon. Friend says that this is not about money, but as we discuss money and pension schemes and their distribution, we remember that, my God, the miners earned every penny of it.
As my hon. Friend will know well, the British Coal staff superannuation scheme dates back to 1946 and the mineworkers’ pension scheme to 1952. When the British Coal Board was privatised in 1994, the schemes were closed to new entrants and the remaining employees were given the right to participate in successor schemes. The Government of the day gave the mineworkers a guarantee: the value of the fund would not decrease—this would ensure that pensions would continue to be paid—and the Government would take half of any surplus from the investment. The other half could be used to improve benefits through bonus pensions. For the miners’ scheme, this surplus sharing arrangement has continued, although this Government have not taken any money from the scheme since we came to power in 2024. For the British Coal staff scheme, the surplus sharing arrangement was ended in 2015, and future benefits were fixed, ensuring that pensions could be paid. The aim is to return the reserve to Government in 2033.
Since the 2015 changes, the scheme’s investments have performed well, building up a reserve of £2.3 billion. I join hon. Members in paying tribute to the campaigners who, all the way through this, have spoken up for miners, ensuring that they get what they deserve. Today, there remain almost 150,000 members of the two schemes, the vast majority of whom are receiving their pension. Five thousand of them are in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and 37,000 are across the east midlands. The average age of members across the two schemes is 76, as hon. Members have said. The group includes 30,000 widows, with an average age of 84.
We owe former mining communities a debt of gratitude for their contribution to national prosperity, and we must acknowledge and recognise the hard work and sacrifice of coalminers, who powered this country for decades.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I must declare an interest: I am a member of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, and a former miner—probably the only one in the Commons at this moment in time. We must recognise that the Labour party had in its manifesto in 2017, 2019 and 2024 that it would seek justice for the mineworkers in the pension scheme. It is only when a Government are elected that they are allowed to deliver on their manifesto, and we actually did that. We made a huge difference only a few months ago. There is a lot more to do, and I ask the Minister what other people have asked: can he give assurances to the members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, and the families and widows, that he will do everything in his power to ensure that in the Budget next week, miners in our coalfields are given full justice?
Blair McDougall
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on behalf of miners throughout his life. I will come to the specifics of the scheme and his ask in a moment, but he is absolutely right that issues like this are exactly why all of us came into politics in the first place; we came into politics to deliver for individuals like these.
Previous Governments have failed to ensure that former British Coal employees got the amount of pension they deserved. In 2021, the Select Committee looking at the mineworkers’ pension scheme recommended that the Government take no further funds from the scheme, transfer the reserve to scheme members and review the surplus sharing arrangements. That Conservative Government declined to accept those recommendations, but miners, as my hon. Friend said, deserve those historical wrongs to be righted. That is why the Government are implementing those recommendations, for both schemes.
We continue to guarantee both schemes, ensuring that scheme members’ pensions will always be paid. As has been said, in 2024, one of the first decisions we made was to transfer the £1.5 billion investment reserve in the miners’ scheme for use as bonus pensions. The hard work of colleagues on the Labour Benches increased those incomes by 32%—an average of £29 per week.
We have also transferred the £2.3 billion equivalent in the British coal staff scheme. That led to a 41% increase in pension incomes last December, backdated to November 2024. On average, that meant an extra £100 per week in scheme members’ pockets and, as has been said, that went into local economies. That is direct support for the pensioners and local communities who powered this country for decades.
However, as all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate have said, there is more to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield raises important questions. We are in that terrible pre-Budget period when lots of Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and ask for patience. I have to do the same, but I recognise that we are dealing with people who are incredibly advanced in years and cannot afford to wait indefinitely.
We have been discussing proposals for future arrangements for the scheme with the trustees, including the potential for future surpluses to be used to enhance benefits, and we have been making good progress. The Government will make an announcement once that agreement has been formally reached, and we are seeking to do that as swiftly as possible, while managing wider funding risks. The Government and trustees have had very constructive discussions. I hope to be in a position to announce a way forward shortly, and I will continue to work with hon. Members towards that end.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Deferred Divisions
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
That the draft Railways (Interoperability in Northern Ireland) (Convention on International Carriage by Rail) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 29 June, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 345 / Noes: 108 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Code of Practice on Access and Unfair Practices During the Recognition and Derecognition Process, which was laid before this House on 6 July, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 295 / Noes: 111 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Withdrawal Agreement (Windsor Framework and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which were laid before this House on 14 July, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 345 / Noes: 108 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Draft Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026
Draft Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Local Elections) (Northern Ireland) Order 2026
Draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Uprating Election Expenses) Order 2026
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sarah Owen)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Local Elections) (Northern Ireland) Order 2026 and the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Uprating Election Expenses) Order 2026.
Sarah Owen
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward, for what is my first delegated legislation Committee as a Minister, of which I am sure there will be many. It is also a pleasure to welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds, to his place. We have spent a lot of time together in the Chamber, but we had not yet officially appeared opposite each other.
The draft statutory instruments, which were laid before the House on 13 July 2026, introduce certain changes to the electoral system in Northern Ireland. Their primary objective is to expand voter accessibility and encourage participation across the electorate in Northern Ireland. They will align certain rules governing Northern Ireland elections more closely with those of Great Britain.
The draft regulations update the list of acceptable forms of ID that can be used by voters at polling stations in parliamentary and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. The draft voter identification order makes identical changes to the list for local elections in Northern Ireland. The draft local elections order will uprate expenditure limits for candidates standing in local elections in Northern Ireland to reflect rising costs caused by inflation. An equivalent uplift in the spending limit for reserved elections in Great Britain and for UK parliamentary and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland was approved by Parliament in 2023.
Before I proceed, I draw the Committee’s attention to the correction slip for the draft voter identification order, which corrects a minor typo. In the last paragraph, on page 1, the words “on him section” have been amended to “on Him by section”, in reference to section 84 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I am sure that the beady-eyed on the Committee had already spotted that typo. That section allows Northern Ireland local election rules to be amended by Order in Council, and “Him” is a reference to His Majesty the King.
The draft regulations will introduce new identity documents that can be used by voters at polling stations in UK parliamentary, Northern Ireland Assembly and local elections. The documents being added are the Commonwealth passport, the proof of age standards scheme card, the HM armed forces veteran card, and the blue badge from the disabled persons’ parking scheme in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Those forms of ID are already accepted at polling stations in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Expanding the list of acceptable documents will support electoral participation across Northern Ireland. Both the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission are supportive of the change. Ensuring that those who cast their vote are eligible to do so is vital to uphold trust in electoral institutions and processes. The requirement for an elector to produce ID is an important part of protecting that principle.
Producing photographic ID at polling stations has been a requirement in Northern Ireland elections since 2003, and it is a well-understood and established part of the electoral process. Security requirements mean that the list of acceptable IDs in Northern Ireland has historically been more restrictive and updated less frequently than the list in Great Britain. Increasing the number of acceptable IDs will remove barriers to voting and support more people in Northern Ireland, including some of the most vulnerable in society, to participate in our democracy, while retaining important electoral security measures.
The draft local elections order will uprate the spending limits for candidates in Northern Ireland’s local elections. The limit will increase from £600 plus 5p per elector registered to vote in the district electoral area in which the candidate is standing, to £960 plus 8p per elector registered to vote in the district electoral area. That will bring the spending limit in Northern Ireland in line with the spending limit for local elections in England.
The existing spending limits for local election candidates in Northern Ireland have remained unchanged since they were first set in 2005. Spending limits across all other reserved elections were uprated to reflect the rise in inflation in 2023. Consequently, candidates standing in local elections in Northern Ireland face a disadvantage compared with those standing in parliamentary and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland, or in local elections in England.
An effective democracy relies on the ability of political parties, candidates and other campaigners to communicate their views so that voters can make informed decisions. The current limits mean that local election candidates in Northern Ireland are restricted by lower real-term spending on campaigning. The Electoral Commission has been consulted on the changes, in line with the statutory duty of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and it supports the new measures.
The draft instruments are necessary to support more people in Northern Ireland to participate in and engage with our democracy. Expanding the list of acceptable voter IDs is an important step in updating electoral processes to reflect the modern electorate in Northern Ireland while preserving the additional security features that are essential to maintaining trust in Northern Ireland’s electoral system. Uprating local election campaign spending limits will ensure that spending limits remain aligned in real terms with the original limits set by Parliament.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her kind words and welcome her formally to her new role. May I also welcome the new hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras to her first delegated legislation Committee? I am sure that she will come to enjoy them as much as I have in the past two and a bit years.
The three draft statutory instruments bring Northern Ireland’s voter ID and spending rules into line with the rules that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom, mainly England. As such, we do not oppose the measures. When they were debated in the other place last month, my noble Friend Lord Caine raised a number of questions on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I wonder whether the Minister could provide us with an update on the Government’s latest thinking.
Although we welcome the fact that the veteran card is being added to the list of acceptable identification, some veterans in Northern Ireland may still be reticent about holding one or being identified as a veteran, given the security concerns. Of course, that is no reason not to grant electors the option to use a veteran card if they wish to do so, but what work have the Government done to assess the possibility that veterans in Northern Ireland may be reluctant to carry such a card and use it as voter ID?
Likewise, my noble Friend said that the Representation of the People Bill will amend legislation to allow the use of non-photographic bank cards, and queried whether Ministers had made an assessment of the impact on electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. He pointed out that it was a Labour Government who legislated in the early 2000s to move from paper ID to photo ID for Northern Ireland, given the historical experience of high levels of voter personation there. The Minister in the other place replied:
“There are no plans for that to happen in Northern Ireland, given the wider context”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 September 2026; Vol. 859, c. GC367.]
I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that remains the position.
Last year, when previous regulations were debated, the Minister gave assurances that the Government would use every measure at their disposal to ensure that the 87,000 retained electors would not be removed from the register. Those regulations provided a framework for auditing and engaging such electors. Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made to date, especially as next year will be the sixth year of the retention period?
Assurances were also given by the Minister in the other place that the extended retention period would be used by the Government and the chief electoral officer to ensure that the register is as complete as it can be. What assurance can the present Minister give that that is the case, and that a more robust system will be in place to ensure that 6% of the electorate is not at risk of being taken off the register?
Turning to spending limits, we agree that bringing limits in line with the rest of the UK is sensible, but my noble Friend Lord Caine also highlighted that the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government recently announced a review of candidate spending limits, with the implication that they are too high. Will the Minister update us on that situation and on whether we are likely to need to revisit those changes soon?
Finally, as we debate the changes to electoral regulations in Northern Ireland, it is worth briefly bearing in mind the wider electoral changes that the Government have announced. First, there is the votes at 16 policy, which is in my view a bad idea. Last month, the Minister in the other place indicated that the Government are considering what measures may need to be updated to ensure that the 48,000 16 and 17-year-olds—
Charlie Dewhirst
I appreciate your guidance, Sir Edward. I was just asking whether the Government could update us on what they would do for the 48,000 16 and 17-year-old voters who will require ID should they become eligible to vote.
Secondly, in an era of ever more sectarian politics, with which Northern Ireland is sadly all too familiar, the Prime Minister has announced plans for a commission on electoral reform, which he appears to have rather prejudged by also committing himself to a manifesto pledge on electoral reform. The Government seem to want to remove from the voters of Northern Ireland the power to sack MPs. Will the Minister agree that changing the voting system in Northern Ireland should not be done without a referendum on the issue?
The draft instruments bring Northern Ireland’s voter ID and spending rules in line with those that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom. As such, we do not oppose the measures, but it would be useful if the Minister updated the Committee on a number of important issues.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Is the list now identical in Northern Ireland? I just looked it up, and in England someone can have a blind person’s badge issued in Northern Ireland, but that does not appear to be on the Northern Ireland list. Are the lists identical—and if not, why not?
Sarah Owen
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds, and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wimbledon, for their input. I will respond to as many of their points as possible.
To respond to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the lists are not identical between the rest of GB and Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland requires a photographic form of identification. There is some divergence between the two, but that is a historic and well-trodden path for Northern Ireland. That is the reason why there is some difference.
Let me address the points made by the shadow Minister. First, on the veterans card, we totally understand that there will be some sensitivities, and that some people will not feel comfortable using their veterans card or carrying it with them, but the expansion to include it is about choice and ensuring that veterans can, should they wish to do so, present their veterans card at the voting booths.
The Government are looking keenly at measures to ensure that we do not lose voters from the electoral register—that is across my desk. The reason we are introducing the measures is to ensure the widest possible participation in all elections in Northern Ireland, and that is what we want to continue doing. At this stage, we do not envisage revisiting the candidate spend.
On votes at 16, of course our positions differ. We will revisit that specifically for Northern Ireland when it comes into force. The wider context of reforms has come up time and again in relation to Northern Ireland, but it is not necessarily about what the politicians want to change; it is about what businesses, people and the public sector in Northern Ireland will be crying out for: a wider package of reforms, beyond the scope of what we are discussing today.
The Committee will agree that encouraging participation in our democracy is vital. I hope that the Committee agrees that the draft instruments will maintain the integrity of the electoral system in Northern Ireland, respecting well-understood safeguards, while adapting to keep pace with modern practices. I am pleased to introduce the measures and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026.
Draft Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Local Elections) (Northern Ireland) Order 2026
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) (Local Elections) (Northern Ireland) Order 2026.—(Sarah Owen.)
Draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Uprating Election Expenses) Order 2026
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Uprating Election Expenses) Order 2026.—(Sarah Owen.)
Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. The original draft regulations were laid before Parliament on 16 July. Following the identification of omitted text affecting the calculation of two fee categories, they were withdrawn, corrected and re-laid on 1 September.
Local planning authorities are integral to delivering the new homes and infrastructure that our country needs, and the Government appreciate fully that, to do so, they require sufficient capacity and capability. Yet for too long, local authority planning departments across the country have wrestled with significant financial pressures that have constrained their ability to recruit and retain skilled planners, invest in modern systems and make timely, high-quality planning decisions.
For that reason, the Government have invested significant sums to boost capacity and capability in local planning authorities. At the 2024 autumn Budget, the then Chancellor announced a £46 million package of investment into the planning system as a one-year settlement for 2025-26. At the Budget on 26 November last year, she announced a further £48 million of investment over three years to support local planning authorities to attract, retain and develop skilled planners over a sustained period. Of that funding, £28.8 million has been allocated to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s planning capacity and capability programme, equating to an additional £9.6 million per year for the next three years. That allocation will supplement existing budgets.
In total, the programme now aims to deliver around 1,325 planners by the end of this Parliament, significantly exceeding our original manifesto commitment to deliver 300 new planning officers. Wider cross-Government recruitment and investment in planning capacity and capability will increase that figure further to approximately 1,400 planners. That new funding will support both graduate and mid-career entry routes into planning, including by expanding the Pathways to Planning graduate scheme.
For local planning authorities, fees are an important contributor to resourcing requirements. Planning application fees are set nationally and are intended to cover the cost to a local planning authority of processing and determining a planning application. However, as things stand, the fees do not fully cover the costs of providing the service. Based on the most recent local government spending data for 2024-25, that has led to an estimated funding shortfall of £330 million per year, which means that local planning authorities are not adequately equipped to deliver an efficient planning service. That is why the Government acted through regulations to increase planning fees for householders and introduce fees for certain minor applications from 1 April last year, and why our landmark Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 included powers to allow local planning authorities, subject to safeguards, to set their own planning fees through a local variation model.
The draft regulations amend the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) Regulations 2012. Their objective is twofold: first, to reduce funding shortfalls and improve the financial sustainability of local authority planning departments, which they will achieve by providing a significant and immediate increase in funding for planning application services; and secondly, to establish a more robust baseline for the operation of future local fee-setting arrangements, which will be implemented through separate regulations later this year.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Will the new planning fees be ringfenced so that councils have to spend them on their planning departments?
Matthew Pennycook
I will address that more fully in my closing remarks, but we do expect the fees to be ringfenced. The hon. Gentleman may recall that we took powers in the Planning and Infrastructure Act to ensure that that is the case.
The draft regulations will establish that baseline by providing for a national default fee that will continue to apply unless a local planning authority chooses to set a different fee to reflect its costs.
Earlier this year, we carried out a consultation on fees for planning applications, seeking views on a proposed national default fee schedule, including in respect of the appropriate level of fees, whether structural changes should be made to specific fee categories, and the wider framework for local fee setting. The feedback indicated broad support across the sector for increasing fees, provided that the additional income is reinvested in planning application services and results in improved performance.
The Government are clear that the additional funding should support measurable improvements in performance. We expect authorities to use the additional income to strengthen their planning application services, reduce delays and provide a better service to applicants. We will of course continue to monitor performance through planning statistics and the existing planning performance regime.
In general terms, planning application fees typically account for less than 1% of overall development costs, while delays and uncertainty in the planning process can impose far greater costs on development and investment. Ensuring that planning authorities are properly resourced is therefore in the interests of applicants, communities and the wider economy. However, it is of course important that any changes to planning fees strike the right balance, ensuring that authorities can recover their costs while remaining proportionate for applicants and supporting continued investment and development. Having considered the consultation responses carefully, we think the revised schedule does just that.
Let me briefly set out the main changes made by the regulations. First, they introduce a revised set of national fees, which we refer to as a national fees schedule. Fees will increase by varying amounts across existing application categories, with the aim of recovering approximately 90% of the estimated processing costs for each application type. The increases are informed by benchmarking work undertaken by the Local Government Association and the Planning Advisory Service, which showed that every application category operates below cost recovery.
Increasing all fees to approximately 90% of estimated costs will provide a significant and immediate increase in funding for planning application services. We are not moving to full cost recovery through a nationally set fee schedule because the cost of processing applications varies significantly among authorities. A uniform national fee set at 100% of estimated average costs could therefore lead to over-recovery in some areas.
Secondly, the regulations simplify and restructure selected fee categories. This includes aligning the household fee thresholds with the medium-sized development category introduced through the national planning policy framework, and simplifying the fee bands applying to certain agricultural, minerals, waste and other operational development. These changes will make the national fee schedule clearer and easier for applicants and local planning authorities to operate.
Thirdly, the regulations introduce a standard fee of £310 for prior-approval applications that currently attract no fee. Prior-approval applications require local planning authorities to devote time and resources to their assessment, so it is right that applicants contribute towards the costs. As part of this third change, the regulations also enable the £310 fee to apply where prior approval is required for larger electricity substations. The separate statutory instrument introducing that prior-approval requirement was laid before Parliament on 30 September and comes into force on 21 October.
Finally, the regulations correct omissions in existing indexation provisions. This will ensure that mixed-use outline application fees and the new standard prior-approval fee are subject to annual inflationary increases in the same way as other planning application fees. Subject to parliamentary approval, the regulations will come into force on 8 December 2026.
To conclude, the regulations will provide an immediate increase in funding for local planning authorities, support the Government’s wider programme of planning reform and establish a stronger baseline for the future operation of local fee-setting powers. In return, applicants should expect improved performance, more timely decisions and greater certainty across the planning system—a better resourced planning system that is better able to deliver the homes, infrastructure and growth that this country needs. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, as always. I welcome the opportunity to sit opposite the Minister again, and I appreciate the remarks he has made. I also welcome the opportunity to speak to the draft regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition.
British house building is being buried by cumbersome and expensive regulation. Layers of protocol regulation and fiscal burdens are stifling house building and inhibiting economic growth. The industry needs relief, not red tape, so I am concerned to find the Government proposing to increase planning fees and add yet another straw to the camel’s already broken back. I have reminded multiple Ministers of the excessive costs and regulations that developers already find themselves saddled with. I will keep on doing so for as long as the Government fail to relieve the industry.
According to the Home Builders Federation, house builders already face more than £7,000 in taxes and levies, including £2,000 in landfill tax, £2,320 from the forthcoming building safety levy, £2,055 in other taxes and £985 from inflationary increases on existing charges such as section 106 agreements. Moreover, developers face more than £23,000 per property in regulatory costs, including £7,770 for building regulations, £5,700 for biodiversity net gain and £10,200 in costs linked to the future homes standard—and that is not the end. Indeed, under this Government’s watch, house builders will have seen material and labour costs reach heights of £37,000 per property, alongside costs of up to £7,000 in additional potential site-specific elements, such as nutrition mitigation requirements.
Taken together, the cumulative impact of the policy, taxation and regulatory pressures on home building means that it is so costly to build that for many companies it no longer makes economic sense to do so. This has been evidenced recently by Taylor Wimpey’s decision to stop building new homes in London. Its chief executive, Jennie Daly, attributed this decision to the fact that in London:
“Baseline viability is…fundamentally broken”.
She said that reward for development has “just evaporated” in some cases.
It is clear that the greatest barrier to unleashing a new wave of house building in England is viability. It is even clearer that the biggest damage to viability comes from state regulation and taxes. The Opposition therefore oppose efforts to increase additional up-front costs for developers. We will seek to divide the Committee on that point.
It is not just the Opposition who recognise the disproportionate impact of the policy on developers: the Government’s own impact assessment estimates an increased fee revenue of £143 million to £190 million a year if fees are increased to 90% cost recovery, as proposed by the regulations, with average undiscounted impacts amounting to costs of £141 million for businesses every year. It is also not businesses alone that are affected, with another £3 million of additional costs for householders as a result of the fee increases.
The fact that house building is already so expensive rather begs the question of why the Government are doing this. What defence can the Minister possibly present? In both the explanatory notes and in the other place, the Government have claimed that increasing fees will strengthen capacity and capability across the planning services for a more efficient and speedier system. The Minister also made that claim in his speech. Why? Local authorities all over the country are increasingly hard pressed financially, not least those that are the victims of the Government’s malicious so-called fair funding review.
It would be no surprise to find the extra money funnelled elsewhere as the Government try to keep up with funding cuts, increased taxation and social care costs. After all, the money the policy will raise is not ringfenced. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, the Minister said the Government “expect” that the money will be ringfenced and spent on planning. Those of us who have been in this place for a little while know that is classic Government-speak; it is not the same as requiring local authorities to do what the Minister wants them to do. We therefore cannot guarantee with any certainty that this change will benefit the planning system or that the money raised will even go towards planning applications.
A system that is not working does not need more barriers, such as hiked-up costs; it needs streamlining and simplifying. It needs fixing, not taxing. The Opposition would welcome a simplified system, clearer fee categories, improved planning system performance and speedier decisions, but we believe the policy does not deliver on any of those targets, because greater cost to developers means further weakened viability.
Before we seek to divide the Committee, I hope the Minister will take the time to address our concerns and answer a few of the questions they generate. Most importantly, will the Minister commit to a full review of building regulations to identify the most burdensome costs and red tape to cut before bringing into force any additional layers of expense? We on the Opposition Benches would be more than happy to help. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) announced in Birmingham a couple of weeks ago, we have a plan that, all in all, will cut the cost of delivering and therefore buying a new home by up to £50,000.
Will the Minister also commit to a planning system that supports rather than restrains the market, by exploring how we can avoid even more red tape in the future and end the culture of regulatory layering that currently pervades Whitehall? I look forward to the Minister’s answers to those questions. I encourage all Members present to vote against this cost to business and householders, and to back British house building instead.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for his response and the questions he put to me. Before I address each of them in turn, I want to reinforce a general point that I made concerning the rationale for the regulations. As it stands, based on the most recent local government spending data for 2024-25, councils are facing an estimated funding shortfall of £330 million per year, as a result of the gap between the fees they are able to charge and the cost of processing and determining planning applications. It is entirely reasonable, on the principle of the matter, that we seek to close that gap so that local authorities are able to deliver a timely service.
The shadow Minister spoke at some length about viability pressures and the role of regulations in those pressures. I gently say to him that lots of the regulations either that we are bringing into force or that were in force were introduced by his Government—the requirement for second staircases is a good example. We recognise that developers must meet a range of costs when bringing forward development. We are acutely aware that viability pressures remain pressing in many parts of the country—London is a good example—and that they have become, in many cases, more acute over recent months as a result of the conflict in the middle east. The shadow Minister will know the statistics when it comes to the increase in, for example, building materials costs that all developers are facing.
I come back, though, to the point I made in my opening remarks. Planning application fees are typically a very small proportion of overall development costs. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that planning application services are properly resourced so that they can process applications efficiently, because there is a cost to delays resulting from planning application services that are not efficient. I argue that by ensuring that local planning authorities can make high-quality and timely decisions we can support viability and investment, just as much as by keeping application fees proportionate.
Gareth Bacon
I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity on that point but, to take him back to what I said in my speech, the Government expecting something to happen is not the same as their requiring it to happen. If that does not happen, what steps will the Government take to make sure that it does?
Matthew Pennycook
I will come to that, and I will answer the specific point on ringfencing as well, because I think the shadow Minister slightly misrepresented my response to the hon. Member for Broxbourne.
On a related point about viability—the shadow Minister tempts me to stray way beyond the the regulations before us—it is important to say that we consulted on the fee schedule that we are discussing. We received 173 responses to that consultation and, overall, 59% of respondents supported the proposed national fee schedule. The support included 68% of local planning authorities and 52% of developer respondents. There is, then, support out there for the fee increases, provided, as I said, that they result in an improved service.
On ringfencing, the Government are clear that planning fee income should be invested in planning application services. I slightly take issue with the shadow Minister saying that we are just relying on moral suasion to ensure that planning departments do that. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 introduced a statutory ringfencing requirement to ensure that fee income is retained and applied to the delivery of the planning function. The ringfencing measures will come into force through separate regulations at the same time as the local fee-setting measures I mentioned earlier are introduced.
The ringfencing duty will apply regardless of whether fees have been set nationally or locally, so the shadow Minister can be assured that, in due course, as soon as we have commenced those regulations, the ringfencing will apply. While those provisions are not in force, the Government expectation remains that planning fee income should be reinvested into planning application services. Once we have commenced those regulations, that will not be an option for authorities.
On general planning performance, the shadow Minister will know that we monitor through planning statistics and our planning performance regime. Many of his colleagues have squirmed at their local authorities being put on to that performance regime for not making timely decisions and not performing as required. We will continue to monitor where we need to intervene using the powers available for us in respect of individual local authorities.
To conclude, the regulations are a key step towards improving local planning authority resourcing, thereby enabling faster decision making, higher service standards and stronger overall performance across the planning system. As I have said, they will facilitate an immediate funding uplift for all local planning authorities and, by providing for a new national fee schedule, provide a more robust baseline for the operation of future local fee-setting arrangements, which we will debate in respect of a future statutory instrument. A fast, effective and reliable planning service is essential to support housing delivery, economic growth and the provision of infrastructure. The regulations will ensure that local planning authorities are sufficiently resourced to determine applications in a timely and high-quality manner. I commend them to the Committee.
Question put.
Child-like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during the Committee sitting, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to [email protected].
My selection and grouping for today’s meeting is available online and in the room. There will be a single debate on both clauses, and I will first call Munira Wilson to speak as the Member in charge of the Bill. Following her speech, Members may indicate a wish to speak by bobbing in the usual way. After the debate has concluded, I will call Munira Wilson to wind up.
Clause 1
Child-like sexual abuse dolls
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is an absolute pleasure to have you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I start by thanking all the hon. Members who have given up their time today to discuss and scrutinise this Bill on a horrific yet important issue. I am going to provide a trigger warning to everyone here today—hon. Members, and also those in the Public Gallery and listening online—because of the disturbing nature of some of the material I will share. It has certainly been a difficult issue for me and my parliamentary assistant, Max, to explore in detail in recent months. He is in the Public Gallery, and I am very grateful for all his work.
Given the quirks of the private Member’s Bill process, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak about my Bill in Parliament, so I hope, Ms Vaz, that you will forgive and indulge me if I spend a few moments speaking about the Bill in broad terms and setting the context before I address its specific clauses.
Child-like sexual abuse dolls are life-like, anatomically correct dolls, or any other object, designed to resemble a child and to be used for sexual activity. I was shocked to discover that these things even existed, let alone that they are legal to possess or sell in our country, but they are, and I have seen them in person. I have even felt one, and it is impossible to make it clear in words just how vile they are and how they are produced to be as life-like as possible. Increasingly, they are custom-made to order, and with the advance of technology, I shudder to think how closely these dolls will be made to resemble an actual child.
These dolls are dangerous. They sexualise children. They normalise sexual abuse and form part of a pattern of behaviour that can and does end in real children being harmed. I have heard this at first hand from the police and the National Crime Agency, as well as from leading child protection charities such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Lucy Faithfull Foundation. For example, in 2017, an ex-school governor here in the UK was found to have imported a child-like sexual abuse doll. He was also found to be in possession of 34,000 images of child sexual abuse. His case is one of many that demonstrate the horror of the issue and the real consequences of these dolls being legal.
As the law stands, the dolls expose a gaping hole in our child protection laws. It is not an offence to own, use or make them. Existing laws can sometimes be used where these items are imported, sold or distributed, and Border Force plays an important role in stopping them entering the country. However, those offences were not designed specifically for child-like sexual abuse dolls, and they do not provide a clear or comprehensive legal framework. The result is a patchwork approach that can leave gaps in protection.
Since 2017, when the NCA and Border Force ran Operation Shiraz, law enforcement authorities have been using this dated customs legislation that prohibits the importation of “indecent or obscene articles”. There have been some prosecutions, but too many are falling through the cracks, as is demonstrated by the following case study. A registered sex offender had his home searched following a prompt relating to child sexual abuse imagery. A child-like sexual abuse doll was found, resembling a child of approximately four to five years of age. It came with a child’s underwear and pink, fluffy slippers, as well as accessories, including a removable penis. He was able to be charged only with the indecent images of children offence, not the possession and use of a child-like sexual abuse doll. Furthermore, under current legislation, the police did not have the legal powers to remove and destroy the doll.
The Bill we are considering will close that gap in the law by amending the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It will make it an offence to make, possess, import, supply or offer to supply—that is, advertise—a child-like sex doll. How we define a child-like sex doll in legislation is important, and for that, I draw Members’ attention to clause 1 and proposed new subsections 46D(2) and (9) of the 2003 Act. A child-like sex doll will be defined as
“a doll or other object…which resembles a child or any part of a child’s body, and…which a reasonable person would consider has been made for, or is intended to be used for, engaging in a sexual activity, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.”
That definition is drafted to make the legislation as effective as possible without being overly prescriptive. For example, manufacturers of the dolls sometimes ensure that the dolls have large breasts, because that is what their customers want. They then try to claim that the dolls are not child-like due to their breast size, regardless of the fact that these dolls are, in every other sense, clearly designed and intended to resemble a child. This definition will also close another loophole that has been increasingly exploited to evade the existing customs legislation that I referred to, whereby parts of a doll are ordered separately rather than a whole doll and are subsequently assembled at home.
A number of countries around the world have already put similar legislation in place. The reference to whether a “reasonable person” would consider it likely that dolls have been made for sexual activity is modelled on the Australian legislation. It is an objective test and allows consideration to be given to the characteristics of the doll in its entirety rather than insisting that it has set features. As with similar judgments involving child sexual abuse material and other offences where age, appearance and context are relevant, it will be up to the court to weigh up the circumstance of each case.
I would also like to bring proposed new subsection 46D(9) in clause 1 into this part of the discussion. The offence of making a child-like sexual abuse doll includes adaptation. For example, an offender found to have made their own doll through adapting a child’s toy doll—a real scenario presented to me by the NCA—would also fall under this legislation. The subsection also defines a child as
“a person aged under 18.”
The Bill makes exception for relevant defences in clause 1 through proposed new subsections 46D(3) to (5) of the 2003 Act, including the protection of law enforcement officers working on detecting or investigating a crime relating to such dolls, as well as unsolicited or unintentional possession. I reassure Members that these defences are tightly drafted; vitally, the burden will be on the accused to prove that they are eligible for the defences. Offenders will be penalised, as detailed in clause 1, through proposed new subsection 46D(6), in line with offences involving indecent images of children: on summary conviction, up to 12 months’ imprisonment and/or a fine, and on indictment, up to 5 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine. Crucially, under clause 1(2), offenders will be placed on the sex offenders register if they are imprisoned for a term of at least 12 months and eligible for notification requirements, so that their risk can be managed by the police and the Probation Service.
Proposed new subsection 46D(7) ensures that UK nationals committing an offence abroad will be able to be prosecuted here, and it extends the same provision to relevant UK bodies and unincorporated associations. That aligns with other child sexual abuse offences. Proposed new subsection 46D(8) sets out the powers for the police in terms of entry, search, seizure and forfeiture of child-like sexual abuse dolls, again in line with legislation relating to possession of indecent images of children. Proposed new section 46E is relevant to organisations or companies’ involvement with CSA doll offences. When a body commits an offence and that offence is committed with the consent or complicity of senior figures, they will be held liable.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an incredibly powerful case about something that, I think we can all agree, is utterly abhorrent. I want to ask about proposed new subsection 46D(9), which, as she rightly emphasised, would ban the adaptation of something into a CSA doll. Does the Bill also ban the supplying of parts to allow that to happen? She has mentioned that the Bill would look at banning the supply of CSA dolls. There is also separately a concern about modifying an object into a CSA doll. Is there a potential loophole whereby supplying the parts to enable the modification would not be covered by the Bill, which would address only the supply of entire CSA dolls?
Munira Wilson
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention; I confess that I had not thought about that angle. The examples I have seen, presented to me by the NCA and the police, were literally like Annabell dolls that had had orifices made in the appropriate places. Presumably, tools that we would utilise in everyday life were used, such as screwdrivers and knives. I am not aware of tools specifically made to adapt these dolls, but the Minister is indicating that she may be able to pick that up with a prompt from the officials.
Clause 2 details the territorial extent, commencement and title of the Bill. As would be expected, the commencement of clause 1 would allow time for operational guidance and training, as well as assessments on the impact of the justice system. Finally, on the territorial extent, the Bill will apply to England and Wales, given that criminal law and policing are devolved matters in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Although I would have liked the Bill to have a UK-wide remit, it was challenging to do that in the time available, given the constraints of the private Member’s Bill process. I very much hope, however, that Holyrood and Stormont will bring forward equivalent measures as soon as they can. I am grateful to Home Office officials for already sharing their expertise in this area with their counterparts.
The Bill is a very small part of the work that we need to do to protect children from harm, but it is a vital step. I am grateful to have the support of a significant number of leading charities, including the NSPCC and the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, and I am grateful to have the support of the NCA. I also want to give particular credit to Detective Sergeant Kat Knock from Lancashire constabulary and Hazel Stewart from the NCA—two amazing women who have worked incredibly hard to tackle this issue on the ground for several years. Without their dedication, we would not be here discussing this Bill.
I thank the group-based child sexual exploitation response team in the Home Office, as well as the Government Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for its work in advising my staff and me, as well as for drafting this legislation. I am grateful to the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls and her predecessors for getting behind the Bill. I am also grateful to my cross-party co-sponsors. I very much hope that we can collectively get the Bill on to the statute book as soon as is humanly possible.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I wholeheartedly congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham on bringing forward this Bill to close a clear legislative gap on child-like sexual abuse dolls, and I welcome the Government’s support. She has been a fierce champion for women and children for many years, and she should be commended for her leadership on this issue. This legislation comes at an important time, when the Government’s legislation to prohibit pornography with an actor purporting to be a child is due to come into operation on 6 November. It feels as though we are truly making steps forward to combat the environment that normalises child sexual abuse.
However, I want to draw the Committee’s attention to a digital counterpart of the same harm: chatbots that simulate sexual scenarios with children. They are referred to by multiple members of the Pornography Harms Coalition, which includes CEASE, Barnardo’s, Rape Crisis and the Internet Watch Foundation, among many others, as digital sexual abuse dolls. These chatbots are more accessible, more scalable and arguably more immersive than any physical doll, and they are not clearly illegal today.
The Internet Watch Foundation’s analysts have found artificial intelligence companion chatbots modelled as children that encourage users to act out specific child sexual abuse scenarios, including “child prostitute in a hotel”, “sex with your daughter while your wife is on holiday” and “child and teacher alone after class”. General purpose chatbots and companion apps are being used for interactive role play in which users actively co-produce abusive scripts. That can be text, but it can also involve visual, cartoon-like characters that narrate and reinforce the scenario. These are not isolated text exchanges; they create an immersive environment in which a user can interact with a child avatar and rehearse abusive scenarios. In some cases, the user can reach AI-generated sexual abuse images of children within a few clicks.
Last year, the IWF actioned 17 reports of confirmed child sexual abuse images on those chatbots, with some depicting children as young as seven. Professor Clare McGlynn and her colleagues found that some chatbots, freely accessible to millions of users, let people role-play rape, incest and child sexual abuse. Research by Graphika cited by Professor McGlynn found a Chub AI character card with 109,000 chats depicting a grooming scenario. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that character.ai users could interact with characters such as “Bestie Epstein”, based on the prolific paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Under UK law, child sexual abuse material is unlawful whether it is real, AI-generated, synthetic or a hybrid. The Government accepts that AI-generated material causes comparable harm, yet a chatbot built to simulate written sexual scenarios with a child sits in a legal gap. Professor McGlynn has noted that text-only chatbots are not considered pornography under part 5 of the Online Safety Act 2023, so an incest role-play chatbot with a young girl’s avatar could fall outside its pornography duties. In July, the Government announced a ban on sexualised AI chatbots for under-18s—something that I and many here welcome. However, it is unclear what counts as a sexualised chatbot, how the ban will be enforced and what exemptions apply. It protects only under-18s, so it does nothing about an adult using a chatbot that generates written child sexual abuse scenarios.
The Crime and Policing Act 2026 gave the Secretary of State power to bring AI chatbots within its scope, including illegal AI-generated content of all kinds—not only priority illegal content. However, that route helps only if the underlying conduct is actually illegal. Furthermore, no timetable has been given for either of those measures. This issue was raised by my friend Baroness Gabby Bertin in the other place during the passage of that Act. She tabled an amendment that would have made written material that glorifies sexual activity with a child a crime.
That was prompted by a case reported in The Guardian of Emily, a pseudonym, whose father fantasised about, and described in detail in an online chatroom, raping and sexually abusing her as a child. Though the physical sexual abuse was never real, the trauma of its description has had a very real impact on Emily, who should have been recognised as a victim. The Crown Prosecution Service refused to prosecute, arguing that the father had no intent to deprave. Government Ministers at the time said Baroness Bertin’s amendment was unnecessary, as written child abuse content was already illegal. The relevant legislation they cited was the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and the Communications Act 2003. However, the CPS said that it was not possible to establish that the defendant in Emily’s case intended the messages to be obscene, or that he was aware when sending them that they would be considered so if seen by a reasonable member of the public.
Jess Asato
Through the Bill, the Government have recognised the need for swift action on physical child sexual abuse, and I completely support that. I would therefore urge them to apply the same urgency to the digital equivalent.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham for introducing the Bill, which closes a vile loophole in the law. I am grateful for her leadership in bringing together in this room a group of people who are all fully behind her, and I commend her work.
A child-like sexual abuse doll is a replica of a child’s body made for perverse sexual use. Someone who imports one, as the hon. Member for Twickenham said, can be prosecuted under the Customs Consolidation Act 1876. However, as the CPS has acknowledged, simply possessing one is not an offence. The law stops a parcel at the border, but not the person who receives it. The Bill is therefore proportionate and has the Opposition’s support.
The Bill creates offences of making, possessing, importing and supplying, with a maximum sentence of five years—the same as for indecent images of children, which is exactly the right comparison. It provides for seizure and forfeiture, notification requirements, liability for directors and reach for UK companies abroad. The defences are sensible: for those investigating crime, for unsolicited receipt and for those who had no reason to know what they had. The burden of proof—which is, again, on the defendant—mirrors the indecent images regime, and that is right. The definition is targeted, too: this is a ban on sexualising children’s bodies.
Why does it matter? The Lucy Faithfull Foundation warns that the dolls normalise and legitimise sexual behaviour towards children. Some argue the opposite: that they could be a safe outlet for paedophiles. However, there is no evidence at all that these vile objects prevent offending. When the evidence is uncertain and the potential victims are children, the burden must lie with those who permit the product, not those who protect against it. The Government have said that police have encountered those dolls while investigating suspected child sex abuse and when monitoring registered sex offenders. The Bill therefore rests on the judgment that a replica of a child made for sexual use has no place in a decent society.
Technology is moving fast, as we have already touched on briefly in the debate. These products can be made to order and are becoming more realistic. The Bill covers
“a doll or other object”
—a physical object. Can the Minister confirm that that would include a robot or any AI-enabled physical product made to resemble a child for sexual use? The term “making” includes adapting something so that it becomes a doll, but how does the Bill apply to someone who 3D-prints a doll, or—this is a gap in the Bill—supplies the files to allow such 3D printing? They themselves are not producing it, but are providing the core content that allows that doll to be 3D-printed in an individual’s home. I have not tabled amendments in Committee, but I am considering doing so on Report on both those points, unless the Government reassure me that they are not needed or table such amendments themselves. I would welcome the Minister’s views on that.
Will there be guidance on what the “reasonable person” test is for police, Border Force and prosecutors, so that it is applied consistently and legitimate items such as medical or training models clearly fall outside the offence? We do not want paramedics or others to be unable to train with the items that they need.
The Bill gives no commencement date. Will the Government tell us when they hope to bring it into force, and what resources Border Force and the police will have to enforce it? One passing point raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham was that the Bill extends only to England and Wales. I expect that the Government want to push for equivalent protection elsewhere given how many of these products are being imported. Parliament has repeatedly legislated to protect children, and it is at its best when we work as one country.
Finally, I urge the Government to consider requiring anyone who is found to own such a device to be placed on a sexual risk order, even if they are not imprisoned. There is no need for a conviction for someone to be placed on a sexual risk order. That is vital, because anyone from the National Crime Agency or a chief constable can apply for one, and it would recognise that, even if an individual has not yet offended against a child or fully meets the need for imprisonment, we can take action. There is no question that anyone interfering in any way with an object like this has some sort of malign intent.
I came into politics to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and no one is more deserving of protection than a child. This Bill is a small step, but it is the right one, and we are proud to support it. In this room, we are making clear that child-like sexual abuse dolls have no place in our country. A child’s body is not a product. Owning a child-like sex abuse doll is morally indefensible. There is no innocent reason to own one, and those who do are degenerates who are normalising the sexual abuse of children. They must be treated as the danger they are.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Satvir Kaur)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair today, Ms Vaz. I thank all Members who have contributed, and in particular the hon. Member for Twickenham for bringing forward this important Bill and for the constructive way in which she has been working with Government. I will not repeat her passionate words on the detail, which is harrowing, and on the importance of tackling this issue, although I will cover some of the questions and concerns that were raised.
The Government are fully supportive of the Bill and its central objective of strengthening the law so that child-like sexual abuse dolls can be tackled clearly, consistently and effectively. These items sexualise the appearance of children and raise serious safeguarding and public protection concerns. Like any parent, and as a new mum, I find even the existence of these dolls absolutely harrowing, to the point that I cannot bring myself to see one. The new offences of making, possession, importation and supply will close a recognised gap in criminal law and provide a clear basis for action against this concerning material. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford that the Bill will cover parts of a doll or anything that resembles a child, but it will also include any type of robotic or AI-enabled doll, including those that are 3D-printed, and anyone found guilty will of course go on the sexual risk register.
Alicia Kearns
I thank the Minister for confirming that any doll that is 3D-printed will be included. Could she confirm whether those who produce the files that allow those individuals to create one at home, and enable their criminal behaviour, will also be covered? If not, would she write to me to confirm it and look into how it might be done?
Satvir Kaur
Yes, of course. My understanding is that it should be, but I will come back to the hon. Lady in writing to confirm it. If this legislation is to close a loophole, we want to ensure that it does so properly and for good.
The provisions on entry, search, seizure and forfeiture are essential. They will help the police and other operational partners to investigate suspected offending, to remove items from circulation and to intervene earlier when wider risks to children are identified. The Bill’s penalties and notification requirements reflect the seriousness of the conduct while ensuring that the new framework is targeted and proportionate.
Taken together, the clauses will give law enforcement, prosecutors and the courts greater clarity and a more effective set of tools. They will also support the Bill’s wider preventive purpose by enabling earlier identification and intervention when concerning behaviour may indicate a risk to children.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft mentioned online harm, and she was right to raise the most horrific crimes that we see online. We saw at an event last night some of the horrific outcomes that online harm can lead to for children. I reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are taking this seriously. The tech world is moving at pace and we must keep up. The hon. Member for Twickenham gave reasons this legislation is so tightly focused, but I would welcome a meeting with my hon. Friend to discuss how we move at pace when addressing online harm, particularly when it is targeted at children. I am keen to ensure that the Bill’s scope remains tight so that we can address this particular loophole when it comes to physical sexualised child-like dolls, but I thank my hon. Friend for raising that.
The Government have worked closely with the hon. Member for Twickenham, operational partners and criminal justice stakeholders to ensure that the legislation is clear, robust and workable in practice.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I want to clarify something. About a year ago, a child-like sex doll was found in a woodland in Devon. Will the legislation protect somebody who found one and then had to call the police to report it? It feels to me that the defence is there, and that that is the case, but it would be worth putting on the record that were a member of the general public to find one, they would not be covered by the law—they would be protected by the defences in the Bill.
Satvir Kaur
Yes, that is already covered in the legislation. Naturally, we want to find these dolls and find who is producing, sharing and using them. I thank the hon. Lady for raising that.
The Government are satisfied that the Bill strikes the right balance, and we support the clauses standing part of the Bill. I again thank the hon. Member for Twickenham for her leadership and determination in getting the Bill to this stage. The Government are proud to support this important safeguarding measure, and I commend the Bill to the Committee.
Munira Wilson
I thank the Members who spoke for their very kind and generous words to me. I thank the hon. Member for Lowestoft for her campaigning on this issue. She has come under a lot of significant personal abuse for her work on protecting women and girls from violence. I thank her for that work and strongly support her comments. Although the amendment she would have liked to make—on digital child-like sexual abuse dolls and chatbots, as she laid out so clearly—was out of scope, I very much hope that the Minister will find ways of taking that forward. As the hon. Member said, the ban on sexualising chatbots that the Government announced was targeted specifically at what children access; here, we are talking about adults accessing physical dolls. But we know that the online world is developing at pace so, as the Government are looking to introduce all sorts of legislation in this area, I ask the Minister to look to capture, as broadly as possible, all the horrendous activities that are going on.
I thank the official Opposition for their strong support for the Bill. To pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, the argument sometimes made against criminalising these dolls is that they stop people abusing real children. What a misconception that is. I spoke to an amazing organisation in Australia called Collective Shout, which was involved in bringing forward the legislation there. They gave me a horrendous example in Australia of a man who was picked up importing a child-like sex doll. They went to his home, and they found not only a second child-like sex doll and all sorts of child sexual abuse imagery on his devices, but also a lockable sound-proof room that he had created in his house, and some maps. He had based himself close to a nursery and quite clearly had the intention of kidnapping children and doing I dread to think what to them, in a lockable room that could not be accessed by anyone, from which children’s cries could not be heard.
That gives us an idea of the intentions of the sorts of people who use these things. I know that UK police enforcement authorities are working on other examples, but I am not able to share them because they are live cases.
Alicia Kearns
I thank the hon. Member for making that point. She is essentially giving the National Crime Agency and police forces across the country an additional reason to enter the homes of potential offenders and those who are planning a crime. It is absolutely vital that we move to prevention in this area, because the reality is that there are too many children and adults across this country whose lives have been forever harmed by this. It is something they will live with for ever. The hon. Member is not just tackling a doll but providing a preventive power to go in and catch people before they escalate, and she is therefore protecting children. I thank her ever so much for doing so.
Munira Wilson
Absolutely; I completely agree. The hon. Member also made the point about resources. When DS Kat Knock, who I mentioned in my speech, came to London from Cheshire with a couple of these vile objects for me to look at, a couple of officers from the Met police joined that meeting. I talked to them about the fact that the number of police officers who track and monitor those on sex offender registers has not gone up in recent years, while the number of offenders on the register has gone up—particularly with the early release scheme. That workload is increasing all the time, so we have to resource it properly. I hope that the Government will consider that. I know that everyone is demanding more money and we are fiscally constrained, but this is a really important area, especially when we are talking about protecting children and adding these offences to the statute book. This needs to be resourced properly.
To respond to the hon. Member for South West Devon, line 24 of the Bill says that a defence for a person who might be charged with an offence is that they
“did not keep it for an unreasonable time.”
I am confident that, if a member of the public finds one of these dolls in a public place and reports it, there would be a strong case for defence in that they were not in possession of it for use themselves.
On the points about files for 3D printing and tools to adapt dolls, I know that the Minister is committed to following that up. I am also very happy to work with officials to follow up with colleagues and address those issues, and to make amendments on Report if necessary.
I close by thanking everybody again. I think we are looking at the first Friday in February for Report and Third Reading, and we will hopefully get the Bill to the other place as soon possible in order then to get it in statute. I am very grateful for everybody’s strong support.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question put, That the Bill be reported without amendment.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Westminster Hall
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the regulation of e-scooters and e-bikes.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I am pleased to have secured this debate and really grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, which we urgently need to see progress on.
This is a timely debate because I hosted a roundtable on this very topic last week. Twenty-five individuals attended. There were senior-ranking representatives from nine police forces across the country, five police and crime commissioners, one borough commander and one assistant chief constable. The officers who were present were from the Met, Derbyshire, Merseyside, Surrey, Lancashire, Gloucestershire, Warwickshire, Hertfordshire, and Devon and Cornwall. There were industry representatives, campaigners, policy experts, academics, doctors and MPs. I am thankful to all those who attended and shared their insights and expertise with me and the other MPs who were there. The fact that so many individuals representing diverse groups and interests travelled across the UK to London to speak about this issue highlights the urgency and the need for action.
How did this issue become so important to me? It all started when I was canvassing to become an MP, and I met so many constituents who raised the issue of e-scooters and e-bikes in my constituency of Epsom and Ewell. It became a top issue. One of my constituents, Ed Dark, told me that his little boy is now too scared to go to the beautiful park that is next to his house.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Many people in my constituency feel frightened and intimidated when just walking on the pavement runs the risk of them colliding with an e-scooter or e-bike. I have raised the matter with the police, but they say they are unable to take action unless the riders are caught riding the vehicle. Does the hon. Member agree that we need greater enforcement powers, clearer national guidance and stronger controls on the sale of illegal e-scooters and e-bikes, so that we can better protect our residents and restore confidence in our neighbourhoods?
Helen Maguire
I agree with everything the hon. Member says, and I will talk about those points in my speech.
Edward Dark’s son was walking home from school one day when he was nearly hit by an e-scooter. That could have been fatal. Thankfully, it was not. Another constituent told me they have even considered moving house—just consider that: moving house—because of the e-scooter misuse in their neighbourhood.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
The hon. Member has rightfully secured a debate on this extremely important topic. In the summer in Tamworth, there was an extremely serious collision between a six-year-old girl and an e-motorbike. She was in a critical condition as a result, but fortunately she did not die. Will the hon. Member be pressing the Government to give more resources to policing and to clarify the legislation for e-bikes and e-motorbikes?
Helen Maguire
I am really sorry to hear about the hon. Member’s constituent; I hope she is okay now. I will indeed be raising those issues.
One constituent told me that her car was hit by an illegally ridden e-bike on the wrong side of the road. She got the individual’s details and reported it to the police, but she was told that they would keep a lookout rather than seize the bike from the known address.
This issue goes far beyond Epsom and Ewell, as Members have already demonstrated. Across the country, we are seeing young people on e-scooters riding at high speed through red lights, parks and pedestrianised areas.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for the excellent seminar she held last week, which I attended. Illegal e-motorbikes are a blight on my constituency. I have spoken to the police and to the lead police officers who she convened last week, and they say that this is the preferred vehicle of choice for organised criminals. Will she press the Minister to work with the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade to ensure that non-compliant conversion kits are banned from sale as soon as possible?
Helen Maguire
I absolutely agree: this is one of the matters that the Minister needs to take forward.
We have the issues of illegally modified e-scooters, which can now reach speeds of up to 70 mph; e-bikes, which are catching fire due to uncertified lithium-ion batteries; and the use of e-vehicles in criminal activity and antisocial behaviour, as the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) alluded to. Pedestrians have the fundamental right to feel safe. They should not need to worry about being hit or knocked over when simply walking in the park or on the streets. That is particularly important for vulnerable groups, especially those with vision loss or mobility needs.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for making such a strong argument. Along with other hon. Members, I recently met representatives of Guide Dogs for the Blind. They made a strong case for visually impaired and blind people, who are often put off going out on to their own streets, due to the silent nature of e-scooters and e-bikes. Does she agree that that point alone underscores the need to enforce the law properly in this area?
Helen Maguire
I absolutely agree. This is a critical issue for the high number of visually impaired people living in Swail House in Epsom in my constituency.
There are flaws in the current collision data. In 2023, there were at least 1,299 collisions involving e-scooters, but those statistics do not show the full picture. How can they, when the data is not consistently collected or identified? Data on death and injuries in reported road collisions is reported to the Department for Transport by police forces in Great Britain via STATS19. A new powered personal transporter category was introduced to cover e-scooters, but not all forces currently use the new specification. I urge the Minister to enforce the use of the new STATS19 specification for all police forces, so that we can understand exactly what is going on.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Surely, the answer is relatively simple: if a scooter or bike operates purely through an electronic motor and not human propulsion, it should be taxed, insured and subject to an MOT like any other motorbike.
Helen Maguire
I thank my hon. Friend. I am sure he can put that point to the Minister.
E-bikes are not currently distinguished from pedal cycle or electric motorcycle categories depending on their power rating. The Government have stated that there are no plans to change STATS19 data to introduce specific categories for e-bikes. I urge the Minister to reassess introducing a specific category for e-bikes within STATS19.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I went to the Queen’s Medical Centre, the main hospital in Nottingham, to meet the paediatric teams. They told me that there had been 10 serious acquired brain injuries since April this year. They are looking at two a month, with the curve on an upward trajectory. The data on the ground is clear that this is a problem, so Ministers need to get beyond the lag in the data and start taking the action called for by people such as the medics I met. Does the hon. Member agree that the human cost and the long-term impact on those young people needs to be prioritised?
Helen Maguire
I absolutely agree and will talk more about the human cost. The changes would provide an accurate oversight of the scale and distribution of the issue. That would lead to more effective enforcement and legislation. How can we begin to address the issue if we do not understand the full picture? Behind the limited statistics is an unacceptable price of injury and death, particularly for children.
At my roundtable, I spoke to Dr Durand, a consultant in paediatric emergency medicine. Her research in the Emergency Medicine Journal analysed e-scooter injury data over six years, from three major children’s trauma centres, in Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield. She found that 447 children attended hospital following an e-scooter-related injury; one in 10 had serious head injuries requiring hospital admission and surgery; and 95% of injuries involved the rider. She also found that the average age of an injured child was 12, with half aged between 10 and 13; that annual cases rose from fewer than 10 in 2019 to almost 150 by 2024; that as many as 74% of the injured children live in areas with the greatest socioeconomic deprivation; and that under 2% of riders were wearing a helmet.
I want to tell you about Jacob’s journey, because behind each of the statistics is a child with possible life-ending injuries, and permanently changed families. One of those is the Calland family. I was fortunate to meet Carly Calland for the second time at my roundtable. The Calland family tragically lost their son, Jacob, in an e-scooter incident.
On 19 March 2025, Jacob left home and met up with a friend. He decided to ride as passenger on the back of that boy’s e-scooter, without any protective gear. That decision cost him his life. At 3.59 pm, the e-scooter collided with a car. Jacob was thrown to the other side of the road and landed in front of oncoming traffic. He suffered a catastrophic head injury, and was brought into the intensive care unit and put in a coma. He underwent multiple surgeries to try to control the bleeding and swelling on the brain, but his condition began to deteriorate, and there was nothing more that could be done to save his life. Jacob Calland passed away at 5.18 am on Thursday 27 March 2025. He was just 14 years and nine months old.
How many more children need to die for the Government to take this issue seriously? There was no mention of e-scooter and e-bike legislation in the King’s Speech, and the DFT said that the earliest that legislation could be considered is May 2027. That is unacceptable. The lack of time in the parliamentary calendar is not an excuse for failing to act to save our children’s lives.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the hon. Lady agree that, in advance of the change that we all want, we need to see a consistent approach across the country? I have had parents say to me that senior police officers in one part of the country have one attitude to this ongoing and worsening problem, and other compatriots have another.
Helen Maguire
Absolutely, and I will come to the police powers and the Acts available to them.
I have three children myself, and Jacob could have been one of mine. He could have been the child of anyone in the Chamber. As MPs, we have a duty to keep our children safe. Jacob Calland lived in Wythenshawe, Manchester, close to Makerfield, so if the Prime Minister is listening, I urge him to act now.
That brings me to the unending rental e-scooter trials. The trials began in July 2020, and were intended to run until November 2021. They were launched to review whether e-scooters reduce pressure on public transport and motor traffic, and to look at their safety impacts. They were extended until March 2022 to allow for more time for evidence to be gathered due to covid. They were then extended again until November 2022 due to the DFT issuing guidance to enhance safety measures. They were then extended again to May 2025 to allow the DFT to reflect on further analysis, and they have now been extended again until May 2028 to help fill evidence gaps to inform legislation. That will be eight years of trials with no action.
Why are the trials unending? What are we trying to achieve with that period of time? Ireland had a six-month trial, Germany had a 180-day trial and France and Spain did not even have trials, and those countries were able to implement legislation and improve road safety in a fraction of the time. My question to the Minister is: why can’t we?
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Derbyshire constabulary has seized and crushed more than 1,000 illegal electric scooters, some capable of travelling at 50 mph and being ridden by children. At such a speed, the damage that can be done is catastrophic. Older constituents have told me that they are afraid to go into Derby city centre for fear of being hit, and that is not to mention the house fires that have been caused by e-scooter batteries. Does the hon. Lady agree that the sooner we legislate to tackle illegal scooters and protect the public, the better?
Helen Maguire
I absolutely agree, and I congratulate Derbyshire police on doing an outstanding job in seizing e-scooters and e-bikes.
Between the start of the trials in 2020 and December 2025, there were 7,591 reported casualties in collisions involving e-scooters. In 2025 alone, there were 1,477 reported collisions and 10 deaths. The time for data collection has long passed. Legislation is now needed to save lives on roads.
The lack of Government action is forcing police forces to deal with this issue on their own. There is no centralised guidance on operational tactics, so the police are adapting seizing powers. Derbyshire police have a “see it, seize it” system, where they are empowering police community support officers under section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to seize and remove e-scooters within 24 hours, but the situation is not consistent across the country. Every police force does it differently.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for calling this very timely debate. Does she agree that this is a particular problem where policing borders meet? My constituency is under the West Mercia jurisdiction, but in Cofton Hackett, a village that has an acute problem with e-bikes, the bikes often originate in Birmingham, which is under the jurisdiction of West Midlands police. It feels as though some areas fall between the cracks and that this e-bike problem is increasingly without consequences.
Helen Maguire
I agree. When police forces use different tactics, there is a cross-boundary border issue.
Derbyshire police implemented a huge public awareness campaign with the fire brigade, housing providers, schools and retailers. It is important that we inform the public more about this, because they are incredibly confused about e-scooters that can be bought legally, but cannot be used on our public roads or in parks; only the trial e-scooters can be used legally. As we enter the Christmas season, many parents might be thinking about an e-scooter or e-bike as a gift, so I urge the Government to put safety first and reconsider the policy. Since implementing the scheme in Derbyshire, 30 e-scooters a month—a total of 1,060—have been seized. The strategy is effective, as there has been a 40% reduction in e-scooter crime and an 11% reduction in e-bike crime.
Surrey police recently announced Operation Scramble, in which illegal e-bikes and e-scooters will be seized and destroyed. The Government must support police forces; they are calling for workable legislation, which is why there were so many representatives from police forces around the country at my roundtable the other day.
To be clear, I am not against e-scooters or e-bikes because their benefits are clear. They are affordable transport alternatives; they make difficult routes accessible; they have less impact than cars on the environment; they improve public health, local air quality and cut congestion; and they support the hard workers in the gig economy. But they must be properly regulated and legislated for, and the rules must be enforced to protect all members of the public.
There is currently no practical legislation on the use of e-scooters and e-bikes; no co-ordinated guidance for police forces; no effective regulation on import or sale; no control of the online or grey marketplace, and no public understanding of what is and is not legal. Failure to act is not just about lives; it is about lost revenue to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, further strain and costs on our hospitals and the NHS, increased pressure on police forces, and confusion among retailers, consumers and parents. Will the Minister commit today to ending the ongoing trials, outline the next steps for legislation, and commit to the safety of our children and young people in the UK, so that no parent has to spend this Christmas without their child?
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. There is obviously huge interest in this debate. I remind hon. Members to bob if they wish to speak. To start with, I will impose a time limit of two and a half minutes on speeches. I ask Members to keep interventions brief. I call Dame Siobhain McDonagh.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this debate. You can see, Mr Stringer, how big the issue is for constituencies across the country.
In 2017, the London Fire Brigade attended just seven e-bike fires. Last year, the number reached a record 206. That is an e-bike fire somewhere in the capital every other day. Since 2023, six people have lost their lives in e-bike and e-scooter fires in London, five of whom were not themselves charging the vehicle responsible for the fires. They lost their lives because of a danger they had absolutely no control over, and they might not even have known existed. In my constituency alone, 14 homes have been lost to fires. Just last week at my advice surgery, I met Mr and Mrs Gifford, whose home was devastated by an e-bike fire on Lewis Road in Mitcham in October last year. They lived next door to the property where the battery was being charged. Almost a year later, they are still unable to return to their home. Imagine losing your home through no fault of your own—losing everything you own, all your memories and the place where your children grew up—and a year later, you are still unable to return. That is the lasting devastation that these fires can cause.
The reality is that some people caught up in these fires never make it out of their home. At a roundtable that I also held last week, we heard the devastating story of Sofia Duarte. Sofia was just 21 years old when she died on new year’s day in 2023 as a result of spending the night at her boyfriend’s flat in Old Kent Road, where a converted e-bike charging in the communal area caught fire. Everyone else got out; she did not, and she did not see another year. That should not be the consequence for anybody who is not doing anything wrong, but is subject to an illegal and unauthorised battery exploding.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this important debate.
In Stockton West, the plague of balaclava-clad yobs on illegal e-motos is a problem that comes up constantly on doorsteps and in my surgery. Three years ago in Westminster Hall, I named Thornaby as a hotspot and warned that we could not wait for someone else to lose their life. On 31 January this year, two 15-year-olds were riding Sur-Rons in Thornaby when one of them ploughed into a father of seven riding a pushbike. Months later, the father is still in hospital with life-changing injuries, needing round-the-clock care. The boys got driving bans and referral orders, and were ordered to pay just £495 in compensation.
The recent changes to seizure powers are welcome, but they go nowhere near far enough. I tabled amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill to give the police greater powers to enter properties to seize these bikes, to destroy illegal bikes rather than sell them on, and to register and control sales. The Government rejected them all. Meanwhile, anyone can buy a machine that is illegal to ride on a public road, or a kit that turns an illegal e-bike into an unregistered motorbike and have it delivered the next day. I ask the Minister: will the Government control the sale of these vehicles and the kits used to modify them? Will they now give the police the power we proposed to seize these bikes wherever they are hidden? My constituents simply want the law to be on the side of the law-abiding majority. It is time for the Government to make sure that it is.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing the debate. I will focus my comments on the cycle hire regulations in Southwark. We should be a success story of more lanes and more users, but—and I have a big butt, which makes me a wobbly cyclist—the number of complaints, increasingly from other cyclists, is colossal and rising. The need to regulate is only too apparent when visiting any transport interchange in Southwark. Last week, dumped bikes blocked the only pedestrian crossing from London Bridge station on to the bridge itself, not in rush hour, but on a Saturday lunch time.
I get so many complaints, including from Stephen about bike dumping at Canada Water; from Sacha about bikes in pedestrian areas and local parks; and from Sanjay about insurance after a recent collision. Then there is Whelan’s, a pub in Rotherhithe with a bike bay outside that overflows regularly with dumped bikes, blocking the way of customers and blocking a bus stop, but most worryingly, blocking the delivery of beer to the pub. A pub without beer cannot stay open very long. It is on a red route, so alternatives are limited. I am working with Lime and others to address this issue, and I raised it directly with the City Hall’s cycling commissioner last week, but a business and jobs are at risk through the failure of Lime and others to regulate themselves.
Regulations are necessary and welcome. I hope the Minister will tell us this morning when the next consultation on secondary legislation will come forward, but I hope he also recognises that some solutions are available now. Southwark council could replicate Ealing and remove bikes at cost to the providers. Constructively, the council could move the bay outside Whelan’s to the verges on the opposite side of Rotherhithe Old Road.
Council inaction is inexcusable, especially under a Green leader who last year filmed a promotional video for Lime inside the council office, breaking council rules. I await the council investigation into that with some interest. Inaction is also inexcusable because the council announced a new deal for discounted bike use three months ago in an arrangement that has delivered no better management of bikes, and not one person has yet had a discounted fare. It is an amateur, premature fanfare of a scheme. Conditions should have been set for clearing bikes with the providers.
Lime claims it has 400 staff to clear bays and more need directing to those sites, but it says Southwark council sends no one to them. Council inaction is even more inexcusable because Lime has a £500 million fund to provide bays that local authorities can bid for. Embarrassingly, Southwark has bid for nothing—that is the summit of its aspiration for our community. It seems the Greens and their Lib Dem sidekicks in Southwark are too busy obsessing over Israel and international affairs to get on with helping people in our community. It is frankly incompetent and I will be pushing further to help everyone affected.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing the debate.
I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective. A senior doctor in the Belfast trust has aptly described the number of children being injured by e-scooters as an “epidemic”. It is an epidemic, not just in Northern Ireland but across the United Kingdom. More than 120 children within the Belfast trust area have been treated for injuries sustained in accidents involving e-bikes and e-scooters in the past 24 months. A similar picture is emerging in England, where a study estimates that nearly 500 children have been injured in e-scooter accidents since 2019.
Sadly, those figures do not surprise me. In my Strangford constituency, I regularly see e-scooters practically flying past the window along the footpath in front of my office, with pedestrians jumping aside to avoid being injured in a collision. Across the UK, 59 deaths involving e-scooters have been reported, 10 of which involved people under 18. We cannot wait for another child or older person to be hit and suffer life-altering injuries or worse. We must do everything we can to prevent a 60th death.
I welcome the Minister to his place; it is good to see him back in harness again, so to speak. Pedestrians are not the only ones at risk; riders are vulnerable to serious injury. Research into major trauma cases highlights the potential for devastating head injuries and damage to internal organs, yet reports suggest that less than 6% of e-scooter riders in Northern Ireland wear a helmet; in England that figure is estimated to be below 2%. Again, the threshold for a long-lasting injury—
Jim Shannon
No, I am on a two and a half minute time limit, so it would not be fair to everybody else.
This is a serious issue that demands immediate attention. I commend the Police Service of Northern Ireland for the work it has done and continues to do in raising awareness that it is currently illegal to use e-scooters on public roads and footpaths. The Ards police in my constituency have seized several e-scooters—some 20 that were being driven illegally have been seized so far, to give hon. Members an idea of the problems that we have in our territory. However, it is clear further legislation is needed to address the scale of this issue.
Can the Minister give us an idea of any legislative changes being considered and what engagement there will be with the Assembly and the PSNI? I call on the Minister to take stronger action to regulate e-scooter use and to consider more appropriate age restrictions and a mandatory helmet requirement. E-scooters may seem like a more convenient mode of transport for many, but they are a danger to the general public.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing the debate, and in particular for underlining the potential impact of catastrophic injuries from such illegal vehicles.
I will add a couple of other problems resulting from the lack of regulation in this area. There has been a reduction in sales of legal e-bikes—surely not something that we want—because of the proliferation of illegal ones. Unfortunately, we are also seeing links with exploitation in the gig economy and with criminality. There has been a catastrophic drop in the sales of L1 category motorbikes too.
This problem is symbolic of people’s sense of a lack of control over their local area. It is exactly the kind of thing that the Prime Minister is getting a grip on right now, and it is important that we show leadership. My questions are all about solutions. First, when will the Department for Transport release its research into illegal e-bikes and food delivery? I believe it is due in the spring. Will the Department push for parliamentary time to talk about that?
Secondly, what progress has there been on the national work-related road safety charter? Can we see some details of that? Thirdly, we need more control over the supply chain and sales of illegal e-bikes, e-scooters and conversion kits. We need oversight and enforcement. One mechanism for that would be through the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025—a number of Members have been pushing for that. It has been three months since the consultation on that; when are we going to see some outcomes?
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Anneliese Dodds
I am sorry, but I will not, because I want to be fair to everybody else.
Finally, can we please have a commitment from the Department for Transport to convene other Departments on this issue? I know that the Minister cares passionately about local people having control over their area, as he has shown in every role he has undertaken. With his Department, will he take the initiative to bring together all the Departments concerned about this problem, and will he do so before Christmas and make a big splash about it, so that people hear about it in the media and do not buy their kids these dangerous products and kits for Christmas, leading to the kinds of injuries that we have heard about?
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for bringing this important debate to the House. It is worth making it clear that I am a huge fan of e-bikes. I rode my e-cargo bike to the station this morning, and in term time I would have dropped my two boys off at school using the bike. I have covered more than 18,000 km in the last six years.
Our discussion today should focus on illegal e-bikes and e-scooters, but we need to be clear that we support the contribution that e-bikes make to active travel, taking cars off our roads, and reducing emissions, congestion and road danger. I differ slightly from my hon. Friend, however, as I believe that e-scooters are far too dangerous to be considered for regulation and legislation. They do not in any way qualify as active travel. They should be banned or removed from our streets entirely.
I have spoken repeatedly about the need for tougher regulation of illegally modified e-bikes. These vehicles plague the high street in Sutton, and sadly deter many local residents from visiting the shops that my town centre has to offer. Delivery drivers on e-bikes treat the stretch of Sutton high street like a racetrack. They rampage along pavements at speed, with no consideration for pedestrians around them. The nights are getting darker, but many ride without lights, endangering pedestrians and the riders themselves. My constituents should not have to spend their weekly shop looking over their shoulder, worried they might be mown down by a vehicle that should never have been on the road or the pavement in the first place.
The dangers do not end when the bikes stop moving. E-bikes are causing fires across the capital. We saw that recently in Mitcham, where a fire ripped through homes, as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) mentioned. The increase in illegal e-bike conversions, fires and accidents on our streets is driven by two main causes: the sale of high-powered e-bikes like Sur-Rons, and the multimillion-pound delivery companies that incentivise riders to use faster vehicles but take no responsibility for ensuring that they are legal and being ridden legally.
We Liberal Democrats want delivery platforms to be required to verify that bikes being used by riders are road legal. Regular checks should be made to ensure that illegally modified vehicles are not being used to complete food orders for pay. There must be clear consequences for companies that repeatedly fail to act to protect the public. Corporate giants of the gig economy world cannot continue to hide behind the self-employed status of their riders to seek impunity from responsibility. They already have the technology to track their drivers, identify them and verify that they are using the right accounts. They must be required to take reasonable steps to ensure that vehicles being used to make deliveries are legal.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall.
On 16 May 2025, just before 1 pm, 86-year-old Gloria Stephenson was walking her daughter’s dog using a zebra crossing when she was hit by an 18-year-old riding a Sur-Ron e-bike. Gloria died at the scene. My constituent Julie Francis lost her mother that day. She has a petition for more police funding and has been a vocal campaigner for more action to get these bikes off the road. In September, I brought her to Parliament to meet the Policing Minister. Julie’s ask of us all is simple: “Don’t let my mother’s death be in vain.”
The rise of e-bikes and e-scooters in Darlington is a major problem. It is obvious from the cross-section of representation in the Chamber that we are not alone. The balaclava-wearing men tearing through our town and deliberately intimidating everyone else, on and off the road, are a visible degradation of our collective social contract. They are literally running amuck, Minister, and my constituents and I have had enough. “Ban them” is the most tempered call from residents, and the most appropriate for a parliamentary debate; many have suggested other measures, which I will not go into now. But the truth is that they are banned; it is already illegal to ride these dirt bikes, motocross bikes and e-scooters on our roads. Durham police are doing a great job of seizing and crushing them—I attended a scrapyard recently and crushed 70 of them with the police—but aside from that, they do not have the powers alone to tackle the problem.
One reason why this issue has become so prolific is that it requires a multi-Department approach. Will the Minister review the dirt bike licensing regime, because it is clearly ineffective? In the north-east, we have 34 licensed Sur-Ron bikes; I saw more than that crushed two weeks ago. Will he consider mirroring the gun licensing regulation to enforce stricter requirements for legitimate UK purchases, increasing the penalty for driving dirt bikes without a licence, and banning the sale of e-scooters entirely in our high-street retailers? Will he bring together a cross-Department taskforce to regulate the import of these dangerous kits and, ultimately, get these illegal bikes off our streets?
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this vital debate. Every time I speak to people right across Broxbourne, this issue is at the top of their minds. If I was to ask someone about the regulation of e-scooters and e-bikes, they would say, quite simply, “What regulation?” As far as they are concerned, there is none. We all know about the day-to-day antisocial behaviour linked to e-bikes and e-scooters and are familiar with the horrific stories of their misuse. I have seen it many times: gangs of masked-up hooligans riding in packs, terrorising our high streets with no regard for anyone else’s safety. It makes a mockery of law and order and we need a proper crackdown.
What are the regulations? I checked the Government’s website before the debate—not something anyone who is riding an e-bike antisocially would do. The fastest e-bikes need to be registered, taxed and insured, and riders need a licence and a helmet, but it does not take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that individuals hiding their identity with a balaclava would not do any of that.
We need a joined-up approach right across Government that includes the Department for Transport. The Transport Minister in the other place said:
“The Government recognise the role that…electric cycles and scooters…can play in supporting economic growth, improving health and reducing emissions.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 June 2026; Vol. 856, c. 1220.]
What a load of nonsense. That is far from the reality faced by people right across the United Kingdom, including in my constituency. The Government need to get a grip and use the full force of the law to stop illegal use of e-bikes and e-scooters.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this important debate. I will confine my remarks to e-bikes.
Let me begin by emphasising that legal e-bikes have an important role to play in sustainable transport and active travel, but vehicles that do not meet the definition of an electrically assisted pedal cycle and are used on the highway are illegal road vehicles and should be banned from sale. Earlier this year, I presented a Bill that proposed exactly that.
Illegal e-bikes, whether sold as such or converted using kits, pose serious safety risks. They reach speeds for which their frames and braking systems were never designed. They kill pedestrians and endanger other road users. Their batteries catch fire and cause devastating house fires and death. They facilitate criminal activity such as phone theft and drug dealing and they are a persistent nuisance in parks, on pavements and around stations. Their ready availability online also undermines legitimate markets, depressing the sale of legal, tested EAPCs and low-powered motorcycles. Meanwhile, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau settles millions of pounds in claims every single year for accidents involving illegal bikes, and the cost is borne by law-abiding motorists through higher premiums.
The Government must act with urgency to tackle this problem. They have the means to do so: the Product Regulation and Metrology Act gives Ministers powers to designate products that are unsafe and regulate to remove them from sale. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade about using those powers? Does he agree that the continued availability of illegal e-bikes is undermining confidence in legitimate cycling and risks tarnishing the cycling celebration that is the Tour de France when it comes to Britain—and, more importantly, my constituency—next year?
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire); she is a legend for securing this debate and giving us all the opportunity to speak about this issue, which blights our communities.
One hundred and fifty years ago, the fastest vehicle on Eastbourne seafront was a horse-drawn bathing machine taking people down to the sea. Today, it is an illegal e-bike or e-scooter, jockeyed by a balaclava-wearing rider. The same is true of places such as Terminus Road—our high street—and Kings Drive, where the pavement is ruled no longer by the Eastbourne mobility scooter but by the vehicles we are discussing. Sussex police recorded a 53.7% rise in reports of illegal e-bike and e-scooter use in the year to June, and seized 321 vehicles between January and July.
Many, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), have rightly said that we are fans of active travel and encouraging people to use more environmentally friendly means to get from A to B, but a dangerous minority of riders and vehicles are putting pedestrians at risk and giving responsible users of active travel a bad name. More than that, failed e-bike and e-scooter batteries have been responsible for devastating fires, such as that in Whitley Road in Eastbourne. The fire service has said:
“We have seen people forced into jumping from windows as they can’t get out of their front doors as the bike or scooter which has caught fire is in front of it.”
There are enormous safety risks.
Other jurisdictions are showing the way and leading on the issue. New York City, which banned the sale of uncertified e-bikes, saw deaths from battery fires fall in two years from 18 to just one. In New South Wales, Australia, police now test bikes at the roadside and crush illegal ones on the spot. I hope that the Minister will consider granting our police and law enforcement the same kinds of tools and regulating this sector adequately.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that illegal e-bike battery fires in the Metropolitan police’s own pounds have cost the force half a million pounds? It confiscated 3,000 illegal e-bikes in the last year.
Josh Babarinde
Of course, there are financial costs, but there are costs to human life and livelihood as well. I hope the Minister will recognise that and commit to meeting representatives of Sussex police, which holds the national brief for road crime, to look at how we can best tackle the issue in Sussex and Eastbourne.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer.
The human impact of the illegal use of e-bikes was powerfully set out by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) at the beginning of the debate. It is certainly something we are aware of in my constituency, where Peggy Maxwell, who is 94, was mown down by a teenager on a Sur-Ron e-bike. Peggy suffered a broken neck, back, clavicle and ribs, and was hospitalised for three months. Many people would not have expected Peggy to come back from those injuries at her age, but she is determined and formidable, and she did. Last month, she attended a public meeting on e-bikes we held in Lochore with her family, who are now also campaigning for new laws on their use.
I add to the calls from right across the Chamber for more action on enforcement, point of sale regulation, and diversion from the illegal use of e-bikes. In Scotland, that requires action from both Westminster and Holyrood. I have been working on the issue with David Barratt, MSP for Cowdenbeath, and I am pleased that he secured a commitment from the Scottish Government that any bikes seized by the police will be destroyed and not sold on. That should be the course of action taken by all police forces. This Government have taken more action to give police more powers to seize e-bikes. It is vital that the Scottish Government take similar action for forces in Scotland.
It is important to consider what action we need to take on point of sale. Many people buying these bikes will be unaware that they cannot be used on public roads. Vendors need to provide information to the people who are buying these bikes, often for their children. We also have to consider further action on regulation and registration, and I support the comments by my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) and for Carlisle (Ms Minns) on that. Vendors need to have more responsibilities for this issue placed on them by Government.
Finally, on diversion, we have a great charity in my constituency, Kingdom Off Road Motorcycle Club, which gives people who have previously used e-bikes illegally the chance to use them safely and legally on a purpose-designed track, often on bikes that have been seized by the police. That sounds like a really good approach, and I hope we can see that supported across the country. The enjoyment and convenience of e-bikes and e-scooters for some is now seriously outweighed by the harms caused for many, and it is time for this Government to take further action.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate and for all the campaigning she has been doing on this important issue.
Illegally modified e-bikes and e-scooters have become more and more of a problem in Yeovil. Peter lives on Sherborne Road, which is a very busy road out of Yeovil. He is always very careful when he crosses, and he always sticks to the pavement; but for Peter, pavements have become just as dangerous as roads. Not for the first time, he was left one step away from A&E after someone came crashing by on an e-scooter doing 30 mph.
Sadly, Peter is not alone. The problem is not just one or two troublemakers in Yeovil; this is happening at scale across our communities, and it often comes with other forms of antisocial behaviour. Carol has been telling me how she keeps seeing people on modified e-bikes travelling at speed down Middle Street in the wrong direction, dodging pedestrians. Nicki told me it is unsafe to take her seven-year-old nephew to the park because kids are crashing up and down on e-scooters. Katriana has told me about the near-misses involving dogs, young children and the elderly. Just the other day, I was out canvassing, and three lads shot past me on e-scooters in balaclavas shouting abuse at other residents. It is just a matter of time before someone gets really badly hurt—including the people riding these vehicles, as we have heard today.
It goes without saying that we need our police to carry out focused enforcement interventions. We need intervention from the Government in the form of training and funding. We also need proper education campaigns on this—and by that, I do not just mean giving schools more work to do; we need something on the scale of the THINK! campaign, particularly on social media. In Parliament, we need to push for clearer legislation, because the current legal framework for e-bikes is confusing, outdated and rarely enforced. Most importantly, Government need to crack down properly on the supply chain and unregulated online marketplaces that are flooding our streets with these illegal vehicles.
To get anywhere in Somerset, you pretty much have to drive. That means road tax, insurance and sticking to the rules. People in Yeovil are rightly angry that these people on illegal e-bikes and e-scooters and those who sell them do none of those things, put people at risk and get away with it. That cannot be allowed to go on any more.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer, and I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate.
From commuters trying to get to Southall station in the morning to my 82-year-old constituent trying to get to Ealing hospital along Boston Road, e-bikes on the pavement are a daily annoyance in Ealing Southall. People think that the council is to blame, but the truth is that the council has almost no powers when it comes to e-bikes and e-scooters. In fact, anyone in Ealing could set up an e-bike company in a morning—I could do it myself, and there is nothing the council could do to stop me. All the council can do is try to agree a voluntary memorandum of understanding with e-bike companies, but that is just a gentlemen’s agreement; it is not the law.
In reality, e-bike companies can do whatever they want. This has led to a wild west situation in London, with a patchwork of companies operating in different boroughs, which is why we have bikes piled up at borough boundaries, and it is almost impossible to hold companies to account for bad parking or massive oversupply of bikes in some areas. Ealing made a voluntary agreement with two companies, Forest and Lime, but a third company, Voi, is refusing to leave the borough, and there is not a lot the council can do about it.
I am delighted that this Labour Government have already taken concrete action, after years of inaction by the previous Government. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, passed before the summer, will finally give councils and mayors the powers to license e-bike and hopefully also e-scooter companies. Although some steps still need to be taken in Parliament to formally pass those powers to the Mayor of London, it will mean we can set London-wide rules for e-bikes, including on mandatory parking spaces, age limits for riders and insurance. We will also be able to fine companies that do not play by these rules.
The previous Government did not have the courage to act, but Labour is doing what it promised: devolving powers to local communities, so that they can make the rules in their areas. All we need now is for the Minister to hop on his e-scooter and pick up the pace a bit, so that we can get these powers transferred to the Mayor of London as soon as possible.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate and for her excellent speech.
Like all of us present, I find the dangerous misuse of e-bikes and e-scooters is being raised with me more and more. In my constituency, current regulations are not working well and lead to a lot of confusion. One of my constituents wrote to me saying that their friend had been arrested for riding an e-scooter; it turns out they had no idea that privately owned e-scooters are illegal on roads, cycle paths and pavements in the UK. Another constituent wrote to me saying that they had seen e-bikes advertised on the Argos website, and only in the questions and comments did it say they were only for private land use. Locally, Thames Valley police officers are finding and seizing bikes that are able to go 120 mph.
The problem keeps growing. By some estimates, there are more than 1 million e-scooters in use across the country, with no standards for speed, brakes or batteries. High-powered e-bikes and conversion kits are being sold for off-road use and then ridden on roads. Uncertified batteries sold online cause deadly fires. Victims of illegal machines face an insurance gap and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell mentioned, rental scooter trials have been extended again and again since 2020. There is some good news: since June, the Crime and Policing Act 2026 has let police seize antisocially ridden e-bikes without a warning, and seizures nearly doubled to about 7,000 last year. Overall, however, legislation is outdated and hard to enforce.
We should do what many other countries have done already. Private e-scooters should be legalised and regulated, with a speed cap, product standards, lights and a minimum age, so that police can concentrate on machines that do not comply. Over-specced e-bikes and conversion kits should be stopped at the point of sale. That means making online marketplaces legally responsible, appropriately funding trading standards and requiring battery certification. Faster or modified bikes could be required to carry registration or plates, and delivery platforms could be required to check that their riders’ bikes are legal. The police also need practical help, including funding for testing equipment and specialist teams, cheaper storage and quick crushing of seized bikes, fixed penalties for lower-level offences and compulsory insurance for faster e-bikes.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this important debate. I am aware of the time pressure, so I will try to be brief.
I strongly support cycling and the legal use of electric bicycles, where permitted. However, I am afraid to say the irresponsible use of e-bikes and e-scooters is a serious problem in my constituency, and residents have raised a range of issues on a range of fronts. First, intimidating behaviour on footpaths and pavements, particularly near and in parks, is causing serious concern in many parts of the town. That includes e-scooters whizzing down narrow streets where the pavements are less than 1 metre wide, e-bike riders riding over the two road bridges across the Thames on the pedestrian footpaths and intimidating residents, the lack of use of bells and the speed at which people are riding the bikes. It also includes high-powered electric motorbikes—I think that is the only way to describe them.
I have seen two absolutely shocking incidents relating to these types of vehicles. In one case, it was a group of black-clad young people with black balaclavas riding around the Reading inner distribution road, a major highway around the town centre, pulling wheelies in front of cars. On another occasion, I saw a similarly dressed group doing dangerous stunts and jumps in a park, close to where families were picnicking with toddlers. That is absolutely irresponsible and utterly unacceptable.
I am pleased to say there is some good news. As the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) mentioned, Thames Valley police is taking a firm line. It has been crushing the bikes, using drones to follow them in parks and using the new legislation introduced by the Government to arrive at people’s houses and confiscate them immediately rather than having to issue a warning, which was previously the case. Our local council has also secured a public space protection order, which gives local council officers more powers to address the bikes. I praise the police and the council for the action they are taking, but I ask the Minister to see what further powers could be used to try to contain this very serious problem.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Within my constituency, the communications I recently held with residents on antisocial behaviour highlighted major concerns about e-bikes and other powered bikes being ridden not just around town, but in abandoned china clay pits, on footpaths and along other rights of way. My constituents rightly raised concerns about safety and the impact of antisocial behaviour, where rules are deliberately ignored by riders, on those shared spaces.
Those concerns should not be dismissed; our constituents are right to expect the law to be enforced effectively, so I welcome the Government’s additional powers to seize and dispose of dangerous vehicles being used unlawfully, and the wider efforts to tackle the sale of unsafe and illegal products. Those measures should help us to ensure that the enforcement agencies can respond much more effectively.
At the same time, however, there is a wider point to contribute to this debate, particularly when it comes to young people. Many young people are drawn to e-bikes because of the freedom, the independence and the sense of community that they offer. That interest in itself is not a problem to be regulated, as strict as we must be in some of the other measures we have described today; it can be channelled into sports, into skills, into training and volunteering opportunities.
I highlight the work of the Cornwall Bicycle Project in Par, which provides those vital skills and the volunteering and community engagement opportunities, engaging people from a wide range of backgrounds, including those who have struggled in mainstream education and are looking for routes into employment and training. The model ensures that the enthusiasm for e-bikes can be channelled in a positive way: it can offer a practical route into learning new skills, it can build confidence and responsibility, and it can create connections within those communities.
Lastly, I recognise the role that Imerys has played more broadly in supporting access to nature, outdoor recreation and sports within the china clay area—but it should not be down to one company to solve this huge issue in our area. Local authorities, police, business, community organisations and education providers need to be supported by our Government in a strategic manner to play their part.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for setting out the case for regulation of e-bikes and e-scooters with great passion and conviction. She spoke very movingly of the loss of her constituent Jacob’s life, and highlighted the enormous geographical range of police forces that are concerned about this issue.
Hon. Members from across the country have also spoken with great thought on some of the key themes of the debate. First and foremost is the human impact of the problem of illegally modified and used e-bikes and e-scooters: not only the deaths and the injuries, but the fear that so many people feel, particularly people with disabilities or who are partially sighted, and the fact that pavements are no longer thought of by everybody as a place of refuge from motor traffic and somewhere that they can rely on to safely complete their journey.
Some hon. Members also highlighted the growing financial impact of the problem in terms of insurance payouts, where users of these vehicles who are not insured mean that everyone else bears the cost through increased premiums. They noted the problem of battery fires, which sometimes lead to loss of life, and rightly stressed the need for greater enforcement and for more support and resources for our police in dealing with the issue.
Part of the problem comes from the complexity of what an e-bike or e-scooter is or is not. A legal e-bike has pedal-assisted electric power up to a speed of 15.5 mph and no more. In some parts of the country there are long-standing trials of e-scooters, but in most places there are not, and that adds to the complexity. According to statistics from the Office for Product Safety and Standards, the vast majority of battery fires arise from conversion kits and unknown brands of e-bike, highlighting the need for much greater product regulation.
In 2025, London’s Metropolitan police seized more than 2,200 illegal e-bikes and e-scooters across London. In the first seven months of 2026 it seized more than 2,500—already exceeding the whole of 2025. In March 2026, a two-day enforcement operation seized 52 illegal e-bikes and mopeds. The London Fire Brigade reports that e-bike fires have doubled between 2022 and 2025, with most fires caused by illegally modified or designed e-bikes and their batteries. Many people see some food delivery couriers using e-bikes, sometimes illegally modified, in a reckless and inconsiderate manner.
However, there is also a great opportunity if we can get e-bikes right. In 2024, the UK sold just 2.1 e-bikes per 1,000 people, compared with 8.5 in France and a staggering 36.1 in Denmark. If we do not buck that trend, we are unlikely to achieve the continuation of cycling into older age that happens in the Netherlands, where e-bike travel accounts for over 50% of cycling distance in the 65 to 75 age bracket. There is an opportunity, as well as a problem that needs to be solved.
As well as the many hon. Members from many parties who have spoken on this issue, the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking conducted an inquiry into this issue last year and produced a very thoughtful and wide-ranging report. At the Liberal Democrat conference in September, which is still only last month—time is a very strange concept in this job—we passed definitive policy on the need to take much tougher action on illegally modified e-bikes. The strength of feeling in this room shows there is a widespread lack of confidence that the current Government are taking the co-ordinated and sustained action we need on this issue.
This is a multifaceted problem that straddles many Government Departments, and we know from many Select Committee reports and the Institute for Government that, alas, we have not always been good at tackling problems that straddle multiple Departments. Hopefully the Minister will give us some assurance that a multi-pronged, multi-departmental approach will be taken on this issue.
Our asks of the Government are as follows: first, we need to tackle the root cause, which is the supply chains. We need to make online retailers police and stop the sale of all non-conforming e-bikes, conversion kits, batteries and chargers, dealing with the problem at its source. We also need to deal with the perverse incentives created by the gig economy. The phenomenon of worker substitution makes avoiding individual identification and accountability too easy, while the pay-per-delivery model used by many of the delivery platforms incentivises reckless and illegal behaviour. Delivery platforms should be undertaking their own speed and e-bike checks. They need to take some responsibility for the issue.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh
Is the hon. Member aware that University College London published data this week indicating that almost three quarters of delivery riders surveyed are concerned about their own bike battery catching fire, while one in 10 had personally experienced overheating?
Olly Glover
Those statistics highlight the problem. The delivery companies need to take ownership rather than dumping the problem on everybody else, leading to the demonisation of their workforce, and expecting the Government to clear up their mess. They need to take action as well. If they will not, they need to be regulated much more toughly.
The Government also need to get on with legislating to regulate e-scooters clearly and consistently. The current postcode lottery of arrangements is unhelpful for everybody. We also need a Government-backed e-bike safety certification scheme, building on the action taken by the cycling industry to come up with its own kitemark to show that an e-bike is safely manufactured and compliant with legal standards.
Our police need much greater support. They need greater powers, they need more training on how to identify illegal e-bikes, and they need appropriate resources. We should also consider a national swap or amnesty scheme for illegally modified or designed e-bikes and e-scooters so that people can come forward. We heard from the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) about how seized e-bikes can be used for positive purposes. There are good examples of such amnesty schemes in New York.
The biggest reason why this needs to be tackled is the human impact, in terms of both deaths and injuries and the increase in fear and nervousness when using our streets.
Anna Dixon
I recently spoke to an A&E doctor in my constituency who had witnessed the rise in catastrophic injuries, particularly to children and young people. Does the hon. Member agree that we have to get to the source and ban conversion kits to stop these deadly bikes?
Olly Glover
I agree, and the hon. Lady is right to highlight the impact on our health service. There is also the economic impact on insurance. If this problem is not dealt with, there is a real risk that it will undermine the Government’s commendable aim to increase walking, cycling and wheeling, and all the resulting health and congestion-reduction benefits. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments, and I hope to see the tough, multi-departmental action we need.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I commend the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing the debate. We have all heard from constituents about the problems caused by the illegal use of these vehicles, whether it is people riding e-bikes on the pavement, e-bikes clearly operating in violation of existing rules, private scooters being ridden on the road, or the serious impact of lithium-ion battery fires on public safety.
The concerns we hear from the public about these devices underscore why effective and proportionate regulation is necessary. People need to know that those using these vehicles are following the rules of the road. However, combining the two issues in this debate risks being somewhat redundant, given that, where we are not discussing dockless rental schemes, the regulatory regimes governing the two types of vehicles are very different.
There is a clear set of rules governing the use of e-bikes. The technical limits in the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 and the associated standards set a reasonably robust framework for their use, but as we have heard, there is a need to go further. That raises the fundamental point we need to consider when examining the regulation of these vehicles: are the current regulations being followed? That is why we must address the need for a much stronger approach to the enforcement of existing laws and regulations.
Over the past couple of years, several local and national news organisations have highlighted the increased illegal use of e-bikes and e-scooters. For example, data obtained under freedom of information requests revealed that the number of crimes committed on e-bikes in London alone exceeded 10,000 in 2025, but only 221 of them resulted in the perpetrator being caught and charged—a pretty poor rate of 2.2%. To be honest, if we walked out of Parliament now and observed a nearby crossing, it would not take long to spot an e-bike rider flouting the law.
Anna Dixon
I have been out with my local police, and it is clear that they do not have the powers to pursue these very fast, illegal e-bikes to detain people. Gathering evidence is often not possible because of balaclavas. Does the hon. Member recognise that the Government’s action to give the police stronger powers to seize and destroy bikes from garages and lock-ups is a proportionate response to tackling this problem at source and helping the police to do their job?
Greg Smith
I do not think the hon. Lady and I are a million miles apart. Colleagues from all parties have set out serious concerns in this debate. The police having greater powers and enforcement ability is always welcome, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) tried to get much stronger regulation and enforcement powers put into legislation during this Parliament, and the Government resisted. It would be foolish to pretend that all the powers needed are out there. We would not be debating this in Westminster Hall if all was fine and rosy.
Lola McEvoy
Having had 14 years in power to do something about this issue, the Conservative party might be expected to support the next stage of our policing regulations, as set out in the King’s Speech. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be great if the upcoming policing Bill contained provisions on the regulation of off-road bikes?
Greg Smith
It is a well-rehearsed line, but e-bikes and e-scooters were not actually a thing for a large proportion of the previous Government’s 14 years.
Greg Smith
I accept the hon. Lady’s point about off-road bikes and dirt bikes, but the technology of e-bikes and e-scooters did not exist. These products were not even for sale for a large proportion of that time.
Greg Smith
I said I would give way only once more. I fully appreciate that this is a debate—I give way a lot in debates—but I need to make the rest of my comments.
It is almost as if my speech had been pre-written for the first intervention I took: we need to support the police with the resources they need to tackle both the illegal use of these vehicles and their use as enablers of other offences. I appreciate that, last year, the Government introduced legislative changes to make it easier to seize some of these vehicles, but the changes can be effective only if the relevant authorities have the resources to enforce them. Furthermore, I hope the Minister will ask his colleagues to consider policies that enable the police to intervene whenever they witness dangerous behaviour involving e-bikes and e-scooters, as well as ways to impose tougher penalties. Illegal behaviour must be appropriately punished. There must be consequences.
That must be combined with increased police recruitment to ensure that officers are available to tackle this reckless behaviour, including targeted enforcement in locations where crime is most prevalent. However, under this Government we have unfortunately seen a reduction in overall police officer numbers. We should therefore commend the police forces that are using existing regulations to tackle the illegal use of these vehicles and finding innovative ways to discourage illegal behaviour. One recent example is the City of London police’s use of its so-called sin bin, which is designed specifically for cyclists who ride through red lights or across zebra crossings. Those caught are required to watch a safety video, which takes considerably longer than it would to have simply waited for the light to change. Of course, that can apply to any bike, but we regularly see users of e-bike schemes engaging in that kind of behaviour. By removing the perceived benefit of jumping a red light or riding illegally across a crossing, these measures could help to deter such behaviour.
At the same time, many of us have seen the increasing use of private e-scooters alongside the illegal use of e-bikes. Figures released by the Metropolitan police in July show that it had confiscated more e-scooters in the first seven months of the year than it had in the previous whole calendar year. Some people may ask whom this behaviour harms, but the answer is clear. If we cannot enforce the rules we already have in place, we risk endangering the public, particularly disabled people, who rely on our road safety infrastructure to protect them.
That brings us to the increasingly prevalent dockless e-bike and e-scooter rental schemes. Disability charities, particularly those representing people with visual impairment, have highlighted the significant challenges posed by these schemes. Research by the Royal National Institute of Blind People shows that 81% of survey respondents said that bikes or e-scooters left on pavements make their journeys more difficult. I therefore understand the desire to call for appropriate regulation of these businesses. In fact, a number of these organisations have called on local government, and particularly the Mayor of London, to show leadership on the issue and to be clear about what local government wants to achieve from the schemes.
I hope we follow the approach set out by the leadership of Westminster city council. Dockless bikes are here to stay, but poorly parked bikes have become a major headache—indeed, a danger—for pedestrian and businesses. It is worth noting that at a meeting with the major operators in August, Westminster city council agreed to share data that would give the authority a much more accurate picture of the thousands of vehicles operating in the borough. The council also stated that dockless bike operators were considering removing or relocating parking bays that are near taxi ranks and disabled parking bays, to help to keep pavements clear.
Working with the companies in a way that allows them to operate safely and legally is the principal way we should approach the problem.
Greg Smith
I give way to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle).
Neil Coyle
On the point about Westminster council and data, does the hon. Gentleman support the Mayor of London’s request that the new Government regulations require all providers to share information on how many bikes and vehicles they have on the road in our capital, and wherever else they are operated? I obviously have a London interest.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has been generous in taking interventions, but he is coming to the end of his time. I presume he will draw his remarks to a conclusion.
Greg Smith
Of course, Mr Stringer.
I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark on data sharing, as led by Westminster city council. If the Mayor of London is doing that, it is something that is straightforward and sensible to be done.
We need real action from the Government. We need the serious problems that Members from all parties have mentioned in the debate to be taken seriously, and that means listening to both sides of the House and ensuring that the sensible suggestions that have been made are actually met.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
In calling the Minister, may I request that he leaves two or three minutes at the end for the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell to wind up?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing the debate, and the many Members who made contributions.
Although this was billed as a transport debate, a number of other Departments clearly have some influence and interest in the matter, not least the Home Office. A lot of the debate has been about the impact of the reckless and illegal use of e-scooters and e-bikes—ranging from nuisance and antisocial behaviour to downright criminality—in all our constituencies. We heard a number of tragic stories about the serious harm that misuse can cause, including life-changing injuries and, indeed, fatalities, so I want to start by reassuring Members that I and the Government understand the importance of the issues raised.
It is correct to say, as a number of Members did, that e-bikes and e-scooters have a role to play in our communities—they provide another transport option and have the potential to improve individuals’ health and reduce emissions—but, as we have heard clearly today, an inconsistent approach to regulation and sales over years has left loopholes that at best confuse people and at worst leave this area open to criminal abuse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) said, the illegal activity is undermining the positive story we want to talk about in respect of the use of these vehicles.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Like other Members across this Chamber, I am facing huge problems in my constituency with bike gangs and those who are causing real harm to my community. I thank the Minister and the Government for all the work they have done—more police, more powers, more local work, the banning of balaclavas and careless bike riding, and getting TikTok accounts taken down. That is a win for us all, and we are building safer communities, but can the Minister assure me that it is not the end and that the Government will keep going further to stop the bike gangs and keep my community safe?
Justin Madders
As my hon. Friend will hear in the rest of my speech, we will be going further in a number of areas. I absolutely recognise his concerns.
Justin Madders
This will be the last intervention; we have a lot to fit in.
Jim Shannon
While we all look for legislative change, there has to be something within the system for the purchase of e-bikes to ensure that young people do not injure themselves. The Belfast health trust has had more than 100 people who have been injured, and it is young people driving them. Is it not important to have some sort of regulation and guidance for those people who perhaps do not want to break the law but end up doing so and injuring themselves?
Justin Madders
There is an awful lot we need to be looking at in terms of the retail element, which I will come to shortly.
We have heard contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds); from my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), for Carlisle, for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), for Rushcliffe (James Naish), for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards), for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and for Shipley (Anna Dixon); and from the hon. Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), for Yeovil (Adam Dance), for Witney (Charlie Maynard), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). This is clearly a nationwide issue that Members throughout the House are particularly interested in. I will not be able to address every single comment, but I will pick out a few that I can address now. We will respond in writing—either me or the relevant Minister—to issues that we are not able to pick up.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden has campaigned on this issue for a long time. She mentioned e-bike fires, which I am well aware of as I was the Minister responsible for the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025. I have met Sofia Duarte’s mother and I absolutely agree that it is important that we introduce regulations. I will address that in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark probably shared a little too much information about his body shape, but he asked an important question about the national licensing framework. I can confirm that the consultation on that will begin imminently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington mentioned the tragic circumstances of her constituent Gloria. I absolutely hear what her daughter Julie has said, and reassure her that we will act on that. My hon. Friend mentioned a review of the dirt bike licensing regime; I will come back to her on that in writing. She was right, as were my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife and the hon. Member for Witney, along with several others, about the responsibility of retailers. It is not good enough to put in small print that these vehicles are for use only on private land. That is not the action of a responsible retailer. Let me be clear: we expect retailers to clean up their act, and if they are not able to do that, more levers are available for us to deal with that.
It might help if I briefly set out the current legislative framework. The Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 set out the parameters for what is legal and what is not. The power of the electric motor on a legal e-bike cannot exceed 250 watts, and the maximum assisted speed cannot exceed 15.5 mph. Anything faster or more powerful is an electric motorbike and should therefore be approved and registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, taxed and insured. In addition, the rider must wear a safety helmet and hold a driving licence. A vehicle that is too fast or too powerful and not properly registered as an electric motorbike is illegal for use on public roads. We absolutely need to restate that.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell mentioned concerns that the police do not have enough powers. I think it is fair to say, as a number of Members recognised, that the Government have made it easier for the police to act thanks to measures in the Crime and Policing Act 2026—I am afraid the shadow Minister forgot to mention that his party voted against it on Third Reading. The police can now seize vehicles without first having to issue a warrant.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central said, police forces use a range of different tactics; we are keen to learn from experiences up and down the country. I am pleased to report that there is a lot of cracking down in different forces, tackling the issue from London to Liverpool. Merseyside police’s Operation Gears seized 500 illegal electric motorbikes and e-scooters in 2025. Only last week, the local constabulary in my Ellesmere Port constituency seized around 13 illegal vehicles, supported by one of my local councillors, Katie Kendrick. The issue really matters to people, because we all see it on the streets. If people are wearing balaclavas on bikes, it is criminality hiding in plain sight. It is equivalent to the dodgy vape shop. It is important that we support the police to use the powers they have, and look at whether more powers are needed to deal with the issue.
Of course, that is only one side of the problem. As we have discussed, it is far too easy to get hold of these vehicles, which means we must look at doing more at the point of sale. This is about not just the bikes but the e-bike conversion kits which, as we have heard, have the potential to pose real harm to cyclists and others. E-bike batteries can be dangerous if they are not properly installed, and they must be properly regulated to keep people safe.
As Members will be aware, over the summer the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade consulted on a range of updates to the product safety framework, including clear duties for online marketplaces to take due care to identify, prevent and remove from their sites unsafe products such as unsafe or non-compliant batteries and their use in e-bikes and conversion kits. That consultation has now closed. BIST officials are considering the responses as part of drafting the Government’s response. As the Minister who introduced the enabling legislation, I am keener than most to ensure that we make the best use of it. I remind the shadow Minister yet again that his party voted against that particular set of laws.
Let me turn briefly to e-scooters. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell told us about the tragic death of Jacob Calland, and my sympathies are with his family; I understand that they met my predecessor, and I am keen to continue that dialogue. As Members have pointed out, private e-scooters are illegal for use on public roads. They can be legally used only through the Government’s trials, which have been extended to May 2028. The trial system was implemented back in 2020 but has never been placed on a statutory footing. We are making a firm commitment that we will legislate to define e-scooters in law, which will provide the certainty that we currently do not have. People will know what is legal and what is not, and what can be enforced against.
Justin Madders
The hon. Member will have an opportunity to respond at the end.
It is fair to say that there is no international consensus on the right package of regulations for e-scooters, which is why our trial extension is important. We recognise that there will be trade-offs when regulating e-scooters, which is why we will consult next year on detailed proposals.
I will conclude, because the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell will want an opportunity to respond. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East asked whether I will use my convening power in the Department to get action across Government. I am pleased to confirm that I am working with colleagues across the Home Office and the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, and we are setting up a cross-departmental working group to look at this issue, because we consider it an important matter to be tackled across Government. I will shortly meet colleagues across the House who have raised these issues, and I hope to be able to provide regular updates, because this is an important matter to Members and we are determined to tackle it.
Helen Maguire
I thank everyone who has attended this incredibly important debate for their contributions, and I want to highlight a few of them. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) spoke about her constituent Sofia Duarte, who sadly died following a fire; my heart goes out to her and her family.
The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) talked about bringing Departments together. That is critical, because this is a cross-departmental issue and Governments are usually not very good at working across Departments. I hope the Minister takes that on board so that we can find some solutions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) talked about impunity for employers in the gig economy. It is vital that we resolve that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) spoke about some interesting measures in New South Wales and New York. It is really important that we look at what is being done abroad and what has been successful in other places.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) said that the popularity of e-bikes is depressing the sale of legal motorbikes. That has a consequence for the Treasury, because there is less income as a result, which is incredibly important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) spoke about the blatant ignorance of individuals who are not paying road tax and are flouting the rules. Again, that has an impact on the Treasury.
The hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) spoke about intimidating behaviour, which I am sure many Members across the House have seen. We need stronger powers for the police, as many Members said, so that they can not only enforce on the streets and roads but identify what is legal and what is not. We need there to be point-of-sale responsibility, which is not happening at the moment. We also need a decision about the trials. I welcome the Minister saying that he will bring people together and that there will be legislation at some point, but we need a timeframe; we cannot have this trial going on for another two years.
We need action and we need decisions. We need to end the current confusion about what is legal and what is not, because retailers do not have to provide information about that when people make a purchase. Fundamentally, we need to make our streets and parks safe again for our constituents. I hope the Minister will take away all the contributions been made today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the regulation of e-scooters and e-bikes.
University Hospital of North Tees
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I will call Matt Vickers to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. I have had no notice that such permissions have been given. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of University Hospital of North Tees.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to the Minister for being here to respond to the debate.
I was born in North Tees hospital. So were tens of thousands of my constituents and many of their children and grandchildren. For nearly 60 years, it has been where Stockton goes when something goes wrong. It is where we are stitched up after an accident, welcome our children into the world and sit beside our parents in their final days. There are very few families in our town whose story does not run through North Tees at some point.
I want to begin by thanking the incredible people who work at North Tees: the doctors, nurses, porters, cleaners and everyone who keeps our hospital going day and night. I have seen for myself their dedication and the challenges they face in a building that makes an already difficult job harder. They deserve decent facilities. Their patients deserve them, too. I have to tell the Minister plainly that the building they work in is running out of time.
When my party was in government, I campaigned for a new diagnostic centre in Stockton. Thousands of residents signed my petition and backed that campaign. Around £25 million was secured, with a further £8.4 million from the community diagnostic fund, to bring scans and tests into the heart of our town. For somebody waiting to find out whether they have cancer, that means answers and that treatment can begin. Alongside that came £3 million for the new mental health hub at Brook House, a new respiratory unit, upgrades to the urgent care centre, and a £4.3 million robotic and emergency maternity theatre, where a woman who needs urgent surgery in labour can now get it next door to the delivery suite. That is what investment can achieve, but we cannot keep bolting 21st-century medicine on to a 1960s frame forever.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate, which is not specific to one corner of the mainland; as an example, our South Eastern health and social care trust has to find savings of £50.7 million. Does he acknowledge that the capital and resource crises across our United Kingdom are interconnected and that patient safety should always be paramount? Ensuring the availability of the resources it needs to keep patients safe should be the NHS’s priority at all times.
Matt Vickers
The hon. Member makes a valid point. Investment in technology—I talked about the robotic theatres in our part of the world—means not only that staff have the facilities they deserve to work with, but that more patients can be treated more quickly, more safely and with reduced recovery times. There is a real value in looking after those patients, all too often at the worst times of their lives.
I made the case for a new hospital when my party was in government. I held a similar debate to this one five years ago and backed the trust’s bid for one of the new hospitals. I was devastated when, in 2023, the places in that programme went instead to hospitals built from reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, which put them at risk of collapse. I understood why—safety must come first when a roof could fall in—but it pushed North Tees back in the queue, and I have kept pressing Ministers ever since.
North Tees opened in 1968. The trust’s own board papers identified 2031 as the point by which its main buildings would be beyond their useful economic life. That is just five years away, and parts of the estate are already past it. The maintenance backlog stands at £126 million, despite around £100 million being spent on repairs in the past decade, and it is projected to reach £300 million by 2033. Staff are working around leaky roofs, broken ceiling panels and pipes that freeze in winter. This is not a hospital that needs a lick of paint; it is a hospital whose fabric is failing.
On 2 June this year, heavy rain hit Stockton, and the drainage at North Tees could not cope. The trust’s chief executive told me that every one of the hospital theatres for in-patient surgery, bar one, was flooded. More than 400 patients had their surgery cancelled. Repairs have cost £1.5 million, and re-providing the surgery cost a further £1 million. That is £2.5 million gone, not on treating a single extra patient but on catching up after a rainstorm. Think about the person waiting for an operation: they have arranged time off work, their family have made plans to look after them and they have spent weeks preparing themselves, and then they are told to wait again because the theatre is flooded. That was not a freak event; it is what happens when a hospital runs past its design life, and it will happen again unless something changes.
What are local people seeing under this Government? Not a new hospital or a place in the new hospital programme, but job losses. Around 600 posts are to go across our local hospital trusts, with a voluntary redundancy scheme and a vacancy freeze. The trust’s own figures raise further questions. Since 2024, total staffing has fallen from 6,084 to 5,958. Over the same period, the number of managers and senior managers has risen from 91 to 110. That is 2% fewer staff and 21% more managers. Of course, the hospital needs good management, but when vacancies are frozen and a £2.5 million flood bill comes out of the same budget, that increase needs explaining. Every year we wait, the bill gets bigger. A few years ago, a replacement hospital was expected to cost around £380 million. The trust now puts it at between £1 billion and £2 billion.
Before the election, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who was then the shadow Health Secretary, came to North Tees and said that
“there is no doubt we need a new hospital here.”
I agreed with him then and I agree with him now, but when his Government reset the new hospital programme in January last year, not a single hospital on Teesside was in it. When I asked last October what assessment had been made about replacing North Tees, the answer was none, and that there were no plans to invite further schemes into the programme. North Tees is failing in a different way from those RAAC hospitals. Its problem is not one dangerous material; it is a whole building past its life. It is not on the list and there is no list it can join. A hospital whose theatres flood and whose backlog is heading for £300 million should not be left without a route simply because it is failing in the wrong way.
Meanwhile, the Tees Valley Mayor has written 25 times to ask for a meeting about the hospital. The answer given by the right hon. Member for Ilford North was that the mayor could show him the colour of his money. Three Health Secretaries later, there has still not been one meeting. A hospital that is running out of time cannot wait for the Government’s revolving door to stop spinning. The trust is drawing up plans, but a plan with no route to capital is just a very expensive document.
I have five questions for the Minister. First, what has changed since the answer last October? If the new hospital programme is closed, what route is open? Will the Government assess the case for replacement and set out a timetable? Secondly, will she commit to resilience funding to keep the current building safe until then, so that flooded theatres do not become an annual event? Thirdly, will she guarantee that North Tees will keep its offering, its A&E and its core services while the future is decided? Fourthly, will she look at why management numbers have risen by 21% while overall staffing has fallen, and ensure that cuts never come at the expense of frontline care? Fifthly, will she make sure that the Secretary of State finally meets the mayor, along with me and Members from across Teesside, and the trust, before the end of the year? Better still, will she come and visit our hospital and see at first hand the challenges that our incredible workforce is facing?
People across our area, whatever their politics, want the same thing: a hospital that they can rely on when someone they love needs help. I will work with anybody who wants to make that happen. North Tees has seen us born, patched us up and cared for the people that we love at the end. Its staff have kept caring through every challenge put in front of them. The right hon. Member for Ilford North was right: there is no doubt that we need a new hospital. What my constituents want to hear today is not whether, but when, where and how it will be paid for. Our staff deserve it, our patients need it and our community has waited long enough.
The Minister for Social Care and Mental Health (Alison McGovern)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) on securing this important debate. It is good to hear him rightly put across the strength of feeling that I am sure many people in Stockton and elsewhere nearby have in support of the staff of the hospital and how people feel about it. It is very important to the communities that it serves, and patients and staff rightly deserve facilities that are safe, modern and fit to deliver high-quality care.
I must offer a brief apology to the hon. Member. I am obviously not the Minister directly responsible for this area—we have a clash, unfortunately, which is why I am responding. However, I will make sure that the Minister with direct responsibility hears all of the points that he makes, and I am going to do my best to respond to the questions he has asked.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
This is a Teesside-wide issue, and it is felt by communities across the region. All of us, as MPs representing the Tees Valley, believe that there needs to be a long-term future for this hospital. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) is also supporting the trust’s strategic outline case for the future of the hospital. We need to see a future here. However, there are also other hospitals within the trust’s area that are sitting and rotting. I see one in my constituency in East Cleveland. It is controlled by NHS Property Services and there are huge parts of that building that are sitting empty, which could have more services in. I urge the Minister to meet with us collectively to talk about the future for hospitals across the Tees region.
Alison McGovern
As I was just mentioning, I will make sure that the Minister responsible hears my hon. Friend’s point and the discussion we have had in this debate and that they can take forward that strategic discussion about the future. I also hope and anticipate that I will be able to answer the questions from the hon. Member for Stockton West in the contribution that I am going to make. If that is not the case, we will certainly follow up in writing with him and with other Members in Tees as well.
We recognise the need to plan for the hospital’s long-term future for all the reasons that Members have set out and which are understood. That requires three things: more investment in the NHS estate, greater certainty so that investment can be planned over the long term, and greater autonomy for local leaders to decide how it is best used. That is the approach that we have set out in our 10-year capital plan for health and social care.
The challenges at North Tees reflect a much wider problem across the NHS estate. For too long, capital investment was insufficient and short term, with capital budgets repeatedly raided to meet day-to-day pressures. The result is an estate carrying the consequences of years of under-investment, and hon. Members have set out the consequences people are living with. Previous Governments allowed these pressures to build, leaving too many NHS buildings ageing and in poor condition. Patients and staff across the country are living with the consequences.
We cannot undo that legacy overnight, but we can change the way the NHS invests in its buildings—moving away from short-term fixes towards sustained investment and proper long-term planning. First, we are investing more. After years of under-investment, we are providing the largest health capital budget in NHS history, with annual spending rising to £15 billion by the end of this spending review period.
Within that, we are targeting funding where the need is greatest. The estates safety fund, established in 2025-26, will be provided with £6.75 billion over the next nine years to tackle the poorest-quality parts of the NHS estate and to ensure safe environments for patients and staff. That sits alongside around £21 billion in operational capital over the spending review period, empowering local health organisations to invest in their priorities, including their estates. We are also investing around £5 billion over the spending review period to expand and modernise diagnostic, elective, mental health and emergency services, helping to increase capacity, cut waiting times and improve urgent and emergency care performance, as mentioned by Members in the debate already.
Secondly, we are providing greater certainty over that investment. We are providing £65 billion over 10 years for operational capital and estate maintenance, giving the NHS unprecedented long-term certainty to plan and improve its estate. For the first time, providers have multi-year, operational capital allocations alongside longer-term certainty over estate maintenance funding. Instead of having to plan from one year to the next, NHS leaders can look ahead, prioritise investment over several years and develop longer-term plans for their estates and services.
Thirdly, we are giving local leaders greater autonomy about how that investment is used. We are devolving more control to the frontline, streamlining capital approvals, giving local leaders greater freedom to invest according to local need, helping projects to move forward more quickly and delivering better value for money for taxpayers. This matters, because those closest to patients are best placed to understand what their communities need. We are giving them more investment, greater certainty over the resources available and greater freedom to decide how those resources can best support local services, which brings me back to North Tees.
I have heard the case that hon. Members have made about the University Hospital of North Tees becoming part of the new hospital programme. As the hon. Member for Stockton West mentioned, there are currently no plans to invite further schemes to join the programme, as our focus is on delivering the existing schemes set out in the plan for implementation.
However, the new hospital programme is not the only route through which we are investing in the NHS estate. As I have set out, we are providing significant long-term capital investment through the estates safety fund and operational capital programmes to expand and modernise services, alongside the certainty and flexibility I have mentioned. Over the next nine years, more than £1.1 billion is planned through the estates safety fund for the North East and Yorkshire region. Importantly, the fund gives local NHS leaders greater flexibility to prioritise that investment against the most pressing infrastructure risks across the region.
The hon. Member for Stockton West asked some questions on funding and what routes are open. This funding means that the case for further investment at North Tees can be considered through that process, making sure that local priorities drive decision making. The longer-term funding certainty we have provided means that decisions can be made on strategic plans for the estate, rather than short-term pressures alone—although I acknowledge the point that has been made about flooding and so on.
The North Tees and Hartlepool NHS foundation trust has already been allocated more than £3.2 million through the estates safety fund for vital repairs at North Tees and Hartlepool hospitals over the next four years. That sits alongside more than £78 million in operational capital for local priorities, including repairs at North Tees. However, I say again that the Ministers responsible and others are aware of this debate and the points that Members have quite rightly raised about the consequences of the current position and what staff are dealing with.
The Government recently announced £1 million to refurbish the emergency department at North Tees over two years as part of our £140 million boost to NHS urgent care. That builds on £2.7 million already invested in the emergency assessment unit to increase capacity and improve patient flow, safety and experience.
We are also investing directly in services across Tees Valley more widely. In 2025, the trust received more than £4 million to expand the Tees Valley community diagnostic centre, which we have discussed, as part of our £343 million expansion of community and crisis mental health services.
New facilities are planned in Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, alongside a dedicated mental health emergency department at Roseberry Park. Together, this sits within £671 million of planned capital investment to support improved NHS performance in secondary and emergency care across the North East and Yorkshire region over the next four years.
Luke Myer
There is not yet much clarity on where some of that funding will go in terms of setting up those mental health services, particularly in Redcar and Cleveland. If we have a hospital with a wing that is sitting empty, it seems to me a no-brainer that that wing could be a site for some of those services, but obviously I would like to have a conversation with the Department to understand whether there are any such plans, and if there are not, whether we can get some confirmation on that.
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for asking me a question that is actually within my direct responsibilities, which does make my life slightly easier. The issue that he raises regarding the suitability of location is very important. It is one that I am considering through our work on the mental health strategy. If he would like to have a discussion with me about it, alongside local leaders, I would be more than happy to agree to that.
In addition, decisions about the future of local services and estates should be shaped by those who understand them best, and I will take this opportunity to say on the record that that includes Members of Parliament. Too often, MPs have not played that role. As MPs, we frequently have a huge amount of local intel about how to make services work best and I encourage all my colleagues in the NHS to work with MPs and to use the local knowledge that they have. However, North Tees and Hartlepool NHS foundation trust, working with the local NHS, is best placed to assess the needs of its patients, determine the right model of care and plan the infrastructure required to deliver it.
The hon. Member for Stockton West asked me some questions about A&E and management numbers. I have just talked about the importance of the insights that MPs have and I encourage local NHS leaders to listen to what he and other colleagues have said in this debate when they are making decisions. We want to ensure that local leaders have a strong foundation to make decisions, and multi-year funding allows them to look beyond immediate pressures, consider investment across their estate and develop credible plans over a longer period. Given what the hon. Member said in this debate, there are clearly two jobs to be done: first, to try to deal with the problems in front of us at North Tees hospital; and, secondly, to develop a longer-term plan for the future in a credible way. I hope that some of the decisions that we have taken will enable those jobs to be done.
These are significant problems that we are discussing and, as I have already said, I am realistic about our ability to deal overnight with what is a substantial and strategic problem. However, we must use the opportunity to plan for the longer-term future of North Tees hospital to get a clinically led and affordable plan that is supported by a clear business case—not planning one year at a time, but being able to look to the long term with that investment, greater certainty and more autonomy as tools to plan properly for the future of the services and the estate.
Matt Vickers
I made the point earlier that the mayor has written 25 times but we have not managed to get a meeting yet. I wonder whether the Minister might be able to cajole or commit her ministerial colleagues, or even the Secretary of State, to meet local MPs, the mayor and representatives of the trust, in order to have a discussion about where we go next.
Alison McGovern
I meet Members of Parliament, from all parties, regularly. I am always happy to agree to meetings with Members of Parliament, and I am sure that my ministerial colleagues feel likewise. Regarding the mayor, we have obviously created new institutions, such as the mayoral council, so that mayors can make representations directly to Government, and I am sure that the mayor is capable of doing that. I will also make sure that, when I follow up on this debate, the Secretary of State is aware of the question that the hon. Member has asked.
As I finish my remarks, I will return to the hon. Member’s opening comments about the importance of hospital facilities to local communities, wherever they are in the country. I heard what he said about the importance of North Tees hospital to the people that it serves, which just goes to show what a foundational role the NHS plays for all of us in our family life.
I commend the hon. Member for Stockton West for securing this debate today. We have a lot of work to do to get the NHS back to what it should be; we are in a turnaround process. It will be hard, but if we work together collaboratively, with one eye on the immediate term and one eye on the long term, we will get the job done.
Question put and agreed to.
Royal Mail: Performance
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the performance of Royal Mail.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank all the hon. and right hon. Members who have turned out today. In truth, any one of them could introduce this debate: we face the same issues, no matter where we are in the United Kingdom.
I want to start by recognising the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee and its Chair, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne). In May, the Committee concluded that the Royal Mail service was unacceptable and that Ofcom’s approach had failed to secure the improvement needed. It has kept up the pressure. Its Chair wrote to Ofcom again just yesterday, and I will draw on that letter. At Prime Minister’s questions today, the Prime Minister acknowledged the systemic and continued failings of Royal Mail.
In Lagan Valley, the post does not arrive reliably; it comes in batches. People tell me that they get no mail for two or three weeks, and then a whole month’s-worth arrives at once. A letter sent across Lisburn can take over a week to arrive. People tell me that there is no difference between first and second class any more; it just arrives when it arrives. I know that second-class mail can now be delivered every other day. That is fine, but it is still supposed to arrive within three working days. Waiting weeks is not an alternate-day service.
This is causing real harm. Northern Ireland has by far the worst health waiting lists in the UK. Because of postal delays, my constituents are missing MRI and CT scans. The mother of one of my constituents was taken off an orthopaedic waiting list because she never got the letter. These people are already waiting in pain, and when a letter fails to show up, the system blames them, and every missed appointment lengthens the queue for everybody.
This happens elsewhere, too. A constituent got her jury summons after the deadline passed, and she spent days terrified that she would be fined for something that was not her fault. Driving licences, benefit cheques, bank cards and insurance documents just go missing. People pay extra for special delivery but items still sit for days, marked “in office”. Important legal documents go missing or show up opened.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
The hon. Member is giving a great speech. One of my constituents has not received post for an entire month, despite expecting time-sensitive correspondence relating to the death of her partner, who sadly passed away earlier this year. That is totally unacceptable. Does the hon. Member agree that Ofcom needs to be pushing Royal Mail to speed up improvements to regulated delivery? Our residents have waited long enough.
Sorcha Eastwood
I absolutely do. That is an extremely distressing and poignant example. In Northern Ireland, confidential mail matters. Local groups supporting vulnerable people tell me that they are deeply concerned about letters ending up at the wrong address. A letter in the wrong hands in Northern Ireland can put people in real danger.
Businesses are hurting too. In my constituency of Lagan Valley, we have a fantastic local business called the Pie Shop—it sells pies. It recently had a chance to bid for a contract that would see its products stocked in Harrods and whose commercial value it would be virtually impossible to estimate. But due to the Royal Mail delays, it missed the deadline to participate in the trial and it lost that—a huge blow to that small business. That will be replicated right across the UK.
The real-life impacts of this failing service have been mentioned. A woman recently wrote to me and said that a handwritten card marking the anniversary of her mother’s death took nine days to arrive. For her, that was not minor; it was another blow on a day that was already hard. A sympathy letter, a birthday note or a Christmas card: these are careful, deliberate actions that we make to say, “I care about you. You matter. I love you. You aren’t alone.” When the post fails, that is what goes missing.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. I held a similar one earlier this year on 4 February, in which I raised issues regarding Royal Mail, particularly with respect to the WV15 and WV16 postcodes in my constituency, where people are waiting for two, three and sometimes four weeks to receive mail. Does she agree that that situation is completely unacceptable and must change, because my constituents, like many other people, feel that they really do not matter to Royal Mail?
Sorcha Eastwood
Indeed. I thank the hon. Member for his work on this subject to date—it is very much valued and appreciated by all of us in this House—and I think that he has just illustrated the point perfectly.
We have had the discussion and the debate around which items matter in terms of Royal Mail’s service. Parcels still manage to turn up on time and online orders arrive straight away, while letters sit in sorting offices. Everyone can see what Royal Mail is prioritising.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for making such a powerful testimony about the impact of letters being lost or delayed by Royal Mail. I have been flagging up issues in the BH11, BH10 and BH9 postcodes, which are in my constituency, just as many other hon. Members here today have been flagging up issues about the postcodes in their constituencies. What concerns me most is that the Royal Mail responses to the issues we raise are at best generic and at worst deceptive. Does she agree that that is totally unacceptable and that Royal Mail needs to do better?
Sorcha Eastwood
I think the hon. Lady has perfectly anticipated the next paragraph of my speech. She is absolutely right that such responses make an already bad situation even worse. If we knew that our business or organisation was already under fire—for the life of me, I cannot understand why Royal Mail simply has not sought to improve how it responds to complaints.
Indeed, some of my constituents have told me what happens whenever they try to complain. The online complaints form has gone. As already suggested by the hon. Lady, the phoneline is a generic national number and it can take up to an hour to get through. If someone does get through, they are given a complaint number and promised a reply within three days, but weeks later they are still waiting for an answer. They use the email address provided, diligently setting out the issue once more, and eventually get a reply saying that the address is no longer monitored. A complaints system that tells you nobody is listening is not a complaints system.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for making such an excellent speech. Regarding the way that Royal Mail deals with complaints via email and via its website, does she agree that we as Members of the House of Commons seem to be doing a better job of identifying the problems than Royal Mail itself? Thanks to the excellent work of my brilliant team, there is a page on my website where people can plot where they live and the type of problem they have been having, which strikes me as something that Royal Mail ought to be doing itself—perhaps we should encourage it to do so.
Sorcha Eastwood
The hon. Member makes an excellent suggestion, and he is quite right that it should not be on Members of this House to conduct such an extensive and ongoing campaign, almost fielding the complaints, as it were. I thank him for his leadership on that.
Speaking of leadership, I now turn to the leadership of Royal Mail. I want to be fair to Royal Mail—it deserves a right of reply—but I cannot say what its leadership thinks, because its leaders will not meet me. I wonder why.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Following a meeting that I held with other Labour MPs and the head of Ofcom this week, the CEO of Royal Mail has invited a number of us to meet him off-site at 9.30 am on a random Wednesday in a couple of weeks’ time. Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be much better for him to recognise that MPs from across the House and representing every single type of constituency have major concerns about Royal Mail, and that he needs to get himself into Parliament to listen to our questions directly, rather than suggesting that we traipse halfway across London to go into a room that he is in charge of on the basis of an agenda that is entirely his, rather than the one that our constituents want to discuss?
Sorcha Eastwood
Hear, hear—I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. In all honesty, I was reluctant today to say that Royal Mail was continuing not to engage with me; I felt that it was gaslighting and I was scared to mention that. It did manage to meet some of my colleagues in Northern Ireland at a local level, which I thought was generous. However, this matter is a reserved matter, it does sit within this House, and I think that right hon. and hon. Members, including Front Benchers, have gone an awfully long way to accommodate Royal Mail when, as the hon. Member has just said, its representatives should be presenting themselves in this House, not the other way around.
I want to turn now to the posties. I declare an interest: my stepdad was a postman many years ago in Sheffield, and he has permanent back problems as a result. I think many people underestimate just how difficult a job that was, at any time. But now? I dread to think about the stress and pressure that those posties are under.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
Before joining Parliament in 2019, I had 22 years of service with Royal Mail as an engineer, and I can tell the hon. Lady that working conditions were in decline then. We now hear that more than 400 postal workers are leaving the business every week. That is due to workload and working conditions. A two-tier workforce cannot work for any organisation; the workforce need to be rewarded accordingly. Does the hon. Lady agree?
Sorcha Eastwood
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I really feel that he has hit upon the crux of the matter here. We are being told that Royal Mail has identified issues that it is now trying to rectify through recruitment and so on, but if people already know that the workers holding up this once-great British institution are being treated in the way that they are, that will not be an advertisement for anybody to work for that organisation. That troubles me.
Our postal workers are not the problem. Our posties are doing their absolute best to hold things together but, as has just been highlighted, they are leaving in their droves.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
On the issue of postwomen and postmen, in areas such as mine, the most rural areas of our country, those people are a lifeline. They are often the only people whom older people meet in a day, but a postman in my constituency has been taken to an employment tribunal because he helped to deliver a local parish magazine in the middle of nowhere —just to be a help. Those are sometimes the only people my constituents meet, so as the hon. Lady campaigns on this issue, will she press for recognition of the social role that postwomen and postmen play throughout the country, on behalf of many of our constituents?
Sorcha Eastwood
Absolutely. My constituency is actually still classed as a rural constituency, so I think that the right hon. Member’s point is really well made. We have already discussed the delays in the actual letters arriving, but in this day and age, when so many people are isolated, sending an old-fashioned letter is in itself almost an act of rebellion against such an impersonal society. Indeed, for some people right across the UK, in every constituency, their postie will be their only point of contact. It would be an absolute shame if we lost sight of that in all of this.
Postal workers are seriously worried. Some of my own constituents who work for Royal Mail tell me that management simply are not listening. Experienced staff are gone, and new workers are brought in on worse terms, as we have already heard. Workers have ideas to fix that, but they are being shut out and treated as if they are part of the problem.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The hon. Lady is giving a typically powerful and empathetic speech. Amid the deluge of letters failing to arrive in my constituency, one constituent was waiting 12 days for an important letter. They went to the sorting office and were told that it had not been delivered, along with another pile of mail, because the postie was on leave. That kind of management at the local level, never mind among the leadership of the organisation, shows me that there is not adequate support behind our postal workers. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need a reset in the culture, so that there is not this division between postal workers, many of whom have great ideas to improve the quality of service, and management, who seem to be pressing new reforms down on them without a real understanding of the challenges of the role?
Sorcha Eastwood
Absolutely; again, the hon. Member has got to the real nub of the issue. It almost feels as though it is handy and convenient for Royal Mail to pit worker against worker and person against person. By doing so, I think it is seeking to evade its responsibility and role in all of this, and we must not lose sight of that.
Royal Mail is rolling out a new delivery model by Christmas, apparently, which the Communication Workers Union reports is causing huge problems in hundreds of offices right across the country. Is it not better to fix what is broken before making it bigger? Why roll it out right before the busiest time of the year?
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. I recently visited a delivery office in Bradford that serves my Shipley constituents, to understand how the new delivery model will work. The management reassured me that it would solve much of the litany of complaints about the late and infrequent deliveries experienced by my constituents, along with those represented by many of the Members present. Does the hon. Lady agree that, if the new delivery model does not lead to more reliable postal services, we need to look at other options, including the renationalisation of Royal Mail?
Sorcha Eastwood
I absolutely agree. I may be pre-empting the conclusion of my remarks, but I think that is something we all now have to consider.
Royal Mail is more than simply a postal service. It is the red pillar box and the wee red van going up and down country lanes to our small family farm. It is more than just a letter.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing us a really important debate. This issue is clearly affecting us all, and Royal Mail is certainly also badly failing constituents in my Kent constituency. I feel the affection for our posties, which she touched on when she spoke about the red post boxes and so on; Royal Mail should be a national treasure, but it is not. My concern is that the situation is getting worse, not better. Royal Mail has been fined £37 million for poor performance in recent years, and there is an Ofcom investigation. Many of us feel that Royal Mail is not fit for purpose and that no change is happening, so does she agree that the Government need to do more by taking enforcement action and putting some more pressure on the leadership?
Sorcha Eastwood
I wholeheartedly agree. Royal Mail says quality is improving, believe it or not. To be fair, recent quarterly figures showed a slight pick-up, but it has not met its annual delivery targets in six years. My constituents do not read quarterly reports; they rely on social media to see whether the postie is coming. It is a completely unacceptable situation. We also hear that stamp prices keep going up. Citizens Advice suggested capping stamp prices if delivery targets are not met. It is a simple rule: if you don’t deliver the service, you can’t raise your prices. Will the Government back that plan?
Who is supposed to fix this issue? Ofcom, as we have heard, has fined Royal Mail more than £37 million in three years. If fines changed behaviour, things would be fixed by now. Even Ofcom says that
“persistent failure…may raise…fundamental questions about the long-term provision of the universal service”.
I agree. We are at that point. As the BIST Committee Chair, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, put it, the current position
“leaves unanswered who will take responsibility for identifying and closing the gaps in postal regulation”.
Ofcom points to the Government, the Government point at Ofcom and the post sits in the delivery office. The BIST Committee gave Royal Mail and Ofcom until 22 November to show real improvement. If they do not, the Secretary of State should consult on changing Ofcom’s powers.
Sorcha Eastwood
That is a real question that we must seriously investigate. I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members across the House would attest to wanting further robust mechanisms to challenge many of Ofcom’s other remits successfully. I wonder whether the Minister will commit today to consult on changing Ofcom’s powers.
Finally, I turn to the bigger picture. As we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members in the debate, this issue is about much more than just simply Royal Mail and letters. For the first time in its 500-year history, Royal Mail is owned by an overseas company—the highly profitable EP Group. The Government approved the takeover, but serious questions remain about our sovereignty. Royal Mail is a British institution. It delivers to every address in the UK for the same price, whether to a farm in Northern Ireland, a flat in Cardiff or a college in Scotland. It is as much critical infrastructure as any road or cable. When it was privatised in 2013, we were promised better service and investment. Instead, we have had six years of missed targets. A company unanswerable to its owners will always be tempted to favour its most profitable work. The universal service obligation is meant to guard against that.
Fines have not been enough. Other countries subsidise their postal providers or bring them into public ownership, as Ofcom notes. I go further here than the Committee has, but I believe it is time to review Royal Mail’s ownership and governance, so that the universal service obligation is protected in the public interest.
I ask the House: who do we want to be as a society? Do we want to be a country that can no longer promise that a card will reach a grieving daughter, or a hospital letter will reach a patient? Or do we want to be a country that treats the post as what it has always been—a promise to every address— and protects it?
As I said earlier, this is about more than just letters. What are we as a country, if we can no longer rely upon a service that is nearly as old as time itself? Given current geopolitical instability, it would also be remiss of me not to put on the record the grave concerns that I have about critical national infrastructure being owned overseas, rather than in our own country.
For my final requests, I am asking the Government for four things. First, will the Government consult on changing Ofcom’s powers, if service has not improved by the Committee’s 22 November deadline? Secondly, will the Government consider linking stamp prices to delivery performance, as Citizens Advice has proposed? Thirdly, what guarantees do we have for Christmas deliveries this year? Fourthly, and finally, will the Government review Royal Mail’s ownership model, to protect the universal service for the long term?
The public hold up their end of the bargain: they buy the stamps, post letters in time and wait. The system is letting them down. My constituents want to trust the post again. The Government, Ofcom and Royal Mail all have the power to put that right, and this Christmas is the time to show it.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
With a time limit of three and a half minutes, I call Anneliese Dodds.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I am very grateful, above all, to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this debate.
This is not the first debate that we have had on this subject, even in this Chamber. Some of us have spoken on this matter many times. In fact, very sadly, it feels like some of the rest of the country is now catching up with some of the issues that we have had in Oxford East over many years. As the hon. Member for Lagan Valley mentioned, those issues have been highlighted by the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee. They were also indicated by the meeting that a number of us had recently with Ofcom and the CWU, organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson).
In my area, the root of the challenge relates to recruitment and retention—I very much agree with comments that have been made—and over time there has been increased transparency. After a certain amount of denial that there was a problem, there is now better communication, at least with my regional Royal Mail, and sometimes with national Royal Mail as well.
However, there is a huge challenge. I am concerned to hear that the model that was developed in Oxford for the prioritisation of NHS mail does not seem to be operating everywhere; perhaps the Minister can look into that. That model was devised by Oxford posties to pull out that NHS mail. Again, the approaches to mail prioritisation and rotation that are sadly having to be used in Oxford because of the number of absences, and failures in recruitment and retention, do not seem to be being used everywhere.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The right hon. Lady makes a really important point. Royal Mail recently wrote to me after I complained about the lack of service in Selsey, a coastal area where there seems to be absolutely no mail being delivered. It said that it prioritised medical letters and had a rotation system, yet that is not evidenced on the ground in Selsey. People are being asked to collect their own mail from the sorting office, which is only open for two hours a day. Does she agree that Royal Mail needs to turn its words to MPs into actions, so that our residents can see the changes we are asking for?
Anneliese Dodds
I certainly agree. Many of us have been very frustrated that we often get stock letters back about the problems being experienced, that our constituents have to go to sorting offices and that we are not seeing the change we urgently need. Given the challenges with recruitment and retention, I have been trying to promote vacancies myself as a local MP.
Three things need to happen. First, we need the national management to listen to the local posties and the CWU, because they have ideas about how to deal with this. Secondly, we need to get a grip on the unlevel playing field, especially when it comes to parcels. We all know that the volume of letters is going down, not just in the UK, but right across Europe and other industrialised countries. The parcel trade is therefore really important, but we have a farcical situation where 98% of Royal Mail workers are employees on permanent contracts, yet they do effectively exactly the same job as people who are not employed—people who are under terrible terms and conditions and are treated as if they are self-employed. We all know that is bogus. That needs to be dealt with, because it is leading to an unlevel playing field. Given the Minister’s great experience of working rights legislation, will she ensure that the consultation on bogus self-employment going on at the moment leads to the change that is needed?
Finally, I urge the Minister and the Government to focus on the potential of Royal Mail. We are talking about the challenges and representing our constituents’ concerns now, but we have an amazing network in the UK, from the most northerly to the most southerly point. It proved its worth during covid. We should be doing everything we can to recognise and build on that potential. I ask them to please listen to the CWU’s proposals on that in particular.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this fantastic debate on an important issue, on which she spoke so well. I also thank her for shouting out the work of the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee, of which I am a member, and of our Chair; let us see what November brings on that question.
The turnover rate of new Royal Mail employees is extremely high, and the work practices are incredibly harsh and getting harsher. We rely so much on our local posties to serve and help us, and it is really depressing to see how they are treated. My local postie, Tony, has just taken redundancy after years and years of work. It is hard not to feel that he was pushed out by being given a new round. It eminently did not suit, and Royal Mail knew that. That is happening in Witney and in other areas up and down the country. It is harsh and cruel. The numbers of people losing their jobs every week are not by accident, but by design.
Our Select Committee’s investigation into Royal Mail’s letter delivery service noted that only 74.9% of first-class mail has been delivered on time so far this year, against a target of 93%. That translates into approximately 126 million first-class letters arriving late over the year. At present, missing targets is cheaper than meeting them. Fines totalled about £37 million over the last three years, while first class reached only 75.7% next-day delivery, against a 93% target. That is a real problem. If Royal Mail just takes the fines, that does not help anybody.
The way to fix that problem is by focusing on two things that the owner values most: stamp price rises and taking cash out of the Royal Mail business. Here are some ideas on how we could achieve that. First, as others have mentioned, there should be no stamp price rises until targets are met. We have to get that link absolutely firm. That hits revenue directly and will make them pay attention. Secondly, Royal Mail’s cash should be ringfenced: no dividends, inter-group loans or management fees to the parent company while targets are missed, as Ofwat can do with water companies. That would stop letters subsidising parcels.
Thirdly, fines should be escalated, linked to turnover and paid into service improvement when we receive them. Fourthly, there should be automatic compensation for customers when mail is late, as there is with delay and repay. Fifthly, there should be no executive bonuses—none—while targets are missed. Sixthly, we need transparency: performance by postcode area, letters and parcels shown separately, and staffing levels published. That is absolutely critical. They hide behind this fug about how they lack the data. We need it at a granular level so that we can see what is going on where. Finally, there should be—
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this debate. I want first to put on the record my appreciation for Royal Mail staff, particularly those I met on Monday at the delivery office in Rottingdean in my constituency, where I saw how hard they are working to improve the local service.
Of course, we all want Royal Mail to succeed, because it is a universal postal service and something we all rely on. It is a truly national service and a source of good, unionised jobs. We should celebrate that more—frankly, we should do more to encourage other providers in the sector to match those employment standards and expectations. But we also have to ask how we can better support Royal Mail staff to do the job we all need them to do, and how our constituents can be sure that they will receive the service they rely on, because right now problems with Royal Mail is the one issue I get the most emails about—I was going to say letters, but it is actually emails.
I will give two quick examples. One constituent from Woodingdean in my constituency told me that they had no deliveries from 1 to 16 August this year, 29 pieces of mail on 17 August, no deliveries from 18 to 28 August, and 13 items of mail delivered on 29 August. When I raised this directly with Royal Mail locally, I was told:
“there are no current issues with the delivery of mail to your constituent’s address…deliveries are taking place six days a week”.
Frankly, it is hard to know how to relay that to constituents.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
A constituent in West Bridgford in my constituency showed me a letter they had received from TV Times, telling them that because Royal Mail had become so unreliable it was going to use a third party to deliver the magazine separately, to make sure they got it on time. Does that not say everything about the reliability of Royal Mail?
Chris Ward
I am afraid it does. As my hon. Friend’s intervention shows, some constituents are now routinely missing letters—letters informing them of NHS appointments, legal affairs, fines and so on. One even contacted me on Saturday to say that he had only just received his Labour party conference pass, some four weeks late. Members might think that a blessing in disguise and that we should be praising Royal Mail, but he was not too pleased.
We are now in a cycle of despair with Royal Mail, where constituents report unacceptable delays all the time and MPs from across the House come here to raise them. Successive Governments will say how terrible it all is and demand that Ofcom acts and Royal Mail improves, but Ofcom does not have the powers it needs and keeps fining Royal Mail for failure, despite the fact that Royal Mail cannot make a profit anyway. Royal Mail has no chance of hitting its legally mandated targets and no hope of competing on a level playing field, because operators in the same sector simply do not have the same regulatory or employment standards that we ask of Royal Mail.
The result is rising anger on all sides, a loss of faith in our national delivery service and, frankly, a belief that we cannot even get the post to run on time in this country. I know that the Minister cares deeply about the issue and is working hard on it, so I urge her to break that cycle: look at what more we can do in Parliament to level the playing field for Royal Mail, empower the regulator more, and give Royal Mail staff the opportunity they need to improve and modernise the service. If we do that in this Parliament—there is a majority for it and cross-party support—then we can finally get our national postal service back on track and serving our constituents as it should be.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for setting the scene on a subject that is incredibly important to us all. As well as both being Northern Ireland MPs, we share a frustration with the Royal Mail.
I cannot do technology—that is just a fact of life, as I am very old-school—but I write letters regularly. Nothing impresses, helps or encourages a constituent as much as a hand-written letter sent to their house in a yellow envelope from the House of Commons. They appreciate that, which is why I do it. The business of the rest of my office is done by email.
Day after day, my office is inundated with phone calls and emails from people who go for weeks without seeing a postal delivery worker. Letters are piling up in sorting depots, with vital documents vanishing into a black hole. The public have completely lost faith in a service on which they have relied for generations.
I want to be entirely clear about where the blame lies. It does not lie with the hard-working, dedicated local postmen and postwomen who are working themselves to the bone. They work long hours and walk miles under immense pressure, bearing the brunt of public anger on the doorsteps. It is not their fault; they are being completely let down by senior management, a failed operating model and a chronic lack of investment.
Since I was a Member of the Legislative Assembly, I have always visited the Royal Mail depot in Newtownards at Christmas time. Staff retention is incredibly important. I met a guy just before Christmas who had worked for the Royal Mail for 20 years. I asked him how he was getting on, and he said, “Jim, I’m leaving next week.” I asked where he was going, and he was going up the road to Kiltonga, for better wages at Lakeland Dairies. Royal Mail has to address staff retention by ensuring the right pay.
When I speak to local staff in Strangford, they consistently tell me that they believe passionately in their public duty but that they are being asked to fight a losing battle with one hand tied behind their back. Without targeted funding to build or upgrade a dedicated sorting office in our area, our local posties will continue to drown under the backlog. Minister, what discussions have taken place with the owners of Royal Mail about its antiquated sorting centres and technology? What can be done to ensure that the guys who work there are able to see modern, suitable workplaces?
This is not just about missing birthday cards and delayed bank statements; it is about people not getting hospital appointments. My constituents are missing long-awaited cancer screenings, urgent surgical consultations and vital diagnostic scans. If they have been on a waiting list for six months, that could mean they wait for two years—it just does not work.
This is a timely point to discuss what is important. I have engaged with the former Northern Ireland Health Minister to ensure the use of barcoded envelopes for urgent medical mail, which has helped us in Northern Ireland, but it does not go the whole way. Royal Mail cannot keep cutting corners, reducing delivery days and abandoning its universal service obligation while senior executives line their pockets. We need accountability for a service that is currently failing the sick, the vulnerable and the elderly.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on securing this vital debate and her excellent opening speech.
My office has been inundated with complaints from residents, particularly in Glenrothes, about unacceptable delays to Royal Mail deliveries. I therefore put out an appeal for information on social media, and in just a few days around 400 people replied to that one post with their experiences. Even after the revisions to the universal service obligation to reduce the frequency of second-class deliveries, seven in 10 of the people who contacted us said they were waiting a fortnight or more for their mail deliveries. Residents also reported post being delivered in bundles dating back weeks, as the hon. Lady said. That is simply not acceptable.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
I have also been running a local survey on this issue, and up to 80% of respondents in South East Cornwall report delays. As a rural and coastal area with a large number of elderly residents, this is a huge cause of concern. As the daughter of a postie, I know at first hand just how hard our frontline workers are working to make sure those elderly residents get what they deserve in a timely manner. What more can we do to make sure this problem is addressed?
Richard Baker
I could not agree more with those important points. They show that, from Cornwall right up to Scotland, the problems are the same and need to be addressed by Royal Mail. I will come to my proposals later in my speech.
We heard from people whose credit had been affected by a missed bill, people who missed jury citations and people who were penalised after car tax reminders never arrived. A number of Members have mentioned issues around health service appointments. Most worrying for me, 100 constituents received late NHS letters. Unacceptably, 45 missed an appointment or received a letter after the date. A constituent waited three years to get on to a consultant’s priority list, but she never received the letter and subsequently lost her place. A primary school-age child missed a vital appointed at Edinburgh sick kids hospital. A teenager was struck off the Victoria hospital’s dermatology department in Kirkcaldy for not turning up, although it was entirely outwith their control. Seventeen people managed to attend an appointment only because of a text or call reminder, as the letter was not received in time. Royal Mail has said to us that it has a priority barcode for NHS letters. I have checked with NHS Fife. It is using the code, and the letters are still not arriving on time, so Royal Mail must address the situation urgently.
It is obvious to all those who are aware of the situation that the new delivery system, which management said was going to make a big difference, is in fact failing, particularly for second-class mail. My constituents have been told at the counter that more lucrative parcels are being prioritised over letters.
It is striking that not a single constituent who has complained or got in contact with us put any blame on our overworked local posties. As many Members said, the situation is putting our postal staff under unacceptable pressure at work. Understaffing and longer routes mean that they are being asked to do the impossible. That drives up absence rates, which only makes the situation worse. According to the CWU, which has done so much work to campaign on this issue, Royal Mail is losing about 400 postal staff a week. I again urge the management to get around the table with the union and end the recruitment and retention crisis. So many of the problems that we face in the service today are caused by the recruitment and retention issues, so we must support our hard-working postal staff.
The situation in Glenrothes has improved marginally of late, but only on a short-term basis, because workers were brought in temporarily from Dundee. That is clearly not a sustainable solution, so a root-and-branch change is required, not quick fixes or plastering over the cracks. I urge Royal Mail to listen to the contributions from across the Chamber today and to the thousands of people across Glenrothes and Mid Fife who rely on this lifeline.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)
Meur ras, Ms Lewell. It is an honour to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this debate and for her excellent speech.
The performance of Royal Mail in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, in the south-west of Cornwall, has been simply woeful. Constituents regularly tell me that they have gone weeks without post and, like other hon. Members’ constituents, have received a large backlog all at once.
Sharon from Hayle had waited a year for an operation when she received a call from the hospital asking whether she intended to attend. The appointment letter, together with the swabs required pre surgery, had never arrived. Thankfully, the arrangements were later confirmed by phone and email, but the letter itself was delivered three days after the operation had taken place. Another constituent was sent a letter for a hospital appointment 19 days after it was scheduled. Such delays risk causing vulnerable people to miss essential treatment, and place a burden on our overstretched NHS.
In Cornwall, our remote coastal geography and patchy digital connectivity—to say the least—mean that many of us still rely heavily on the universal postal service, but I worry that the situation will only get worse. In recent weeks, several Royal Mail workers have contacted me with concerns about the new delivery model 26. They report unmanageable workloads, experienced workers leaving, morale at rock bottom and substantial volumes of mail sitting undelivered. Three workers completing four rounds does not sound a credible way to improve reliability and restore public trust in Royal Mail. I echo the points made: the issue is not one of posties; it is one of management. Nor should Royal Mail continue to respond, if at all, to our constituents with template responses or hide behind impossible-to-navigate AI chatbots, while the reality on the ground slips further behind.
I therefore ask the Minister what discussions the Government have had with Royal Mail about DM26, and what action will be taken to ensure my constituents receive a postal service worthy of the word “royal”. If Royal Mail is going to treat this House and elected Members with such arrogance, the Government must take direct, firm and urgent action.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on securing this debate and on making such an excellent speech.
My constituents in Dartford welcome today’s debate. The performance of Royal Mail has been a running sore for many residents in Dartford and the surrounding towns and villages, and the growing delays are having a real-world impact on their lives. This is not about the hard work of staff at the Dartford delivery office. As we all know, Royal Mail has targets for local performance—in our case, it is for 87% of first-class mail to be delivered the next working day—that are palpably not being met. For the DA postcode that covers Dartford, the figure for 2025-26 was well below that at 74.6%. That is by no means the worst performance in the country but still a long way off hitting the target.
Given that we know that the performance of Royal Mail in Dartford, as in most of the country, is well below that expected, I want to share one notable example of the impact. I recently received an email from the manager of the North Kent community diagnostic centre on East Hill, who has seen a significant increase in the number of patients not attending appointments, with many saying they are not receiving their appointment letters, notwithstanding the priority supposedly given to NHS correspondence.
In one weekend earlier this month, almost half of the 90 patients booked in for appointments, with letters sent three weeks in advance, did not arrive. Those are people missing scans and critical tests vital for their journey to treatment and their pathway to better health. That is the real-world impact on people who are unable to receive the urgent treatment they need.
What is the cause? Clearly, the changing structure of the postal and parcel market is causing problems for Royal Mail. Some of that is clearly about Ofcom’s lack of powers or ability to use them. Much of it is about the culture and management of Royal Mail. Whichever combination of those issues it is, we need the Government to address the problem and sort it out on behalf of my constituents.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this debate on Royal Mail performance. Royal Mail’s reliability has become a big problem nationally, as we can all see. Alongside many parliamentary colleagues, I wrote to the Minister to raise serious concerns about delivery, which has simply not been good enough. I noticed it when I tried to invite my constituents to a local “Tea with your MP” event and half the invitations failed to arrive before the event, which caused much consternation.
I completely understand why people are deeply worried about missing critical, time-sensitive mail, which my casework shows. One constituent, like others, received a letter from the hospital after a vital medical appointment, so she missed it. An elderly resident had her phone cut off by BT because Royal Mail failed to deliver her paper bills. She does not have the internet and relies entirely on the post to stay connected. Others have resorted to getting their own mail from sorting offices, but in Cornwall, where it is hard to get around by public transport, particularly to sorting offices with limited opening hours, that has caused a real issue. The picture nationally is just as concerning. Citizens Advice reported that over Christmas 2025, 16 million people experienced letter delays, a 50% jump on the previous year, and 5.7 million adults missed vital letters about health appointments, benefit decisions and legal notices.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about medical appointments, and I was horrified to hear from a constituent of mine in his 80s who did not have post for a whole month recently. He was waiting for bank cards and medical correspondence, and missed an appointment because of that lack of post. My hon. Friend mentioned rural areas. Does she agree with me that not receiving post makes people a lot more vulnerable?
Jayne Kirkham
Yes, indeed—particularly my elderly residents who simply cannot get around. It will be the same in my hon. Friend’s area.
Like other Members, I have visited my local delivery offices. The staff do an incredible job, but they are under-resourced and there just are not enough of them. Royal Mail continues to fall short under both its original and renegotiated universal service obligation. Even with the lowered targets, performance is well below the standard. I welcome the road map to rebuild the targets, but there are still serious structural concerns about that. We must make sure that these regulatory and service improvements are delivered without delay so we can make sure that our constituents are not disconnected from their communities, missing their hospital appointments, or unable to meet important bills.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of the CWU. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this important debate. Of course, Ms Lewell, it is a pleasure to serve in this debate with you in the Chair.
If we need an example of disaster and chaos in privatising a public asset, we need look no further than Royal Mail. The water industry is a close challenger, but we would have an even longer debate if we were to discuss the issues in Royal Mail versus the issues in the privatised water industry. We need to recognise that in 2013 Royal Mail was privatised by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition. It is important to know that the root cause of the issues is that privatisation, which has been a disaster. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) mentioned that one option we should consider is renationalising Royal Mail, and I support that.
In my constituency of Stockport, I conducted an online survey—I do not need to reiterate the points about doing postal surveys, which would probably never get there or come back in time—and 89% of respondents experienced a service disruption or delays to Royal Mail deliveries and were dissatisfied with Royal Mail. I do not want to repeat the points that have already been made, but I have also been to my local delivery office on numerous occasions and the postal men and women do a fantastic job. None of us in this House on a cross-party basis has issues with our postal workers. The issue is with the toxic management, how the business is run and the lack of governance. It could be argued that Royal Mail management is better off paying the fine than actually meeting its obligations to the public. Stamp prices keep going up, but letter deliveries keep getting worse. The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) suggested that there should be no further rises in the price of stamps until Royal Mail can demonstrate on a long-term basis that it has consistently improved letter delivery standards.
Just this week a resident reported that a first-class letter took over 10 days to arrive and they received birthday cards a week late. Another constituent, from Ainsdale Grove in Reddish in my constituency, contacted me to say that their entire street received large batches of delayed post, with some letters dating back to 25 September. That is completely unacceptable. As I said, I am a proud member of the CWU, but I want to see Royal Mail management working with the CWU. There have been reports that almost 400 postal workers are leaving their jobs at Royal Mail—there must be an extremely toxic culture for that number of people to be leaving. I could say a lot more, but time is limited.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this debate. Like many colleagues from across the House, I have received a litany of complaints from constituents. I visited my local delivery office back in the summer with a massive dossier of those complaints. That was just at the beginning of the roll-out of the new delivery model known as DM26, which the management there reassured me would solve all my constituents’ postal delays. Unfortunately, I continue to receive testimonies from constituents about the impact of late deliveries. I will share a couple of the most impactful ones.
One constituent’s elderly parents live in Cottingley. The father is 82 and the mother has dementia at 79. They do not use a computer. They have missed three NHS appointments and incurred additional charges on mobile phones, and when their children tried to raise a complaint online, they found it very difficult. The second area is Crossflatts. A constituent there has had three hospital appointment letters delivered after the appointment date, and as we have heard from other Members, birthday cards have gone missing too.
None of us blames the posties. They do a fantastic job, but we need to make sure that they are working in an environment that supports their health and wellbeing. We can see that there is low morale and there are high rates of sickness absence, which I hope the Minister will address in her remarks. We must also not level down. There is a real problem with the wider gig economy, and I echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) in asking how the Minister will address bogus self-employment in the wider parcel delivery market so that Royal Mail and its workers have a chance.
I urge the Minister to really focus her remarks on the fact that Royal Mail is a failing company. It is in financial distress. We have a regulatory model with Ofcom that is clearly not working. The financial penalties are not working. Ofcom is almost at the limit of its powers to force Royal Mail management to get its act together and address these problems. We have changed the universal service obligation once. We have introduced this new delivery model, or at least Royal Mail is introducing this new delivery model. If we get to April next year and there is still a failure to meet that USO, will the Minister look at radical options, including the nationalisation of Royal Mail?
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a privilege and an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on her incredible speech and on securing this debate. We have heard during the debate from all four corners of the United Kingdom; this is a significant challenge for constituents up and down the country.
As we get towards Christmas, I am sure that all Members have a visit to the sorting centre in their diary. It always feels a little poignant to me, because one of my heroes, David Penhaligon from Cornwall, died on the way to a sorting centre in 1986 while discharging his duties as a community MP. I have been offered a visit to the Torquay centre twice, and on the second occasion I said, “No, I would like to go to Paignton.” Strangely enough, I discovered that the Paignton office was somewhat crowded and unruly. Despite the chaos, the posties were doing incredible work attempting to get the post out to people, but it feels as if there is a bit of gamesmanship in what Royal Mail wants Members to see—or not see. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) visited a sorting centre, and posties advised him that the undelivered post was hidden at the back of the office. There are some sharp practices occurring, which I am well aware of.
Nikki in my constituency tells me she got an enhanced parking fine because the notice was three weeks late. She then—eventually—received post from an enforcement organisation chasing her up for the unpaid fine. That is utterly shameful, and it echoes what we have heard from around the Chamber about delays in finance-related letters, whether statements or card deliveries, and people being unable to complete transactions that they desperately need to complete.
Perhaps the most poignant issue is missed appointments—I will not rehearse the points that have been made, but I am aware of a number of examples in my constituency—which impact not only people’s health, but the hospitals; we know about the challenges in our health service. We are seeing the Royal Mail, in effect, vandalising the service by failing to deliver post in a timely manner, which is utterly shocking.
Turning to the most vulnerable, colleagues have talked about people in remote areas, and I am shocked but no longer surprised when I go around former council estates by the number of older folk who do not have access to the internet and do not have a smartphone. The reality of the way they communicate is post, and they have to use a very poor postal system. Those individuals simply cannot be accessed digitally, so they desperately need the post. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government are looking to hold Royal Mail to account, because this is far from being the posties’ fault.
Colleagues from different sides of the political spectrum have talked about surveys that they have undertaken. Like them, I have heard from dozens of people about the challenges, the most worrying of which was big batches of post arriving at once. When I have raised concerns with Royal Mail, I have received, in effect, bureaucratic drivel. I say diplomatically to the Minister that I was disappointed by the lack of backbone in the letter that we received. I hope we will hear better today.
I am still waiting to hear from Ofcom, but I am looking forward to working with it and the Communication Workers Union to hold people to account. Liberal Democrats believe the Government must maximise the powers of Ofcom, give it teeth and encouraging it to use them, to make sure we have a firm hand on the tiller so that we can navigate the stormy waters facing our posties—and make sure that this is sorted by Christmas.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for securing this important debate. She is clearly delivering for her constituents in a way that Royal Mail is not.
Royal Mail is clearly failing in its universal service obligation, and it is clear from comments across the House that there is universality in those failings. From my own casework, I came into this debate well aware of the widespread failures affecting our postal services and knowing that action is long overdue. After hearing the compelling story shared by Members from across the House, I believe it is undeniable that we cannot wait any longer, and that answers are well overdue.
It is only 65 days until Christmas. It is not quite time to put the tree up, but for service providers and logistics teams, it is right around the corner, and mailbags will surge. We all know that Christmas is one of the most demanding times of the year for the postal services, especially for our hard-working postmen and women. I too want to express my thanks to them. I do not think any of us are frustrated with our hard-working posties. There are failings with management. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) pointed out, all year round, posties are a lifeline for some of the most vulnerable members of our society, and sometimes they are the only person they will see or have social contact with.
Anna Dixon
In rural areas, posties are often already doing extremely long routes. Does the shadow Minister recognise that the new delivery model is breaking up some of the continuity that postal workers have with their communities and making some rural rounds less manageable for them?
Bradley Thomas
The hon. Member is correct. The current model is not working as it should, which is having social implications and, clearly, adversely affecting the service even further. It is crucial that that is addressed.
As we get close to the Christmas period, the busiest time of the year—as shoppers complete their final online orders and families send gifts and cards to loved ones, friends and family—the country needs confidence that postal services will deliver. If they can deliver, that is one worry ticked off the list at a busy time of year, but in recent years, many of us and our constituents have found that there is a certain elusiveness to the post all year round. My constituents have the recurring experience of receiving no post for two weeks, followed by a large bundle of outdated letters, with hospital appointments missed—we have heard many stories on that theme today—DVLA reminders overdue, credit cards reported lost in the mail, and even legal issues rumbling on because court summons and other documents are not received in time.
Jim Shannon
On the point about health-related letters, when I met the former Health Minister in Northern Ireland, he gave us an undertaking about franked envelopes as a way forward. If Royal Mail did its job correctly, it would receive the franked letters and expedite them through the system. That seems to be working in my constituency, because, by and large, the postal workers do that very effectively. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Royal Mail and others responsible need to focus as a priority on delivering letters that are obviously medical letters, because they are franked, on time?
Bradley Thomas
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which is in the same spirit as a comment by the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who mentioned an example of NHS letters being prioritised. There is a pressing need for Royal Mail to look at best practice from all parts of the country and ensure that it is part of its standard methods of operation, so that it delivers for its customers and our constituents.
We know that a malfunctioning postal service has a profound domino effect on many important aspects of residents’ lives. In March, it was announced that Royal Mail will deliver 219 million letters late this year, despite the seventh stamp price rise in four years. That statistic will come as no surprise to the Members here today—it has been cited by many and it solidifies their constituents’ lived experiences—but predictability should not be mistaken for acceptability. Our constituents should not have to tolerate this escalating issue, so I ask the Minister to outline today a tangible plan to deliver a swift solution, rather than continuing to pass the buck to Ofcom. I am aware of Ofcom’s role as the regulator, but the Government cannot expect this nationwide problem to fall exclusively on Ofcom’s shoulders. I suspect that the Minister has received that message loud and clear from Members across the House today.
What action are the Government taking to materially address the service problem? Do they believe that Ofcom is still fit for purpose with regard to regulating postal services? Those are difficult questions to answer, but my constituents—all our constituents—want answers to them. The Minister has made it clear that frank discussions are being held with the CEO of Royal Mail, and Royal Mail has emphasised that its “Quality of Service Improvement Plan” sets out—allegedly—a clear path towards meeting Ofcom’s new delivery targets.
We saw how important this issue is when it was raised at Prime Minister’s questions today. But what good are more discussions and promises if they are never fulfilled or fail to improve the service? Does the Minister believe that the operational issues with Royal Mail are being addressed quickly enough? What discussions have taken place concerning not only the implementation of the improvement plan, but the success achieved so far?
Royal Mail is a key piece of British identity, with more than 500 years of history. It has endured challenges and played a key role in some of our nation’s most difficult times. It is a service to appreciate, but such recognition is warranted only when an acceptable standard of service is provided. The purpose of this debate is to highlight the unacceptable service being supplied by Royal Mail and to fast-track finding a solution. Will the Minister share the immediate steps that she will take to ensure that Royal Mail’s service is corrected and customer confidence restored?
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
Good afternoon, Ms Lewell; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) on securing this debate about the performance of Royal Mail. She clearly outlined the issues in her constituency. She has heard directly from constituents about the inadequate service, and I thank her for bringing that to the Chamber, as I thank other colleagues for doing the same. This is not the first debate on Royal Mail in the House, but it is my first debate as the Minister responsible, and it is a pleasure to respond to it. I take this part of my brief extremely seriously, and I hear the challenges we are working through loud and clear.
Royal Mail should be a cornerstone of our national infrastructure, serving every address in the UK under its universal service obligation. As we have heard, people and businesses continue to rely on its services every single day, and posties are such valued members of the communities they serve. Royal Mail is an independent business, and the Government are not involved in its day-to-day operations or resolving specific service issues, but patience with its performance is wearing thin. Colleagues will have heard that loud and clear from the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box earlier this afternoon. Customers have every right to expect better.
Royal Mail must do more to restore confidence in its service. That is why I was frank in my meeting with the chief executive of Royal Mail last month, and will continue to be so for as long as necessary. We are clear that the service has been unacceptable for too long and that the pace of improvement must increase quickly. Although letter volumes have fallen from 20 billion items per year in the mid-2000s to 6.5 billion in 2025, the number of addresses served by the universal postal service has continued to grow, and we should reflect on that.
Catherine Fookes
I want to raise the issue of the prioritisation of parcels. As the Minister says, the volume of letters may have gone down, but the overall volume of items to deliver has not. She will be as worried as me that the number of people working in Royal Mail has reduced significantly, and many people are leaving because of low morale. What can she do to make Ofcom do more in this situation—for example, spot checks? Fines are obviously not working.
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for raising those important points. I will shortly turn to the work we are doing with Ofcom and the engagement I have had with it so far.
Postal services remain absolutely essential, delivering everything from medical letters to financial information and birthday and greeting cards from loved ones—as well as, soon, Christmas cards. At the same time, the rapid increase from e-commerce over recent years has transformed the postal sector. Parcel volumes for 2025-26 reached 1.44 billion—a 7% increase from ’24-25. I am conscious that, with Christmas coming up soon, Royal Mail will be entering its busiest period of the year, as we have heard from colleagues. It is vital that it delivers a reliable service for its customers.
Royal Mail is an independent business, so responsibility for managing delivery operations, workforce deployment and local performance rests with its management, and it is best placed to investigate localised problems. However, I am all too aware that customers across the country continue to be let down by Royal Mail’s poor service. Many hon. Members receive correspondence from constituents highlighting their concerns and frustrations about Royal Mail’s performance, and colleagues have raised them today, as I have, too.
Steve Darling
I am sure that many Members present will have already raised local issues with Royal Mail and got back what feels very much like a stock letter, as I did. What advice would the Minister give to Members about how to hold it to account for such an appalling service?
Kate Dearden
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his intervention. I will very shortly turn in more detail to my engagement with Royal Mail, and the expectations that I have put to it for how it should engage with us in this House with appropriate detail and information.
The consequences of delays can be especially significant when correspondence is important and time-sensitive, such as correspondence regarding hospital appointments, bills, legal documents, benefit correspondence or letters containing driving licences. I share the frustrations and concerns of hon. Members and their constituents. That is exactly why Royal Mail must do more to deliver a reliable service.
Before I reflect on my engagements with the chief executive and my correspondence with hon. Members in this Chamber and outside, I will turn to Ofcom. As the independent regulator for postal services, Ofcom is responsible for setting and enforcing Royal Mail’s service standards. I met Ofcom yesterday to share the feedback I received from hon. Members across the House ahead of this debate—I will also reflect on today’s contributions—and to discuss the wider postal sector. Ofcom has fined Royal Mail £37 million over three years for not meeting quality-of-service targets. Ofcom assured me and the Government that it continues to monitor Royal Mail service data closely and will take further regulatory action, where needed, to hold the company to account.
Ofcom is also investigating Royal Mail’s performance against quality-of-service targets in the last financial year. I know that several hon. Members, some of them in the Chamber, met Ofcom on Wednesday 14 October to raise their frustrations about the continued poor service from Royal Mail. Ofcom has shared the key themes from that discussion with me and my officials. I thank colleagues for taking the time last week. I have no doubt that Ofcom will have heard and understood the strength of feeling about the service that our constituents have experienced.
I will turn briefly to costs, particularly the cost of stamps, which lots of colleagues have mentioned. Last week, Ofcom launched a consultation on extending the current second-class letter price cap until 2028. Of course, every pound counts when people are still struggling with the cost of living crisis, yet they are not getting a reliable postal service. I hope that will be a key consideration, but I recognise that it is for Royal Mail, as an independent business, to set the price of stamps. Ofcom and I discussed that yesterday.
The regulator sponsorship charter, which the Government published in July, reaffirms our role in setting regulators’ strategic direction and holding them to account. We will continue to work closely with Ofcom on its approach to regulation and the outcomes it delivers for customers. We would pragmatically consider any future requests for additional powers where they are needed to support improved outcomes for customers and our constituents. We will actively hold Ofcom and other regulators to account, as appropriate.
Anna Dixon
In addition to meeting Ofcom, as the Minister mentioned, we also met the leadership of the CWU. It is clear that postal workers are coming forward with ideas about how the business could be reformed. I hope the Minister will assure us that she is urging Royal Mail’s leadership to sit down with the CWU to consider some of the more radical, long-term options for reforming our Royal Mail.
Kate Dearden
I will provide an update on our next steps, and our engagement with the unions and Royal Mail, very shortly. All hon. Members present agree that Royal Mail needs to step up and improve its performance. Colleagues reflected on the improvement plan published by Royal Mail to address the primary cause of service issues. It has committed to invest £500 million to increase its frontline resourcing and the availability of working hours for part-time employees. I reflect on the point about suitable sorting offices, using modern technology. We have secured legally binding commitments from the new owners for sufficient investment to ensure that the USO can be delivered.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. I appreciate it; each of us in the Chamber does. One massive issue in my constituency of Strangford is staff retention. There comes a certain age, as the years creep up, when the weather goes against you. Some of those who joined early and have done maybe 20 or 30 years come to a stage where they can no longer do it. One of the major reasons why they are not able to do it, apart from the weather factor, is that they are able to get a better wage up the road. To retain staff, wages need to reflect rising inflation and the fact that staff have to travel to work. What discussions has the Minister had with the chief executive to ensure that wages improve, which will naturally help to retain staff?
Kate Dearden
Before I address the hon. Gentleman’s point, and reflecting on his remarks about visiting his local sorting offices and what he is hearing from posties themselves, I put on record that Royal Mail has informed me that it has invested more than £470 million since 2021 in automation and in delivery and infrastructure updates. Of course, when it comes to pay and conditions, we work closely with the trade unions represented in Royal Mail, and we will consider the wider support we can provide to create a sustainable future for Royal Mail. Supporting our posties is absolutely essential.
I also take this opportunity to reflect on my recent meeting with the chief executive of Royal Mail, at which I specifically raised the issue of engagement with colleagues. I urged Royal Mail to be much more proactive with MPs, and much more detailed in its assessments of what is happening at constituency level, and to take seriously every complaint raised directly with it by colleagues, whether the complaint is about performance, service, staffing levels, sickness or absences. It is important that Members across the House have relevant information to hand. When Members, myself included, receive numerous complaints from constituents, it is important that they have the appropriate and relevant information to make that assessment. I reassure Members that I always reiterate that point when I meet Royal Mail.
Charlie Maynard
If possible, I would love to hear the Minister’s thoughts about the points I raised: linking targets to stamp price increases, escalating fines, transparency, and ringfencing Royal Mail’s cash.
Kate Dearden
Hopefully, the hon. Member has reflected on my remarks about my engagement with Ofcom, particularly on its recent consultation on stamps, the cost of living crisis, service and targets. I have heard his remarks and will take them forward in my conversations, particularly around Royal Mail’s service, which has to improve, and improve very quickly, as the Prime Minister reiterated today. I thank the hon. Member for putting his reflections on the record.
On USO reform, Royal Mail is currently implementing a new delivery model, as we all know and have discussed today. That new delivery model was approved by the CWU and its membership, and it is being implemented across the network. Colleagues have reflected on different feedback from their constituents, posties and local management.
Royal Mail’s performance against its quality-of-service targets has been improving, so it is important that any final issues between the company and its workforce in rolling out the new approach are resolved urgently. Today, I reaffirm the commitment given by the Secretary of State yesterday that we are meeting the CWU and Royal Mail the week after next to press for progress. We will update colleagues on that meeting.
I also want to reflect on what colleagues have said about our important, absolutely essential postal workers, who are a central part of every city, town and village we represent. Indeed, they are integral to their communities’ future success. Posties work tirelessly every single day for constituents and customers, and Royal Mail must ensure that they remain at the heart of a business that delivers in line with all our expectations.
I put on record my appreciation for our postal workers and posties across the country. My grandad was a very proud postie. He loved his community and he loved his job, because it is about much more than delivering letters and parcels. Posties are part of the communities they serve. They know their rounds and their customers. Often, they are one of the familiar faces that people see every day; sometimes, they are the only familiar face that people see. I therefore take the time to express my appreciation.
It is in everyone’s interest to get round the table to resolve the issues we have discussed today, including the need for an improvement in the quality of service—we must make sure that happens quickly. Indeed, that is my commitment to all colleagues in Westminster Hall today.
Before I conclude, I will talk about parcels and the need to address the imbalances in the postal sector, which is an important part of the next steps, and update colleagues on the work we are doing in the Department in this space. We are improving the working conditions, standards and rights of workers across the economy, including in the delivery sector, which is really important to me.
Last week, we published a consultation on proposals for targeted reforms of the employment status framework for employment rights. We recognise that self-employment arrangements can provide flexibility for some people, but we are also aware of the concern that the current employment status framework can leave vulnerable workers without core and basic employment protections and rights. Our consultation hopes to address those issues, particularly around bogus self-employment, which colleagues have reflected on today, taking into account the impact on key sectors of the economy, including the postal services industry.
Yesterday, colleagues and I attended an interesting roundtable on work and employment in UK parcel delivery, held with the University of Sheffield Management School, where we talked about exactly these issues. Its research is important and will feed directly into our work in this space. Across the sector, Ofcom has reacted to growing concern about delivery performance by reminding operators of their obligations, and it has engaged with all major parcel companies to ensure their compliance with the regulatory framework.
Although this debate focuses on the performance of Royal Mail, it is important to recognise that reliable delivery matters across the postal and parcel delivery market. That is particularly the case for our vulnerable constituents, as service failures can have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable consumers, including disabled people who might often struggle to leave their homes. Ofcom has introduced targeted protections that require operators to have appropriate policies in place for the fair treatment of disabled customers, alongside strengthened guidance on complaints handling. Lots of colleagues mentioned that today, and I will continue to press Ofcom and Royal Mail where I need to.
The way we communicate might be changing, but post remains an essential service for people and businesses across the United Kingdom. The Government believe that the performance of Royal Mail has been unacceptable: I have made that clear, as has the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State also made it clear in his response, published yesterday, to the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee’s report. We will continue to press Royal Mail and its management to improve the quality of its service. Customers rightly expect and deserve a reliable postal service, and colleagues from all parties expect their constituents to have it, too. Royal Mail absolutely must deliver it, and deliver it soon.
Again, I pay tribute to and thank our incredible posties across the country who work tirelessly to deliver for our constituents and support their communities. Royal Mail is a national institution that is a key part of our identity, and we all want it to succeed. We are passionate about the universal postal service on which we all rely. I hope colleagues hear my passion about ensuring that we get people round the table so that we can deliver a better service for our constituents, through the wider postal sector and Royal Mail. I thank colleagues for their reflections and contributions, and I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley for securing this debate.
Sorcha Eastwood
I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister, the Lib Dem spokesperson and all right hon. and hon. Members who contributed to this really good debate. We have fleshed out some of the core issues, and colleagues across the Chamber have made helpful suggestions on the price of stamps, the link to targets, the payment of executive bonuses when targets continue to be missed and the fact that we need to give serious consideration to whether Royal Mail should have been privatised at all.
This issue is absolutely not the fault of posties, and I thank them for their service. It is incumbent on us all to listen to them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the performance of Royal Mail.
Housing Costs: Government Support
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I will call Andrew George to move the motion, and the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, the Member in charge will not have an opportunity to wind up.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for housing costs.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the issue of Government support for housing costs—in other words, local housing allowance and the way that it is part of universal credit and the calculations made therein. The hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) has let me and the Minister know that he would like to make a short speech, and I understand that others wish to make interventions.
This is not the first time that I have raised this issue. I was looking back at the records, and I even had a debate in this Chamber on a related matter on 9 November 2010—if anyone wishes to check the records. I will start on a sombre note and give a couple of examples from my constituency of recent casework where I have met constituents who have had difficulties with their benefits. One constituent has a history of undiagnosed neurodiversity and mental health problems and struggles to hold down regular employment, although he is quite capable. He has been rejected for personal independence payment and receives approximately £900 a month in universal credit, but must pay what is pretty much the average for his private rent in the constituency, which is £850 a month. That leaves him with £50 to live on for the whole month—to cover all his bills, feed himself, travel and do everything else. That makes the point about the difficulties and the poverty trap in which people find themselves.
A mother and three children have been benefit-capped, despite the mother paying almost £1,200 a month in rent out of the approximately £1,500 a month she receives in universal credit. She is in debt to her utility providers and cannot afford to work because of the high cost of childcare. Those are just two examples of what it means to families to have to live on the current rates of local housing allowance.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)
Does the hon. Member agree that there needs to be much better understanding of housing affordability in places such as Cornwall? The issue is that where the benefits system does not recognise the cost of housing, those people who most desperately need support are most disadvantaged, compared with those in areas where housing affordability is much greater.
Andrew George
Indeed. I thank the hon. Member, my constituency neighbour, for those remarks. Certainly, the Minister will be aware, because he understands these matters very well, that in places of particularly high housing costs—places such as Cornwall, but not just Cornwall—where scarcity of private rented accommodation makes it difficult for local families to find anything affordable, the gap between local housing allowance and the actual rent levels is particularly stark.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend so much for securing this debate. I have the example of Annette, who is in her 70s and cares for her son. She has been forced to move twice when landlords have sold up, and she fears that she cannot afford the next rise. My hon. Friend talks about the costs. Citizens Advice locally highlights the fact that the frozen local housing allowance is now 20% to 25% lower than local rents, and record levels of people are at risk of homelessness. Does he agree that that reiterates the case? The Government must look at unfreezing local housing allowance and linking it to local rent?
Andrew George
My hon. Friend anticipates what I shall go on to say. One of my main messages concerns the impact of the 2024 housing allowance freeze; the Government will not be surprised by that—I gave the Minister advance notice of my questions. The allowance is supposed to be set at the 30th percentile—in other words, 30% of properties available on the market should be below the housing allowance. However, certainly in places like Cornwall, we are talking about it being the minus-30th percentile, effectively, because in areas like mine the local housing allowance is 30% below the lowest-cost available rental property in the marketplace. The 30% is relevant, but sadly not in the way that is required.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I thank the hon. Member for his important speech. In my constituency, only 2.3% of rental homes are affordable with local housing allowance—a far cry from the 30% that it is meant to be. Of course, that means that many more families, including families with children, are forced into rent arrears, poverty and homelessness. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, introducing rent controls would reduce the cost of unfreezing local housing allowance by more than £1 billion by 2030. Does the hon. Member therefore agree that the Chancellor should introduce an emergency brake on rents as well as unfreeze local housing allowance at the Budget to address the gross distortion, inequality and unfairness in the housing market?
Andrew George
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. I will come to the extremely difficult decisions that any Government need to make about how this policy adds up with the available resource. Certainly, if one wants to avoid driving private landlords out of the market altogether, one has to form an understanding of how the market works. I entirely agree with the principle of what the hon. Lady is saying, and I will come to how we can how we can pay for these things. That is a very difficult question, which Opposition politicians generally avoid, instead asking for more money, while not necessarily explaining where they will get it from.
My primary message is that current Government policy is not working. It is driving the poorest into debt, food banks, homelessness and, in many cases, sadly, destitution. I have a number of questions for the Minister, which I sent to him in advance. If the Government know that a person’s private rental is bound to be at least x, why in my area of Kernow West, when the Valuation Office Agency assesses these factors, is the benefit level set at x minus 30% to 40%? That leaves people in the kind of poverty I described in the two cases I mentioned earlier. Have the Government reviewed the adequacy of the present methodology for LHA calculations, and are Ministers confident that the present arrangements do not risk tipping families and individuals in areas of high-priced private rental accommodation into rent arrears and potential destitution?
I understand that the Valuation Office Agency collects the rental data from landlords to determine the LHA, but how accurate and up to date is that data? Is the VOA using historical cases, where people have been living in accommodation for a very long time, and where the data would not reflect the price of that accommodation were it to come back on to the market? The Government need to answer many questions about this issue. I know the Minister is sympathetic.
One example was raised with me by Citizens Advice Cornwall. A family in Penzance consisting of either a couple or a single parent with two children of different sexes, one of whom is 10, meaning the children need separate bedrooms, would technically require a three-bedroomed house. Local housing allowance states that they can have a maximum of £812.76 per month. According to Rightmove last night, the lowest price for a privately rented three-bedroomed house in the Penzance area, a few miles away in Marazion, is £1,800, making a gap of £987.24 per month for that family. I could go through a large number of cases, but I do not have time now.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to make an important but related point. Emergency and temporary accommodation in Cornwall is also extremely expensive because of the seasonal nature of things, and particularly because of the holiday let industry. That adds to the burden on councils and tenants.
Andrew George
I am grateful to the hon. Lady from the next neighbouring constituency for raising that issue.
I was going to make the point that although there were over 1,700 Airbnbs available in my constituency last night—and that is just Airbnbs, not all holiday lets—there were zero private rental properties available within the LHA rates when we checked on how the market is operating. I will come on to how we will pay for any kind of increase, but the reason why I compare those properties with holiday lets is that for the last 10, 12 or 13 years, we have been paying out multibillions to second home owners through small business rate relief and other tax loopholes that are available to people with second properties. Local people do not get any small business rate relief. The people with second properties who do not let them to local people, and flip from paying council tax to business rates, are able to apply for small business rate relief and pay nothing at all. In Cornwall alone, that has cost over half a billion pounds in the last decade.
If the Government want to invest in desperately needed homes for local people, they may well incentivise private landlords by providing tax concessions to those who provide decent homes with security and an agreed, negotiated rent cap to bring it within the scope of what is affordable. That would be a far better way of spending the Government’s resources.
I urge the Minister to look carefully at the issues I have raised. I urge him to look at ending the freeze of local housing allowance rates, to restore and maintain the link between local housing allowance and the 30th percentile of the local market, to commit to an annual LHA uprating, to introduce measures to mitigate the impact of the benefit cap, and to continue wider housing reforms, such as, as the Government want to, delivering more social housing. I hope he will consider those matters, but now I want to give time for others to speak.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing this important debate and on an excellent speech, as always.
I want to briefly encourage the Minister to speak to colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about reconsidering the merits of a potential cap on rental increases. I know that the Government are determined to do everything they can to give the British public breathing space on the cost of living. For almost all of us, the cost of our home is by far and away the largest item on our monthly bill. Private renters spend an average of 36% of their income on rent, and although I fully support the drive for a new generation of council housing, it is clear that that will not substantially bring down costs for the nearly 5 million private renters in England in this Parliament.
The housing crisis is a crisis, and it demands immediate action. Research by the Autonomy Institute has shown that, as an emergency short-term measure while we build the genuinely affordable homes we need, holding rents at 2027 levels would save renters more than £14 billion over the next four years. That would substantially reduce the burden on public spending to support those who need housing allowance in private rental as well. I hope the Minister will take that suggestion to Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government colleagues.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I am delighted to be serving under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing this timely debate just the week before the Budget.
Stable, affordable, good-quality housing is fundamental to individual wellbeing, economic stability and public health. That is why the Government have set out, as Members know, the ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes. We are supporting that with a record £39 billion investment in social and affordable homes. That is the programme that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) referred to. We are also supporting that with our £16 billion national housing bank.
Securing an adequate number of decent affordable homes is our priority. People have wanted to do that for a long time. We are making sure that the investment is going in to deliver those homes. It is true that delivery will not happen overnight, but delivery is going to happen. We inherited a very serious housing crisis, and we acted quickly in response. Policies in place are having an impact already. There are over 400,000 new homes in England since the start of this Parliament, more than a quarter of the target. New build starts in the year to June were up 15% on last year.
We are driving forward big reforms of the planning system. In August, we announced a new planning policy framework with clearer rules-based policies to unlock more homes where they are needed. We are investing in construction skills. My Department spent nearly £38 billion last year supporting renters with housing costs via universal credit and housing benefit. That is an increase of around £3.5 billion over the last decade. No other OECD country spends a greater proportion of its GDP on housing support than we do.
I recognise the picture that hon. Members have set out of the impact of local housing allowance in their local areas. Rental inflation across the country varies according to specific challenges in each area. The local housing allowance determines the maximum financial support for renters in the private rented sector. Households in similar circumstances living in the same area are entitled to the same maximum rent allowance, regardless of the rent that they are required to pay.
Local housing allowance was never intended to cover all rents in all areas. The rates for that are set annually by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Future decisions will be based on the Government’s priorities, and those are the priorities that the Chancellor will have in mind as he makes his announcements in the Budget next week.
The Government provide additional discretionary housing support to local authorities to help tenants to meet shortfalls in their rent costs. In England, that is through the crisis and resilience fund housing payment. I wonder whether, in some of the cases that the hon. Member for St Ives referred to, his constituents would find it worth their while to contact the local council to see whether they could benefit from a discretionary housing payment. The crisis and resilience fund includes support for preventive wraparound help, as well as assistance for people facing a financial crisis. I know that local authorities are increasingly looking at what they can do with those resources to protect people in the kinds of situations that the hon. Member for St Ives describes.
Local housing allowance rates are set within broad rental market areas determined by rent officers in the valuation office across England. There are 192 broad rental market areas across Great Britain. As the hon. Member for St Ives said, Kernow West is the one that includes St Ives. A BRMA is an area within which a person could reasonably be expected to live, having regard to facilities and services for the purposes of health, education, recreation, banking and shopping, taking account of the needs of travel to and from those services by both public and private transport.
Across each BRMA, rent officers gather a representative sample of private rental data of all property types and sizes from a range of sources, including both new and existing tenancies. They survey rents across the full year to capture current market conditions. That includes collecting a representative sample from all the local authority areas within a BRMA, including any larger urban centres and more sparsely populated rural areas in that BRMA.
Perhaps the hon. Member for St Ives might find it useful to have a conversation with the Valuation Office Agency, because he raised perfectly understandable concerns about whether the data it uses is out of date. The process is designed to ensure that that is not the case and that up-to-date data is provided. Of course, it was only just over two years ago that the local housing allowance was uprated to the 30th percentile of the levels of rents in each BRMA.
Andrew George
A moment ago, the Minister said that it is not intended that the LHA should cover all rents in all areas, and he encourages me to talk to the local valuation office about its methodology in setting the LHA for my area of Kernow West. I will happily do that, but looking at the marketplace last night, there was not a single property anywhere close to reaching the LHA level. Is it not the Minister who should be undertaking a review of whether the valuation office is up to the task of understanding how the market is working, rather than leaving it to local Members of Parliament?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman reproves me in a very appropriate way. My point is that I think the LHA methodology, which he queried, is sound. When local housing allowance rates are increased, they are implemented in April, based on the latest private lettings data for the 12-month period up to the end of September the preceding year. I do not think there is a problem with the way the LHA rates are calculated—in 2024, all the LHAs were uprated to the 30th percentile of rates in each BMRA—but there have been significant rent rises, even in the two and a bit years since the level was last reset. That, I think, is the phenomenon to which the hon. Gentleman is drawing the House’s attention. There has been a rapid rise in rents in that period, and that will need to be taken into account in deciding what should happen to the LHA for next year.
Tackling homelessness is a very high priority for the Government, as the Prime Minister underlined when he took office. The LHA supports those on low incomes with their rents in the private sector, but the causes of homelessness are complex, and the LHA is only one measure to tackle it. We have significant funding targeted more specifically at those who are homeless and those at risk of being homeless, as those in the kind of situation that the hon. Member for St Ives described sometimes are. Sustained cross-Government action to tackle the causes of homelessness is being taken forward through the national plan to end homelessness. We will provide more than £4 billion in funding for homelessness and rough sleeping services from 2026-27 to 2028-29.
Councils have £2.7 billion through the homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant, which they can use to support people at risk of and experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping, including funding for delivery of support on domestic abuse safe accommodation. That all means that councils can do more to prevent homelessness, reduce reliance on the expensive temporary accommodation that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) drew attention to and target resources where they are needed.
Andrew George
The Minister mentioned earlier that we will await the Chancellor’s announcements in the Budget next week. It sounds as if the Minister himself is awaiting those announcements. I wonder to what extent he is putting pressure on the Chancellor to address these issues and ensure sufficient budget for his Department to address this issue. I am sure the Prime Minister sincerely wants to reduce and entirely remove homelessness from our streets, and I applaud him for that, but I am afraid that the way that the system is working will only add to the problem.
Sir Stephen Timms
I think we are all waiting to hear what the Chancellor says next week. I can certainly assure the hon. Member that my colleagues in MHCLG and the Treasury are continually talking about these issues and the right approach. Last time the uprating to the 30th percentile happened—April 2024—the cost over the full spending review period was, if I remember rightly, some £7 billion. If we are looking at effective measures to tackle homelessness, the approaches and specific funding that I have just described to address the problem and the risk of homelessness are the effective ways to do that. Those are the kind of factors that the Chancellor will certainly be bearing in mind as he reaches his decisions for next week.
To further drive the shift from crisis response to prevention, we are setting a national target to increase the proportion of people supported by council homelessness services to stay in their homes or helped to find alternative accommodation. Our new duty to collaborate will require public services to work together to identify people at risk of homelessness and to consider what action they can take within their existing responsibilities to help prevent that.
The Government’s key priority in all this is to secure an adequate number of decent affordable homes. We have announced the new 10-year, £39 billion social and affordable homes programme—the biggest boost to housing grant funding in recent memory. The aim is to maximise supply, with a target to deliver at least 60% of the homes under the programme as social rent. Initial funding allocations via the programme have been confirmed across England, excluding London; 33 providers will receive £9.5 billion to invest in new social and affordable housing and deliver 73,000 homes. Nearly two thirds of the homes built by strategic partners through the programme will be for social rent, and for the first time ever, three councils—Cambridge city council, Eastleigh borough council and Newcastle city council—have been awarded strategic partnership status with Homes England. Councils are increasingly stepping up to meet our bold ambitions.
More than £16 billion in funding for outside of London is still yet to be allocated. In allocating that, the Government intend to prioritise social rent homes, particularly council homes, to achieve the Prime Minister’s ambition for the biggest council house building programme since the post-war boom ended in the early 1980s. Directing funding into that programme and others along those lines is the way to deal properly and permanently with the severe housing crisis that we face right across the country, which the hon. Member for St Ives and others have spoken very powerfully about in this debate.
The new national housing bank was launched on 1 April, backed by up to £16 billion in financial capacity. We envisage that bank leveraging in billions of pounds of private investment to accelerate house building across the country. It is taking quite a pioneering approach to its role, and its status as a publicly owned subsidiary of Homes England, designated as a public financial institution, gives it a lot of autonomy in working out how to do this job most effectively. My colleagues in MHCLG have launched the national housing delivery fund, which includes £5 billion of grant funding to support housing delivery and address viability challenges, including through the remediation of brownfield sites and provision of unlocking infrastructure.
Let me say in the final seconds that my colleagues in MHCLG have taken the view that rent controls would do more harm than good.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Community Policing: Government Support
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for community policing.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a trustee of Chichester Festival Theatre, which I will be talking about in my contribution.
Today’s debate could not be timelier for my Chichester constituents. Last week, a cast member in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”, which was on at Chichester Festival Theatre, was followed through the city by a group in balaclavas, riding bikes, shouting abuse and harassing them. Police subsequently arrested a 16-year-old male for a homophobic hate crime. Earlier this week, the prominent comedian and actor Munya Chawawa spoke out about the experiences of the whole cast he had been performing with at CFT, including the racist, homophobic and xenophobic abuse that they had encountered during their six-week stay in my city. It was heartbreaking to hear his and others’ accounts. The hate that they experienced in no way represents the majority view, and is not the Chichester that I know and love.
The fact that that happened in a city that I am constantly told has very low levels of crime should be a cause of concern for all. I have no doubt that the pipeline of hatred fed into our algorithms and screens is feeding this beast. Antisocial behaviour more generally is a growing theme in my work as the Member of Parliament for Chichester.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. My area also supposedly has a low level of crime, but residents in Tring talk about antisocial behaviour, residents in Harpenden have taken up private security, and Anna from Berkhamsted says she has not seen a police officer for years. My hon. Friend mentioned that online crime and community policing go hand in hand. Does she agree that one way of tackling this is by looking at it holistically and having a proper online crime agency, funded by big tech, so that we can then properly fund and resource community policing?
Jess Brown-Fuller
My hon. Friend pre-empts one of the things that I will call for later in my speech.
Antisocial behaviour is happening in all corners of the country. In Chichester, I am seeing it in the balaclava-clad young men riding e-bikes at terrifying speeds along pedestrian streets or pavements, the people feeling intimidated and threatened when they are out in the evening, the growing use of catapults to harm wildlife or the shoplifting epidemic that plagues our local businesses. It is seen across my constituency, whether in the city centre, the town of Selsey, Westhampnett or the Witterings. Charity venues have told me about young men forcing entry and threatening their volunteers or elderly members of the public who have gone along to watch a film. Another constituent told me that the local bowls club is struggling to retain members after some were hit with ball bearings that were being shot at pigeons.
Today’s debate is on community policing. Much of that antisocial behaviour is driven by a lack of visible policing in areas like mine.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for calling this important debate. In my constituency, we have a serious problem with antisocial motorbike noise from modified exhausts. Does she agree that we should have more public spaces protection orders to help the police enforce against antisocial behaviour, and funding for trials of acoustic cameras to try to stop this?
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank my hon. Friend for his important intervention. I agree that we need more access to things like PSPOs, but there is an acute challenge in actually policing the PSPOs that we manage to get in place. That was a suggestion that we had to cull the wildlife crime that we were seeing locally, but the police rightly said that a PSPO is effective only if there are police to manage it.
This is not the fault of local police officers—they are diligent, well trained and dedicated to keeping our communities safe, but they are also asked to achieve the impossible. The Government’s neighbourhood policing guarantee makes all the right noises about ensuring that policing is local, but in coastal and rural areas such as mine, it is near impossible to have a meaningful presence in the huge areas they are asked to cover. Selsey has nearly 11,000 residents, and the number nearly doubles in the summer months thanks to tourism, but the area does not magically get any additional policing during that time.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
The hon. Member is painting a vivid picture of her constituents’ experience. I associate myself with her comments about the cast of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”. No one should be subjected to racist or homophobic abuse anywhere in the country.
On the point about Selsey, Bournemouth West gets more than 10 million visitors in the summer, while Dorset police is one of the lowest funded forces in the area. We get no additional resources, and the funding formula does not adequately take into account the seasonal pressures or the rurality of the rest of the county. Does the hon. Member agree that that needs to change?
Jess Brown-Fuller
The hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight that the funding formula does not reflect the seasonal pressures I see in my coastal constituency.
To describe Selsey to those who have never been there—I look forward to welcoming colleagues in the summer—there is one road in and one road out. Selsey means “seal island”, and it is a very isolated community. There is one police constable and two PCSOs to cover not only Selsey but Sidlesham, Hunston, North Mundham and some harbour villages. On a summer’s day, it would take an officer at least an hour to travel from one end of the patch they are meant to cover to the other, yet they are meant to have an acute understanding of the area and its problems.
I went out last summer with a PC who had responsibility for Selsey. Local residents turned and stared at us as though they had never seen a police officer walking the streets of Selsey. When I asked the PC the last time he had done a walkabout, he had to admit that he had never done one before because of the administrative pressures in managing his workload.
At the other end of my constituency, towards the South Downs national park, farmers are creating WhatsApp chats to support each other in monitoring illegal activity on their land, whether that is equipment and tool theft or hare coursing, because of their isolation and the lack of provision in the Sussex police rural crime team. Why are we in this position? For starters, it is because police forces were recklessly hollowed out, and the number of PCSOs was decimated, by the previous Government.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making some good points, but does she agree that the cut to police services’ budgets started in 2010 when her party was in government with the Conservatives? We saw a 25% cut across the country, which is what decimated neighbourhood policing in all our constituencies.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I appreciate the hon. Member’s remarks. She is right that this is not a new issue; it has been going on for many years. We are now seeing the effect in every constituency.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an impassioned speech. On the point about cuts to community policing under Conservative and coalition Governments, they are having a direct effect on my constituents. Jane, who lives in Ecclesfield, recently told me of a terrifying experience when multiple electric bikes sped past her on the pavement as she was crossing the road. She told me they were going as fast as cars, with speed limiters disabled. She said that if she had set foot on the pavement a second earlier, she would have been injured or potentially lost her life. Does the hon. Lady agree it is vital to roll out the 13,000 neighbourhood officers by the end of this Parliament, which the Government are working towards, to ensure that the dangerous use of e-bikes is properly tackled, including in my constituency?
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank the hon. Member for getting on the record how important it is to have visible community policing. That needs to happen as quickly as possible so that the example she gave of her constituent and the fear she must have felt in that moment are addressed or alleviated by knowing that there is a police officer they can contact who understands the local area.
I also recognise that crimes are becoming more complicated. Evidence can come in many forms, with the rise of things such as Ring doorbells, CCTV and the use of WhatsApp chats being part of an evidence base. Models for dealing with the administrative burden differ from police force to police force.
We also have a real challenge with reporting. My local police force makes operational day-to-day decisions entirely predicated on the reporting data, yet I have called a number of times to speak to the police about an incident that is being widely discussed online only to be told that they have no such record of any incident ever occurring. I recognise the frustration that constituents voice to me that if they report, nothing happens anyway—but police forces are now so reliant on data that I cannot impress enough on people how important it is to report crime or antisocial behaviour when they witness it so that the police have an accurate record of where the hotspots are.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The traditional bobbies on the beat were about more than just policing crime; they were about reassuring communities. The fact that the statistics show a reduction in crime does not necessarily mean that people feel safe. Does the hon. Member agree?
Jess Brown-Fuller
I do agree with the hon. Gentleman. I would also reflect that when I was growing up as a teenager, I knew the name of my local police officer. That certainly deterred me from hanging around at the duck pond late at night, because I knew that if he spotted me, my mum would probably hear about it. That kind of community policing, and the understanding of where the issues are, where people are congregating and where the problems are occurring is so important for police officers. I will come on to that later.
Those are vital points of visibility, but they also provide people with a direct route to access support and to report crimes, especially for those who do not want to navigate complex online forms. A constituent recently told me that they called to report a crime and were told that it was over an hour’s waiting time to speak to somebody and to please go online. They were then asked to provide the exact postcode of where they had seen the incident. They could not move forward because they could not provide the postcode and they just gave up reporting it.
Something else that exacerbates the situation in my constituency is poor decision making at a local level, as in the case of the closure of Chichester custody centre. That contributes to staffing pressures because it keeps police officers off the streets and away from the communities they serve. Since its closure in 2018, officers making an arrest have had to undertake a round trip to Worthing, and in some cases, when that custody centre is full, all the way to Crawley. A recent freedom of information request revealed that just last year there were 1,100 such trips. Even without the traffic on the A27, each journey would take police officers away from Chichester for hours at a time. It is a monumental waste of time and effort, particularly when there is a purpose-built, workable facility in Chichester.
I know the police and crime commissioner would like me to stop talking about that, but I will not, because to me it would be a win-win if it put more police back on the streets. It would increase the time that officers spend out on our streets and provide the credible deterrent that we need. That is why I ask the Minister to outline in her response today the Government’s view on mothballed infrastructure, such as our custody centre, which could be brought back into use to improve community policing.
Beyond that, we need a clear commitment from the Government today to a return to what community policing actually means. When the Government made their health hubs announcement, about a health hub in every community, the definition used was somewhere with a population of 50,000. If something like that were to be used in policing, it would be no comfort to communities such as those in Selsey that I spoke of earlier, or in the Witterings or Pagham, who already see resources spread too thinly. Will the Minister please define “neighbourhood” and how that is adjusted for my rural and coastal communities?
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that when fully warranted neighbourhood police officers are put into civilian jobs to relieve pressure in places such as call centres, they are doing jobs that civilians should do? I support many of the Government’s priorities on policing, but if the police—whose job is to go on the beat—are pulled into different priorities, whatever they may be, that core policing is not available.
Jess Brown-Fuller
It is right to say that no police officer signed up to be a frontline service person and spend all their time at a desk; they signed up because they wanted to make a real, tangible difference in their communities. We do not need them to be glued to their desks doing burdensome paperwork, because that is not what they were trained for. We can free up officers’ time by, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) mentioned, establishing an online crime agency, for example. That would relieve local officers of the burden of complex and time-consuming work around highly sophisticated online crime.
Finally, I want to turn to the wider issue of resourcing, which I am sure many Members will discuss. It has been raised with me through various channels, including by the police and crime commissioner in Sussex. We know how we got here, but decisions made by this Government have contributed to the problem. The consolidation of funding pots has left my residents short-changed, for example. The funding model fails to take proper account of the genuinely rural nature of my constituency, which leaves our residents worse off in funding terms than the national average.
The Government have announced new policies aimed at addressing some of the issues we have discussed, but have not provided the resources needed to implement them. The newly introduced respect orders are an example: breaching them constitutes a criminal offence, which will once again draw on police resource. That requires additional funding to support it, but it is yet to be seen. The issues facing community policing are not primarily about a lack of powers. Any police officer will say that the most powerful tool in their armoury is not the one given to them through the law, but the ability to build relationships, understand the uniqueness of the community they serve and have a presence that serves in itself as a deterrent.
Deirdre Costigan
Many police officers I have spoken to have made exactly the point that they do not have enough powers to deal with antisocial behaviour in particular, and also shoplifting. The hon. Member was good enough earlier to take responsibility for her party’s role in cutting police numbers across the country. Will she similarly take responsibility for the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which the Lib Dems brought in with the Conservatives? It got rid of antisocial behaviour orders and the power the police had to take action against antisocial behaviour, and it brought in the £200 threshold for shoplifters, which meant that people could get away with nicking stuff left, right and centre.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I am not confident that the hon. Member’s constituents would appreciate her using her time in this place to talk about things that happened 15 years ago, when Labour has the power of government and the opportunity to do all the things she rightly raises. There are things that need to change, and she now has the opportunity, the keys in her hand and the power to make those changes for her constituents. The police tell me that the issue is about a lack of resource and always being asked to do more with less. I therefore hope that the Minister will grab the bull by the horns and get on top of community policing. We want real community policing for the better.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I am setting a time limit of three minutes for speeches.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) in the usual way on securing this debate. I hope that she will not mind if I focus on the challenges around community policing in suburban areas of the greatest city in the world: London.
I specifically ask the Minister to encourage councils in the suburbs of London to use their powers—the so-called section 92 powers—to directly fund police officers for the local community. A number of London councils are already doing so, and I struggle to understand why Harrow council, which serves my constituents some of the time well and some of the time not quite so well, is not funding police officers similarly. Barking and Dagenham funds four police officers; Greenwich two; Hammersmith and Fulham three; Havering almost three; Islington two; Southwark three; Tower Hamlets 26; Westminster nine. Why does Harrow council not also fund police officers in a very direct way?
I welcome the Government’s commitment to an extra 13,000 additional neighbourhood police. In my constituency, we are fortunate to have seen extra police in Wealdstone and effective neighbourhood police teams across the borough, who have helped to drive down shoplifting—although there is still more work to do on that—and tackle one or two of the key gang crime hotspots in my constituency. I welcome, too, the Met’s successful crackdown on mobile phone theft.
There is still, however, a lot more to do in helping our constituents to feel safe and secure in the key shopping districts serving my constituency. Many councils have their own enforcement officers, but those officers, such as the ones employed by Kingdom in Harrow, have no powers of arrest. They cannot issue criminal charges or on-the-spot fines. They do not have the same powers and are not seen to be as effective as police officers. I hope that the Minister will encourage local authorities such as Harrow to go the extra mile and use the significant uplift in funding from this Government to place some police officers directly in our communities. In the longer term, I would like to see some investment in Harrow’s police station—
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. A big thank you to the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for setting the scene incredibly well. There is no issue more critical to the peace, stability and everyday safety of our citizens in Northern Ireland than the strength and integrity of our community policing. I have always been a believer in community policing. I supported it when I first became a councillor in 1985 and as an MLA, and I support it now as an MP.
True policing is not done from behind the high walls of a fortified station or from the windows of armoured vehicles. It is done on the streets and on the doorsteps through the painstaking, day-by-day work of building trust with local communities. When community policing thrives, our neighbourhoods thrive. When that foundation is stripped away, the consequences for society are severe. Sometimes, political decisions are taken that affect community policing, which has been an issue in Northern Ireland. I will not go into detail, as it would not be appropriate for this debate, but it has an effect upon community policing.
I think of our superb local commander, Superintendent Johnston McDowell. For years, Superintendent McDowell and his team have been at pains to engage with the community, showing visible leadership and keeping our streets safe. They have done incredible work in managing complex local tensions and taking drugs off our streets with absolute professionalism. They are at the forefront of community policing. They are the people who work with the community. Superintendent McDowell has achieved those successes despite facing a crippling multimillion-pound black hole in the budget.
The Police Service of Northern Ireland needs funding and resources to put boots on the ground, maintain its fleet and preserve neighbourhood teams. More than a cheque book, however, the PSNI needs a Government who understand the fragility of policing by consent. I know that the Minister often goes to Northern Ireland and has direct contact with the Chief Constable and the Justice Minister. Some of the lessons we have learned in Northern Ireland would be helpful to the rest of the country, because our police manage complex issues every day.
I finish with this, because I am conscious that others wish to speak. When the rule of law is compromised by political intervention, local community police officers pay the price on the doorstep. The Government must recognise the damage that political interference causes to community relations, fully back the independence of local policing, and finally deliver the fair and sustainable funding that our police service needs to keep every single community safe. Community policing? I am behind it all the way.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this debate. I begin by acknowledging the Nottinghamshire police officer who was shot and injured on Sunday while on duty in Nottingham city centre, close to my constituency. My thoughts are with the officer and his family, friends and colleagues, and I wish him a speedy recovery. It is a sobering reminder of the courage that our police officers show every day, and the risks they face while working to keep our communities safe.
In Broxtowe, our local police service has an insufficient number of officers to tackle the crime and antisocial behaviour that is significantly impacting our communities. Even when officers are available, they do not always have the equipment, resources or operational capacity required to intervene safely and effectively. Across Broxtowe, in particular, in Eastwood, Stapleford and Beeston, residents are consistently raising concerns about antisocial behaviour, dangerous illegally modified e-bikes and drug-related crimes.
Nottinghamshire police do a fantastic job in responding to those issues, but can only operate within the staffing and resources available to them. Teams are stretched so thin that they cannot maintain a visible presence in our communities, which is what the public reasonably expect. Police visibility is a deterrent for those who carry out criminal activity, and the lack of a police presence damages public trust. Every community deserves an effective and visible police presence so that residents can feel confident that their concerns are acted on. Will the Minister give an update on the commitment to recruit 13,000 additional neighbourhood police officers and how far we have progressed? In Broxtowe, we need a sustained police force to tackle the rising crime and antisocial behaviour affecting my constituency now.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
There is now a reduced time limit of two minutes.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this debate. Community policing is not simply about responding to crime after it happens; it is about prevention, reassurance and building trust. It is also about having officers and police community support officers who know their communities, understand local concerns and are recognised by residents, shopkeepers, schools and local organisations. When community policing works well, it prevents crime before it takes hold and helps people feel safe in the places where they live, work and shop.
The challenge facing communities across West Yorkshire is significant. Recent crime statistics show that Dewsbury continues to experience crime rates above both West Yorkshire and national averages. As of April this year, the crime rate in Dewsbury was 30% higher than Yorkshire and the Humber and 53% higher than England, Wales and Northern Ireland, with an overall crime rate reported at 125 crimes per 1,000 residents and with violent sexual offences, antisocial behaviour and public order offences being the top crimes. Batley faces similar issues. As of April this year, crime rates in Batley were 4.2% higher than Yorkshire and the Humber and 23% higher than England and Wales, with an overall figure of 114 crimes per 1,000 residents. That is why Government support for neighbourhood policing is so important.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Nearly 70% of police forces have more police officers now than they did in 2010, whereas in my constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr, within the West Midlands area, we have 450 fewer police officers and 500 fewer PCSOs. Does the hon. Member agree that there ought to be some parity of numbers across all police forces?
Iqbal Mohamed
I completely agree that the resources for law enforcement and tackling crime should be equally distributed across our nation; no constituency should be faced with a shortfall compared with others.
Community policing is one of our most effective tools to reduce crime, improve trust and strengthen community cohesion. It is particularly important in diverse towns such as Dewsbury and Batley, where relationships between local people and the police must be built on familiarity, understanding and mutual respect.
My message today is clear: Government support for community policing must be at the level required to continue to reduce crime in every constituency across our country. By investing in visible neighbourhood policing, we can make our town centres safer, support local businesses, reduce crime, tackle antisocial behaviour and restore public confidence.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I want to spend my time talking about those individuals who make up our police force. Community policing is one of the foundations of effective policing in this country. It is about far more than preventing crime; it is about building trust, strengthening relationships and ensuring that every resident feels safe, supported and connected to those who serve.
Community policing works because it is rooted in local knowledge, and I should know—my dad was once a policeman. However, for too long that connection has been weakened. We need to restore the vital link between police forces and local people, ensuring that officers are visible and present in their neighbourhoods. We need to see police desks on our high streets, so that residents can report crime.
The coalition Government woefully underfunded the police, but Hampshire police has seen an extension to its funding that has meant we have increased our police tally to 114 officers from the 99 that we had. That investment has provided my constituency with named officers for all communities, and I have personally met all of our neighbourhood police. I have been on the beat, and I have worked with them in the community, hand in hand. PCs Smith, Joyce, Middleton, Wetherill, Treend and Goldfinch are the very best of what Portsmouth has, and I want to put on record my sincere thanks for the work they do every day to keep my city safe.
Yesterday, I was delighted to meet the Hampshire Police Federation in Parliament. The pressures that come with the job—the long hours, the difficult incidents and the emotional toll that policing can take—are some of the main things that we need to talk about. Suicide is a huge health issue in the police. We are rightly shocked and appalled when an officer is killed in the line of duty, but many more take their own lives and that is not treated with the same importance. We must ensure that mental health support is available, accessible and embedded throughout a police officer’s career.
Another thing I would like to draw attention to, which has seen a rise in my city, is the doxxing of police officers. It is not okay, and we need to stamp it out.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I remind Members that I need to call the Front Benchers at 5.10 pm; if Members are kind to one another, they may all get in.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this debate today. A fridge dumped in a field, a car taking a bend too fast or an unauthorised development on a local farm—all cause harm, but together they wear down residents’ sense of safety and community.
Those may seem like small countryside crimes, but they are often evidence of organised networks operating across our country. We know that organised groups dump waste where no one is watching, such as in rural Hampshire’s quiet fields, and that same isolation leaves villages vulnerable to illegal developments. In September, one was set up near South Warnborough, and although I visited the site and have been working with the council and the police ever since, it is clear that both organisations lack the enforcement powers to stop dumping, here or anywhere else.
Police are facing severe resource pressures, and that results in particular damage from hare coursing. Hare coursing means chasing and killing hares for entertainment and betting, and that betting is linked to international crime networks. Farmers are left with torn-up land and violent threats, and officers often cannot reach the fields in time. Hare coursers often use stolen vehicles and drive recklessly down country lanes. Dangerous driving is a serious problem across North East Hampshire. Tragically, eight people have died on roads in my constituency this year so far—more than double the national average.
This heartbreaking situation cannot continue. Unfortunately, Hampshire county council always responds to my letters to say, “This location is of low priority for investigation,” despite the fact that residents, councillors and I have raised the same issues again and again. The solution is clear: we need funds for road safety improvements, councils that will implement them and enough policing resource to prosecute dangerous drivers.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. For me, community policing is about whether people feel safe in their neighbourhoods, high streets or town centres. It is about public confidence that, when concerns are raised, there will be a visible police presence that knows the community and responds effectively. That is why long-term, consistent funding matters. Trust takes years to build and minutes to lose. Officers and PCSOs need the stability to develop relationships within communities and become familiar faces.
Community policing is also vital in supporting local businesses. Of course, this debate takes place just ahead of USDAW’s Respect for Shopworkers Week, and we all know that retail workers increasingly face abuse, threats and violence simply for doing their jobs. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 is crucial to ensure that the police have the powers they need to tackle low-level offending, and now we must ensure that the powers are matched by the resources and policing presence to enforce them.
I will conclude with the story of an incredible police constable, Jake Hart, who was chasing suspects down the road in Rhyl, when a young boy offered him his bicycle to complete the pursuit. That is not quite the high-tech crime-fighting equipment usually discussed here, but it is a wonderful example of community spirit. More importantly, it showed a young person who trusted the police enough to want to help. It is so important for that trust to be kept—it is invaluable, and it is worth investing in.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The Minister knows what I am going to say. Two years ago, I was here warning about the systematic underfunding of Cleveland police, and I have done so continually over the last couple of years. I am grateful to the Prime Minister for the time he made last week to discuss these matters, I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time on many occasions to discuss them, and I am grateful for the mutual aid that we have seen in our region since the tragic deaths of PC Tom Clough and PC Matthew Blades this summer.
The fact is that Cleveland police is one of the most overstretched forces in the country. Since 2010, it has been the hardest hit force in England in terms of cuts to police numbers, and Cleveland has one of the highest recorded crime rates in England and Wales. The chief constable, Victoria Fuller, has estimated that the force needs another 500 officers just to get to the national average. However, as Lauren Somerville, chair of the Police Federation in Cleveland, said when I met her earlier this week, Cleveland is a good force and its officers are proud of their work.
The new police performance system gave the force in Cleveland its highest rating of level 1 and the force in Cleveland has also been recognised as one of the most improved forces in England and Wales. The problem is not the hard-working, brave officers of Cleveland police; the fundamental problem is the police funding formula, which does not adequately reflect the scale of crime, deprivation and demand in Cleveland. I urge the Government to overhaul that formula at pace and to inject an emergency in-year funding increase so that we can tackle the challenges we have in our region.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this debate.
I am the proud daughter of a police officer, and one of the things my dad always instilled in me was the importance of community policing: people knowing who their local neighbourhood officer is, building a relationship with them, and seeing them out and about in their local streets. My constituents also share that view.
I am really pleased that as a result of the actions that this Labour Government have taken, there are now more neighbourhood police officers in my community and they are making a big difference. I say a big thank you in particular to Inspector Betsy Palmer, PC Joe Meritt, Sergeant Andy Murray and PCSO Fraser Sinclair, who I met recently and who do a brilliant job, day in, day out, to keep our communities safe. However, they told me that one thing they spend far too much of their time on is tackling the scourge of illegal bikes.
I am fed up, and my constituents are fed up with having to pull children out of the way in a park when a bike or a Sur-Ron zooms past them at 30mph, or having to slam on the brakes while driving down the street because someone in a balaclava is doing a wheelie in front of them It is simply not good enough. I was very grateful to the Minister for her recent correspondence with me on this issue and I am grateful to the Government for giving the police additional powers to seize and destroy those bikes, but we need to do more.
I ask the Minister—if she would not mind—to think again and to tell me today both how we can do more to regulate the sale of those bikes and close the loopholes that mean those Sur-Rons can be ridden by people gleefully around the streets of my constituency, and how we can support our local police to tackle this problem.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Community policing is fundamental to public confidence in our police service. When people know their local officers and PCSOs, see them on their streets and can raise concerns directly with them, communities feel safer and more confident that crime and antisocial behaviour will be tackled.
First, I thank the officers—and, importantly, the staff, who do not often enough get the recognition they deserve—in the Crewe local policing unit. I thank all the warranted officers, PCSOs and staff in the LPU for the work they do to keep our communities safe.
We have seen a welcome increase of four additional neighbourhood officers in the Crewe LPU, working across my constituency, which will go a long way to tackling some of the problems that we have. However, significant challenges remain; many of them have already been covered in this debate, including endemic antisocial behaviour, which too often is treated as low-level offending, but needs to be taken on and taken out at the roots.
In the brief time that I have left to speak, I also acknowledge the important work being undertaken by Cheshire police in relation to the investigation concerning allegations against members of the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light, and I just ask that consideration be given to urgent, unexpected and complex investigations that police sometimes have to respond to, and to the extra burden that those place on police forces. I welcome the fact that I have a meeting with the Minister next week to discuss that issue, but, if she could say something about it when she responds to the debate, that would also be really welcome.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown- Fuller) on securing this important debate. I pay tribute to my excellent policemen and women, who do a fantastic job in keeping us safe.
We Liberal Democrats have long called for a return to proper community policing, and the visible, trusted police presence that it provides for our constituents. During the previous Conservative Government’s programme of cuts, local community policing across our country was torn apart. We have heard from some Government Members who may need educating on the concept of a coalition in which the junior partner makes up 15% of the MPs, and so does not have total control over every Government policy. Since Labour came into government, more than 1,000 officers have been cut from our streets. I am sure that the hike in national insurance contributions has not helped that at all. My force, Devon and Cornwall, has faced a 50% cut to its recruitment budget.
The politicisation of the police service through the introduction of police and crime commissioners has done untold further damage to that trust. I was glad when, in November last year, the Government embraced a long-running Lib Dem campaign by announcing the scrapping of PCCs entirely. That will save the British taxpayer an estimated £100 million a year, £20 million of which can be funnelled into neighbourhood policing.
For rural areas such as my North Cornwall constituency, neighbourhood and community policing focus heavily on tackling the scourge of rural crime. I have prioritised the fight against rural crime on behalf of my constituents by introducing the Rural Crime (Strategy) Bill and consistently pushing the Government to develop a full strategy to address it countrywide. For many countryside communities up and down the country, thefts of farm machinery, tools and livestock can be devastating. At a time when family farms are being hammered by rising costs, a botched sustainable farming incentive payment system, a rise in inheritance tax, bluetongue outbreaks and a severe drought, the loss of just one all-terrain vehicle or expensive piece of farm machinery can set them back tens of thousands of pounds. Sadly, many of my farming constituents have told me that they have altogether lost confidence that such crimes will be dealt with seriously, so they no longer report them.
It is clear that many forces still lack specialists to deal specifically with these types of rural crimes. The Home Office is planning £365,000 of funding for the entire country’s rural crime units, which works out at around £8,500 pounds on average per police force. From my own work on the Home Affairs Committee, I have had the opportunity to quiz officials on police visibility in communities, and specifically on the effectiveness of reopening front desks. I was told by one police official from Buckinghamshire that the reopening of a police station in a town there saw a 19% overall reduction in crime, not just because people reported crimes more, but because it gave the local community a more visible police presence. I have been requesting that Launceston, in my constituency, has its police station’s front desk reopened, but Devon and Cornwall’s police and crime commissioner has refused time and again to do so. That refusal is especially disappointing when the cost is around £100,000 and the cost of suspended Devon and Cornwall police officers is currently around £1.3 million a year.
We have clear opportunity to bring back this policing visibility and confidence, yet the requests of the community are being ignored. One way to ensure that frontline officers are left to focus on the communities they serve is to prevent them from being pulled away for other types of crime that fester online. Our Liberal Democrat proposal is to establish an online crime agency, funded by £250 million per year—a levy on the big tech and AI firms that too often enable this online crime to take place. Our local officers would be freed up and sent back out to our towns and high streets, where they belong, combating thefts, shoplifting and the other types of local crime that hon. Members have mentioned.
Will the Minister commit to ensuring that every community across Britain has a police counter by using spaces such as libraries, shopping centres and town halls and reopening front desks where feasible, and to establishing an online crime agency so that deepfakes, revenge porn and other online crimes are tackled by specialists? Will she also ensure that the proposed police reorganisation does not further reduce community policing, and build on the NPCC rural and wildlife crime strategy, to tackle the scourge of rural crime?
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this important debate, and I thank all Members who have contributed. I pay tribute to the officers, PCSOs, special constables and police staff who serve our communities, including the teams at Cleveland police and Durham constabulary who serve the people of Stockton West.
Cleveland has the highest crime rate of any police force area in England and Wales and the highest homicide rate in the country, yet in the year to March, Cleveland police lost 17 officers. Our police and crime commissioner called out a £2.4 million shortfall and rightly pointed out that funding is based on population, not crime. If the Government’s commitment to community policing is to mean anything, it must mean having more officers, not fewer, in areas where crime is highest. The Minister will point to the neighbourhood policing guarantee, but moving police officers between roles is not the same as having more of them.
In March 2024, the previous Conservative Government left police numbers at the highest level on record.
Connor Naismith
I anticipated that the shadow Minister might want to have a knockabout on numbers. Does he not acknowledge that the previous Conservative Government were replacing the 20,000 police officers that they had cut, and that the police uplift programme created perverse incentives that meant that many of those replacement officers ended up behind desks? That is not where we want them to be, is it?
Matt Vickers
We could have a very long debate on that: we could talk about the economic damage done by and the public finance carnage under the previous Labour Government; we could talk about the tough choices that had to be made in 2010; and eventually, we would arrive at 2024, when there were 147,746 full-time equivalent police officers on the streets. His constituents and mine would have liked to see that number continue to go upwards, but it did not, did it? Today, there are nearly 1,900 fewer officers.
This year, the Government scrapped overall headcount targets, making funding conditional on neighbourhood numbers alone. If neighbourhood teams grow while the workforce shrinks, those officers have to come from somewhere, and too often, that is from response teams. Those are the officers who come when a resident—the woman whose ex-partner is hammering on the door or the family woken by someone breaking in—rings 999. Neighbourhood policing matters, but it cannot come at the expense of the officers who turn up in someone’s hour of need. That is why the Conservative party would recruit 10,000 extra officers, deploy hotspot patrolling in the 2,000 highest-crime neighbourhoods and roll out immediate justice, so that those who wreck a public space are seen to put it right.
The problem is getting worse. The crime survey for England and Wales shows that last year, 40.9% of people experienced or witnessed antisocial behaviour, which represents a statistically significant increase. Tackling antisocial behaviour is a pillar of the Government’s guarantee, but, by their own measure, things are moving in the wrong direction. I have three questions for the Minister. First, will the Government publish force-by-force figures for how many new neighbourhood police officers were moved from response roles? Secondly, will the changes mean that residents will wait longer for help when they ring 999?
Thirdly, on Cleveland, I welcome the Minister’s engagement with the leadership of our force, but warm words in meetings will not reassure my constituents, so will she explain why the force tackling the highest crime rate in the country has 17 fewer officers than it did a year ago? Will she commit to ensuring that by the end of this Parliament, Cleveland police will have more police officers than it does today? My constituents are not asking about 2024 or 2010. They are asking about the year ahead, and they deserve a straight answer. Our constituents judge policing by whether they see an officer on their street, whether their call is answered and whether the person who wrecked their neighbourhood faces consequences. By that test, there is much more to do. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing what is a very important debate on a very important topic.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd North (Gill German) said, community policing is about whether people feel safe. It is our first duty as parliamentarians to make sure that our constituents feel, and are, safe. Community policing is the frontline of that work, so I appreciate the opportunity to debate this topic.
I, too, express my sorrow at the homophobic, racist and xenophobic abuse described by the hon. Member for Chichester. Obviously, we are all very sorry for that and hope that justice will be done in those cases. I also join many Members who have thanked the police and police staff, who are often forgotten. We should talk about them more often. I want to add my thanks to all the police officers and staff who I have met and worked with.
We had some really good contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) asked whether the local council should pay for policing. The council in Harrow should do exactly what my hon. Friend tells them to do. That would be a very good starting point, and I definitely always recommend that.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about Northern Ireland, and as he knows I met the Chief Constable a couple of weeks ago. I was pleased to talk to him and he is obviously doing a very good job in very difficult circumstances.
To my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell), I say that I spoke to the deputy chief constable following the incident in Nottingham and the awful shooting of a police officer. I will keep in touch with them about what has happened and how that officer, as well how his team, are doing. They were all very affected by what has happened and I know that has been deeply worrying for people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) talked about doxxing of police, which we talked about earlier in the week and which is very worrying. We are very keen to hear from the Fed, or others, about what more we can do as the Government to help in that space.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) was right to talk about the things that he did. The Fed rep that he spoke to has done some really good work to make that case. He is right that, on lots of measures, the force is judged as being really good. I know the frustration and we have talked about it before. We are working on the funding imbalance that follows from that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) talked about e-bikes. They are a scourge. As she says, we have passed a law that means that the police have more powers to seize, which is good, but I am having conversations with hon. Members about what more we can do in that space. It is becoming very problematic. I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) today, who has been campaigning on that issue quite a lot, and we were talking about some of the struggles and some of the potential solutions.
Amanda Martin
There was a Westminster Hall debate this morning on e-scooters and e-bikes, and there were over 20 contributions from constituency MPs. The Minister is right to say that it is everywhere across the country.
Sarah Jones
Yes, it is a problem everywhere.
This week I have been to Hemel Hempstead, Southall and Newcastle-under-Lyme in a bit of an antisocial behaviour tour in advance of our respect orders coming into force on Monday. Everybody in those three areas, and everybody I speak to, is concerned. There are things that the Department for Transport needs to do and there are things that the Home Office needs to do. I am in the space of looking at what we can do from a policing point of view. I was interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough that their public spaces protection order has rules about the wearing of balaclavas as well. That is another debate that crosses into the e-bike one, as well as into other areas. That is an interesting innovation that they have introduced.
Jess Brown-Fuller
In my community in Selsey, which I spoke of earlier, Amazon was recommending cut-price balaclavas recently, which I think speaks to the problem. The Minister mentioned the seizing of e-bikes. It is brilliant that the police now have the power to seize; what they do not have is the power to catch the people on the e-bikes, especially the souped-up ones. A spray is being trialled that the police could use from a far distance, and it creates almost a fingerprint on an e-bike that is being used for antisocial behaviour. It is not being used in Sussex, but I know it is being used in police forces around Sussex. Would the Minister look at whether that is working well for those police forces and then encourage its roll-out in other areas?
Sarah Jones
We talked about this briefly in a meeting I was in earlier. We discussed what more we can do and the new technologies that can help us to follow some of these bikes and some of the individuals who are stealing them or using them in an illegal way. I am very interested in that. As the hon. Member said, there are already things being done in some parts of the country.
One big reason for our reform programme is that we have this frustration: if something is being done in some parts of the country, why is it not being done in others? We need more consistency, so that we have good practice everywhere. I want to point out the reforms we have introduced already as a Government. Some £2 billion extra has gone into policing, including to cover the cost of the national insurance rise, which was raised.
Ayoub Khan
Our police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, does tremendous community engagement work. However, he cannot do much reassurance because we have a £41 million funding gap and 1,000 fewer officers than in 2010. Can the Minister tell us what extra police will be given to West Midlands, and can the Government bridge that gap?
Sarah Jones
I reassure the hon. Member that, over the last two years, West Midlands police has had millions more in funding than it had the year before. This Government have given West Midlands police more money year on year since we came to power.
As every Member will know, I hope, we are prioritising a number of areas. The first is serious crime and knife crime. We have seen massive improvements in the area of knife crime, particularly knife murders, since we came to power. We are prioritising neighbourhood policing, and we have 4,000-odd extra neighbourhood police in our communities, which is beginning to make a difference. We have passed the Crime and Policing Act 2026, which among other things will introduce respect orders on Monday. That is a new power for police to use to go after persistent offenders in antisocial behaviour.
We are calling time on those people. In some circumstances, we know who they are, and we all know from our constituents the trouble that we have with them. When I was in Hemel Hempstead today, the police force had a list of 30 people who they are going to put in to the courts to get a respect order on, and they are hoping to go to court on Monday—on the first day that these orders are introduced. It is a powerful tool for the police to use, which I want to see used widely.
Deirdre Costigan
I thank the Minister for coming to Ealing Southall yesterday as part of the roll-out of respect orders. Does she agree that they will mean the police will be able to actually arrest people, rather than just move them on from one end of the town to the other?
Sarah Jones
I do. I very much enjoyed visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency.
I am aware of the short time I have left. I wanted to touch on all kinds of things—seasonality and rurality are two things that we are looking at in the review of the funding formula. In the reform of policing, we will set up a national police service for things such as organised and online crime, so that we will have a place where these things are done and the local police can focus on what they need to do.
New tech will mean less bureaucracy and more time out on our streets. We are working at pace to make sure we deliver the reforms that people want and expect, but I will come back to the starting point, which is that there is nothing more important than good community policing. It makes people feel safe, it makes people safe and it prevents crime, and this Government are committed to increasing, not diminishing, that resource.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank Members for contributing to this really important debate. I want to put on the record that we have a local community warden who is employed by Chichester district council. His name is Jimmy Upton. He used to be a police officer; he spent many years being a community police officer. When he retired, he decided that he could still make a fundamental difference to his community, and now he is a community warden doing exactly the thing that he actually went into policing to do: supporting communities. They really are the best of us, and I am very grateful to all of those who work in our police forces to keep us safe.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for community policing.
Written Statements
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Post Office Redress
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
The Horizon and Capture scandals caused profound harm to postmasters, many of whom suffered years of financial, personal and reputational damage through no fault of their own. The Government are determined to right these historic wrongs by completing their pledge to ensure that affected postmasters receive the redress they deserve.
When we came to office in 2024, we promised to ensure that postmasters would be compensated swiftly. We are doing so. Eighty-seven per cent of Horizon claims received have now been settled and we have paid over £1.7 billion to more than 14,000 claimants. Redress has now been agreed for nearly 90% of the group who worked with Sir Alan Bates to bring the original Horizon legal case.
Horizon Shortfall Scheme Fixed-sum Offer Appeals
In May, the Department announced that it would establish an independent process through which eligible postmasters who accepted the £75,000 Horizon shortfall scheme fixed-sum offer could seek permission to have their claim fully assessed through the Horizon shortfall scheme appeals process. I can now confirm that we expect to launch that process in November.
Claimants and their representatives will have four months from the date of launch—or from the date of receipt of their fixed-sum offer, whichever is later—to register for the process.
Claimants will be encouraged to seek funded legal support and are asked to provide a short, written narrative to explain why £75,000 undervalued their claim. That will be considered by an independent assessor who is independent of both the Government and the Post Office. Where permission to appeal is granted, the claim will be assessed in full through the Horizon shortfall scheme appeals process.
My Department has engaged extensively with the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, claimant representatives and postmaster organisations on the design and practical implementation of the process.
Further guidance, including details of how eligible postmasters can register, will be published when the process launches.
Shortfall Independent Review
In May 2026, Sir Gary Hickinbottom, the independent senior lawyer for the Horizon shortfall scheme, published his review of fixed-sum offer cases where there was no—or very limited—available evidence of a Horizon-related shortfall. He recommended that, where Post Office considers there is insufficient evidence to make a fixed-sum offer, that decision should be independently reviewed before a claim is rejected. The Government and Post Office accepted this recommendation in full.
In response, the shortfall independent review will commence in late October. Eligible cases will be referred to an assessor independent of both Post Office and Government. This means no claimant will be refused HSS redress based on Post Office’s decision alone. Eligible claims will have an independent review of their case before any final decision is made to reject a claim.
Family Members Scheme
In July, we opened registration for the Horizon family members redress scheme, which allows applicants to submit information that will support the assessment of their applications once claims processing begins early next year.
A further announcement with more detail on how the scheme will operate will be made in due course.
Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme and Capture Submission Deadlines
Having made significant progress in delivering redress to claimants, the Government are now providing greater certainty about the next phase of the Horizon convictions redress scheme and the Capture redress scheme. Establishing submission deadlines is an important milestone in these schemes, providing clarity on the path ahead, while ensuring eligible individuals have sufficient time and support to submit a claim.
Accordingly:
The HCRS will close to new submissions from 31 July 2027. This will be three years since the launch of the scheme.
The Capture redress scheme will close to new applications from 31 March 2027, approximately 18 months after the scheme opened.
These deadlines reflect the differing nature and complexity of the application processes under each scheme. Claims submitted before the deadlines will continue to be progressed to conclusion.
Pre-Horizon Investigation
The Government have made substantial progress in delivering redress to those affected by the Horizon and Capture scandals. However, we remain committed to ensuring that no stone is left unturned in understanding the full extent of issues that may have affected postmasters.
In line with the recommendation of the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee, we have begun the process of commissioning an independent investigation into accounting software that operated before Horizon. Consistent with our approach to the Capture software, an independent investigator will establish a fuller understanding of those software applications and their impact, providing Government with a robust evidence base to inform any future considerations.
We expect the investigation to report in spring 2027. I will keep the House updated as this work progresses.
Update on Restorative Justice and Next Steps
Financial redress is an essential part of addressing the harm caused by the Horizon and Capture scandals, but our response must go further. In April, the restorative justice programme moved from its pilot phase into full delivery and is available to postmasters and family members impacted by Horizon and Capture who wish to take part. It offers a voluntary, participant-led process, with careful preparation and independent practitioner support from the Restorative Justice Council throughout.
The first restorative meetings have now been completed and the programme is beginning to help repair the human harm that has been caused to postmasters and their families as a consequence of this terrible injustice, alongside the financial closure which we have already delivered for so many.
Today’s announcements mark an important milestone in the Government’s work to address the legacy of Horizon and Capture. While significant progress has been made, we remain steadfast in our commitment to ensuring that those affected receive the redress and support they deserve.
[HCWS397]
Antisemitism in Schools and Colleges
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Lucy Powell)
Today I am publishing the Government’s response to the independent review of antisemitism in schools and colleges in England, led by Sir David Bell.
Sir David’s review presents a stark and timely warning. It finds that antisemitism is a significant and growing problem in modern Britain, and that Jewish pupils, students and staff are increasingly experiencing its consequences. It concludes that antisemitism is a distinct form of racism that requires a clear and specific response, and that our schools and colleges have a critical role to play in challenging prejudice and preventing hatred from becoming normalised.
I am pleased to confirm that the Government have accepted all 27 of Sir David’s recommendations.
This represents a significant and long-term commitment to ensuring that every school and college is equipped to identify, challenge and prevent antisemitism. Jewish children, young people and staff should be able to learn and work in safety, free from prejudice, intimidation and discrimination. That must be a basic expectation in every education setting.
The Government’s response sets out our commitment to take forward measures to strengthen the education sector’s ability to tackle antisemitism. These include: encouraging schools and colleges to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism in schools and colleges; dedicated training for leaders and designated safeguarding leads; strengthened guidance, including on safeguarding, teachers’ standards and political impartiality; improved reporting and monitoring of antisemitic incidents; and enhanced support for schools and colleges dealing with complex cases.
The review and the Government’s response makes it clear that antisemitism is not an issue only for institutions serving Jewish communities; it is a challenge for the whole education system. Every school and college has a responsibility to recognise antisemitism, challenge it wherever it occurs and foster an inclusive environment.
Schools and colleges must be places where every child feels safe, respected and able to learn. Political expression must never become a vehicle for intimidation, discrimination or harassment, or prevent pupils from engaging with a balanced range of views. Schools must uphold their duties of political impartiality—they must not promote partisan political views, pupils must receive a balanced presentation of opposing viewpoints when political issues are raised, and staff members’ personal beliefs must never compromise a child’s education.
The Government’s response also makes it clear that criticism of the policies or actions of the Government of Israel is not, in itself, antisemitic. However, antisemitic tropes, conspiracy theories, collective blame of Jewish people, and hostility towards Jews must be recognised and challenged. Education professionals must be confident in understanding where legitimate political debate ends and antisemitism begins.
Implementation will now be our priority. Accepting the recommendations is only the beginning. Delivering lasting change requires sustained focus, accountability and partnership across the education sector.
I can therefore announce that the Government have established an implementation group, bringing together key stakeholders to drive delivery of the review’s recommendations, monitor progress and support effective implementation across schools and colleges.
To ensure that momentum is maintained, I have also asked Sir David Bell to undertake a one-year review of progress. This will provide an independent assessment of how effectively the recommendations are being implemented and identify where further action may be required.
Tackling antisemitism is a responsibility that must be taken seriously and acted upon by all. We will continue to assess progress, working closely with inspectorates and the wider sector, and we will keep under review whether further measures are necessary to ensure that the review’s recommendations are translated into meaningful and lasting change.
I am grateful to Sir David Bell for his thorough review and to all those who contributed evidence to it. The challenge he identifies is serious, but so too is the opportunity. By acting now, we can ensure that our schools and colleges remain places of learning, respect and safety for all, including our Jewish pupils, students and staff.
[HCWS400]
North Sea Oil and Gas
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Today the North Sea Transition Authority has granted consent for production at the Jackdaw field. This follows agreement from the Secretary of State to the grant of consent. The project will start to supply gas to British homes and businesses from this winter.
It is expected to increase domestic gas production by around 6% at its peak, supporting the UK’s gas supply over its lifespan of up to 11 years, protecting hundreds of jobs and estimated to add billions to the UK economy. This decision follows the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Finch case in 2024, which means North Sea operators are now required to consider the impact of burning the extracted oil and gas in environmental impact assessments. Jackdaw gasfield is already licensed and this decision now allows the developer to start production.
[HCWS396]
Cosmetic Regulations Consultation
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
This Government are determined to address long-standing concerns around the safety of cosmetic procedures.
Last year we pledged to introduce further regulation of the sector, and we have now launched a public consultation on much-needed safeguards to improve standards. Under our proposals, only qualified healthcare professionals will be able to perform the highest-risk procedures, such as the liquid Brazilian butt lift, and the Care Quality Commission will have powers to take enforcement action against rogue practitioners.
Cosmetic procedures can be very positive experiences, and this industry is growing to meet demand as more and more people seek to take advantage of the increasing availability and affordability of an expanding range of treatments. We recognise that many practitioners in this area are well trained and provide a good, safe service. We also value the contribution that this fast-growing industry makes to the economy, and the employment opportunities that it provides.
However, as has been widely acknowledged, regulation has not kept pace with this expansion. For too long, unsafe practices have been left unchecked, and ill-qualified, unscrupulous individuals have undertaken invasive procedures, at great risk to the public and sometimes with tragic consequences.
Our draft regulations, informed by extensive engagement with expert stakeholders, would restrict the performance of all cosmetic surgery to doctors who are regulated to strict standards set by the General Medical Council and who work for CQC-regulated providers. In addition, high-risk non-surgical cosmetic and wellbeing procedures would be restricted to specified groups of regulated healthcare professionals. To ensure the safety of young people, those under the age of 18 would be prohibited from receiving certain high-risk treatments when performed for cosmetic or wellbeing purposes.
These measures provide the public with reassurance that their chosen procedure meets robust regulatory standards.
This is part of a broader programme of reform in this area. We are also committed to introducing a local authority licensing scheme for lower-risk cosmetic procedures in the current Parliament, ensuring that practitioners are appropriately trained, insured, and working to safe standards.
[HCWS402]
Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing Negotiations
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr James Frith)
I would like to update the House regarding the ongoing negotiations of the Intergovernmental Working Group to secure an annexe to the World Health Organisation’s pandemic agreement on a new pathogen access and benefit sharing system.
This Government’s last update to the House was on 3 June —[Official Report, 3 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 103WS.], following the decision by the World Health Assembly to extend the deadline for the IGWG to submit the final outcome of the negotiations to the 80th WHA, to be held in May 2027 or, if necessary, earlier at a special session of the WHA in 2026. Since then, the IGWG has held two further rounds of negotiations: a seventh meeting from 6 to 17 July and an eighth meeting from 14 to 18 September.
The seventh and eighth meetings of the IGWG made progress in clarifying some of the key conceptual issues that remain to be resolved in the negotiations. However, differences remain across several complex and highly technical issues. Discussions focused on the modalities of access to PABS materials and sequence information, governance, and the scope of the system. Some progress was also made on defining pathogens with pandemic potential and identifying which pathogens will be subject to sharing through the PABS system.
As set out in our October 2025 update—[Official Report, 22 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 61WS.], the UK co-chaired the IGWG negotiations alongside Brazil from July 2025. The UK stepped back from this role in July 2026, and a new bureau co-chair is due to be elected in due course.
The next formal round of negotiations will take place from 2 to 13 November. The UK remains fully committed to working with member states to secure a PABS annexe that supports both UK and global public health and is firmly in the UK’s national interest, as well as the global interest.
[HCWS399]
State Threat Prevention and Investigation Measures: 20 June to 19 September 2026
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Section 55(1) of the National Security Act 2023 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of their STPIM powers under the Act during that period.
STPIMs were introduced through the 2023 Act and came into force on 20 December 2023. There have been no STPIM cases imposed to date.
[HCWS398]
Social Housing Bill: Commons Committee Stage Amendments
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Social Housing Bill will protect much-needed social housing stock, give affordable housing providers the clarity and confidence they need to build more social homes, and better protect tenants who are victims of domestic abuse by providing them with greater security and stability.
I have now tabled a group of Government amendments to further strengthen the Bill and advance its core objectives. Taken together, these amendments deliver on the commitments made during the Bill’s initial House of Lords stages and various announcements set out in my written ministerial statement of 12 October which is available at: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-10-12/hcws363
Protecting existing social housing stock
After years of marginalisation, this Government have emphatically and unashamedly asserted the necessity and the value of social rented homes. They are a crucial national asset to be proud of, to invest in, to protect and to maintain.
At the heart of the Bill are comprehensive reforms to the right-to-buy scheme designed to protect much-needed social housing stock and thereby incentivise the building of more social rented homes.
The Bill also introduces a new requirement for private registered providers of social housing to notify councils and other private providers in their area before disposing of a home, in order to maximise opportunities to retain homes within the social housing sector.
In response to points made by peers during the Bill’s initial House of Lords stages, I have tabled an amendment that will extend the period that must elapse between the notification being made and any sale being completed from four to eight weeks. This will maximise opportunities for councils and other private providers to buy and retain social rented homes.
I have also tabled an amendment that will require private registered providers to include in their disposals notice information on the type of rent the home was previously let at. This will give councils and other private providers the information they need to consider whether to purchase a property and retain it as a social rented home.
We have also acted to enable local authorities to better protect rural social housing. In recognition of the severe challenges of replacing social housing stock in rural communities, the Bill already exempts properties located in designated rural areas from the right-to-buy scheme.
The amendments tabled will empower councils to designate eligible rural areas themselves where these areas meet specified criteria, thereby reducing the bureaucracy associated with the current designation process.
We will set out in regulations the criteria for rural areas and the process for self-designation. The long-established criteria—that areas should have a population density of no more than two persons per hectare and a population of 3,000 or fewer—will remain in place.
Strengthening protections for tenants
No one should be forced to remain in an unsafe situation because they fear becoming homeless, yet last year about 15,000 households in England had to find a new social home as a result of domestic abuse.
Existing legislation provides scant protection for social housing tenants who are victims of domestic abuse and who wish to remain in their current home without their abuser. Landlords can evict perpetrators, but only in cases where the victim has already left. That means that, all too often, victims are forced to choose between staying in danger or losing their home.
To ensure that victims of domestic abuse can access safe and secure housing, the Bill provides for stronger legal mechanisms to remove a perpetrator from a social housing tenancy and enable victims to stay in their home or move to alternative accommodation as a sole tenant.
I have now tabled amendments to bolster the revised discretionary grounds for possession under the Bill’s new domestic abuse provisions. Where a relevant protective order—a domestic abuse protection order or non-molestation order—is already in place, its existence will be sufficient for the court to determine whether it is reasonable to make a possession order, rather than requiring it to have been breached. This change will help streamline and accelerate the possession process and give greater confidence to landlords and victims when seeking possession.
The Bill already includes a new mechanism to facilitate the transfer of a joint tenancy into the sole name of the victim, where a victim wants to remain in the home as a sole tenant, and it already contains powers to enable the courts to make an order to provide the victim with suitable alternative accommodation, where it is not appropriate for the victim to remain in a home and the landlord has this accommodation available.
The amendments tabled will ensure that where the court makes an order, either on the basis that the joint tenant victim remains in the home as sole tenant or that they are to be provided with suitable alternative accommodation, the perpetrator’s interest in the joint tenancy will be brought to an end.
The right to manage gives local authority tenants a statutory route to take on responsibility for managing housing services through a tenant management organisation. The Government response to the Grenfell Tower inquiry, published in 2025, committed to reviewing oversight arrangements for delegated management organisations, including TMOs.
In the light of the findings of that review, which we have published today at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-housing-right-to-manage-review I have now tabled amendments to modernise the current RTM framework for social housing, to make it easier for social housing residents to take control of their housing services, and to strengthen oversight and accountability, including the creation of a court-backed intervention route for use in exceptional cases—for example, where there is a serious governance failure, misconduct or a risk to residents’ safety.
Tackling homelessness
In the national plan to end homelessness, published in December 2025 and available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-national-plan-to-end-homelessness the Government committed to considering levers to require social housing landlords to rehouse statutory homeless households referred by councils, where joint working is not operating effectively. Having done so, we have decided to legislate for the introduction of a new statutory power.
I have now tabled an amendment that will enable local authorities to refer homeless households to PRPs, requiring providers to offer accommodation to that household, unless they have good reason not to. This measure is designed to strengthen co-operation between local authorities and PRPs, and to ensure that allocations are used effectively to prevent homelessness.
The Secretary of State will set out through regulations what constitutes a reasonable period for responding to a referral and the circumstances in which a PRP may be regarded as having a good reason not to offer accommodation. We will work closely with the sector to develop these regulations.
In the national plan to end homelessness, we also committed to legislate for a duty to collaborate, which will compel public services to work together to prevent homelessness and support those who are at crisis point. I have now tabled amendments to provide for this duty, which will build on and replace the existing duty to refer by requiring specified bodies to take proactive steps to identify households at risk of homelessness, to assess their needs, and to work together, including with other key stakeholders, taking co-ordinated action to prevent homelessness or address it sooner.
Finally, UK armed forces veterans should not be prevented from accessing homelessness support simply because of a lack of local connection. I have now tabled an amendment to allow us to specify the circumstances in which a local housing authority may not refer a case to another authority. We will use this power to ensure that where those who have served our country seek homelessness assistance from a local authority, they will not be referred elsewhere simply because they lack a local connection, thereby allowing them to seek support wherever they present.
[HCWS401]