House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
The sustainable farming incentive scheme that we inherited from the Conservatives was complicated and skewed towards the biggest farms. We have made it fairer and more focused, and this year we ran two application windows, received nearly 19,000 applications and allocated £310 million per year for the next three years. We will open SFI27 as early as we can, and we will work with farmers to see what we can do to change it, including considering alternatives to the first come, first served basis.
Martin Wrigley
Yesterday, we heard in this Chamber many of the shortcomings of this year’s SFI window 2. Just one week after it closed, I visited Ross and Ginny Thomson at Smallacombe farm in my Newton Abbot constituency and their successful herd of milking goats. They described the SFI process as a fiasco. With 40 days and 40 nights of rain, the driest summer on record, multiple heatwaves, plagues of midges spreading bluetongue and now severe drought and yellow warnings of our first named storm, what will the Government do to help Devon’s farmers adapt to the changing climate?
Dame Angela Eagle
Farmers are bearing the costs of extreme weather, which is why we are supporting them with an extra £65 million to tackle drought, protect crops and build resilience, alongside grants for new technology to boost productivity. For as many farms as possible to benefit from the SFI, we gave small farms a priority in window 1 this year and we have allocated £310 million per year—nearly £1 billion for the next three years—for the scheme. The Government will also invest up to £15 million to help farmers and growers build on-farm reservoirs.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Tomorrow, more than 50 farmers will join me in my constituency for the first ever farming conference, which I have been pleased to organise. We will no doubt discuss concerns related to this year’s SFI, which not only highlights that farmers want to do more to support the environment, but underlines concerns about financial resilience and profitability. Will my right hon. Friend talk more about what the Government are doing to help improve profitability for farmers in South West Norfolk and across the country?
Dame Angela Eagle
My hon. Friend does a great deal of outreach to the farming community and I commend him for it. We have launched the farming road map, which is the first 25-year plan for farming to give certainty and direction in a very long time. We have set up the Farming and Food Partnership Board, which is looking at how we can improve productivity and profitability, and working on horticulture and poultry growth plans. There will be more to come.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
After 18 months of dither and delay, and cuts to the farming budget, Labour’s shambolic SFI scheme closed within hours, leaving farmers unable to access funding to protect and restore nature. We now know, through freedom of information requests, that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs knew the scheme could collapse within hours, yet the Government pressed ahead regardless. Now, environmental charities, including the Rivers Trust, are warning that that will undermine nature recovery. Does the Secretary of State recognise that by failing the custodians of our countryside, she is failing nature too?
Dame Angela Eagle
I argue with the hon. Lady’s characterisation of the “collapse” of the scheme. We should not forget that SFI26 made nearly £1 billion of support available for the next three years for environmentally sustainable farming. We have 70,000 multi-year environment land management agreements in place, which are making sure that we support environmentally friendly farming. I would not characterise that as a collapse. I note that the Tories did not spend the whole farming budget when they were in government, they botched Brexit, which led to a 22% fall in trade, and they concluded an Australian trade deal that Tory Secretaries of State now admit has sold out British farmers.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
We have strengthened regulation and enforcement, driving record water company investment into waste water infrastructure to improve nearly 3,000 storm overflows across England and Wales. The strengthened Water Bill will go further in tackling sewage pollution from water companies, private sewage and catchment-wide pre-pipe and source-control conditions.
Dan Aldridge
A recent report by Surfers Against Sewage alleges that water companies across England failed to report more than 50,000 sewage spills within the legally required timeframe in just the first half of this year. Like many residents across Weston, Worle and the villages, I am deeply concerned about the impact of sewage pollution and will always urge the Government to go faster and harder to tackle the crisis. Will the Minister tell us what more the Government will do to hold water companies to account in coastal communities such as mine, so constituencies have confidence that our much-loved waterways and coastlines are protected?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is right to be angry about the failure of water companies to report sewage pollution on time. Our Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 will enact automatic penalties for companies that fail to report sewage pollution within four hours. As he will have seen from South West Water’s recent £8 million fine for sewage pollution incidents, this Government take enforcement seriously.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
We desperately need to reduce rainwater run-off into our sewage system to prevent storm overflows. In Bath, Wessex Water runs community water butt schemes and flood mitigation pilots, which prevent rainwater run-off from entering our sewers, ensuring they are not overwhelmed. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that more customers and householders can have access to water butts?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Lady raises one of my favourite things, which is talking about pre-pipe solutions: in a nutshell, how we prevent—[Interruption.] They are very exciting. They are about how we prevent water from entering the sewage system and overwhelming it in the first place. They link perfectly with nature-based solutions, help to ensure that our soils are wetter and help against drought. I agree with the hon. Lady that we need more of them, and that includes water companies providing water butts for more of their customers. That will help with the overwhelming of the sewage system and help customers to water their gardens when there is less rain.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Last year, there were 392,000 sewage spills across our country, 4,000 of which happened in the precious waters of Cumbria’s lakes and dales, and meanwhile companies rewarded their shareholders for that failure with increased dividends of £845 million. Isn’t it time instead to put failing water companies into administration? In the forthcoming water Bill—it would be good if the Minister could tell us when we might expect it—will the Minister bring forward a plan to create a new watchdog, with teeth, and transform our water companies into being mutually owned, so that money stops leaking out of the system and instead funds a clean-up of our waterways and water industry?
Emma Hardy
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that, since we came into power, we have been taking enforcement seriously. Fines just this year include a £7.1 million fine and a £2.4 million fine for illegal sewage pollution against Southern Water and a £7.87 million fine against South West Water—and I have not even included all the Ofwat enforcement undertakings and the fines included there. He will have heard what our Prime Minister said: we are strengthening our water Bill and will bring it forward soon. We are not taking options off the table, and we are serious about fixing the mess that we were left to deal with when we came into power.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
Waste crime is fuelled by serious organised crime, and it is blighting our communities. We are tackling it: since April, we have made 21 arrests and shut down 339 illegal waste sites. Police operations have triggered more than 30 criminal investigations, and we are strengthening enforcement and disrupting those who are profiting from waste crime.
Ashley Dalton
Illegal waste dumping at the Simonswood industrial estate in my constituency has long blighted the residents in West Lancashire and Kirkby. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) and I have worked together on tackling the Simonswood stink, and we welcomed the Environment Agency’s permit revocation earlier this year, but the mound remains, as do the odour and dust. What assurances can the Government give that Simonswood will be considered in the next phase of the illegal waste site clearance scheme?
Dame Angela Eagle
I know how tirelessly my hon. Friend and her neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, have campaigned on this issue. Waste crime blights local communities, and the Government are committed to tackling it. The Environment Agency continues to investigate activity at Simonswood, and the site will be considered for clearance alongside other illegal waste sites.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
Waste crime and fly-tipping are a blight on rural communities and, as the Secretary of State said, are increasingly linked to organised crime, so I commend Ministers for building on the work of the previous Government to increase penalties, tighten up restrictions on carriers and speed up the digital tracking of waste. Communities play their part, too, so will the Secretary of State join me in praising the work of the Wombles of Hambleton, whose volunteers do an excellent job of organising monthly litter picks, collecting hundreds of bags of rubbish and ensuring that North Yorkshire remains the most beautiful part of the country?
Dame Angela Eagle
As a Yorkshirewoman myself, I will not disagree about the beauty of Yorkshire, though it might get me into trouble. I am happy to join the right hon. Member in praising the Wombles of Hambleton. I need him to show me a photograph of them out doing this job next time we bump into each other. Many community-organised litter picks and clean-ups are going on in all our communities, including one at Seacombe in my own constituency a couple of weekends ago. Much litter is picked up, but we have a lot of work to do to persuade people to be more responsible by not dropping it in the first place.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)
The Government are in the final stages of negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU to make agrifood trade with our biggest market cheaper and easier by removing trade barriers for British producers. An SPS agreement could increase the volume of UK exports of major primary agricultural commodities to the EU by around 16%. A regulatory impact assessment will be prepared as part of the normal process. Details are subject to ongoing negotiations, and we will not be providing a running commentary.
Charlie Dewhirst
England has become a world leader in gene editing and precision breeding. That has increased crop yields and eradicated diseases, and it helps to protect domestic, and potentially global, food security. But much of this technology is banned in the European Union, and dynamic alignment will mean that we cannot use it. What representations has the Minister made to the Cabinet Office and to Ministers in negotiations with the European Union to ensure that gene editing and our world-leading technologies are protected?
Stephen Morgan
I am committed to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. Details of the agreement are subject to negotiation, and the EU-UK “Common Understanding” sets out the agreement, which will include a short list of exceptions. I can confirm that the UK has been clear about the importance of being able to support the use of new and innovative technologies.
John Cooper
CropLife UK warns that the heedless rush to align with the EU could cost British farming £810 million. That is £810 million off bottom lines, which are already very marginal. Further, it could also hit production in this country, so we cannot export what we are not even growing. What assessment is the Government making of CropLife UK’s report that says this EU alignment could be dangerous for farming?
Stephen Morgan
The CropLife UK report is clear that the numbers presented are a worst-case scenario. We are building a new pragmatic relationship with the EU, markedly different to what has gone before, which will bring clear benefits with closer alignment. Negotiations are in their final stages, and the Government will set out further details as they conclude.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
My Carlisle constituency is home to one of only two herds of European bison in the country. To expand the herd and maintain a healthy breeding population, they will require access to high-quality genetic material—I will leave that to the imagination. As part of the assessment of the SPS agreement, will the Minister ensure that the UK’s import regime supports the access that herd needs?
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend is a real champion of these issues, especially the innovation in that industry. We recognise the importance of access to high-quality genetic material for maintaining healthy breeding populations. Zoo technical arrangements facilitate trade in breeding animals and genetic material, but the details of future arrangements will depend on the outcome of the ongoing UK-EU SPS negotiations.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
The EU summit is to take place in just 28 days’ time, but the Farming Minister cannot answer key questions, not just from us but from our farming community. We still have no confirmation that the precision breeding Act—widely recognised as a huge success—will be 100% protected. We have no reassurance that our current freedom to innovate in gene editing and bovine TB vaccine development will be a red line, and we have no acknowledgment that the alignment with the EU on plant protection products could slash £810 million from farming incomes in the first year alone. What guarantees can the Farming Minister give our farmers right now that this Labour Government will not sell them out to the EU, just like they sold out our British fishermen last May when they previously negotiated with Brussels?
Stephen Morgan
The shadow Minister has some brass neck, given all the deals that his Government did and tried to get over the line, selling out our British farmers. DEFRA continues to work closely with industry. When negotiations conclude, we will be able to provide more definitive answers on the exact nature of any alignment. I cannot comment on the specifics of the agreement, but we have been clear that we will only pursue an SPS agreement that has British interests at its heart.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
Fly-tipping is unacceptable. It blights communities, harms the environment and imposes significant costs on taxpayers and businesses. Those responsible should be cleaning it up and paying for it. That is why we have strengthened the powers and penalties available to councils, to ensure that vandals face real consequences, and we are consulting on making them clean up their own mess.
Melanie Onn
I thank the Minister for that response. Fly-tipping is a real scourge for my Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes constituents. Whether it is in alleyways or local beauty spots, it is so disappointing, especially when so many members of the community are involved in doing community clean-ups. As the Minister said, the Government have done a huge amount of work, increasing fines to £5,000 and giving powers to scrap vehicles once they are seized, but those powers are only effective if they are used. Will she join me in urging my Reform-led North East Lincolnshire council to make greater use of these enforcement powers?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is right to raise that. Her constituents are, understandably, frustrated, and I share her confusion as to why her council does not want to use the powers it has been given to fine fly-tippers, seize their vans and prosecute them. I join her in urging her council to do the job it has been elected to do, and I hope her residents remember this lack of action when it comes to the next election.
Adam Thompson
Trafalgar Square—not the one down the road, but the much smaller one back home in Erewash—is a private road with a persistent fly-tipping problem. There are signs up that ask people to stop doing it. I have reported it loads of times to the council, and so do local people all the time, but if the piles of bulky waste in the area get cleared, they come back almost immediately, so today I am escalating this. Could the Minister elaborate on how the Government are working to get a grip on fly-tipping, particularly in hotspots like Trafalgar Square in Long Eaton?
Emma Hardy
I completely understand the frustration of my hon. Friend’s constituents at repeated fly-tipping on private roads. We are taking this seriously. We have increased the maximum fine for offenders to £5,000, and we are working on advising the owners of private land on land security through the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group. We are happy to give that advice to private landowners, but where we find out who is responsible, we will not hesitate in going after them.
Kevin Bonavia
Like many other MPs, I am often reporting the worst examples of fly-tipping to our local councils. My most recent case is on Marymead Drive, with boards and tarpaulin thrown under trees and walls graffitied. I expect that Stevenage borough council staff will be on to this as quickly as possible, but they should not have to do it in the first place. What assurances can the Minister give me and the House about the Government’s war on waste crime and whether it will extend to graffiti and reduce these instances of fly-tipping?
Emma Hardy
It is good to hear about a council being proactive and cleaning up some of this mess. I agree that graffiti and fly-tipping offences are unacceptable. Graffiti is a separate offence from fly-tipping, but local councils can issue fixed penalties of up to £500 for graffiti offences, and we are consulting on powers for councils to use conditional cautions, requiring offenders to clean up their mess and cover the clean-up costs, instead of simply walking away from the damage they cause.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
A constituent got in touch with me last week to point out that farmers are often the ones who are left to deal with fly-tipping, but I note in the Government’s response on Tuesday that insurance is one option that could be available. What progress is the Minister making in talking to insurance companies about making fly-tipping part of a routine farm policy that farmers could take out against this scourge?
Emma Hardy
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I absolutely sympathise with farmers, who, as he rightly highlighted, often see repeated dumping on their private land. As I mentioned, there is the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group. I meet insurers regularly—in fact, I met them all last week—and I will certainly raise the issue of how we can ensure that farmers get the support they need in having to deal with a problem that is simply not of their making.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Local authorities will be looking to the Environment Agency to set standards as far as enforcement action is concerned. Trevoole Moor in my constituency is the fifth largest illegal dump in the country, affecting a nature reserve, but the Environment Agency has decided not to take enforcement action. When I discussed this with the Environment Agency, it said that it deals with these matters on a case-by-case basis. Will the Minister ensure that the guidance the Environment Agency uses is published, so that we can properly understand where and why it makes these decisions?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. We have these illegal sites around the country; we are focusing heavily on the prevention side, before crimes are committed. We have already published the toughest ever waste crime action plan, given £45 million extra to the Environment Agency for frontline enforcement, granted new powers and expanded the joint unit for waste crime. We are going after prevention and are trying to clean up as many sites as possible, but fundamentally, we believe it is the polluter and not the taxpayer who should pay for the clean-up, and that is always the first route that we will pursue.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Waste crime and fly-tipping affect rural communities across Somerset. While I welcome the action that the Government are taking, does the Minister agree that the very substantial increases that we have seen in landfill tax enable rogue waste operators to undercut legitimate businesses? Does she accept that those substantial tax increases are fuelling waste crime, and will she join me in asking the Chancellor to cut those taxes?
Emma Hardy
The main problem that we have in the country is the serious organised crime behind some of these criminal activities, and that is exactly what we are going after through the new crackdown group, on which we are working with the National Crime Agency. We are escalating this issue and taking it extremely seriously because, as the hon. Gentleman said, we want to support legitimate businesses that are doing the right thing and get the criminals out of this industry.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)
The wine sector is a British success story and we want to grow it further. We are supporting innovation, ensuring that vineyards can access essential labour and helping British producers access new export markets through our global network of agrifood and drink attachés.
Sir John Whittingdale
Is the Minister aware that Essex is now a centre of English wine production, with producers such as Danbury Ridge, Missing Gate, New Hall, Crouch Valley and Crouch Ridge all producing in my constituency? A number of them also offer vineyard tours, which are an important source of revenue. Will he support WineGB’s campaign for a wine tourism relief, to reduce the excise duty on cellar-door sales?
Stephen Morgan
I was waiting for the invitation to visit those vineyards. Supporting trade and exports is a priority for this Government, which is why DEFRA supports the UK wine industry to succeed both at home and abroad. On the campaign that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, obviously, matters of duty relief are for the Treasury, but DEFRA recognises the growth potential of the wine tourism industry, including its contribution to rural jobs and rural communities.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
The Government are working hard to prepare communities for flooding this winter. Last week was Flood Action Week, and a wide range of information was communicated to citizens on how to protect themselves, their homes and their businesses. My personal favourite is the new Scout badge; if Members have children who are in the Scouts, they can now earn a badge saying “be prepared”, which I thought was brilliant. The communication targeted young adults, renters, householders, children, rural communities—quite frankly, everyone.
Adrian Ramsay
I thank the Minister for her reply. We have already seen unprecedented climate impacts this summer, and with the super El Niño on its way, we will see threats to global weather patterns, including a forecasted colder, wetter and stormier winter for the UK. How is she working across Government to ensure that preparedness for flooding risks this winter are stepped up, to keep our communities safe?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. We used to have the flood taskforce; just last week, we held the first meeting of the new flood and drought taskforce, which was attended by four Ministers—from DEFRA, the Cabinet Office, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the Department for Transport. The focus of that meeting absolutely was how we can be most prepared. I am determined that this year, because of El Niño and the concerns that the hon. Gentleman rightly raised, we will be more prepared than ever before. That is why we have done everything from targeting children and families, all the way through to looking at our transport system, resilience across Government and local resilience forums to see whether they are ready if the worst should happen. We are going out to every area and talking to Ministers across Government, so that they can contact the organisations for which they are responsible and ask them if they are prepared and ready. Although I cannot stop it raining, I want us to be as prepared as possible when it does rain.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
As hon. Members will remember, it is almost a year since devastating floods hit Monmouth, and parts of the town have flooded several times in the past few years. I spoke to a constituent yesterday who had been flooded in a previous flood. Such was the damage, they were not able to get back in their house for two years. Will the Minister look at upstream flood resilience measures, over the border in England, to reduce the risk of flooding to communities like mine?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I remember that flood. I commend her now, as I did then, on the compassionate, caring and supportive way in which she went out there to help her constituents, and I know how much the events affected her. She is right to talk about catchment-based flood management, looking upstream and using more nature-based solutions. I know the Environment Agency is working well with its Welsh counterparts to see what more can be done in this area.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)
Scotch whisky is a national treasure and I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that its protected status and production requirements remain unchanged following the registration of English whisky geographical indication.
Douglas McAllister
The Department has recently confirmed that English producers who do not comply with the English whisky GI can still call their products single malt, leading to the possibility of three single malts, with three differing production processes, being on the shelves as a result of that decision. How does that align with the Minister’s previous statement, asserting that the definition of single malt whisky will not be watered down?
Stephen Morgan
The English whisky GI has no effect on single malt Scotch whisky, which retains its own definition, as set out in the Scotch whisky product specification and Scotch Whisky Regulations 2009. Other whisky definitions, including Welsh, Irish and EU definitions, already co-exist with the Scotch whisky definition without affecting its protected status.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I hear the Minister saying that the decision had no impact, but in a written response to a question from a colleague recently, the Minister failed to clarify whether an impact assessment had been carried out. Will he confirm whether such an impact assessment was carried out and its impact on the Scotch whisky industry?
Stephen Morgan
We recognise that stakeholders may have different views, and legislation provides a process for objections and appeals. I understand that the Scotch Whisky Association has appealed to the first tier tribunal; the matter will be determined in due course. I say politely to the hon. Member that due process has been followed, and rigorous scrutiny processes have been adhered to.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
We have had a difficult summer, with a prolonged period without rain, which has put enormous stress on our landscapes. Our farms and natural resources are under increased pressure due to climate change. The Prime Minister has asked me to ensure that communities have more of a say in how water is managed, which is all the more important given the summer that we have had. The warnings are clear: if we are to be resilient when it comes to water and food security, we have to help farmers farm differently. Resilience is also about ensuring that the poorest in our communities can have access to good, nutritious food.
Callum Anderson
Farmers across north Buckinghamshire tell me that rising input costs and global pressures on grain prices are eroding their profit margins and their ability to produce food, so they welcome the Government’s food road map. Will my right hon. Friend explain how she is working with farmers to boost profitability, and might she consider a trip to north Buckinghamshire to hear from my farmers directly?
Dame Angela Eagle
I think my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), the Minister for water and flooding, visited last week, so my hon. Friend is obviously trying to get a brace. The Government are backing farm profitability through £11.8 billion for sustainable farming and food production; investment in productivity and innovation; and action to make supply chains fairer. We are also working to open up new trading opportunities. The farming road map sets out how Government will support farmers in cutting costs, accessing markets and building resilient businesses.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
The Conservative DEFRA team met more than 100 farmers in Berkshire this week, ahead of the Budget, to continue our two-year campaign against the family farm tax and the family business tax. One farmer told us:
“I’m sat with a ticking time bomb and it’s unsurvivable for me. I would have to sell the farm to pay the bill.”
That is despite the Government’s humiliating partial U-turn. With six days to go before the Budget, can the Secretary of State explain why this Labour Government are putting families through that?
Dame Angela Eagle
The issues around inheritance tax were dealt with by my predecessor. It was not a humiliating U-turn; it was the result of listening to what people were telling us. If the right hon. Lady wants change but describes a Government change as a humiliating U-turn, I am not quite sure whose side she is on.
Victoria Atkins
I can tell the Secretary of State now that I am not on the side of this Government. While Labour was complaining about black labradors and pubs at its party conference, the Conservatives were listening to rural business owners. They are being squeezed at every turn; the cost of energy, water, heating oil, petrol and diesel, as well as food prices, and the amount of red tape and taxes, are all up under this Government. The Secretary of State may have heard of two of them: Jeremy Clarkson and Cheerful Charlie—in fact, the Secretary of State has stood up Cheerful Charlie three times. They asked a question at our party conference that I hear in market towns and villages across the country under this Government: why would anyone start a business in this country right now?
Dame Angela Eagle
The right hon. Lady has some brass neck to stand up and say that. When she was in the Treasury, food inflation was at 19.1%. We know that some of the pressures on energy and power, which are in turn putting such pressure on everybody, across all aspects of our economy, are due to global instabilities and what is happening in the middle east. I met Cheerful Charlie, and he is a reasonable man. By the way, I did not stand him up three times; there were some holds in the diary that they put in. I spend my time listening to farming communities, and I will not take any lessons from the right hon. Lady.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We intend to lay the statutory instrument before Parliament by the end of this year, subject to availability of parliamentary time.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)
As a Member of Parliament who represents a coastal community, engaging with our fishing community is a priority of mine. That is why I have visited Cornwall and the south-west on a number of occasions. We are working with our fishing and seafood sector to secure a vibrant, profitable and sustainable future, and I continue to listen to the industry on its demands and concerns.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Emma Hardy
Our Prime Minister is committed to introducing public control of the water sector. Just last month, we announced that we will remove Thatcher’s outdated cap on Government ownership of water companies. Later this year, our 10-year plan for Britain will set out plans for stronger public control over the water sector, making it work for people and places again.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Stephen Morgan
The right hon. Member will have heard what I said about the value of the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, but more broadly, Seafish obviously has a role in promoting seafood around the world. It was a real pleasure to be in Paris earlier this week at one of the world’s largest food and drink expos, promoting British products, including oysters.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Emma Hardy
Many of our older constituents, including my mum, remember returning bottles to the recycling bank and receiving money for them; it made sense then, and it makes sense now. Significant progress has been made on the deposit return scheme, but there is still lots of work to do.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Both public and private sector organisations sometimes experience year-long delays in obtaining permits from the Environment Agency to undertake desilting and other critical watercourse flood prevention work. Will the Minister meet me to understand these issues and ensure resources are getting to where they are needed, to keep our homes and businesses safe?
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and will make sure that the relevant Environment Agency area director meets him to look at the concerns he has raised.
Dr Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Farmers in my constituency are concerned about the rising cost of fertiliser, which risks making them uncompetitive. On their behalf, can I ask the Minister whether she will engage with the Treasury to consider delaying the carbon border adjustment mechanism, and also do more to ensure we can develop domestic, low-carbon fertiliser?
Stephen Morgan
The Government recognise the pressures facing farmers and the food and farming sector. Fertiliser CBAM liabilities are expected to be below 1% of current prices, with impacts on farmers very limited. Over time, CBAM—alongside domestic farming policy—will support the transition towards more resilient, low-carbon supply chains while maintaining food production.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
Will the Minister meet me to discuss the legal opinion I co-commissioned, outlining the legal grounds for possibly putting Thames Water into special administration?
Dame Angela Eagle
There are many legal opinions on that issue. I am more than happy to ensure that the hon. Member gets a meeting, but lawyers have very many different opinions.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
Yesterday, I attended an event on fixing the sewage in Lake Windermere. Does the Minister agree that United Utilities needs to address the long-overdue flooding issues at Ulverston before it adds additional pressure to that area of the system?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is quite right that we need to start thinking about flooding and water management in a more holistic way. We are looking at early roll-out of regional planning systems, which means we will start to address the issues of water quality and of flooding and water scarcity in the same area. My hon. Friend is right to hold water companies to account for delivering on the commitments they have made.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
As the Government start redesigning the sustainable farming incentive, can I draw their attention to an initiative launched today by Aldi and ABP, “Grounded in Goodness”, which is paying a premium to their beef producers? It is only £4.5 million and one supermarket, so it is not a panacea, but it is a good start, rooted in the principles of simplicity, accessibility and food production. As the Secretary of State redesigns the SFI, would that not be a good model to follow?
Dame Angela Eagle
We did simplify the SFI this year, having inherited a scheme that had not only no budget control, but over 140 different actions. I am looking at this issue, and am more than happy to talk to the right hon. Gentleman about the principles he has outlined as we work to introduce a simpler, easier to use scheme in 2027.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I am deeply frustrated on behalf of my constituent Adele Riddle, whose Townend Farm is currently included in the Sheffield local plan. She wants it taken out, especially because an inspector’s recent report says that the land is of higher quality than the plan rates it. Given that the further main modifications consultation closes next week, does the Minister agree that the quality of agricultural land should always be taken into account when considering local plan site allocations?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The land use framework will help deliver faster, clearer and more co-ordinated decisions on housing and infrastructure, ensuring that our most productive farmland is safeguarded. As part of the implementation of that framework, we will complete a technical review of the agricultural land classification system by 2028.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
Thank you for squeezing me in, Mr Speaker.
On 7 September, Natural England submitted the legal orders for a 30.5% expansion of the Surrey Hills national landscape, which would transform biodiversity and nature protection in my area. The decision is now on the Secretary of State’s desk. When will she make that decision, and would she like to come to Surrey Hills to announce it and try out some of our fantastic local pubs?
Dame Angela Eagle
I presume that if I give the correct answer, the local pubs will be more welcoming than if I do not, but I am happy to be in touch with the right hon. Gentleman about how we proceed from here.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner is unable to be in her place today, so I am answering on her behalf.
The national Church institutions are in regular contact with the DCMS about the places of worship renewal fund’s operation, and are collecting feedback from parishes before the third round opens. I hope hon. Members will be reassured that the DCMS has committed to evaluating the scheme in response to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee inquiry on protecting the built environment.
Mrs Blundell
I am so proud to represent some wonderful churches across my constituency, from All Saints and Martyrs in Langley to St Luke’s in central Heywood, but many are in need of repair and renewal. Concerns have been raised with me about Historic England’s decision-making process for allocating the renewal fund and how some applicants in more deprived communities are going without the vital repairs that they need. What steps are being taken by the Church to ensure that a socioeconomic analysis of each application is done before future funding decisions are made?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is making a great job of representing her constituency and the churches and church communities in it. The fund, administered by Historic England, prioritises areas of double deprivation, which combine high socioeconomic deprivation with low levels of local community infrastructure or resources in rural and urban places. My hon. Friend and other colleagues may wish to write to the DCMS and Historic England if they have operational questions and feedback. The Church is also gathering experiences of clergy and parishes who have used the scheme, and this user experience is essential to understanding how the scheme may be improved by Historic England.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friends for their continued support for our historic churches on both sides of the border. As I noted in my previous answer, the Church remains in regular contact with DCMS regarding the operation of the places of worship renewal fund, and continues to relay the concerns and experiences of clergy and parishes.
Kevin Bonavia
I am delighted that St Andrew and St George in Stevenage, the largest parish church built in England since the second world war, has recently been awarded £882,255 as part of the places of worship renewal fund, which is helping the church undertake vital roof works. Will my right hon. Friend inform me of any other financial support that would benefit the church and others in my constituency?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am delighted to hear that St Andrew and St George was successful in its application, and I know that my hon. Friend has raised this matter before. I understand that the grant will enable the church to remain open for worship, and the community to use the facilities and museum for many years to come. I will ask that my hon. Friend is sent a copy of the Historic England advisory note, which contains details of other funding sources for any other parishes in his constituency that may not have been successful in receiving grant money.
Douglas McAllister
Can the Church Commissioners confirm with the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has flowed to the Scottish Government in Barnett consequentials as a result of the new places of worship renewal fund and, now that we are on the second round, how much is anticipated will be passed to Scotland over the four years to reflect the £92 million total allocation to the renewal fund in England?
Sir Alan Campbell
Hon. Members will remember that the current scheme applies only in England, as heritage policy is a devolved matter. The Church of England welcomes the decision of the Scottish Government to continue providing a VAT rebate scheme, which means that places of worship in Scotland benefit from support that is not available in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. The Government have confirmed twice in written answers —to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) on 9 March, and to the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on 12 March—that Barnett consequentials were not separately identified as a dedicated Budget line, but form part of the wider funding given to the Scottish Government.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the places of worship scheme is massively oversubscribed. If people can have VAT allowances against repairs to historic places of worship in Scotland, why can we not have them in England? Would that not be a much more direct way to help with the cost of repairs for historic churches, and will he ensure that such a provision is included in the Budget?
Sir Alan Campbell
As I have said, it is important that the scheme currently being operated is not only fit for purpose, but the best we can make it, which is why the DCMS is continuing to look at that. However, I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about VAT. That issue has been raised before, but it is a matter for the Chancellor and the hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see what is in the Budget. I am about to announce a number of days for debate on the Budget, so I am sure he will get an opportunity to raise the matter directly with the Chancellor.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
Southwell Minster, the cathedral of the diocese of Nottingham, is, in the words of the dean, facing the greatest financial crisis in its history, due to an enormous backlog of repairs. The dean and chapter are in touch with the Church Commissioners seeking an emergency financial support package, or else there is a very real prospect that the doors of the cathedral will have to close next year, which would obviously be a terrible step for all of us who love the building and see it as the centre of worship for our county. If the Leader of the House were able to put some gentle pressure on the Church Commissioners to help us, that would be very much appreciated.
Sir Alan Campbell
None of us would want to see the possible outcome that the right hon. Gentleman mentions, and I will certainly take that up with the Second Church Estates Commissioner to make sure not only that the Church has heard what he has said today, as I am sure it has, but that we do all we can to ensure that the outcome is the one his constituents want.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am happy to give my right hon. Friend a whiff, as we say in the valleys.
Parliament is taking action to reduce single-use plastics across our estate. This includes removing plastic bottles of water from sale, eliminating about 120,000 of them each year. We have also replaced plastic straws and cutlery with more sustainable alternatives, and increased the use of reusable and recyclable products. Parliament has also introduced a packaging sustainability policy for our procurement, which incentivises suppliers to reduce single-use plastics. We continue to look at further opportunities to reduce plastic consumption across our estate.
Jayne Kirkham
I thank my hon. Friend for that comprehensive answer. The town council of Falmouth in my constituency has adopted Plastic Free Falmouth’s plan to reduce single-use plastics across the town and at events in the town. I was therefore quite shocked when I came here and saw, for example, all the plastic cups in use across the estate. Will the Commission have a similar long-term plastic use reduction plan?
Nick Smith
As I have set out, Parliament has made significant progress in reducing single-use plastics across the estate. For example, to minimise the environmental impact, single-use plastic cups are now made from biodegradable material, and we do bags of stuff on composting. However, we are not complacent, and we will continue to identify further opportunities to reduce unnecessary plastic use. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this question, and I will ask officers to come back to us both on our plastic use reduction plan.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The Church of England educates more than 1 million children in 4,700 schools. Church schools are committed to nurturing the knowledge, skills, character and confidence of young people that are needed to flourish, helping them to discover their gifts, serve their communities and lead purposeful lives. These schools are rooted in a vision of a rounded education, which seeks to ensure that every learner, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, can aspire, achieve and access opportunities to reach their full potential.
Ms Minns
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and I put on record my thanks to all the Church of England schools in my constituency for their excellent work. The diocese of Carlisle’s northern young leaders project gives young adults the opportunity to spend a year developing leadership, ministry and workplace skills through placements in churches and community projects. What support might be available from the Church to help dioceses expand such programmes, so that more young people can gain the skills and experience needed for future employment?
Sir Alan Campbell
I first of all echo my hon. Friend’s thanks to everyone involved in the schools in her constituency. I would make that point about my own schools, but also Church schools across our country. As she mentioned, there are good examples in the Carlisle diocese of work to support young people, such as Trinity school, which supports pupils into further education and employment, helping to grow young people’s confidence and develop skills for the local labour market. It is important that our young people are supported as they look to enter the workforce. I encourage parishes and local churches to explore local opportunities to better provide that support for young people in their community. With permission, Mr Speaker, I will ask the Second Church Estates Commissioner to write to her about the northern young leaders project.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Leader of the House very much for that answer. In February, the General Synod voted in favour of further mental health training materials for Church schools and children’s groups. Providing young people with spiritual and emotional support can make a huge difference as they prepare to leave education and enter work. In my own constituency, Christian organisations such as Young Life provide weekly clubs for young people across the Ards peninsular, offering mentorship and opportunities to develop their confidence and leadership skills. What steps will the Church Commissioners take to ensure that mental health support is central to the Church’s work in equipping young people with the skills they need to transition from education to work?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point about mental health. It is very much in line with what the Government are trying to do to ensure that young people have the support they need. I thank his schools for showing leadership in that regard. There are, of course, many across the country that are doing that. I will ask the Second Church Estates Commissioner to get the hon. Gentleman an update on what is anticipated.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
Sir Alan Campbell
The national Church institutions have reviewed the duty to report in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 and consider that the Church’s existing policies and code of practice reporting expectations regarding safeguarding are compliant with the new duty. The Church will continue to keep its guidance under review as the new statutory duty is implemented. Since 2016, all Church officers have a mandatory requirement to promptly report safeguarding concerns, allegations and disclosures of abuse to the appropriate safeguarding authorities.
Sam Carling
I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. General Synod papers from June claim that “it is now clear” that the duty to report child sexual abuse in the Crime and Policing Act does not apply to religious confessionals. That comes despite many reassurances from the Home Office to me and the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) during the passage of the Act that confessionals would not be exempted. What discussions has the Church had with the Home Office to inform its current position?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He has spoken very powerfully, over a period of time since joining the House, on the importance of safeguarding and I thank him for that. It is the role of this Chamber to scrutinise the Church and I am sure that the Second Church Estates Commissioner welcomes his continued scrutiny of this aspect of the Church. We all need to continue to do better to address safeguarding. The protection of children and vulnerable adults remains the Church’s first priority. It is committed to preventing abuse and ensuring survivors are heard with compassion and care. He asks a question on a specific point about discussions between the Home Office and the Church. I am not across that, for fairly obvious reasons, but I will ensure that he gets an update from the Second Church Estates Commissioner, which I hope will answer the points he raises.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The Church’s lead safeguarding bishop has said that mandatory reporting should take precedence over confidences passed under the seal of confession, which is to be lauded. Confession is not a regulated activity, as defined under the Crime and Policing Act 2026, so does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Bishop of Tewkesbury when he says:
“the responsibility is firmly in our court”?
Can the right hon. Gentleman set out what steps the Church will take to ensure that that happens?
Sir Alan Campbell
In line with what I just said to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), if the hon. Lady—who speaks powerfully on those matters—puts what she is saying in writing to the Second Church Estates Commissioner, I am sure that she will take it up with the Church to ensure that that view is heard and her question is answered.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam)
The Local Government Boundary Commission paused boundary reviews in areas affected by local government reorganisation proposals in February of last year, so the Government’s recent review of those proposals has not had any immediate practical impact. The commission will return to those boundary reviews when the reorganisation proposals are resolved.
Blake Stephenson
The Government’s management of local government reorganisation must have cost the taxpayer millions of pounds. Can my right hon. and learned Friend advise, if not on the Floor of the House, in writing, whether there is also a financial cost to the Local Government Boundary Commission?
Sir Jeremy Wright
I will write to my hon. Friend if there is anything to add to what I am about to say, but as he will appreciate, the delay will have a practical impact because all those waiting for such a review will have to wait rather longer. The boundary review can only review proposals for change when a new authority is legally established, which has not yet happened.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
In October 2026, the Archbishops’ Council approved a detailed operating model for independent safeguarding structures in the Church of England, following seven months of development by the safeguarding structures reform programme.
Emma Lewell
It is now over three years since Professor Alexis Jay’s recommendations for a fully independent safeguarding system in the Church. I understand that the legislation to enact that is not due until 2028. Can my right hon. Friend say what can be done to accelerate that process, as any system that lacks full independence is not one that can claim it is adequately meeting its safeguarding requirements?
Sir Alan Campbell
As usual, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point on behalf of the community that she serves. Further details about the new model of safeguarding structures will be published shortly. The new model provides for the establishment of an independent safeguarding authority governed by a majority independent board of trustees with responsibility for safeguarding policy, risk assessment, audit, inspection and national casework operations. Implementation is under way, including the national roll-out of a complaints process and recruitment to the adjudicator role. The transition of functions to the new structures is expected to be substantially complete by 2027. I will ask the Second Church Estates Commissioner to write to my hon. Friend with more details.
Saudi Arabia: RAF Support
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
(Urgent Question:) To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of RAF Typhoon aircraft to defend Saudi Arabia, and the extension of air-to-air refuelling support for the Saudi air operations, including those against Houthi targets in Yemen.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House on the UK Government’s support for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as it responds to increased Houthi aggression in Saudia Arabia and Yemen. The whole House will have seen images of the attacks on civilian airports in Riyadh and the hundreds of casualties that those Houthi attacks have caused. The Government fully support the right of Saudi Arabia and the legitimate Government of the Republic of Yemen to defend themselves. However, we know that there is no long-term military solution to this conflict. The support we have announced is designed to help our partners at this critical moment while supporting efforts to create the conditions for political resolution to the conflict.
Although many of our constituents may feel that this is happening far away, we must be clear about the direct consequences for the United Kingdom. The Red sea and the Bab al-Mandab strait are among the world’s most important maritime trade routes, and continued instability increases costs for British families and businesses while also undermining security across the middle east. Helping that part of the world to be more secure and stable is firmly in the United Kingdom’s national security and economic interests.
As the House will know, we have already been providing Saudi Arabia with air defence support and air-to-air refuelling from defensive Saudi Arabia air operations, and the Prime Minister has now authorised additional military support. We are extending the provision of air-to-air refuelling to 90 days, and RAF Typhoon aircraft will conduct defensive counter-air operations from Saudi Arabia; these aircraft will operate in a defensive role, and will not conduct offensive strikes. We will also make an RAF A400M aircraft available to support the movement of matériel within Saudi Arabia in support of defence.
We remain deeply concerned by the humanitarian situation in Yemen and the suffering experienced by civilians. Alongside military support, we continue our diplomatic efforts, humanitarian assistance and work to encourage political negotiations.
Finally, all partners receiving UK assistance must comply fully with their obligations under international law. We will continue to monitor and assess this compliance as part of our ongoing engagement.
Tom Tugendhat
Thank you for granting this UQ, Mr Speaker. I am sorry that it was necessary, as there is a long-standing convention in this place that shadow Ministers—and, in fact, spokespeople from other parties—are briefed on a Privy Council basis in order to understand what is going on before there are military deployments overseas, but that seems to have fallen out of practice. Those of us—including my friend, the hon. and gallant Minister sitting across the Dispatch Box from me—who have served in uniform and have briefed members of the Opposition should remember that we may find ourselves on the opposite Benches in a few years’ time, and it is good to get back into these habits.
I will just say briefly why this is so important, and why I am asking this question and not my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), sitting beside me. This is a political decision and a political judgment. This is not purely a military deployment; it is a judgment on how to use the defensive arm of His Majesty’s Government and where it should go. It is a question that the Foreign Office is best placed to co-ordinate.
The reality is that what we are getting is a parcelled-off process, and not a strategy for success. Where is, for example, the action in the United Nations? Where are the sanctions on the Houthis, who should be designated as a terrorist group? Where are the co-ordinating actions with others in the region? We have the state visit of the Sultan of Oman—one of Britain’s most important regional partners—but where are the voices co-ordinating our actions around not just Yemen, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, but the whole of the Arabian peninsula in response to Iran’s hostility?
We have seen the regime in Tehran killing hundreds of thousands—perhaps even millions—of Sunni Muslims over the past half century since the poisonous creed of Khomeinism infected Tehran. This recent incident is not an isolated one; it is part of a pattern of violence. We have seen it pushing up energy prices in the United Kingdom, leaving us with our energy low and our storage short as winter approaches. Although the Jackdaw decision is the right one, it is a bit late, and it will not make a huge difference this winter, making Rosebank all the more urgent.
Let me just ask a few direct questions. First, what actions have the Minister or his Cabinet colleagues taken to co-ordinate actions with allies in the region? Secondly, what support has been given to the defence of Cyprus, given Iran’s proxy Hezbollah’s attack on our bases recently? Thirdly, what plans are there to designate the Houthis as a terrorist organisation? Fourthly, what actions are planned at the UN to call out Iranian aggression, alongside its Russian and Chinese neighbours? Fifthly—[Interruption.] Last one, Mr Speaker. Fifthly, will the Secretary of State commit to giving briefings before deployments? Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that despite his predecessor saying—
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Member had two minutes—he is now on three. I think the Minister will have grasped what the right hon. Member needs.
Mr Bailey
It is indeed a great privilege to respond to my friend, the right hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), especially today, the first day of remembrance. I know there are differences in when we think it is right to put on the poppy. I just acknowledge that, and I was selling them this morning. I am not making a political point; we both recognise that remembrance is important, and it is something that we both care about. It is important to set that out. Similarly, he has been a doughty champion for the people and the Government of Yemen. He has spoken about this matter many times. I have sat in the Chamber and listened to him, and I recognise that all the questions he is asking come from a good place. He is deeply impassioned and well informed on this matter.
With regard to the situation on which I am here to answer questions, the Prime Minister clearly set out the strategic parameters and the arrangements for any military operation. That should answer the preponderance of the questions that the right hon. Member asked at the beginning. When adjusting that military contribution, it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to do so in a written ministerial statement. I am grateful to be in front of the House today, wearing my Royal Air Force tie, speaking about the brave soldiers and service personnel who have deployed on our behalf to provide support to allies across the region. It is in our national interest to ensure that our allies in the region receive support when they ask. We have set out that support, of which we should be rightly proud.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Houthi aggression fans the flames in that region. Can the Minister tell us more about the diplomatic measures in hand to help with this crucial situation?
Mr Bailey
There are ongoing arrangements with our allies within the region. I am grateful to be joined by a Foreign Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). He has been engaging closely and actively with our allies in the region. Should my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney (Nick Smith) wish to receive additional detail, we can provide that in writing.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The spiralling conflict between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia is deeply concerning. Further escalation risks intensifying regional instability when the wider middle east is already facing the devastating consequences of the US, Israel and Iran wars. While defensive assistance from the RAF is the correct response to Houthi attacks, the Government must be clear about the limits of British involvement. Can the Minister inform the House of how long it is expected to continue? What safeguards are in place to prevent the UK becoming embroiled in a prolonged regional conflict?
Diplomatic efforts must remain the priority. Britain should be working alongside its allies and regional partners to reduce tensions and prevent this crisis from widening further. We must also protect vital shipping routes through the Bab al-Mandab strait, which is threatened by Houthi attacks. The disruption to the strait of Hormuz has shown us just how far reaching the consequences of threats to international shipping can be, affecting British households and businesses. What discussions are taking place with international partners to prepare for any future escalation and to ensure that freedom of navigation through the Bab al-Mandab strait is maintained?
Mr Bailey
I will try to keep it brief this time. Continued instability risks disrupting global trade and energy supplies for British families and businesses. I therefore reiterate that it is important that the UK continues to provide support to our allies. The written ministerial statement references an extension of the air-to-air refuelling capabilities out to 90 days, but we do not provide additional details that may put our soldiers and service personnel in harm’s way.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for confirming that the aircraft will operate in a defensive role and will not conduct any offensive strikes on the Houthis. Does he share my concern that regional instability and conflict in the Gulf could have serious implications at home, driving up the cost of living, disrupting energy supplies and increasing costs for businesses? With conflicts increasing around the world and our RAF Typhoon aircraft being sent across the globe, it would be remiss of me not to raise the calls of many Lancashire MPs, including me and you, Mr Speaker, who believe that we need to invest in that aircraft now and its supply line at BAE Systems in Lancashire and across the UK.
Mr Bailey
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for our brave soldiers and Royal Air Force aviators who are operating the Typhoons in the region. He is right to highlight the significant investment—half a billion pounds—in upgrades to the Typhoon aircraft that the Government agreed to earlier in the year. That is essential for ensuring that when our people are deployed in such circumstances, they have world-leading capabilities, which have been invested in by the Government.
Mr Speaker
I think you also meant a new order for aircraft, but we will put that to one side.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I say to the Minister—I do not mean this personally—that I do not know what has happened to the Government. When they deploy British servicemen and women abroad, they should make a statement to the House, no matter what time of the day or night it is. In 1999, when Prime Minister Tony Blair deployed RAF aircraft to Montenegro, I remember the then Deputy Prime Minister coming to the Dispatch Box at about 9 pm. He knew his responsibilities. The Government have failed on this quite explicitly.
Why are the Government misusing the word “defence” endlessly now, not wanting to talk about what they have to do? How do we defend against a ballistic missile once it is launched unless we attack the site that is launching it? This is nonsense. At the end of the day, we need to be honest with the British public. I am not against deployment to defend by offensive action, but surely that is more logical than pretending that personnel are there only to defend.
Mr Bailey
There was a multiplicity of questions within that question. First, on why a statement on the deployment was not made, I have made it clear that the strategic parameters were set out by the Prime Minister and that the deployment was laid out by the Secretary of State. I am pleased to be here to talk about the extension of an existing deployment; this is not anything new. With regards to the word “defence”, the right hon. Gentleman, my neighbouring MP, as a gallant person with a significant military background, will understand that a layered air defence system is exactly that, and defensive counter air is a capability. We are not conducting strikes and there is no capability to conduct strikes. We are not seeking to present that in any other way.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker. For what it is worth, I support the Government’s decision to deploy this defensive operation against the Houthis. The Minister will be aware that Britain’s former ambassador to Yemen has called for proscription of the Houthis, and I absolutely agree with him on that. That would allow us to criminalise fundraising and support for the Houthis and disrupt any operations on UK soil as well as freeze their assets. What conversations has he had with his counterparts in the Home Office about proscribing the Iranian-backed threat that is the Houthis?
Mr Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks and his concern for Yemen. It is important that we remember the reason for these measures is to seek a ceasefire and allow the United Nations to provide humanitarian support to the people in Yemen. We do not comment on future measures, but we are considering all options. I can offer my hon. Friend a meeting with the Minister of State in the FCDO, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty).
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I support the deployment of British forces in support of our Saudi Arabian allies, but, as has become clear, the distinction between “offensive” and “defensive” support is pretty fuzzy at best. Can the Minister say what assessment has been made of the possible increased threat to British nationals in the region, both civilian and military, and what is being done to meet that threat?
Mr Bailey
Advice to those British nationals in the region is issued by the FCDO, and I urge all those deployed within the region to pay attention to consular announcements. The terms “offensive” and “defensive” are very well-known doctrines of military operation, so when I use the language “defensive counter air”, that is entirely what is meant by it. Unless anyone wants to rewrite doctrine, which I would take great pleasure in contributing to, that remains what we have deployed and how we intend to deliver our military capabilities.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
My hon. and gallant Friend is right to set out the Government’s position in supporting our allies, because they are taking on terrorists. These terrorists are a threat not only to our allies in the region, but to ourselves. We have the Bab al-Mandab strait, where we have taken action before. I would like an assurance that we will do all it takes to work with our allies in the region to ensure that our national interests, not just those of our friends in the region, are protected going forward.
Mr Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and show of concern. We unequivocally condemn the Houthi attacks. We fully support the right of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the legitimate Government of Yemen to defend themselves and protect their territory and civilian populations. We cannot allow international shipping to be threatened or held to ransom. As my hon. Friend recognises, the instability in the region is disrupting trade routes and energy supplies and increasing costs to British families and businesses in the UK.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Houthis in Yemen were largely quiet for four years, but Yemen is one of those disastrous areas where humanitarian aid is desperately needed. Now that the Houthis have come out and attacked at the behest of Iran, what action are the Government taking to build a coalition of forces to defeat the Houthis—not contain them but actually defeat them—so that the threat that they pose to the region is minimised or eradicated? The reality is that Iran is ordering their position in order to disrupt the shipping lanes of the world.
Mr Bailey
I know that the hon. Gentleman has spoken on these matters with great passion and consistency during my time in the House. We urge the Houthis to return to a UN-led political pathway, and we will continue to work with regional allies. It is also important that we provide our allies with the support that allows them the space and capacity to engage in that activity and provide much-needed sanctuary for the Yemeni people.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
We are constantly reminded of the importance of plans and planning, so what specific political and diplomatic conditions would need to be met for the Government to withdraw this defensive support, and how will Parliament be kept informed on progress?
Mr Bailey
We insist that all the support from the UK is in accordance with international law and IHL—international humanitarian law. I have had the great privilege of working in the Department on the application of such processes in the past, so I can speak here with great comfort, knowing that we will ensure that those processes are met, and that our rules and values are upheld by our allies and partners.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
In April last year, the RAF joined the US’s Operation Rough Rider to degrade Houthi ballistic missile and drone attacks. At the time, I asked the then Secretary of State to ensure that that was sustained action, rather than ad hoc action. Does the Minister regret that it was not sustained? If defensive action does not include striking potential launch sites, how will it make any difference at all?
Mr Bailey
Providing defensive counter air to prevent attacks on airports and civilian structures is a fairly significant offering. That is essential to providing safety, support and sanctuary to the people who are working in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to support the Government of Yemen.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I support the decision to stand alongside our allies in Saudi Arabia, but additional deployment requires sufficient resourcing. Will the Minister confirm that despite the former Secretary of State, now the Chancellor, saying in his resignation letter that the Ministry of Defence needs 3% by 2030, the MOD spokesman’s comments yesterday state that that commitment will not be met by that date?
Mr Bailey
When we make such deployments, they are taken—[Interruption.] Well, the urgent question, and the reason I am here, is about our deployment in Yemen. In response to the question, the thing that the hon. Member needs to be assured of is that our military commanders are content that they can meet the deployment and the other tasks that we have set out for them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Government’s response and the support for Saudi Arabia. I understand that the operation is intended to provide defensive support only. I am reminded of the Red sea crisis from 2023 to 2025, when defensive action to protect UK shipping from Houthi attacks escalated into offensive strikes against Houthi targets. What assessment have the Government made of the risk that British forces may be directly targeted, causing further escalation and drawing the UK into a wider regional conflict?
Mr Bailey
I always love the opportunity to talk about my past service and commitment. As I said before, we do not discuss the assessments that are made, which could impact the safety and security of our military personnel. We know that our military commanders are comfortable with the deployment and their responsibility towards people. I thank those brave soldiers and service personnel who are deployed on our behalf in the region, delivering those missions and operations.
Tom Tugendhat
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance and advice on ensuring that the Government inform this House before military operations, and that they do not have to be dragged here with your indulgence for an urgent question when there is a clear need for this House to be able to debate the actions of His Majesty’s Government in order to support our forces? We all support our forces. I respect the Minister’s service and I am sure that he respects all those on the Opposition Benches as well.
Mr Speaker
I did not really want to be dragged into this, but obviously I am going to be. Previous Governments have stated that a convention has developed whereby, before troops are committed, the House of Commons should have an opportunity to debate the matter. Personally, I think that an oral ministerial statement on this would have been helpful, but ultimately it is a decision for the Government. I will leave it at that and do not want to be dragged any further.
Business of the House
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give the House the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 26 October will include:
Monday 26 October—Debate on a motion on the performance of Royal Mail, followed by general debate on the emerging risks of advanced AI. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 27 October—Second Reading of the Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill.
Wednesday 28 October—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement.
Thursday 29 October—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Friday 30 October—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 2 November includes:
Monday 2 November—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Tuesday 3 November—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
Wednesday 4 November—Remaining stages of the Sporting Events Bill [Lords].
The House will then rise for the November recess at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 4 November and return on Tuesday 10 November.
Jesse Norman
I thank the Leader of the House very much for that business. As the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and others said yesterday, in this week of the 60th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster, let us never forget its victims, including 116 children, and its terrible cost to their families and their community.
On a far happier note, the House will shortly come together in celebration of the Clerk on his retirement, but let me pay a personal tribute to Tom now for his unfailing genius, sense of service and courtesy to the House, and the assistance he has given us all as Members over 30 years. As a jobbing trumpeter, coming very much from the opposite end of the quality spectrum, I can testify that Tom is a superb jazz pianist. Like any great jazzer, he has a remarkable ability to improvise under pressure while never losing sight of the underlying material—as in the gig, so at the Table. That is no small achievement with 650 would-be Miles Davises all playing in different keys.
Jesse Norman
Some are more in tune than others, Mr Speaker. Among Tom’s heroes is Art Tatum, who was famous for taking a familiar tune and turning it into something almost unrecognisable. Tom has often performed the reverse feat with Members’ legislative amendments: taking something almost unrecognisable and turning it into something more familiar.
Mr Speaker, I hope that you and the Leader of the House will forgive another toot from me on my constituency trumpet. This week has seen the publication of a brilliantly positive new report by Policy Exchange on our new engineering university in Hereford, NMITE—the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering. Among other things, the report highlights that, thanks to the university’s accelerated degrees, it offers at least 20% better value for money for students than elsewhere. For local students, it is almost half the cost of an equivalent chartered engineering degree anywhere else.
The report goes further—I think this is a matter of general interest to the House—by identifying 57 suitable towns and cities across the UK, including Hartlepool, Grimsby, Barnsley, Burnley and Scunthorpe in the north alone, in which the model could be rolled out across the country. I would be delighted to discuss with colleagues how we could do so with any areas and constituencies that may be interested.
I end, if I may, on a more serious note. In May 2024, Lord Walney’s report, “Protecting our Democracy from Coercion”, made more than 40 recommendations to tackle political intimidation and disruptive extremism. More than two years into their term of office, this Government have yet to respond fully; indeed, Ministers abolished Lord Walney’s position last year. When they did so, they promised that his report would continue to shape the Government’s approach to political violence, yet they rejected key recommendations in passing the Crime and Policing Act 2026, including stronger powers to prevent particularly harmful marches. They did that despite very strong appeals from Jewish community groups facing the present rising tide of antisemitism—groups that are still more concerned, be it said, after the Green party’s appalling resolution that Zionism is racism.
The threat is clear, and I know that this is an issue of particular concern to you, Mr Speaker, on behalf of all of us. Ninety-six per cent of Members of Parliament responding to the Speaker’s Conference in 2025 reported harassment, intimidation or abuse. It is a matter of public record that, last September, arson destroyed the constituency office of one of our colleagues, and that another and their son received death threats. Peaceful protest is fundamental to democracy, of course, but so is the right of every person to live free from intimidation, and the right of every elected representative and their staff to be able to serve without intimidation, abuse or coercion.
Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to publish a full, recommendation-by-recommendation, response to Lord Walney’s report, and will he arrange a debate in Government time on that response so that the House can collectively scrutinise what the Government are doing and propose to do to meet these dreadful threats?
Sir Alan Campbell
First, I join the right hon. Gentleman and, as he says, the leaders of all parties in reflecting on the anniversary of the Aberfan disaster, which was 60 years ago yesterday. We remember the 116 children and the 28 adults who tragically lost their lives when Tip 7 collapsed on to Pantglas junior school and nearby homes, and we pay tribute to the incredible courage of the rescuers and the enduring resilience of the Aberfan community. I think it is fair to say, Mr Speaker—because you and I are contemporaries—that we are old enough to remember the disaster, and we have been fortunate enough to live 60 years of our lives that 116 of our contemporaries were unable to do. That is sobering, to say the least, but actually it is a tragedy. I want to put on the record that our thoughts are with the Aberfan community and families.
I also want to mention Andy King, the former Member of Parliament for Rugby and Kenilworth from 1997 to 2005, who sadly passed away this week. I am sure the whole House joins me in sending our condolences to his friends and family.
I am also sure that the whole House will join me in condemning the horrific attack on the Australian independent MP Dr Helen Haines, which took place outside her electoral office. My thoughts are with Dr Haines, her family and her team as she recovers from this appalling assault.
On lighter matters, I want to extend my congratulations and those of the House to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) on his recent marriage. I further extend my congratulations to the shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), who announced the birth of her son this week; we wish them well.
Today marks the start of the 2026 Royal British Legion poppy appeal, as thousands of volunteers gather across our country to distribute the red poppy. They raise funds for our brave service personnel, veterans and their families, and we thank them all for everything they do.
Turning to other matters, this summer was filled with record high temperatures, but as we are seeing, winter is now drawing in, and the changing climate will bring more severe and uncertain weather in the years to come. We need to ensure that we are fully prepared across the NHS and our transport system, and in relation to our energy security. I think it is fair to say—it is not a party political point; I think it is just true—that the UK has been a bit of an outlier in not looking sufficiently early at this issue right across Government, and I just want to reassure the House that we are putting that right.
We have taken a crucial step forward this week in protecting motorists from unfair enforcement and car sale scams with a new private parking code of practice, providing motorists with the right to challenge unfair private parking charges. This issue has been raised with me several times at business questions. Also, potholes are an issue frequently raised with me in this forum by Members. Data published today shows that more than 7,000 miles of road resurfacing has taken place this year—up 10% on last year, but clearly there is more to do.
On another theme—with your indulgence, Mr Speaker —I have also faced questions on matters of heritage and restoration. I want to mention my constituents Kevin and Alison Wilson, who have been involved in the successful restoration of Cullercoats Watch House, who join us in the Gallery today.
Let me turn to the points raised by the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). First, he mentioned the success of further and higher education in his constituency. I have said this before and am happy to repeat it: I absolutely commend him for his work, which has been recognised as an excellent model. As he says, I hope that other areas will look at it. The higher education sector is an engine of economic growth in his area and elsewhere, and providers play an essential role in training students not just for jobs now but for the future. I am sure he has spoken to them already, but if he wishes to speak to Ministers to discuss this matter further, I am happy to arrange that. I wanted to put that on the record, because he is right to raise it in the way that he does. This is not and should not be a party political matter. Those on the Government Benches can learn from the best experiences of those on the Opposition Benches, and that is very much in keeping with the practical approach that the Prime Minister wants to see across a number of policies.
The shadow Leader of the House raised another very important matter: security, and tackling and preparing us against terrorism. There is the Speaker’s Conference, which is crucial. There is also the defending democracy taskforce, which continues to look at these issues. I will raise the specific point he made about Lord Walney’s report with Ministers and see whether there is something the Home Secretary needs to update the House or, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman on.
Let me make it absolutely clear that we stand with all faiths, including and particularly those of the Jewish faith as they come under sustained attack. It is a sad fact that both antisemitism and Islamophobia have increased in recent months, and the Government are absolutely committed to tackling that. That means putting money into the physical protection of places of worship, but it also means making social cohesion a top priority. Finally, I will point out that Sir David Bell’s report this week on antisemitism and how schools need to do more is an excellent piece of work, and the Government intend to accept all 27 recommendations.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
At Russells Hall hospital, which serves my constituency, many patients, visitors and staff have reported receiving parking charge notices despite correctly registering and paying for their parking. The hospital car park is managed by Group Nexus, a private company, and those receiving fines include blue badge holders and even a priest who was administering last rites. Does the Leader of the House agree that Dudley group NHS foundation trust needs to investigate this urgently and ensure that the Government’s new private parking code is followed, so that my constituents are not unfairly penalised by private parking enforcement systems?
Sir Alan Campbell
As I said, the issue of parking has been raised with me many times in these sessions. NHS trusts are responsible for car parking charges and are expected to follow the NHS car parking guidance. As my hon. Friend rightly identifies, some hospitals do use private companies, and there is a new code of practice. I hope that her trust has heard her concerns today and that other trusts will look at this, to ensure that as the new code of practice comes in, they are fulfilling their obligations.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I join the Leader of the House in his reflection on the Aberfan disaster. Our thoughts are with all those affected and, indeed, the whole community.
It was deeply concerning to hear a US envoy last night describe Vladimir Putin as a “humanitarian”, as Russia continued to bomb Ukraine. I sincerely hope that the Government will move quickly to condemn those comments and will make time to progress the Russian Frozen Assets (Seizure and Aid to Ukraine) Bill, brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller).
Closer to home, the NHS Alliance sparked a row among health professionals this week when it said that up to 20 maternity units may have to close in England. The alliance made the case that the shortage of doctors and the increase in C-sections means that consolidation will be necessary to keep mothers and babies safe, but obstetricians and midwives are saying that having maternity services close to home is critical and that workforce issues must be addressed in a different way.
In my constituency of Carshalton and Wallington, the women’s health unit, including the maternity unit, is facing closure not due to clinical reasons but because of ageing pipework and issues with the water quality. That is particularly stinging for our local community because we have known about issues with the building for years, and the promise of a new building keeps being delayed. Can the Leader of the House organise for a debate on the future of maternity services in this country? I am aware that there is an Adjournment debate on this issue today, but that does not give MPs across the House an opportunity to explore this issue in full, so I hope he will make Government time to have this debate in full.
Sir Alan Campbell
I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand why I am not going to comment specifically on the comments that he referred to, but everyone will have heard what he thinks about them, and I am sure many will share his concern. The Government are doing everything that we can to assist the efforts to get peace in Ukraine, but—I put it on the record again—we are absolutely committed to supporting Ukraine, not just by sending equipment but by using every avenue that we can, as was evident when President Zelensky visited recently.
The hon. Gentleman is right that everyone deserves safe maternity care, and the Health Secretary has made the issue a personal priority. We need to make sure that services are there for women and families across the country when they need them. Through the national maternity and neonatal taskforce, the Government will deliver the reforms needed to maternity care. I know that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue before, it has been raised at Health questions and, as he says, there is a debate later today, but I will make sure that the Secretary of State hears his concerns and I will give thought to whether a debate on the Floor of the House is necessary.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
The grade II listed Old Courthouse in Cockermouth still lies half-collapsed in the River Cocker, with the owner yet to demonstrate either the means or the desire to lift a finger. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time so that Members can discuss the issue of neglected heritage buildings, which is of importance across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
This is an issue that a number of Members have raised from time to time, and I understand their concern and the concern of constituents where buildings blight local communities. That is why, in some areas, we are making sure that communities not only have the resources but are able to make decisions themselves about what to do with such buildings. I hope the owner of the building has heard what my hon. Friend has said today and gets on and does something about it. If my hon. Friend wishes to expand on the points that he wishes to raise, a Westminster Hall or Adjournment debate would give him ample opportunity.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business. Clearly, apart from Monday, Backbench business will be coming up in the Chamber only after we come back from the recess. If we are granted time on Thursday 12 November, we will have Select Committee statements from the Health and Social Care Committee and the Defence Committee, followed by a debate on the 110th anniversary of the battle of the Somme, followed by a debate on the Nolan principles, which many people have asked for.
In Westminster Hall on Tuesday 27 October, there will be a debate on recognising the production and serving of cask ale as intangible cultural heritage. On Thursday 29 October, there will be a debate on mandatory safeguarded 24/7 helipads at major trauma centres, followed by a debate on the role and effectiveness of Ofcom. On Tuesday 3 November, there will be a debate on the findings of the Milburn review. When we come back after the recess, on Tuesday 10 November, there will be a debate on antisocial behaviour. I remind Members that because the House will be sitting Monday hours on that day, that debate will start at 11.30 am and not 9.30 am as usual.
May I gently nudge the Leader of the House? We are still awaiting the extra Labour member of the Backbench Business Committee. One of the Government members is on long-term deployment in our forces, and another colleague had a terrible accident and therefore is on crutches and finds it difficult to get the meetings, so we have challenges making sure we are quorate to consider the business.
The situation in Nepal continues to be catastrophic. Often, when there is a disaster such as flooding, everyone says, “We must do something,” and then nothing else happens. I pay tribute to Benji and Nic Gould, two boys aged 11 and nine, who at the HarroWall climbing centre climbed the equivalent of going to Everest base camp and raised £3,500 for charity. I think we should congratulate them—I am sure the Leader of the House will join me in doing so—and also say that we need to continue to our work to assist the great people of Nepal.
Sir Alan Campbell
On the matter of the extra Labour Backbench Business Committee member, it is good that the hon. Gentleman has nudged me. I recommit to doing something about it. He will understand that we have just had a major reshuffle, so we are trying to fill a number of vacancies. We are making progress on that, but it is no excuse for not having the extra person on his Committee; it is just an explanation of where we were. I give him my word that I will go away and have a look at that.
I should have started by saying thank you to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee for their work. I will confirm the future business as soon as possible—I try to give as much forward notice as possible. I particularly note the possible debate on the battle of the Somme, which I understand is timely for many Members. My relative, Sergeant Matthew Brown of the Durham Light Infantry, fought and died in the battle of the Somme—oddly enough almost to the day on which the debate might well be scheduled. I am sure other Members from across the House will want to have an opportunity to reflect on that battle.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the situation in Nepal. We announced £5 million in humanitarian assistance to support immediate relief efforts, including helping those affected by the devastating floods. We are considering how our expertise in these matters can support Nepal’s longer-term recovery, reconstruction and resilience. I join him, and I am sure other Members, in congratulating the fantastic efforts of Benji and Nic. We thank them for their fundraising for that very good cause.
Samantha Dixon (Chester North and Neston) (Lab)
On Tuesday, I was pleased to join more than 150 people to celebrate the Chester One City plan, an ongoing project that has underpinned Chester’s redevelopment since 2012. In this Chamber, we often focus on the decline of our town centres and high streets, while exemplary work by local champions, such as Councillor Richard Beacham and officers at Cheshire West and Chester council, remains unnoticed. Will the Leader of the House advise how we can showcase excellence, like the Chester One City plan, in this place?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in commending the Chester One City plan and the work of all the councillors involved. Characteristically, she hides her light under a bushel, because she was a very distinguished leader of that local authority. I am sure that a lot of the work that she is now seeing may well have started under her fantastic leadership. If she wants to highlight this issue and to reflect on the importance of local councillors working for their communities, I would encourage her to apply for a Westminster Hall debate, because I am sure other hon. Members will want to reflect on similar issues and councillors in their own areas.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Mr Speaker, may I join the Leader of the House in his comments about Helen Haines, who is a close personal friend of our mutual friend, Speaker Milton Dick? I am in touch with Milton for progress on her condition, and our thoughts and prayers are with her and her family.
Mr Speaker, I know how important it is to you that Ministers are scrutinised properly by this House, so I am sure that you will join in my disappointment at learning that the Home Secretary’s diary office claim that there is not a single moment between now and Christmas when the Home Secretary can come in front of the Home Affairs Committee. If that is the case, then since her appointment in October 2025, she will have appeared only twice in the period up to the end of the year.
The Liaison Committee wrote to the Leader of the House about this matter and I know that he has responded to those comments, but will he use his good office to sit down with the Home Secretary’s diary secretary to see whether he can find a space for her to come and see the Home Affairs Committee? We will be very flexible—we can find a time and date that suits her—but we would really like to see her before Christmas, and I hope that the Leader of the House can help us facilitate that.
Sir Alan Campbell
The work of Select Committees is extremely important, as I have said on many occasions, and the scrutiny of Ministers is an essential part of that process. The right hon. Lady is an experienced Chair and represents her Committee extraordinarily well, but I know that the Home Secretary also takes her accountability to Parliament seriously. I am aware that she has appeared before the Home Affairs Committee before—the last date might have been on 15 September—but I have no doubt that she, her office and her diary secretary will want to look at a further date with the Committee in the not-too-distant-future.
Mr Speaker
As I have been slightly drawn into this, may I back up the Home Affairs Committee Chair’s comments to the Leader of the House? I think there must be a problem with the diary secretary because I cannot get a meeting either—I have requested one because I have responsibility for Members’ security—so I understand that frustration. I am sure that the message will have gone back to the Department, and I hope that we can find some dates that will accommodate the Chair of the Committee and hopefully the Speaker as well.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
At just 19 years old, Hannah in my constituency was diagnosed with a brain tumour and given 14 months to live, but she is now 23 and defying all the odds. She won the east midlands round of the Pride of Britain awards, which took place this week and airs on ITV1 and ITVX this evening. She has turned the most incredible adversity into positive action for other people by creating Hannah’s Hope, which is a sanctuary and a place for families going through similar struggles to have a bit of respite. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating Hannah and her incredible mum, Gail, in her new venture? H for Hope is about creating a community for teenagers going through similar experiences of cancer to come together.
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Hannah, not least on her Pride of Britain award. She is doing a fantastic job in what will be very difficult circumstances. For young people and their families, it is a daunting prospect to be diagnosed with something such as that—many Members across the House will know about that experience at first hand. I thank Hannah and wish her well in the future; it is absolutely right that we mention her and her fantastic work today.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
A Gazan student who is currently displaced in Egypt has been offered a place to study at the University of St Andrews and, following her acceptance, has been granted funding from several foundations. However, the Home Office has declined her student visa application on the basis that it does not believe that she is a genuine student. That effectively means that her place is lost, because the appeal process will take in excess of 12 months. We need an explanation for why the criteria for student visas seems to have changed without anybody being informed. What are the Government doing to remove the backlog in administrative reviews? Will the Leader of the House raise this case with the Home Secretary?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will certainly raise the matter with the Home Secretary. The hon. Lady will know that if there is a backlog, it is important that it is dealt with, but people will expect there to be robust procedures. I do not know what has happened in this case, but I will share it with the Home Secretary and get the hon. Lady an answer.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
May I thank the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House for their kind words highlighting the 60th anniversary of the Aberfan tragedy earlier this week?
I welcome the Government’s commitment to creating employment opportunities for young people through the youth jobs grant. In Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, we have already seen the benefits, with several local employers signing up. Will the Government please update us on the scheme? I am interested in looking at the eligibility criteria so that more young people across our country can get off to a good start in their working life.
Sir Alan Campbell
I echo my hon. Friend’s sentiment regarding the work that the Government are doing to tackle this matter. As he will know, the youth jobs grant forms a key part of our broader youth guarantee and is focused on helping young people taking their first step on the career ladder. I am very pleased to hear that businesses in his area are signing up, and I am sure that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will want to keep the House updated, not least given Alan Milburn’s work on this.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
A number of constituents recently contacted me about a pilot scheme to fit air filters in classrooms, which they tell me has shown considerable health benefits to pupils and students—it could also perhaps relieve school budgets of the cost of supply teachers. Will the Leader of the House find time either for a debate or for an Education Minister to come to the House to give the Government’s position?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important issue. Good ventilation is essential for healthy and productive learning environments, and the Department for Education has produced guidance on ventilation and air quality in education and childcare. I will ensure that the relevant Minister has heard his comments. If he wishes to hear from a Minister directly, he should perhaps seek an Adjournment debate so that he can discuss these matters further.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Reform-run East Sussex county council is responsible for unblocking drains and filling potholes, but too often nothing is done when residents report those issues. I have been shocked to discover that the same contractor, Balfour Beatty, is paid both to independently check the quality of pothole filling and to fill potholes. I was also shocked to discover today that the number of miles of road that East Sussex is resurfacing this year is down on last year, bucking the national trend, despite extra money from this Labour Government to sort those issues out. Does the Leader of the House agree that Reform-run East Sussex county council must get a grip, fill the potholes and unblock the drains?
Sir Alan Campbell
In short, yes, I do. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has run a very effective campaign on this issue. I note that Reform-led East Sussex county council has received £21 million from this Labour Government to fill potholes, which is a record amount. Put bluntly, we are doing our bit; it is time that the council matched that ambition. I hope my hon. Friend’s council has heard the concerns she has raised today, and that it gets on and fixes this issue without any further delay.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
On Monday, the Children’s Commissioner—a statutory role created by this House to protect children’s rights—launched a report that declared a state of emergency for children across England. I am disappointed that the Education Secretary has not come to the House to make a statement on that report. Will the Leader of the House ask the Education Secretary to do so, and also schedule Government time for a debate on the Children Commissioner’s recommendations, so that we can discuss them fully?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am aware of the Children’s Commissioner’s report; it is significant, and the Government believe that these matters are important and are doing everything we can to address some of them. The hon. Gentleman asks why there has not been a statement; there has been a great deal of demand for statements over the past 10 days, and it has been a question of prioritisation. However, I will raise this matter with the relevant Minister to see whether they need to come forward with a statement. Alternatively, the hon. Gentleman may want to call for a debate on the subject, either in Westminster Hall or an Adjournment debate at the end of the day, so that other colleagues can join him in putting questions to the Minister.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
A constituent of mine suffers from Turner syndrome, a rare genetic condition that affects only females and for which there is no cure. She has been relying on medication for over 40 years to manage her symptoms. She cannot get a medical exemption certificate because Turner syndrome is not on the medical exemption list; that list was established more than 60 years ago, and has not been meaningfully updated since 2009. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to review the list and consider adding Turner syndrome to it, not only on behalf of my constituent, but for around 15,000 women and girls in the United Kingdom living with Turner syndrome?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a champion for his constituents on this matter, but as he acknowledges, it pertains not just to his constituency; it is a much wider issue. I pay tribute to him for his hard work. The point he raises is important. I will make sure that the Health Secretary hears his representations, and that he gets a full response. Following that, if he wishes for a meeting with the relevant Health Minister, I will help him to arrange one.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Can we have an urgent debate on the crisis at Basildon hospital? It is rated inadequate by the Care Quality Commission, and it now appears that the CQC will prosecute the hospital early next year for the sad death of two patients from sepsis in 2022 and 2023. Just the other day, 20 ambulances were racked up in the car park outside the A&E department. To be clear, this is not the fault of the hard-pressed and increasingly demoralised staff; it is the fault of the wholly inadequate management of the hospital and, sadly, of the equally inadequate management of the trust of which it is part. We cannot let this situation deteriorate further. Can I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent debate, replied to by a Health Minister, so that we can address the problems at Basildon, and do our best to put them right for both the patients and the staff?
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important local matter, and he is right to do so. He is also right to express his opinion that something is happening locally, because as I listened to his question, I reflected on the fact that ambulance wait times are down, and admissions to A&E are up. However, that is cold comfort to people in the right hon. Gentleman’s local trust area facing the issues that he has outlined. An Adjournment debate, in which he can put questions directly to the relevant Minister and get answers, is one way forward; alternatively, if he wants to meet a Minister and make those points to them directly, I will help him to arrange a meeting.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
The Leader of the House knows how proud I am of Barrow and Furness. Since the election, this Government have announced, among other things, £7 million for our local health centres, £19 million for bus routes, £5 million for a brilliant futures fund, £4 million for our university, £20 million from the pride in place fund, and part of £175 million for one of five defence technical colleges, not to mention a £200 million transformation fund. However, we still hear Opposition parties that have no ambition for the area talking it down. Does the Leader of the House agree that we will ensure that all these incredible opportunities are used fully, and that Barrow is too important to fail?
Sir Alan Campbell
As we can hear, my hon. Friend is a staunch advocate for her constituency, and she is absolutely right to highlight the transformational investments that the Government are making in her communities and many others. Every penny of this funding should work hard for our constituents, and I absolutely agree with her that local leaders must use opportunities to their full potential. It is important that all parties locally, and indeed in this House, talk up the local communities where that work is being done.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
On Saturday afternoon, Bridlington Town FC will take on Curzon Ashton in the FA trophy first round proper—the first time the club has reached that stage of the competition in 22 years. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Brid all the very best on Saturday afternoon in the FA trophy, and can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of sports clubs and local communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
I have said before that sports clubs, local communities and volunteering are the heartbeat of our local communities. At the risk of offending supporters of the other team, I wish Bridlington Town the very best in the first round of the FA trophy. You never know, Mr Speaker: this may be one of those magical years when a non-league team manages to get to the FA cup final, which I will go to with the hon. Gentleman to watch Bridlington play against Sunderland.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Last Sunday, hundreds of people came together in Queen’s park in my constituency for Moira’s Run, which is run every year to mark the tragic murder of Moira Jones in the park in 2008. The event raised thousands of pounds for the victims of crime. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all those who took part, and in recognising the work of the Moira Fund and Victim Support Scotland?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly will. That is a fantastic way of marking what was a tragedy. The community has come together to raise resources and make sure that these matters are tackled. I pay tribute to every one of my hon. Friend’s constituents who had anything to do with this fantastic project.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
At Sulis Down, a housing development in my constituency, residents have moved in to find that planning obligations and landscaping have not been completed by the developer, the Vistry Group. Once people move into new estates, they have very little leverage over developers; in this case, Vistry is refusing to meet them. Will the Leader of the House help me secure a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss how residents of new developments can be given real power to challenge developers?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are very keen to make sure that house owners and people purchasing houses have the information and power that they need to hold developers to account. It is a piece of work that is central to what the Government are doing. I hope that the developer has heard the hon. Lady’s concerns and will put things right, but if she wishes to meet the Housing Minister, I can help her to arrange that.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Homeless mothers and children in my constituency have been housed in mould and rat-infested rooms at the Fairway motel in Rugeley. I have raised this matter with Cannock Chase district council many times. In March, I told it that a full environmental health investigation was needed, yet six months on, the exact same issues have been raised again. Will the Leader of the House join me in telling the council to get its act together, and could we have a debate on how we can ensure that all temporary accommodation is fit for human habitation?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises a very concerning matter. I urge the council to look into this as a matter of urgency, because everyone deserves to live in a decent home and have complaints responded to in a timely manner. This month, we have launched a consultation seeking views on extending Awaab’s law to include temporary accommodation, in order to protect tenants, and I wish that consultation well. I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for an Adjournment debate, so that he can speak to the Minister directly and further send the message to the council that it needs to get on with resolving this.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
This week in London, the British Argentine Chamber of Commerce is promoting investment opportunities in Argentina, at a time when companies linked to the Falklands Sea Lion project are being pursued by Argentina with sanctions and criminal proceedings. Could we urgently have a statement from the relevant Trade Minister on what the British Government are doing to protect legitimate British businesses operating in the Falkland Islands?
Sir Alan Campbell
On the wider issue, the Government are very clear that we stand four-square with the Falklands. Indeed, the Prime Minister raised that matter with President Trump when he met him recently. On that, there is a very clear position. I do not know about the matter involving those businesses, but I will raise it with ministerial colleagues; if the right hon. Gentleman wants to raise it with them directly, I will, if necessary, help him to arrange a meeting.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
On 24 September, Melissa Premaratne was on her way to school when she was run over by a private hire vehicle on a crossing. Her parents, family, friends and teachers at Highgate school are understandably devastated. I have had countless emails from parents who are very anxious about their children going to school, especially if they are travelling independently during rush hour. Could we have a debate in Government time about road safety for children going to school on their own, particularly in areas like Highgate, where there is a cluster of schools in one vicinity?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our most heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of the young girl, because what has happened is simply a tragedy. We are taking steps through our road safety strategy to make roads safer for everyone, including children around schools. I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets a response from a Minister about what we are doing and what we plan to do in the future. This is an issue that comes up for Members across the House from time to time, so I will give some thought to whether we can have such a debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Just to help everybody, I am aiming to finish this at 12 noon, because the business today is very important. It would be useful if Members helped each other. Shockat Adam will be a great example.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
This half-term, the children of Leicester South should be enjoying their local playgrounds, yet many are not fit for purpose. In the Highfields area, Sherrard Road play area has been closed for almost three years amid a ding-dong between the local council and Severn Trent Water, and many other areas are funding their local play area themselves. Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate on playground funding?
Sir Alan Campbell
Playgrounds are very important for local communities and children. It is important that children have somewhere safe to play, and it is distressing to hear about the state of the playgrounds in the hon. Gentleman’s area. It is very much for the local authority, whatever disputes it may have with the water authority or anybody else, to get on and improve that. This would probably be a useful topic for a Westminster Hall or Adjournment debate, because I am sure others in the House would want to air similar concerns.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
This weekend, the clocks go back, and overnight we will be plunged once again into darker and gloomier evenings, but there is another way: we could embrace our wartime predecessors. Winston Churchill set up a system whereby we had lighter evenings all year round. It would cut energy usage, and so cut bills, and would boost the tourism and hospitality sector. Would the Leader of the House consider granting a debate, in Government time, on a proposal that I think would really bring hope into every heart?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. She has done so before, and she is an avid campaigner on this matter. The Government still believe that the current daylight saving arrangements represent the optimal use of the available daylight across the United Kingdom, so we do not have plans to introduce double summer time or make any other such changes. However, I do understand and appreciate my hon. Friend’s desire to help farmers and tourists by turning the clocks back two hours, in contrast to some on the other side of the House, who want to turn the clocks back to 1979.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
One of the great sports in this place is who has the best constituency. Well, National Geographic magazine’s verdict is in and the only place in the UK to get a mention in its “Best Places in the World to Travel to in 2027” is Dumfries and Galloway. This news is absolutely delightful. VisitScotland has already picked up on it and promoted it on its website. Can the Leader of the House advise me on how I can get VisitBritain, which is financed from this place, to follow suit?
Sir Alan Campbell
I think we all claim to have the greatest constituency in the land, but I pay genuine tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency because it is a beautiful place. I hope that VisitBritain has heard what he has said today. Let me give it some thought. If he could let me have details of what he intends to do to heighten interest, I will see what we can do to get it to engage more.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
For 26 years, yipworld in Cumnock has provided vital support, guidance and opportunity to young people and families across east Ayrshire. Its success belongs to many people, including the fabulous Janice Hendry and her dedicated team of staff and volunteers who work so hard to make yipworld a welcoming and safe place. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the team at yipworld on being awarded both charity of the year and the community award at the Ayrshire chamber of commerce business awards?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Janice Hendry and everyone at yipworld on winning the charity of the year and community awards. I am sure they are well deserved and it is a considerable achievement. Charities are the golden thread that run through our communities and it is right that we celebrate their success in this place.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
I have dozens of cases of constituents who have waited months for responses from the Department for Work and Pensions, including Dionne who has spent 18 months being routinely ignored and sidelined by the Child Maintenance Service. Will the Leader of the House ask a Minister to come to the House to make a statement on what steps they are planning to take to improve response rates?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will certainly raise the hon. Lady’s concerns with the relevant Minister and make sure that she gets an update on improving the service, which, of course, the Government are committed to doing.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Law firms in my constituency have raised concerns about delays in the processing of complicated probate cases. Complex cases are experiencing delays of a minimum of 16 weeks, which is distressing for the families concerned and can have serious financial and emotional consequences, particularly where inheritance tax or property transactions are affected. Will the Leader of the House either secure a debate on this issue in Government time or raise it with a Justice Minister?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises a very important matter which will echo the concerns of families in many constituencies. Delays arise in particular where applications are incomplete or require further information, but to improve waiting times His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has invested in additional staff, in system and process improvements and in an upskilling programme, but I will undertake to give the Lord Chancellor sight of my hon. Friend’s words on this issue and see what more can be done.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I recently visited the Demelza hospice, which cares for children with life-limiting conditions and supports families across Bromley and elsewhere. It is simply extraordinary. Some 84% of its funding comes from charitable donations and it has been hit particularly hard, as have other hospices, by the Government’s changes to national insurance contributions, which will lead to the loss of specialist nursing provision. May we have a debate in Government time on the taxation and funding of hospices?
Sir Alan Campbell
First, let me join the hon. Gentleman in commending hospices across the country, which do a fantastic job. This issue has been raised previously in light of changes that took place at a previous Budget. I do not know what will be in the Budget next Wednesday, but it sounds to me like the sort of issue that he might want to raise directly in the four days of debate.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
If undiagnosed in young babies, metachromatic leukodystrophy becomes a cruel life-limiting disease, but there is no screening for the condition in the UK. Will the Leader of the House help me to request a meeting between the Minister responsible and patient representatives to discuss opportunities for making urgent progress in this area to prevent needless loss of life and the UK falling behind international comparators?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to raise that important matter, which I recall was also raised by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) last week. I committed then to facilitate a meeting with the relevant Minister, so I extend the same courtesy and offer to my hon. Friend.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Last week, Liberal Democrat-run Hertfordshire county council moved to become a county of sanctuary, essentially making it the council’s policy to welcome illegal asylum seekers. This is an out-of-touch policy that was not in the Liberal Democrat manifesto, and there has been no consultation with Hertfordshire residents. Will the Leader of the House offer some guidance on whether the Government think that such initiatives are an appropriate use of council resources?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will get an update for the hon. Gentleman on where we are with counties of sanctuary from the relevant Department. However, I think he is being a bit harsh, given the success story that counties of sanctuary—and, in my area, schools of sanctuary—can be. He is right to raise concerns if he is worried, but we need to treat the subject in a responsible way.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, and every Lancashire MP across the House for joining us in backing Blackpool’s bid to become city of culture for 2029. Thanks to the hard work of Lynn Williams, the leader of our council, as well as Scott Butterfield, council officers, Creative Blackpool and all businesses, we are now on the shortlist, and I am sure we are going to get the title. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking everyone who has been involved in the bid, and say that Blackpool is the best place for the city of culture in 2029?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Blackpool and all those involved on being shortlisted for the UK city of culture. I praise the fantastic work that my hon. Friend does to support the whole community in Blackpool and highlight what a fantastic place it is. City of culture is a great opportunity for our constituents to showcase pride in their cities, and I wish all the shortlisted cities the best of luck. I have to be careful and will not be tempted to pick one from the list. I congratulate all of them for having got that far, and I wish Blackpool well.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
A constituent of mine withdrew from a police investigation into historical sexual abuse because of fear of disclosing their identity. That was logged as “outcome 16”. Last year, Avon and Somerset police recorded nearly 39,000 cases of outcome 16, but we do not know the reasons why there was a withdrawal because the data is not held centrally. Is it not time that we debated how to improve the recording of outcome 16, to better understand why victims withdraw and help victims, like my constituent, get justice?
Sir Alan Campbell
There should be no barriers to people coming forward to report or continuing with complaints about what is an extraordinarily serious matter, which the hon. Member is right to raise. She might want to seek an Adjournment or Westminster Hall debate to hear directly from Ministers, because it is important that she is reassured that the matter is being dealt with properly.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Adam Bradley and James Bragg have opened the Forge youth centre in Dudley town centre, investing their own money, backed by the Government’s Pride in Place funding. That fantastic facility will help young people build skills, gain work and form lifelong relationships. Will the Leader of the House congratulate all involved and make time for a debate on youth provision in Dudley town centre?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating everyone involved in opening the Forge youth centre in Dudley, particularly Adam Bradley and James Bragg. Everyone will be pleased to see Pride in Place funding being used to support young people. It is a significant amount of resource, but just as important is the fact that local people are able to make those decisions. I am delighted that they have chosen to do so in this case, and I join my hon. Friend in congratulating everyone concerned.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Skipton Road in Ilkley is being dug up yet again—I think for the fourth time this year—by Yorkshire Water. The biggest frustration for many of those who pass by is that there is seemingly no one ever undertaking the works when the traffic lights are on red. Can we have a debate in Government time that puts pressure on the highways departments at local authorities, such as Bradford council, to ensure that they sign off the works with a proper plan in place to cause as little disruption as possible to visitors, residents and local businesses whose trade is impacted, and that when utility companies do undertake the works, they do so around the clock?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman sounds very exercised by this matter; so am I, I have to say, as I am sure are many Members across the House, not least those of us who were somewhat delayed this morning trying to cross Westminster bridge, where, again, the road is being dug up—for very good reason, I am sure. I think that an Adjournment debate is the way forward to allow the hon. Gentleman to make the local case that he is talking about, as well as a general point about what could be done across all roads, wherever they happen to be.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
I add my voice to the bid from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) for Blackpool to become city of culture, but we must not forget towns of culture. In that spirit, I take this opportunity to commend the teams behind the Southport Music Board and the Southport Creatives collective, both of which were formed after a series of roundtable discussions I held earlier this year. Southport’s arts and culture scene is thriving and, if 2027 is anything like this year, the future is bright. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the importance of arts and culture in order to properly recognise the contributions of our artists and creatives?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those behind the Southport Music Board and the Southport Creatives collective on their work, as well as everyone involved in making local arts events a success. The Government are very much committed to supporting local communities in this regard. I encourage him to apply for a Westminster Hall debate so that he can make his point in more detail for his constituents to hear, which would be a cause for greater pride in their fantastic community.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
My constituent is owed more than £29,000 in child maintenance arrears, which the Child Maintenance Service has decided to write off even though the ombudsman ruled that the money was owed. The service says that recovery is too difficult and that historical failures by its predecessor, the Child Support Agency, cannot be retrospectively reviewed. This affects children, directly and cumulatively, and indicates a lamentable lack of care and compassion for young people. Will the Leader of the House urge the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to undertake a full review and reform of the performance of the Child Maintenance Service so that this does not keep happening?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government recognise that parents’ experiences of the Child Maintenance Service do not meet the standards that should be expected. There are sometimes difficult issues to address, but the expected standards are simply not being met, and that is why we have committed to reforming the system. I will ensure that the relevant Minister has heard what the hon. Lady has said today.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Skin cancer is the UK’s most common cancer, yet it is preventable in around 90% of cases simply through the regular application of sunscreen. Given the importance of preventing skin cancer, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the VAT charged on sunscreen so that Members can consider the public health case for making lifesaving sunscreen more affordable?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises important matters, and I pay tribute to her for that. Prevention is an important part of tackling skin cancer. Sun cream is already VAT zero-rated when prescribed by a registered health professional, but I will ensure that the Chancellor hears her words. As I said at the beginning, there will be four days of debate on the Budget beginning next week, and my hon. Friend might want to raise these matters then.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The carer’s allowance scandal saw thousands of unpaid carers unfairly pursued for debts caused by system failures. Five months into the review process, only about 1% of cases have been reassessed. Will the Leader of the House allow time for a statement from the Government on accelerating reviews and compensation and ending the unfair earnings cliff edge?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government want to ensure that carers get the help and support that they need, and we are committed to doing something not just for carers but across the wider social care situation, because when we improve, reform and change social care, it will have the effect that the hon. Gentleman is seeking. I have heard what he has said, and I will draw it to the attention of the relevant Minister.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Across the country, 47,000 women had toxic Poly Implant Prosthèse breast implants put into them before they were banned in 2010 and the owner of the company was jailed. Will the Leader of the House make time for a discussion in Government time on the continuing ill health and chronic pain suffered by these women and the case for an inquiry, and will he update us on the application for a debate on medical misogyny, which was brought before the Backbench Business Committee in June?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner on this matter, and I pay tribute to her for that. Since PIP breast implants were withdrawn, two independent reviews have identified lessons learned, and the Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has strengthened post-market surveillance requirements. The Backbench Business Committee proposal that she raises is a matter for the Committee. I am sure that the Chair, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who is in his place today, will have heard what she said.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Russian atrocities against Ukraine are numerous and have been catalogued in this House. What is less well known is the persecution that continues without any respite. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on Russia’s continued persecution of Christian communities in Ukraine and the representations that the Government are making to urge the Russian authorities to end the intimidation and detention of religious leaders, to protect places of worship and to uphold freedom of religion or belief?
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue, and I pay tribute to him for that. The UK Government are committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all, and I am happy to reassert our steadfast support for the people of Ukraine. I will raise his specific concerns with the Foreign Secretary, but at the end of the day, the way we can resolve this for the Ukrainian people and the faith groups is to end this war. We can then ensure that Ukraine survives as a vibrant country and that Russia does not get any advantage from an illegal war.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
This week is the Good Things Foundation’s Get Online Week. Thousands across my constituency and millions across the country still struggle to get online, to stay online and to be safe online. Local community groups run by wonderful people, such as Ivi Paduim-Quan, are so often working on a shoestring to deliver digital skills to those most in need. Will the Leader of the House acknowledge the cross-Parliament and cross-Government responsibility for this problem and, if possible, provide time for more parliamentary debate to keep this topic a priority for the House and to get the resources to the places they need to be?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. It is good to raise awareness of Get Online Week. We are committed to tackling connectivity issues across the country. Some 88% of UK premises already have gigabit broadband, and we are committed to delivering full nationwide gigabit broadband connectivity by 2030. I understand the frustration of households and communities that cannot benefit from that. I will make sure that the relevant Minister hears his concerns.
Several hon. Members rose—
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
It is a tough time for motorists, which is why it is particularly galling that tonight Hillingdon council will meet to decide whether to increase parking charges by more than 70%. It is the second rise in just a year. Does the Leader of the House agree that that is bad for motorists and for businesses? Can we have a debate in this House to discuss what more we can all do to support motorists at this difficult time?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend, as ever, raises an important matter. As I set out at the beginning of these business questions, parking is an issue that matters to our constituents. It is disappointing, frankly, to hear of discussions and decisions that may well be taken or confirmed by his Conservative-run council. It is a matter for local authorities, but my hon. Friend has put his concerns on behalf of his residents on the record today, and I hope that Hillingdon council will have heard him loud and clear.
Mr Speaker
Order. The names of those Members who did not get in have been taken for next week, when I expect to prioritise them.
Retirement of the Clerk of the House
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I invite the Leader of the House to move the motion of congratulations to Tom Goldsmith, I would like to record my own brief tribute.
Having joined the House in 1996, Tom has now served this place for 30 years. He has been a distinguished and authoritative presence at the Table over the past decade, including as Clerk of the House for the last three years, a role that has been the culmination of an illustrious career in the service of this House.
Members may not know this, but Tom is from a proud east end family and was the first in his family to go to university. Throughout his career, he retained his connection with those roots, welcoming children from his former state school regularly to Parliament. On his appointment, he notably became the youngest Clerk of the House since John Hatsell in the 18th century.
Tom joined the House as an assistant Clerk via the civil service fast stream. In the years that followed, he held numerous roles across Select Committees and procedural offices, supporting the work of the Chamber. Tom has also been secretary to the House of Commons Commission and was the first head of governance in the Office of Governance. Those roles no doubt gave him a valuable insight into the way in which an at times unorthodox organisation runs; thankfully, that did not put him off applying for the role of Clerk of the House in the years that followed.
In fact, Tom hit the ground running as Clerk of the House, leading the House through the 2024 general election, with the largest turnover of MPs in living memory, prioritising safety on the estate and working alongside the director general to champion the bicameral procurement function and develop a more efficient model for the management of our estate.
On a more personal note, it was immediately before Tom’s appointment as Clerk of the House when he led the Table Office that I first had the privilege of working closely alongside him. Prior to that, he had led the Committee Office and driven the setting up of the groundbreaking hybrid and virtual Committees during the covid pandemic.
Tom has the procedural expertise, political nous and authority that are essential for a successful Clerk. He combines them with an exceptionally clear style of communication, which I value greatly. I am not the only one who has benefited from that: he has put those skills to good use as co-author of the most widely used popular textbook about Parliament, “How Parliament Works”.
I will always be grateful for the clear and authoritative advice Tom has provided, even on those rare occasions when we have disagreed with one another.
Mr Speaker
Absolutely—he said he learned about that in his Foreign Affairs Committee job. [Laughter.]
It is not just parliamentary procedure that keeps Tom busy in this place. He has also generously shared his talent for playing jazz piano at many an event in Parliament over the years, including in the Speaker’s House, which I will sorely miss.
I know that the House will join me in thanking Tom for contributing 30 years of outstanding public service. I wish him well and the very best in his future endeavours, as Tom goes on to write books about jazz. He is available to play, and—who knows?—this could be his new life: Tom now sings the blues.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
I beg to move,
That Mr Speaker be requested to convey to Mr Thomas Goldsmith, on his retirement from the office of Clerk of the House, this House’s gratitude for his long and distinguished service, for his wise contribution to the development of the procedure of the House, for his continuing focus on the interests of the House as a whole and of Members individually, his professionalism and courageous and inclusive leadership in the discharge of his duties as head of the House Administration, and for the courteous and helpful advice always given to individual honourable Members.
It is a pleasure to move the motion to give the House the opportunity to pay tribute to Tom Goldsmith, who leaves the House at the end of this month after, as you said, Mr Speaker, 30 years of outstanding service to this place. He has held a large variety of posts. He has been a Clerk to a number of the busiest and most high-profile Select Committees, including the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Justice Committee and the Energy and Climate Change Committee. He has also worked in a number of procedural roles including Clerk of Committees and Principal Clerk of the Table Office as well as stints in the Public Bill Office and the Table Office earlier in his career.
Tom has been committed to making the House and the services that support all of us work. That has been a common focus of his roles, including as Clerk of the Administration Committee, heading up what was then the Office of the Chief Executive, as Secretary to the House of Commons Commission and Head of the Governance Office, and, over the last few years, as Clerk of the House. I have seen some of his work at first hand as Chair of the Modernisation Committee; Tom has demonstrated a great commitment to improving the accessibility of this place for all its Members, staff and visitors.
As you said, Mr Speaker, Tom was head of the Committee Office during the pandemic and led the successful work to quickly set up hybrid and virtual Committees, enabling Select Committees to continue performing their critical roles on behalf of this House. We remember those days as very difficult, but looking back I think that that is an understatement. Having people like Tom in charge of making the necessary changes meant that this place could continue to function.
Tom was appointed the 52nd Clerk of the House of Commons in March 2023, taking over the role in October from Sir John Benger. In his three years as Clerk of the House, he has been a public servant of the highest calibre. Whether for Members in government or opposition, on the Front Benches or the Back Benches, he is a source of wisdom and invaluable assistance and has always, always put the interests of this House first—even, as you said, Mr Speaker, at the expense of not always agreeing with those who proposed a different view.
Tom has seen an extraordinary amount of change during his tenure. Following the 2024 general election, we sit in a Chamber where over half of all MPs have less than five years of parliamentary experience. That required Tom to lead the House service through its largest induction programme for new Members. For so many newer Members, and, indeed, for those of us who have been here a little longer, Tom’s calm and courteous approach has been deeply reassuring. I know that Members right across the House will have greatly valued his guidance when navigating the complexities of our procedures and traditions. On a personal level, I have very much valued his advice and guidance, whether in opposition or since getting into government.
The grandeur of the role has not changed Tom. As you said, Mr Speaker, as a young man he grew up in the east end and was the first in his family to go to university. He has opened up opportunities and access to this place. He introduced a system of direct recruitment for Clerks, which ensured that they are a more diverse and representative group. He regularly welcomes schoolchildren to Parliament, including from his secondary school Ilford County high school.
Beyond his work in the Chamber, Tom is widely respected as the co-author of the eighth and ninth editions of “How Parliament Works”, which has done so much to demystify this House and help make it a more accessible place to the wider world. Outside Parliament, he is an accomplished jazz pianist. In my exchanges at business questions I have been forced to admit my enjoyment of musical theatre and country and western. I have to admit, however, that my music taste does not quite stretch to jazz. Nevertheless, he is an accomplished jazz pianist. As the shadow Leader of the House said earlier, it is fitting that he is so well practised at improvisation; it has meant that he has been so successful in keeping the business of this House running smoothly.
From November, Tom will take up an appointment as a commissioner as part of the Civil Service Commission. He will undoubtedly bring a huge amount of skill and expertise to helping to maintain a civil service appointed on merit with the skills that it needs to deliver public services across our country. On behalf of the Government, I wish Tom all the very best for the next chapter in his life, and I wish his successor Eve Samson well as she takes up her role as Clerk of the House next month. I commend this motion to the House.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a genuine pleasure to speak on behalf of the official Opposition to support the motion on the Order Paper and offer the warmest of tributes to Tom Goldsmith as he retires after 30 years of distinguished service to this House.
There are many people who contribute to the work of Parliament, but there are relatively few whose work underpins everything that we do. I have seen that contribution by Tom in my role in the Government Whips Office, the Opposition Whips Office and now in my short tenure—hopefully longer—as joint Opposition Deputy Chief Whip.
For Members of Parliament, the House of Commons is where we come to debate, scrutinise the Government and, ultimately, represent the people who sent us here. It is a place of passion and, occasionally, a little theatricality, but behind all of that stands an institution whose authority depends on its procedures, traditions and the integrity of those who uphold them. Tom has devoted his professional life to ensuring that those foundations remain strong.
Since joining the House service in 1996, when I was eight—[Interruption.] I know, I do not look it. Since 1996, Tom has served Parliament in a variety of important roles, including as Secretary to the House of Commons Commission, Head of the Committee Office, and Principal Clerk of the Table Office, before becoming Clerk of the House in 2023. He was also Clerk to the Foreign Affairs Committee, and if anyone can keep my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) in check, they are a very special man. That is a remarkable record of service and one that delivers the gratitude of Members on both sides of the Chamber.
The office of Clerk of the House is not an ordinary job. It requires an extraordinary command of parliamentary procedure, a deep understanding of our constitution and, perhaps most importantly, the ability to provide clear, impartial advice when the political temperature in this place is rising—and we all know that the political temperature in this place can rise rather quickly.
The Clerk must serve every Member equally, regardless of party, political persuasion or the strength of the argument being advanced at the Dispatch Box. That impartiality is fundamental to our democracy. No tribute to a Clerk of the House would be complete without recognising the qualities that can sometimes be taken for granted: patience, discretion, courtesy and the ability to offer advice with calm authority, even when the circumstances are anything but calm. Those qualities matter enormously in an institution where strong disagreements are not simply inevitable but essential to our democracy and the running of this House.
Thirty years is a considerable period of service, and much has changed in that time, in Parliament, in the wider world and in our country. Through that period, the need for impartial, effective and trusted parliamentary administration has remained constant.
Retirement from Parliament today will undoubtedly give Tom the opportunity to pursue new challenges and spend more time away from the demands of this place. His love of playing jazz piano has been mentioned. Like the Leader of the House, I am not somebody who would necessarily see him play—I much prefer musical theatre in the west end—but I look forward maybe to seeing him at my 40th birthday party in two years’ time. May I also suggest a career in professional poker? If he manages to keep that exact straight face as he does when I tell him my own interpretation of the Standing Orders, he really will go far.
On a more serious note, I hope that Tom’s retirement brings him considerable happiness, good health and the freedom to enjoy those pursuits that a career of such commitment may not always have allowed him time to pursue. I hope that the whole House—I know that they will—will join me in wishing Tom every happiness in his retirement and thanking him for his outstanding service to the House of Commons. On behalf of all MPs and those wider House staff who serve in this unique and special community, thank you, Tom, and we wish you every best for the future.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, I would like to add some words of thanks to the retiring Clerk of the House. I find Thomas Goldsmith to be a very sage official sitting at the heart of our organisation. It is my privilege to be a House of Commons Commissioner and Chair of the Administration Committee. I have seen Tom show good judgment, provide wise words, land on the nub of a problem and always suggest a constructive way forward, and he does all of that with good grace.
Tom Goldsmith is a polymath. Like others, I have heard his excellent piano playing. I know that he enjoys books, and we have often talked about our latest good reads. In a sometimes rarefied atmosphere, he is also a modest man from an ordinary background. It has been a pleasure working with him. Good wishes for the future, Tom.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I echo the tributes paid from across the House and express my gratitude on behalf of the Liberal Democrats to the Clerk of the House, Tom Goldsmith, as he retires from his role today. I would also like to congratulate his successor, Eve Samson, in her appointment as the new Clerk of the House. Eve will be the first woman to hold the role, and I am sure that she will continue Tom’s excellent work.
Parliament is famous for its architecture, history and traditions, but all of us who spend time here know that it is the people who make Parliament’s status as a world-leading institution continue. From the Doorkeepers to the catering staff, cleaners and security, thousands of staff keep this place going and deal with us sometimes awkward MPs with impressive patience and positivity.
The Clerk is the steady presence at the Table, who ensures that whatever the heat of the debate, our proceedings run with fairness, order and respect for precedent. Members from every part of the House have relied on Tom’s guidance, patience and deep knowledge of our procedures. Getting all the parties to agree is an achievement in itself, and the fact that today’s tribute motion is supported by parties from across the House is a testament to his ability. We thank him sincerely for his service to the House and wish him a long and happy retirement.
Thirty years of duty to the House is an incredible achievement. That service goes all the way back to 1996, and given that the shadow Minister mentioned that he was eight at the time, I will say that I was six—I am not sure whether this will become a competition. From head of the Committee Office to co-author of “How Parliament Works”, Tom’s guidance has come in many forms and has been invaluable to us all across the House for several decades. He has navigated the House through periods of turbulent change.
In his time as Clerk of the House, Tom has navigated three Prime Ministers from two different parties, as well as dealing with the largest intake of new MPs in parliamentary history, with such a huge proportion entering Parliament in 2024. I certainly had a lot to learn when I arrived in this House from Carshalton and Wallington for the first time, and I am very grateful for the support that Tom and all the wonderful House staff have provided and continue to provide.
Tom has been a steady and impartial presence, keeping the business of the House running smoothly despite shifts in leadership and political direction. His calm authority and commitment to fairness have earned the respect of Members on all sides, and he has worked tirelessly to help newcomers learn the traditions and procedures of the Chamber. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are especially grateful for his guidance as we adjusted to becoming the largest third party in a century. We had always found him fair when we were the fourth party, but his support as we grew from 15 to 72 MPs was crucial, and his even-handedness, professionalism and advice have been hugely important to us throughout this period.
I have always found Tom to be a diligent and calming presence, with a firm and fair hand, while guiding us through Commission meetings. Tom is ever dependable, and I think it is very telling of his character that all Members here, across the House, have found consensus today in our gratitude and praise towards him as Clerk. I and all the Liberal Democrats wish Tom the very best for the future.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
Some people in the House may have noticed that a year ago a foreign state took an enormous interest in me and went to town with the newspapers. I was not worried about the law as such, because I knew that I had done nothing wrong, but I was a little bit conscious about the reputation of the House and my position here, having been an MP for 11 years. I went to see the Deputy Speaker, who told me that I should go and speak to Tom. She scornfully added that I would have much better shoes if I had the amount of money that it was alleged I had—I think it was a backward compliment, but I am not sure.
I went to see Tom, who I did not know very well but who I had interacted with a few times, and I asked him about the status of all the fabricated allegations against me. I explained that no one has ever contacted me about all those allegations—not even now—because apparently they cannot find me, even though I am standing here right now in Parliament. The advice that Tom gave me, which was so calm, reassuring and well researched, and delivered in such a compassionate way, is something that I will never forget. We are lucky to live in a country where there is the rule of law and a functioning democracy, and where we have an amazing House of Commons.
We are also very lucky to have people such as Tom, who can provide evidence on anything he is asked about without even consulting a book, and who knows the rule of law and procedure like the back of his hand. That is not a session I will ever forget, and I will not go into detail about it, but it provided reassurance at a very difficult time. Not all heroes wear capes, but some of them wear black gowns and sit on green chairs.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
May I, on behalf of all SNP MPs past and present who have had the tremendous good fortune to work under the guidance and tutelage of Tom as Clerk of the House, express our gratitude and support for the motion? We have been guided by Tom since 2021, when he became Principal Clerk in the Table Office, where he advised us on Opposition day topics, Brexit and the upcoming 2021 Scottish general election. In fact, certain Members of this House took issue with our use of the term “Scottish general election”, but thanks to Tom’s even-handed approach, we were able to retain those words in our motion at that time.
Since he became Clerk of the House, Tom has assisted us over the years with matters of sub judice, Committee compositions, questions of order and manifold conventions within this place. Indeed, Tom’s support was so instructive, so comprehensive and so helpful to the SNP that I had no option but to conclude that he, too, must be a freedom fighter committed to the cause of Scottish independence. Accordingly, I scoured the SNP membership list to check for his entry—alas, his name appeared not. That leads me to conclude that he does not, in fact, hold the SNP in a special place within his professional courtesy and boundless knowledge. He is, rather, a committed and consummate professional who allows all Members and all parties in this place to benefit from his patient and even-handed wisdom, without fear or favour. I thank him for that, and the SNP wishes him all health and happiness in his future.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), who I think spoke for us all in his closing words about Tom. I, too, wish to pay tribute to the retiring Clerk, who has been an incredible source of advice to us all, but also a great support to me since I was first elected. It has been incredible to see his work and his utter dedication, efficiency and thoughtfulness, and I acknowledge and appreciate how he is always so approachable.
Words have been spoken about the leadership that Tom showed at the time of covid. I remember that time; I remember the fear in the nation, the uncertainty about how Parliament would continue, and the anxiety about how we would represent our constituents, how debates might continue and how we would be able to do that all while staying at home. Tom was one of the leaders at that time who helped ensure that the functions of democracy could continue. It is in that spirit that I thank him and acknowledge that we so often take for granted the systems, the teams and the incredible work that goes on behind the scenes so that we can continue, through all circumstances, to do our job here on behalf of our constituents.
I thank Tom for his incredible and utter mastery of procedure and of the constitution, his advice and his leadership. I acknowledge his incredible career of public service to this House, to our democracy and to our public life. On behalf of my constituents in Feltham and Heston, today I say thank you.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I rise to pay a heartfelt and honest tribute to our outgoing Clerk, Tom Goldsmith, as he prepares to leave this House at the end of the month. On behalf of myself, the Democratic Unionist party and the wonderful people of Strangford, I express our deepest gratitude for his 30 years of impeccable, dedicated service to this Parliament.
Tom has been a steadfast pillar of wisdom, guiding the Chamber with unmatched procedural expertise, absolute integrity and, perhaps most importantly for those of us who test the boundaries of time, the blessing of profound patience and kindness. His piano expertise is to be applauded, whereas my apex in that regard is “Chopsticks”, which falls far short of Tom’s talent.
Whenever a Back Bencher has needed guidance on a complex amendment or advice on a point of order, Tom has always been there with a steady hand and an open door. His presence at the Table will be deeply missed, and we wish him nothing but the very best, good health and happiness in his well-deserved retirement. May God’s blessing be upon him and his family in the days that lie ahead.
At the same time, it is a tremendous pleasure to welcome Eve Samson as our next Clerk of the House. Making history as the first woman to hold that prestigious office is a magnificent milestone. Having known Eve through her exceptional work over many years, not least her invaluable guidance on various Select Committees, I know that she brings a wealth of experience, sharp intellect and a deep respect for the traditions of this House, which we all respect. She has a big pair of shoes to fill, but I have absolutely no doubt that she will serve this Parliament with the highest distinction. She will always have the full support and prayers of those on the DUP Bench as she takes up her historic duties.
Mr Speaker
I thank all Members for their contributions about Tom. Some wonderful words have been said about him. As the Leader of the House mentioned, Eve Samson will take over as the next Clerk, and he is quite right that she is the first woman Clerk I have been able to appoint. The role goes back to 1363, so it is quite an amazing feat and we must not forget that. We wish Tom well. And I think Eve is learning to play the piano, in case we need another jazz pianist.
Black History Month
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Black History Month.
It is a great pleasure and honour to open this debate on Black History Month at such an important and timely moment. This is the third such debate in Government time, and follows the persistence of Members in applying for and securing Adjournment and Westminster Hall debates to ensure that black British stories are appropriately recognised in this House.
In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), who led no less than three such debates in the last Parliament. I was delighted that, as a Minister, she delivered the first ever Government-led Black History Month debate in 2024. I praise her persistence in ensuring that this debate is today given the time in the Chamber that it deserves—and not just because she now leads the Committee that scrutinises my ministerial brief. I recommend that Members read her excellent speech from two years ago. It would be remiss of me not to correct the record by saying that Nigerian jollof is the best jollof, but I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to her fellow Ghanaian, Akyaaba Addai-Sebo, who was the special projects co-ordinator at the Greater London Council, and who first recognised Black History Month back in 1987.
Back then, just 39 years ago, there were only three black Members of Parliament on these Benches: the late Bernie Grant, Lord Paul Boateng and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). Although black Members still face challenges today, I honour and recognise the courage it would have taken to enter this House just a generation ago. I am sure that many of us will see that it is sometimes difficult for me and other black Members to imagine ourselves here without the trailblazing work that they did to make our path to the Commons possible.
In particular, I express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington. I was just six years old when she was elected. I remember the quiet hope I felt in watching TV and seeing her in Parliament—to see that, yes, a black woman can have that voice, and that we do not have to stand by when decisions are made to us and not by us. That gave me the confidence to stand for public office as a local councillor in the borough where I grew up and later for the London Assembly, and to be the first black MP to represent Vauxhall, and now Vauxhall and Camberwell Green. I am delighted to sit on these Benches and see her represent her constituents as the Mother of the House.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for all that she does. I have no doubt that she will speak about her faith, which has been the strength of her character and personality. That is something I recognised when I came to this House and got to know her. I commend her for her leadership in taking on those challenges, as I commend all the other MPs.
In our communities back home in my Strangford constituency, a number of people are from different countries across the world. They add to the culture and character of our constituency, and they work and do their bit. This debate gives us all a chance to say thank you, so I say thank you to the hon. Lady and to all my constituents in Strangford, who welcome people with ability and talent to come and work, live and thrive in this country.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention—I am going to need some divine intervention from the good Lord so I do not lose my voice for the rest of this debate, so I appreciate it. He is right to commend the talent and diversity right across the UK, and the difference that those communities make by enriching UK life. Many of them share that special area of faith.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I really do hope my hon. Friend’s voice holds out for this very important debate. Historic England’s blue plaque scheme rightly recognises notable Britons, but very few of the plaques are for prominent black Britons, and even fewer can be found outside London. That is why I have applied for John Kent, believed to be Britain’s first black police officer, to have a plaque in my Carlisle constituency, where he served in the 1830s and 1840s. Does the Minister agree that plaques like that for John Kent—if I am successful—are so important in ensuring that our black history is recognised right across our country?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. It is good that English Heritage is considering that plaque—probably one of the most northern such plaques outside London. It is important that we recognise the rich contribution of many black Britons right across the UK. I hope that she will be successful in her pursuit of the plaque.
The theme of this year’s Black History Month debate is “Honouring Our Communities”, which gives us the opportunity to recognise people from black communities up and down the country who work every day to make their area and our society better. They are people who start a business, mentor young people or volunteer their time to help run a community space, and whose contributions too often go unrecognised or underappreciated.
Although Black History Month is about celebrating black Britons who have delivered outstanding achievements across society, who have helped to forge the country and who are here today through their visibility, it is also about recognising people in all parts of the country who may not make the news nationally, but who everyone in their neighbourhood knows. These are people like Lorna Jackson MBE. Coming to England aged five, Lorna went on to be an educator for nearly 50 years and a headteacher for 25 years. Today, she continues to serve a diverse community in east London. They are people like Claudia Jones, a Trinidad and Tobago-born activist and journalist who was granted asylum in the UK after facing political persecution in the US.
In 1958, Claudia Jones founded the West Indian Gazette close to where I grew up in Brixton. The West Indian Gazette is often referred to as the first black newspaper in Britain. After the race riots of 1958, she organised the first Caribbean carnival in the UK, to coincide with the annual tradition in Trinidad, but as London is definitely a lot colder than Trinidad in January, the carnival was held at St Pancras town hall. It was a predecessor of Notting Hill carnival, which started in 1966 and continues to be a true celebration of culture and heritage to this day—thankfully in August and not in winter!
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) highlighted blue plaques. I was honoured to attend the unveiling of the English Heritage blue plaque dedicated to Claudia Jones three years ago, on 5 October 2023, outside a terraced house in my Vauxhall constituency that Jones called home for nearly four years—her longest place of residency in London.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Nubian Jak does an amazing job in ensuring that black pioneers are recognised all around the country with blue plaques?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I praise the efforts of Nubian Jak and Jak Beula’s work across not just London but the UK in recognising black Britons and their achievements.
In the face of barriers, both conscious and subconscious, black Britons have driven lasting, positive change in every community: change that has profoundly shaped the arts and culture of this country, that has made our politics more responsive and more representative, and that reminds us time and again that Britain’s historical and present diversity is a strength—something not to be torn down, but to be cherished and invested in.
When we speak about honouring our communities, we are talking about the individuals across Britain who made them. Our national story is incomplete without the story of Mary Seacole, whose statue stands proudly in the gardens of St Thomas’ hospital just over Westminster bridge. That powerful landmark in my constituency continues to remind me of the values and aspirations that I came to this House to represent.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I hope that my hon. Friend has the chance for some refreshment because I am a bit concerned about her cold. Our constituencies have so much in common, and I consider her a really good friend. She speaks about Mary Seacole, who also spent many of her days in Soho Square in my constituency. Given the theme of this Black History Month, I also want to reflect on the blue plaques before we move on. I am very proud to represent a place where Ottobah Cugoano, an anti-slavery campaigner, lived, in Pall Mall. Over Black History Month, I will be spending time telling that story of his campaigning and ensuring that it is well recognised. On the incredible culture we need to remember during Black History Month, I also want to remember Winifred Atwell, the first black artist to have a No. 1 single, who lived in Mayfair in my constituency. It is a real honour to represent such a diverse constituency with such a proud history of black Londoners and black British people. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the testimony she brings to this debate—and I hope she has been able to have a lot of water during my intervention!
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my constituency neighbour and want to recognise the many black Britons across not just London, but right across the UK who continue to be celebrated and remembered by hon. and right hon. Members from across the House. I felt immense pride at being able to choose the statue of Mary Seacole as the backdrop for my entry to the 40% Project last year, which photographs female MPs in recognition of the progress we have made towards gender parity in this House.
This year’s theme feels especially relevant to the Windrush generation—so embedded in the fabric of black British history. Their legacy is not only the work they did, but in the communities they nurtured, the opportunities they created and the generations they inspired. Through the Windrush Day grant scheme, places across the country are telling stories in their own words, helping to ensure they are remembered and passed on. Their courage, perseverance and determination opened the doors for future generations, and that legacy continues to enrich our shared national history.
But the Windrush stories also tell us that we cannot ignore the struggles we still face today. Black Britons still face deep systemic challenges every day, and although this Government are committed to tackling racial inequality and racism, it is our local communities who are on the frontlines. We need only glance online to see the racist rhetoric that has sadly been normalised. If anyone does not believe this, we just need to look at the racism—and let’s call it what it is—that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali) faced after she was announced as the candidate in the recent by-election. This type of politics has no place in our democracy, and I hope the whole House will join me in condemning it. Thankfully, my hon. Friend was undeterred and went on to win resounding support from her community, and I welcome her again to her rightful place on these Benches.
I want to praise the Leader of the Opposition for her comments during her conference speech. We can disagree about things in society, but we should never normalise questioning someone’s loyalty or nationality based on the colour of their skin. We see the horrific consequences of this in the news far too often, and I want to take a moment to recognise and remember Jason Arday. His tragic death must be a call to action for all of us. I worked with Jason when I led as the project manager at the Runnymede Trust. Jason was one of the youngest board members.
Dawn Butler
Professor Arday has touched so many of us, and I will also refer to him in my speech. I thank my hon. Friend for ensuring that his name will be remembered in this place in perpetuity.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend and Members who were able to join Jason’s family at the tribute organised by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). Unfortunately, I was not able to make that.
Just this week, the comedian Munya Chawawa described the racism and homophobia that he and some of the cast members from “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” faced at the Chichester Festival theatre during the production’s six-week run. He said:
“I think I saw more”
racism
“in those six weeks than I have actually seen across my entire lifetime, which is just an insane concept…Some of you heard we had to cancel a show because one of our cast members was attacked just before the show—that is just the tip of the iceberg.”
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Minister will know that Munya Chawawa’s experience took place in my constituency. Chichester Festival theatre has been supporting the cast after they came forward and explained the racism that they saw. Munya also spoke about a “pipeline of hatred” that people are seeing on their screens and in their algorithms; it is shifting the Overton window and letting people think that things like that are okay when they are absolutely not. Does she agree that we need to call out the far-right rhetoric that is being pushed on to our teenagers’ social media screens, in order to protect people across the country who dedicate their life to creating wonderful art?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Member; I know that she has been in touch with many of the cast members of that play and the Chichester Festival theatre. She is right that we have to ensure that we as parliamentarians, as a society, and as community groups do not allow this to be normalised, and think it is okay in 2026, in modern Britain. We can disagree on many things, but it is the responsibility of all of us in this Chamber, the Government and society to ensure that everyone is safe and able to live freely, and I want to be clear that the Government will not sit on their hands and watch this hatred thrive. In March, my Department published a cross-Government social cohesion plan, “Protecting What Matters”, which sets out more than 90 policy recommendations and commitments to improve cohesion, including measures to further tackle hate and inequality in everyday life.
Throughout the United Kingdom’s history, we have overcome adversity by coming together and showing that we have so much more that unites us than divides us. We showed that exactly 50 years ago with the passing of the Race Relations Act 1976, a landmark piece of legislation protecting the rights of all of us to live free from discrimination, and the 1965 Act, which built the foundations of equality.
History demands that, just as we celebrated the victories of previous generations, each of us must stand up for what is right in our time. That same unity remains our greatest defence. We must stand together against forces attempting to divide us, and must ensure that we all continue to be heard. I hope that Members will agree that there is a lot more that we can do, but united we are stronger. I commend this debate to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the Minister in this Black History Month debate. I pay tribute to her for all the work she has done across parties and across this House. She has been a champion for all communities but has particularly raised issues for people in the black community, such as knife crime, single parents, and stop and search in classrooms. She did all those things as a Back Bencher, reaching across the divide and caring about the community, regardless of who they were or where they were from. It felt as if she was just trying to represent all her constituents and raise the issues that mattered to them. Everyone across this House can connect with that. We in this House come from very different backgrounds and places, but there are Members of Parliament from every party who put their constituents and communities and the issues that matter to them first. The Minister is one of those, so I pay tribute to her and thank her for that.
Every October we celebrate Black History Month, and this year marks its 39th year in the UK. It was a tradition started in 1987 by a Ghanaian activist who believed that black Britons deserved to have their history told, taught and celebrated. Black history is, of course, British history. Madam Deputy Speaker, please act surprised when you hear that my speech is very similar to the Minister’s. This will probably be a rare moment when we are in agreement and saying very similar things.
The theme of Black History Month this year is “Honouring Our Communities”. It focuses on recognising the everyday contributions of black people across Britain. For me, this is a moment for important reflection. I came to this country with basically nothing and knowing no one, and the first community that opened their hearts and their doors to me were my friends in the West Indian Caribbean community in west London. They welcomed me and taught me what it was to be British. They brought me into their community groups and their church groups. They even allowed my mum to come to some of the events. I certainly knew about jerk chicken before I got to the House of Commons.
I pay special tribute to the Acton Vale estate community, and to Grace and Chaney. Grace became one of my closest friends, and Chaney is her daughter, who I mentored and is now incredibly successful. They taught me what it was to be British and to care about the community. Grace was one of the first people who said, “You should think about being a Member of Parliament.” I had never thought about that before. I see the hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan); she knows the Acton Vale estate. It was a transformative moment for me to feel that anyone could come to this country and be British and part of British society. We could have British values and be proud to be British—it did not matter where we came from. I learned that hope and that care for our community from my friends, and I am here today as a result. They probably unleashed more than they bargained for, but they were the first to encourage me— they probably deeply regret that now, but that is where it started. They showed me the very best of this country.
I also pay tribute to the other local groups that I worked with, and to Bishara and Adam Matan, who have done tremendous work at the Anti-Tribalism Movement, which helped to tackle tribalism in the Somalian community in west London.
Joy Morrissey
I see the hon. Member for Ealing Southall nodding, because they are well known across west London for the incredible work they have done for years with all the communities and local mosques. They taught me so much about celebrating all the different communities, and I pay tribute to them today. Black history in Britain has always been community history. When the Windrush arrived in 1948, the men and women on board did not just come to work; they built churches and social clubs that welcomed people when Britain often did not.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
On that point about community, and what the black community adds to it, I pay tribute to the work of the Croydon BME Forum, led by Dr Andrew Brown, and the chair of our Pride in Place board in New Addington, Julia Weller. These people are community leaders who put their communities first, whether in relation to tackling mental health issues, tackling food poverty or helping people who are struggling to pay their bills. There is always a warm welcome and a big smile. I wonder whether the hon. Member agrees with me—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We have a musical accompaniment to the hon. Member’s intervention, which will no doubt be coming to an end because it should not be a speech. Unfortunately, that sounded like a Christmas-themed accompaniment, although it is far too early, for the record. Does the hon. Member wish to continue the intervention, or is the point made?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Marvellous. Joy Morrissey, are you ready, without any music?
Joy Morrissey
The Christmas holiday arrives! That was my summons to the Chamber, but the debate started earlier than I anticipated. Old age comes to us at many levels, and having to put an alarm on our phone is one of them. Happy Christmas to everyone.
I thank the hon. Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) for her intervention. This is about the community. All of us have wonderful constituents who represent our communities and raise their concerns. Those community leaders have enlightened us and allowed us to speak with knowledge, and I pay tribute to all of them today.
Deirdre Costigan
The hon. Member has mentioned my constituency a couple of times, and I thank her for all she has said and the tributes she has paid to my constituents. Will she join me in congratulating Councillor Faduma Mohamed, who has been elected Mayor of Ealing for this year? She is a councillor in Southall West ward, and she is the first Somali-born hijab-wearing woman to hold that position.
Joy Morrissey
I will indeed. I organised the first Somalian community day on the South Acton estate, though we then had to change the name to the wider “South Acton community day”, to be inclusive. That is wonderful, and I congratulate the new mayor. As a fun fact, I used to ride the 207 bus from Acton all the way to Southall and back—for anyone who has not been to Ealing, it is a fun journey. Like the Minister, I started as a councillor. It was a wonderful way of meeting the community and understanding it from the grassroots up. I will never forget that, and I believe it makes us better parliamentarians when we have had that experience on the ground.
In 1963, Bristol’s black community, led by young people like Paul Stephenson, refused to accept a bus company’s ban on black workers. Their boycott helped to pave the way for Britain’s first race relations laws. Today, black people continue to play a key role in communities across our country, helping to bring people together. One of the reasons why black history is British history is that our black communities show that we can be an integrated, cohesive and multiracial Britain. We can celebrate the same values and be proud of who we are together.
There will be black Britons who play a vital role in all our constituencies, offices and community groups. I pay special tribute to a family in my constituency, Rotimi, Marylene and Naomi Isaiah, for being my right hand in everything in Beaconsfield. I could not do my job without their incredible community support, and I thank them for everything they have done; I am sure that all Members across the Chamber could pay similar tributes. They do so much to support and encourage me personally in my work as a Member of Parliament. I was going to have them here today, but it will have to be next time.
Turning to my work on women and equalities, I also want to recognise Nimco Ali, a survivor of female genital mutilation who has done so much to highlight that vital issue, to try to make sure that no other girls experience what she did.
This year, the aim of Black History Month is to look beyond famous people and reflect on the contributions of everyday black Britons, but given that this is the first time I have spoken at the Dispatch Box in Black History Month, it feels only right that I should recognise someone famous—just one person, but a genuine role model for black female Britons. In 1987, the very same year that Black History Month began here, a young woman from Paddington walked into the House of Commons as Britain’s first black female MP. Today, she is the Mother of the House.
When she arrived, there were only 41 women in the entire Commons. She was told in a hundred ways that she did not belong. She stayed anyway. For nearly four decades, she has represented the people of Hackney, championed black children in London schools and chaired the West Indian and sickle cell disease parliamentary groups. She has faced more abuse than almost any politician of her generation—and she has never stopped turning up. We do not have to share her politics to recognise what her presence meant. For millions of black Britons, especially black girls, she was proof that the doors of power could open and that someone who looked like them could walk through.
Black history is not one month; it is being forged every day by people who see themselves first as proud Britons—I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), who I am very proud to have leading my party, for leading the way and opening opportunities for us all. It is British history that they, including those across this House, are writing, and it is a privilege to recognise all of them today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
As so many colleagues have mentioned the Mother of the House, it is only appropriate for me to say that I was able recently to step in for Mr Speaker at his Black History Month reception, where I was lucky enough to be joined by the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and the newest Member of the House, the hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali). It was fantastic to be in the room with them both; the energy was fantastic. There was a huge backlash on social media. As the shadow Minister just said, we need to take a lesson from the Mother of the House, and ignore it and just keep going—which, no doubt, we will all do.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is truly a privilege to speak in this debate during Black History Month—a month that gives us an opportunity to celebrate black history and black achievement, and to reflect honestly on the history that has shaped our country and the work that remains to be done.
Black history is British history. It is the history of people who have contributed to every part of our national life—to our armed forces and our NHS, to our schools and universities, to our communities, to business, culture, politics, science and the arts. It is the story of people who have helped build this country, often in the face of prejudice, racism and discrimination, and whose contributions have not always received the recognition that they deserve. We should remember the generations of black Britons who served this country in times of war and peace. We should remember the Windrush generation and those who have followed—those who came to Britain with hope, determination and a belief in a shared future.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
My hon. Friend reminds me of my grandad, who came here from British Guiana to serve in the second world war, and my great-grandad, who arrived here from Liberia in 1925 and also served this country in the second world war. Today, people of my colour are made by some to feel like we do not belong in this country, but we have built and we have protected this country. Does she agree that people who deploy that rhetoric are wrong and need to start withdrawing from it?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend speaks for all of us when he says that it is time to call this out. It is vital that, as a society and as parliamentarians, we say, “No more”—that what we stand for is a country that is united, and that we will refuse to hear the racism that is now seeking to rewrite history, including the contribution of his forefathers.
I pay tribute to the Windrush Commissioner, Rev. Clive Foster, to Professor Uzo and the Elders in Cardiff, to Ros Griffiths and the Friends of Windrush Square, and to so many other leaders from communities across the UK who work tirelessly to continue to right the wrongs of the Windrush scandal. Let me also thank all at the Black Cultural Archives in Windrush Square for their incredible work—their documentation of history and their approach to education and awareness, from enslavement to abolition, and on medicine, race and activism. I also support the campaigns that we have heard about today for greater inclusion of black people’s stories and histories in our culture and, indeed, our schools.
This month, we also celebrate the extraordinary contribution that black Britons continue to make today. Black History Month is about understanding and appreciating how history has shaped the present, but it is also about the choices that we make now about what kind of country we want to leave for the next generation. I congratulate the Minister on her opening speech, and I am grateful that the debate is being held in Government time. She has been rightly recognised for her contribution in this House and in her community. I want to echo her tributes to the inspirational Lorna Jackson and Professor Jason Arday, and to recognise the important contribution that black people from across our community make and the racism that they experience. I want in particular to mention our black footballers, whom we should recognise; they do us proud every single day.
As we mark 39 years since Black History Month began in Britain, we should recognise the role of black women. Too often, their experiences sit at the intersection of racial and gender inequality, and their achievements receive far less recognition than they deserve. We should celebrate the women who have broken barriers in Parliament, in public life, in business, in education, in our NHS and in our communities. Today, I want to talk about “sistory”—women who did not wait for history to happen; our sisters who made it, and who are still making it.
Last year, I had the privilege to meet two remarkable Bristol bus boycott sheroes, Joyce Morris-Wisdom and Dr Barbara Dettering. Joyce was just 14 when she joined the protests in 1963. More than 60 years later, this remarkable grandmother continues to share her story and inspire new generations. Barbara, originally from Guyana, helped organise the movement, co-founded St Pauls carnival and built lasting community institutions. Their contributions belong to a wider tradition of leadership by black women in Bristol. They include women such as Carmen Beckford MBE, Bristol’s first race relations officer, and Peaches Golding OBE, the UK’s first black female lord lieutenant—different generations of women who have challenged discrimination, built institutions and opened opportunities for those who followed.
These are women who helped challenge Bristol’s colour bar in 1963—the year my father came to the United Kingdom—and contributed to the momentum behind Britain’s first Race Relations Act, under a Labour Government, in 1965. The law was strengthened in 1968 and again in 1976, extending protections against discrimination and strengthening enforcement. Sunday 22 November will mark 50 years since the 1976 Act received Royal Assent.
Madam Deputy Speaker, like you I pay tribute to the Mother of the House, who has been mentioned more than once today. Next year marks 40 years since she was elected as Britain’s first female black Member of Parliament. She was elected alongside Bernie Grant, Paul Boateng and Keith Vaz. These were not simply historic breakthroughs —their influence continues to shape Parliament and Britain today.
I was the first female Punjabi Member of Parliament. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali); we were all honoured to help her get elected to the House. I congratulate her on her own first: she is the first Somali Member of Parliament. I note that she, like so many through history, has faced down those who said that she had no right to even be a Member of Parliament. That campaign was a wake-up call to the racism that begins even before a campaign starts. It is for us to say to everyone, whoever they are and whatever their background, that they too, as someone who is proud to be in Britain, have a place in this House.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
Earlier this year, I was delighted to visit the Southbank Centre, in the Minister’s constituency, to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Festival of Britain. As part of that, there was a magnificent celebration of youth culture through the medium of dance. A particular scene celebrated the excitement of the Windrush generation coming to our shores, but then talked about the adversity that that generation faced. It was a stark reminder that we are not born racist, but if we allow racism to seep into our society, like the poison that it is, we let the bad people win. We are not those people. Does my hon. Friend agree that 75 years later, we are still celebrating the festival of Britain, and that festival definitely includes a very diverse bunch of people?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend is absolutely right in all that she says. She is right to mark the 75th anniversary of the Festival of Britain. It was called for by Herbert Morrison, who presented the idea to the Cabinet, as part of efforts to build positivity and optimism after the second world war. As she may know, I want us to have another national festival of Britain, because it is time for us to celebrate much more of what we are as a nation. The Festival of Britain also contributed to the thinking behind the opening ceremony of the Olympic games that we hosted, and I hope that we can find many more opportunities to celebrate what we are as a nation today.
Through her election, my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras is writing a new chapter in black history. At the last general election, 90 ethnic minority Members of Parliament were elected, according to Operation Black Vote, to all Benches, including 66 of my hon. Friends.
I want to recognise our friend and colleague, Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE. I am proud to have worked with her in her role as chair of the Race Equality Engagement Group to strengthen the relationship between the Government and ethnic minority communities. In its first year, the group focused on access to finance for ethnic minority entrepreneurs, maternal and neonatal care, cardiovascular disease, policing, education, transition to work and opportunities for young people, with recommendations presented directly to Ministers.
I am proud that earlier this year, the Government published the consultation outcome and Government response on mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting. Ethnic minority and disabled people are less likely to be in work, less likely to be promoted and paid less, on average, than other employees. That is bad for equality, bad for business and, ultimately, bad for Britain. In the King’s Speech in July 2024, the Government committed to introducing mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for employers with 250 or more employees. Introducing that reporting will provide vital data to help employers identify and take action to reduce ethnicity and disability pay gaps where they exist.
I thank Dianne Greyson, founder of the Ethnicity Pay Gap Campaign, and those from the business world who have supported this work and with whom I have worked, including Business in the Community, Deloitte, KPMG, PwC, BP, the London Stock Exchange Group, ShareAction, Change the Race Ratio and the Chartered Management Institute. We must find parliamentary time to move this policy forward. I know that the Minister is doing amazing work, but I would be grateful if in her closing remarks she could update the House on the Government’s next steps towards bringing forward legislation.
As we mark history and progress today, let us remember especially that progress is neither linear nor inevitable. Rising racism and intensifying division risks tearing our national fabric apart. It is incumbent on Government—indeed all of us—to take a stand for the values we believe in. In the year ending March 2024, police in England and Wales recorded over 140,000 hate crimes, and roughly 70% were racially motivated.
What we have seen happen elsewhere is increasingly close to home. We have seen vicious racist Reform UK councillors exposed by the recent ITV investigation, and Reform councillors calling children “animals” and talking about “infestation”. A councillor in my own constituency was recorded saying that he would “love to have slaves”. This goes against all that residents in Feltham and Heston stand for. Investigations into such behaviour must be credible, and our public life and society must stand strong against forces of racism and division.
Before I close, let me mention just a few of my constituents who are an inspiration to me and working to make our community a better place. Alexis Isa and Faith Lamptey, two young black girls who are year 13 students, recently compered the first Hounslow women’s conference, which I co-hosted with my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). Another young black student, Rhema Acheampong-Owusu, was our digital and video lead, and co-edited a phenomenal video about the contribution of women to Hounslow’s history. Her mother, Mabel Acheampong-Owusu, a regular volunteer at St Lawrence’s church Feltham who is beginning her own catering business, put her heart and soul into ensuring that there was breakfast and lunch for all who came. Hibo Mohamoud and Daud Hassan are two stalwarts of our local Somali community who are always there for others. Christiana Wuche is a lecturer in adult nursing at Kingston university and the founder of Igbo Women in West London.
We stand on the shoulders of extraordinary men and women. They have been the torchbearers of the past, but it is we who are responsible for the legacy that we leave for tomorrow. Let us use this Black History Month not only to remember those who came before us, but to inspire those who come after us. Let us build a Britain in which equality is not simply something we aspire to, but something people experience in their everyday lives—a Britain where diversity is recognised as a strength, and where every child, whatever their background, can look at our national story and know that they are part of it. That is the Britain we should be proud to build together.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate on Black History Month and follow some incredible contributions from the Minister, the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). I thank the Government for ensuring that the debate takes place in Government time, as that is a clear indication of just how important the subject is.
Britain’s black communities have enriched the social fabric of the United Kingdom, adding vitality to our streets, shops, frontline services and culture throughout the country. We would be a poorer, less dynamic, less exciting and less colourful country had individuals not boarded ships such as the HMT Empire Windrush and made Britain their home. As the Minister acknowledged, Black History Month has been marked for 39 years and when it was first celebrated, there were just three black MPs. Its purpose is to remember those who came before—as the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston said, we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us—but it also looks to the future to address the systemic issues that our black communities still face. In Chichester and throughout the country, we owe our black communities so much, yet, in truth, society has let them down badly and continues to do so. The lives of far too many people are still blighted by prejudice, discrimination and inequality.
I thank the Minister for raising the case that Munya Chawawa has brought into the light this week. He is an actor, comedian and social commentator, and his social commentary about his experience in the past six weeks in Chichester has broken my heart. He spoke out about the experience of the cast of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”, who have been with us over the past six weeks doing a really cool production—it is one of the best versions that I have ever had the privilege of watching. It is also Munya’s first time taking to the stage—in a Shakespeare play—and it was incredibly inspiring to have kids from the BRIT School come and watch the performance. Munya has established the Black Boys Theatre Club, and it is his ambition to ensure that black children have access to theatre. I watched with delight all these young children talking about how much they had enjoyed watching Shakespeare in Chichester and how cool their first experience of theatre was in my constituency.
Munya spoke about a homophobic attack—it has now been called a hate crime, and an arrest has been made—that caused the show not to go up. When that happened, the rest of the cast spoke about their experiences over the past six weeks of just walking through the city. When they went for a night out in Brighton to get out of Chichester, they experienced racism there. Munya has said that he experienced more racism and xenophobia in six weeks than he had experienced in his entire life. He has been a tireless campaigner against discrimination —he is very good at calling it out and doing so in a comedic way that lots of people identify with; that is why he has such a huge following on social media—and I am really grateful to him for calling it out.
I declare an interest, as a trustee of Chichester Festival Theatre. The theatre has been trying to tackle this issue for years and years, and we have been having a conversation about it with the board. When we invite talented actors to Chichester Festival Theatre, we want them to feel like it is their home. We want them to feel welcome and included, so how do we make the environment around the theatre like that for them? I have been somewhat reassured by the outpouring of love both on social media and in my inbox from people saying, “I had no idea. What can we do?” One of the reflections that the cast shared with the theatre was that they were in the city centre when these things happened, but nobody called them out.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Member for highlighting what happened in her constituency. One of the issues that black people and black Members raise is the fact that it can be continuously tiring when it is only black people highlighting this issue. Does she agree that by raising this issue as a constituency MP, she is shining another light on it?
Jess Brown-Fuller
I appreciate that intervention. It is not the job of those who experience the abuse to be the only ones calling it out. Going forward, we are working as a community to bring voices together so that we can talk about and come up with actions to better support those experiencing abuse. That should not be the job of those experiencing intolerance and abuse day in, day out.
We also need to do some work with the police, whom I have spoken to at length over the last couple of weeks. When I say, “This is happening”, they say, “It was not reported”—well, it was not reported because people get really tired of constantly reporting things and not seeing a change. A lot of the cast members did not share their experience with the theatre before the homophobic attack that caused the show not to go up. It was only then, in a safe space, that they were able to say, “Actually, that resonates with me, because I experienced this when I was out in the city centre. I experienced this when we went out to get food.” They had not reported their experiences to the police, and the onus should not always be on them to do so. We need to have a wider conversation about what businesses and individuals can do in the city.
In truth, it feels like we are going backwards. Somebody said to me the other day, “It does not feel like the Overton window has shifted; it feels like it has fallen out of its frame.” Much of the abuse comes from individuals who are emboldened by the growth and increasing acceptance of the far right on social media, in the press and across other platforms. Those are spaces, often pushed by prominent politicians, that make individuals, particularly young people, believe that certain language and behaviours are acceptable.
Racist abuse and far-right views gain even greater reach when they are associated with political leaders; the algorithm eats those views up and sends them into those spaces. We all have a responsibility to challenge those prejudices and behaviours, especially when we have important political debates about issues such as immigration, in which people too often conflate immigration, race and crime. I for one do not want racism to become normalised once more, or for people to feel that staying silent is easier than standing up for others. We all need to call it out whenever we see it.
Moving forward, it is important that we in this place reflect on the scandals of the past that have left dark scars on our society. From Windrush to Grenfell and the crisis in maternity care, those scandals represent individuals and communities who have been let down, where systemic discrimination has played no small part. Those are individuals whose dignity and rights were disregarded because of failings in the state apparatus. I am proud that the Liberal Democrats are committed to fighting for racial equality, and that means unequivocally condemning racism in all its forms and tackling injustice wherever we see it.
It is a shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) cannot be here today. I see how much abuse he receives online on social media. When he puts up a post about something he is doing to fight for Eastbourne general hospital, someone will write in the comments section, “Deport.” His response to that is, “There are no direct flights to Eastbourne general hospital, so I can’t do that.” I recognise that the proliferation of abuse that is then liked and shared means that his experience as a black MP is totally different from my experience as a white MP. The abuse he receives is off the scale and totally unacceptable.
In the Liberal Democrat election manifesto, we committed to implementing a comprehensive race equality strategy aimed at reducing the disproportionately high maternal mortality rates experienced by black women and eliminating racial disparities in maternal health through a cross-departmental target and strategy. We also want to end the disproportionate use of stop and search and require all police forces throughout the country to adopt ambitious targets for improving the diversity of their workforces. We have also called for the reversal of the voter ID scheme, which disproportionately excludes minorities from democracy, and for all political parties to publish candidate diversity data. We must also tackle discrimination in the use of new technology, beginning with halting the use of facial recognition surveillance, which is much more likely to wrongly identify black people or women.
On criminal justice, it is clear that the immense disparity in different ethnicities in our prison population represents a systemic failing across society. As of this year, 12% of the prison population are black, far exceeding the percentage of the general population. That is underpinned by the fact that black defendants receive on average longer custodial sentences than people of other ethnicities for the same crimes. It is clear that much more needs to be done across the system to begin to address those disparities, particularly on diversity and training in the judiciary. The Liberal Democrats tabled amendments to the Courts and Tribunals Bill in that regard. We must implement a new data strategy across the criminal justice system to ensure that capacity meets demand and that we understand the needs of all users, especially victims, vulnerable people and those from ethnic minority backgrounds.
Black History Month is a vital opportunity to celebrate the immense contribution that black people make to our lives in Britain. There are those who ask why we need Black History Month; I hear that being said. That is the same argument used by people who say, “Why do we need Pride? Have we not got there?” No, we absolutely have not. What happened in Chichester just this week is a prime example of why it is all the more important to keep highlighting these things year on year. As the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston said, progress is not linear. It is very easy to slip backwards, and we all need to be alive and alert to that. We need to ensure that we represent all the wonderful qualities that we want our country to represent, not those that do not represent what we feel.
We must carry on celebrating Black History Month, because we have an immense contribution to celebrate, but it also provides the chance to recognise the scale of the challenge we still face. I am very grateful to the Leader of the House for granting time for this important debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
As Members have already mentioned the late Jason Arday, I have taken some advice from the Clerk. The Jason Arday case is sub judice, because the inquest has been opened and adjourned. Hon. Members should not refer to that specific case. If they want some more advice, we are here to provide it. I call Abena Oppong-Asare.
Ms Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also want to take this opportunity to thank you for hosting Mr Speaker’s Black History Month event last Wednesday. It was good to meet other individuals who have served in the forces or done so much in the community, and the way you brought us all together was really valued. I also thank the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for her kind words, although I thought I should help her to correct the record, because I am sure she meant to say that Ghanaian jollof rice is the best.
As we have discussed already, this year’s theme is “Honouring Our Communities.” That means a lot to me personally, given that my parents came to Britain from Ghana. Like many others, they worked really hard to ensure that my siblings and I had the best opportunities —the opportunities that they would have wanted for themselves.
Earlier this month I asked people online what they thought I should mention in this debate. Many responded with really helpful suggestions and stories of black Britons who have enriched our communities and helped shape our country. Sadly, however, quite a number responded with racist abuse. I want to be clear that those voices do not represent the overwhelming majority of people in my constituency or across the country. Black History Month is not about division; it is about recognising the people whose contributions have helped build modern Britain. I believe in freedom of speech, robust debate and the exchange of ideas, but I also believe that we need to challenge racism and hatred whenever we encounter it. No one should feel unable to participate in public life because of abuse and intimidation.
Without breaching any ongoing investigation, I want to mention Professor Jason Arday’s death. It is a reminder to all of us of how inequality exists. He made history by becoming one of the youngest black professors at the University of Cambridge, and we should not forget that. His story sadly raises the treatment of black people who reach positions of prominence. His family have spoken about the abuse and harassment that he experienced. My thoughts are with his family.
Black History Month also reminds us all of how far we have come, and how far we still have to go. That includes tackling inequalities such as the unacceptable maternal mortality gap experienced by black women. Today, I want to focus not on those who seek to divide us, but those who strengthen our communities. I want to pay tribute to some people in my constituency, starting with Michelle Rankin, assistant director for economy and skills at Greenwich council. Michelle has been instrumental in bringing Pride in Place to Thamesmead, to help empower the local community to shape the future of our area.
I pay tribute to Benedicta Okpor, a Queen’s nurse who is leading work to amplify the voices of nurses working in social care across south-east London. Through her professional leadership and voluntary work in both the UK and Nigeria, she is an inspiration to many. I also pay tribute to John Okungbaiye, chair of the Pride in Place board, who has co-founded an innovative anti-theft bag and worked with the Prince’s Trust and does a lot of work in the community by being a school governor.
Those are just a few of the remarkable people whose contributions deserve recognition. In previous years I have been proud to recognise many others, including members of the Windrush generation and countless black Britons whose service, sacrifice and leadership have strengthened our country. Their stories remind us that black history is British history, which is why Black History Month remains so important—not only to celebrate progress, but to inspire future generations and recognise those whose contributions have helped make Britain what it is today.
Like other Members, I want to take the opportunity to reflect on the trailblazers who have opened the doors for people like me: my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the first black woman elected to Parliament; Paul Boateng, Britain’s first black Cabinet Minister, also of Ghanaian descent, who has supported me; and Valerie Amos, the first black woman to serve in Cabinet. I also want to mention one of our new Baronesses, Baroness June Sarpong, who is sitting in the Gallery. I do not think I need to explain any more about her—she is a trailblazer. This is her second week, and I know that she will already have hit the ground running. Welcome, June Sarpong.
Valerie’s story is particularly personal to me. She grew up in Bexley, as did I, and I had the opportunity to do work experience with her. Seeing someone like her, from my community, achieving so much really mattered to me. I have spoken about this before, but not everybody knows the story, and I think it is important that we talk about the paths we have taken to get here. When I was at university, I was really thinking about going into politics, and I remember speaking to a careers adviser and saying that I wanted to explore opportunities for going into politics. He laughed in my face and said that the chances of someone like me getting a job in politics were very slim, and not to bother trying. As Members have probably guessed, I am a very stubborn person, and I did not listen to his advice. I have never forgotten that conversation—I feel that it has made me extremely resilient and more determined as a person. When someone tells you that you cannot do something, it just makes you hungry to push to do it.
For me, this is also about the future generation and how what we do in our roles inspires them, particularly to get more young people into politics or playing different roles in civic life. I know that I did not get here by myself; people supported me to get here, and I see that reflected in my constituency of Erith and Thamesmead. I see constituents who are doing so much in the community—I have mentioned some of them already—to ensure that we as a country thrive. It is great that that theme is something we are discussing this year.
As well as celebrating people who have contributed to Black History Month, it is also important to recognise those people who are making a difference and thinking about the future, and to ensure that when people get opportunities to break barriers, they are treated with dignity and respect. It is not just about representation or getting there; it is about how you treat people. I wanted to put that on record, and also to say that Black History Month should not be just this month; it should be all year round. But the reason we celebrate it this month is that we still have a long way to go before we achieve equality.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I have just noticed that the Serjeant at Arms has entered the Chamber, and I think we all want to notice him. I believe he is our first black Serjeant at Arms, appointed in October 2019—he is hating me saying this, so let us stare at him a little bit longer.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate marking Black History Month, and I thank the Minister for opening the debate with a speech so powerful that it gave me the chills. I do not think that is because I might have caught a cold off her on Monday, although that may be the case.
In my maiden speech, I talked about how the story of my home city, Bristol, cannot be disentangled from the UK’s shameful and immoral history of colonialism and slavery. That is a history that we cannot and must not turn away from. Bristol merchants financed over 2,000 slaving voyages between 1698 and 1807. These ships carried over 500,000 enslaved Africans from Africa to face slave labour in the Americas. This shameful trade is an ongoing stain, and it is why my party backs slavery reparations. Since 2020, we have supported the idea of a UK Government-backed all-party parliamentary commission of inquiry for truth and reparatory justice, aligned with the United Nations frameworks, to address the legacy of the transatlantic trade in enslaved Africans and colonialism. I am proud to say that my city also backs that call following a motion brought by my former colleague, Green Councillor Cleo Lake, five years ago. This is work that I hope to continue to push on as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for Afrikan reparations.
The UN’s declaration earlier this year, which said that the trafficking of enslaved Africans is the “gravest crime against humanity” and called for reparations as a
“concrete step towards remedying historical wrongs”,
is therefore very welcome. I hope this strong UN stance will encourage the UK Government to mark Black History Month by acknowledging the inhumane crimes that Britain inflicted on African people for centuries, and the ongoing impact of those crimes on the global south today.
My constituency, Bristol Central, is home to a blue plaque at the Seven Stars inn in Redcliffe that marks how Thomas Clarkson, an anti-slavery activist, together with the landlord of the Seven Stars, collected testimonies from sailors in 1787 that were used as evidence in Parliament. These statements played a role in the passing of the Slave Trade Act 1807, which eventually led to the end of the transatlantic slave trade.
Fast-forwarding 150 years, we have already heard extensively today about the 1963 Bristol bus boycott, which was a landmark moment in race relations in the UK. On the same day that Martin Luther King gave his famous “I have a dream” speech in the US, the Bristol Omnibus Company agreed to end its racist hiring practices following a successful boycott campaign. As we have heard, the boycott was widely cited as a turning point for racial justice in the UK and ultimately led to the Race Relations Act 1965.
Bristol’s more recent history saw 15,000 Black Lives Matter supporters gather in the city in 2020 and the toppling of a statue of Edward Colston, a 17th-century slave trader who is believed to have transported about 80,000 men, women and children from Africa to the Americas between 1672 and 1689. That statue, in its damaged state, is now displayed in a glass case in the M Shed Museum, in my constituency, where it is surrounded by some of the placards held by protesters on the day it was toppled. Bristol city council’s culture team say this about the exhibit:
“This is not erasing history, this is recording history. History isn’t something that can remain static and preserved—that moment was history in action.”
Those words feel particularly salient to this debate, because in celebrating those people in our communities whose contributions are all too often unseen, we are—as Cherron Inko-Tariah MBE, the editor of Black History Month UK Magazine, puts it—also writing history. We are making the history that we want recorded, and keeping it alive. To that end, I want to give a special shout-out to one of the many people making black history in Bristol today: the first lord mayor of Bristol to come from the Somali community, Councillor Yassin Mohamud. Yassin brings his experience as a refugee, his experience as a member of the black and minority ethnic community, and his work representing one of Bristol’s more deprived areas to the role of lord mayor. As he said shortly before taking up the post, his focus is on unity
“to bring people together, to celebrate the diversity and strength of our city, and to ensure that every community feels recognised and valued.”
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am enjoying listening to the hon. Lady. I do not agree with everything she has said, but I will touch on that if I catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will the hon. Lady extend her tribute to the current Lord Mayor of Bristol to my noble Friend Lord Rees of Easton in the other place, who has set an amazing example as a black leader in local government?
Carla Denyer
I will indeed. The now Lord Rees, who was the first black mayor of Bristol and one of the first in Europe, also featured in my maiden speech, and I recognise the great contribution that he made to our city.
Finally, I want to highlight the campaign launched last year for Bristol to become the UK’s civil rights capital. The fact that two Members from outside Bristol have already told the story of the city’s pivotal role in British black history supports the case for that very strongly. The campaign brings together academics, business leaders and politicians, including Lord Rees. I will quote directly from one of the campaign’s lead organisers, Julz Davis. He said:
“Bristol has never waited for permission to lead. This city has shown the country what change looks like. Activism has always been the lifeblood of systemic change here.”
Black History Month is a much-needed chance to remember the importance of systemic change and how many people are making that change happen. To quote Cherron Inko-Tariah again:
“There is still so much we do not know. So many stories waiting to be uncovered. So many names waiting to be spoken. So much history waiting to be reclaimed, recorded and shared.”
That potential is very alive in this Chamber today, in my home city of Bristol and across our communities, and I look forward to continuing to work cross-party to help realise it.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her opening remarks, and for her fortitude in delivering them. This year’s Black History Month focuses on honouring our communities, and I want to take the opportunity to bring hon. Members’ attention to the market town of Thetford in my constituency of South West Norfolk. A market town in rural Norfolk may not be the first place that Members think of when considering areas of social and cultural progress in the United Kingdom, but it was in my home town of Thetford that the UK had its first black mayor.
Allan Glaisyer Minns emigrated to England from the Bahamas as a child in the mid-1800s, and he began his story in London. After finishing at Nassau grammar school, he began studying medicine at Guy’s hospital, which is not far from here. Before the age of 30, he was already registered with the British Medical Association. Dr Minns moved to join his brother, who was practising medicine in Thetford. I have little doubt that the Norfolk weather did not quite match that of the Bahamas, and I am afraid that Thetford lacked sandy beaches. Regardless, there was something about our town and the community that made him want to stand for mayor.
Thetford’s community spirit and cohesion resonated with Dr Minns, because he decided to enter politics and was elected to serve on the town council. He was elected as a councillor in 1903, and he was elected by his peers to become mayor back in 1904. He served for 10 years as a local councillor, as well as serving as a local doctor, and he was elected as the mayor of Thetford twice. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: like Dr Minns, I have served as a member of Thetford town council. In my case, I was elected at 22. I am still there, some 19 years later—hon. Members can therefore work out my age. I, too, had the honour of becoming mayor of Thetford back in 2016, and I was proud to wear the same mayoral chain that was worn by Dr Minns all those years earlier.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for making an incredible speech and talking about a really trailblazing man in Dr Minns. I think we should all celebrate what he achieved in Thetford; it is a really wonderful story. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) about her experience of getting involved in politics. Does he share my concerns that, if Dr Minns put himself forward in politics now—with the horrible things that black MPs and black elected officials have to put up with online—it would be very difficult, and does he agree with me that it is the duty of everybody in this House to challenge the vile racism and disinformation that we see online?
Terry Jermy
Absolutely. I will come to some more recent examples that are less positive, but I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s sentiment.
Thetford lays claim to being the third oldest mayoralty in the entire country, and our civic history is truly fascinating, so it is particularly noteworthy that Dr Minns became the first black mayor. It is also worth mentioning that Dr Minns’s sister, Ophelia, was later elected on to the town council—at a time when women could not even vote in parliamentary elections. It shows that the Minns family story is part of our wider history of people who contributed to the life of their community at a time when opportunities to participate in public life were far from equal.
Thetford town council pays tribute to Dr Minns’s legacy by showing school groups around our guildhall and introducing them to his story, and like me, they feel amazed and proud. I pay tribute to local councillors such as Annie Blackbourn, Doug Jefferson and Stuart Wright, as well as the staff at Thetford town council, who are working to ensure that there is a statue of Dr Minns on permanent display in Thetford as we approach the 100th anniversary of his death in 2030. Dr Minns’s story reminds us that black history does not exist separately from the history of our towns and villages but is woven into the very fabric of our communities. He was not simply making history by becoming Britain’s first black mayor; he was serving his neighbours, contributing to civic life and helping to shape the future of our community.
David Burton-Sampson
Last night, I joined the 1987 Committee, set up by the fantastic Fatima Kamara and her team. As hon. Members can tell from its name, it recognises the year—that historic year—in which the Mother of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), entered this House. It aims to help young black people get those opportunities to get involved in politics and in political and public life. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the 1987 Committee on the wonderful work it is doing with young black people to get them into the type of arena that we are in?
Terry Jermy
I recognise my hon. Friend’s own trailblazing experience as a fellow Member from the eastern region. I pay tribute to him, and I absolutely congratulate the organisation he mentioned.
It is really important that these achievements are recognised because, sadly, the story of Dr Minns was forgotten. For a while, it was thought that John Archer, the mayor of Battersea, was Britain’s first black mayor, despite being elected 10 years later. We must talk about and recognise these achievements—although I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova)! I hope that mentioning Dr Minns’s story today will help to honour his legacy and highlight the work he did for his community. It is a reminder that democratic public participation belongs to everyone in our communities, and that the contributions of those who came before us should inspire all who follow.
It has been a difficult few months for my constituency, particularly for my home town of Thetford, with the violent protests in my community. I absolutely recognise that among those protesting were people with legitimate concerns about immigration—whether that be public safety or the impact on services—but, sadly, many were motivated by racism, and we must call out and denounce that at every opportunity. I similarly condemn those who fan the flames of extremism, particularly those who do so for political gain. Their actions led to black and minority ethnic members of my community feeling unsafe and living in fear—often the fear of being misidentified as an asylum seeker—which resulted in children of mixed heritage, like my 10-year-old niece, being asked at school if she was an asylum seeker.
We can and must do better than this. The Government, and the Home Office in particular, need to do far more in relation to community cohesion, particularly in areas such as mine that are close to a former military base that has been identified as a possible site to house asylum seekers, and for communities currently concerned about the dispersal policy.
Jess Brown-Fuller
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to stop politicians from profiting by sharing such views? The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has declared earnings of over £100,000 from X since being elected to this place, so it pays to say more explicitly appalling things. Does the hon. Member agree with me that we should end that practice entirely?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the debate continues, it is etiquette when Members mention other Members in the Chamber to give them prior notice.
Terry Jermy
I share the concern that the hon. Member has raised.
It is clear that there is still a very long way to go to achieve equality. Remembering those pioneers, like Dr Minns and so many of the other people we have heard about today, must go hand in hand with examining the opportunities available to people today. We must ensure that everybody has a fair chance to progress at work, to contribute to public life and to have their voices heard. In my opinion, each act and gesture of tolerance and diversity makes us a stronger and more united country. Black History Month gives us an opportunity to share stories such as those of Dr Minns, and I thank the hon. Members for this opportunity to do so. It gives such stories fair recognition and ensures that future generations are aware of just how far we have come as a society, so that we can keep pushing further.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call Dawn Butler, who I believe was the first black female Minister. Is that correct?
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
Oh, that has made my day, Madam Deputy Speaker, because normally it is only my mum who remembers, so thank you so much. As the first black female MP Minister of this country—I was the first black female MP to stand at the Government Dispatch Box—it makes me really proud to see other black female MPs doing the same, such as the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith; I thank for her powerful opening speech. I am as proud today as I was last year when I witnessed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) at that Dispatch Box, and the year before when my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) was at that Dispatch Box. Watching generations of women coming after me makes me extremely proud.
The only thing I would ask the Government to do is to make sure that this debate is scheduled in the diary every year, so that we do not have this merry-go-round of applying to the Backbench Business Committee and then being told that the debate will be held in Government time. Let us just put it in the diary and have a set date, because this debate is becoming more and more fundamental. As was mentioned earlier, we are witnessing the unapologetic rise of the far right, the rise of racism and the rise of white supremacy. When Reform-led St Helens council shamefully announces that it will no longer formally observe Black History Month, we know that the rest of us have to make sure that we observe it, put it in the books and fight to ensure that black history is not erased, because black history is indeed a part of British history.
I want to start by acknowledging the man, who was mentioned earlier, who brought Black History Month to the UK—Mr Akyaaba Addai-Sebo. We owe him a great debt of gratitude for his tireless work to ensure that black history, black achievement and black identity are not erased, but celebrated. The theme this year is “Honouring Our Communities.” Recognising the everyday contributions of black people across the whole UK, whose work often goes unseen, is vital.
We have lost many of those people over the last year, and I apologise in advance for the many deserving names that I will not mention: Yvonne Brewster, the pioneer who co-founded Talawa Theatre Company; Gerlin Bean, the British black feminist and community organiser; Uriah Rennie, the trailblazing premier league referee; Syd Lawrence, the pioneering black England cricketer; Trevor Toussaint, the British television and theatre actor; and Sonny Blacks, one of the founders of Notting Hill carnival. Some of my personal friends have passed away: one of my closest friends, Kanya King, the British businesswoman and founder of the MOBO—Music of Black Origin—awards, who created that awards ceremony to recognise black music when the major industries did not; Bonnie Greer, the playwright, novelist and critic; Rennick Thomas, affectionately known as Tom, who had a bakery in Forest Gate and on Ridley Road, who was in a bakery war with my dad over who could produce the best hardo bread and bun, and who was my mum’s best friend after my dad died; and, lastly, Professor Jason Arday, who was an exceptional scholar of race and inequality. He joined the faculty of education at the University of Cambridge in 2023, and in August 2026 he was hounded to his death, the hunt started by a self-proclaimed eugenicist and white supremacist.
It would be incomplete to honour our communities without acknowledging what has been taken away. Last Saturday, I attended a reparations conference organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and it made me think of something. Madam Deputy Speaker, if I stole your Rolex watch, would it become mine? Of course not. If I gave that Rolex watch to my daughter, would it become hers? Of course not. A gift does not erase a theft. If she passed it to her child, would it suddenly become a family heirloom? Of course not. Time does not turn theft into ownership.
Now imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, that your daughter discovers the truth that your watch was stolen. Would she not have every right to ask for that watch back? Suppose I used that stolen watch as collateral to get a bank loan and bought a house, and passed that wealth on to my children? The benefit of that theft would be in my family for generation after generation. Some will say, “But today’s generation did not commit the wrong.” That would be true, but your daughter did not suffer the theft. Others will say, “But the past is the past. Leave it alone.” But if the benefits of the injustice are still being enjoyed, then the consequences are not in the past at all, but are actually in the present.
That is the principle behind reparations. It is about recognising that the passage of time does not transform an injustice into a rightful inheritance. If time alone can turn stolen property into rightful ownership, what we are actually saying is that stealing is okay—we merely have to wait until people die and hope that the truth is not exposed or told. The issue is not about inherited guilt, but about inherited benefit and inherited loss. If we would not accept that argument for a stolen watch, why should we accept it for stolen labour, stolen wealth, stolen land or stolen opportunity?
When we look at the world today, we still see the legacy of historic injustice. Across Africa and the Caribbean, the effects of centuries of exploitation remain visible. We can all recognise the iconic Louis Vuitton pattern, but where did it originate from? The Adinkra symbols of the Akan people of Ghana predate many luxury brands by centuries. These are symbols rich in meaning and history. The oldest surviving Adinkra cloth is kept in a place that holds the largest collection of stolen property in the world: the British Museum. Where is the line between appreciation and appropriation? Appreciation acknowledges and credits the source; appropriation too often profits from culture while erasing its origins.
Exploiting indigenous cultures for profit should not be normalised or accepted. That is why the theme of honouring our communities is so important. The Maasai Intellectual Property Initiative is so powerful, because it was established to address the unauthorised use of Maasai branding. It enables businesses to work with the Maasai tribe ethically, ensuring that the benefits flow back to the Maasai people. It is so important in this debate, when we are honouring communities, that we give back, especially what is stolen and what is owed.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not just talk the talk; I walk the walk. I created the Bernie Grant leadership programme, the £1 student fees to get young people engaged in politics, and the parliamentary black caucus, because change will not happen without action. Sometimes this period of time feels extremely overwhelming when we think about the rise of racism and the far right, and all that is thrown at us. The civil rights activist John Lewis said:
“Do not get lost in a sea of despair. Be hopeful, be optimistic. Ours is not the struggle of one day, one week or one year. Ours is the struggle of a lifetime, or even many lifetimes, and each one of us, in every generation, must do our part.”
So, my question to those of us here and to the country is: have you done your part in this struggle? For me, I want to see the end to racist practices and structures in different institutions all across the world in my lifetime. We should not be afraid to call out wrongdoing. Whether it is violence against women and girls, paedophiles, class war, genocide or racism, we need to call it out so we can end it in our lifetime.
John Lewis also said:
“Never be afraid to make some noise and get in good trouble, necessary trouble”.
I am known to get in a little bit of trouble from time to time. I may have got into trouble earlier; we will soon see. But I show up. International Women’s Day debates—I show up. International Men’s Day debates—I show up. Debates on white working class boys—I show up. LGBTQI+ debates—I show up. If we are going to beat the racists, we have to show up. We have show up for each other. We have to speak out and show up to protect black and brown people. We have to show up for them when they are being abused and discriminated against online. We have to show up. When we show up and when we unite, we will never be defeated.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I further remind Members that the Jason Arday case is sub judice, because the inquest has been opened and adjourned. While tributes are welcome and allowed in this debate, Members should not stray into the circumstances on contributory factors to his death.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her powerful opening remarks. It is a pleasure to follow my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler).
As we have heard, the theme of this year’s Black History Month is “Honouring Our Communities”. It is all about ordinary Black British people who have done the rarely celebrated work of building this nation: of working in our factories, in the NHS, and in so many other jobs that helped this country to grow. It is about how they stood up to everyday racism, often on a daily basis, and yet pushed on for their children and their grandchildren to be able to succeed.
I would love to tell that story today: of the black parents in Ealing Southall who refused to accept racism in schools and so sent their kids to supplementary schools to give them a fair chance in life; of the black workers who joined trade unions to fight racism at work; and of the black tenants who campaigned for fair access to housing. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, on 26 January this year we lost my constituent Eric Huntley, a giant of the black community, so it is only right that I pay tribute to him today.
Eric is not quite an unsung hero. In fact, there is a special Nubian Jak Community Trust blue plaque above his home at 141 Coldershaw Road, which he would proudly show me whenever I passed. But he is not sung about anywhere near enough, and I hope to help rectify that today. Eric and his wife Jessica, who died in 2013, were lifelong activists and educators. Eric came here from Guyana in 1957, and Jessica followed in 1962 when they had saved enough to pay for her passage over. In 1968, they founded one of the UK’s first black-led publishing companies, Bogle-L’Ouverture Publications, from a printing press in their front room on Coldershaw Road.
In 1975, they opened a bookshop specialising in black literature at 5A Chignell Place in West Ealing. Eric described it as
“an oasis in the desert of west London”
for the black community. With few other community spaces, it became an important cultural and academic hub, providing a drop-in centre for parents, students and teachers. The bookshop also offered career advice and help with job applications. It became known globally, with visits from black authors and artists from around the world.
The bookshop, however, also came under attack from the National Front, with racist graffiti, smashed windows and excrement pushed through the letter box. Jessica told the story of how the Ku Klux Klan made threatening phone calls in which they were told they had seven days to pack up the shop and leave, and were left in no doubt about the consequences if they did not. But Eric and Jessica would not be intimidated. With other bookshop owners, the Huntleys founded Bookshop Joint Action, and campaigned against racist threats in Ealing and across London, drawing national press coverage and forcing the police to safeguard the bookshop.
Eric and Jessica were key figures in the Caribbean Education and Community Workers Association, which was set up in response to the racist labelling of large numbers of black children as “educationally subnormal”. They were involved in the supplementary school system, which was almost a parallel education system that black communities were forced to set up to stop their children’s life chances being damaged by racism in the school system. They were also part of the Black Parents Movement, which campaigned against laws that allowed police to stop, search and arrest people on suspicion of intent to commit a crime, which were used disproportionately against young black people in the ’70s and ’80s.
The last time I saw Eric was at a poetry event last year run by CACE—the Caribbean and African cultural centre in West Ealing that is very much a part of his legacy. He was as full of life and opinions as ever, and I know he would have lots to say about our new Prime Minister if he were still around. Eric’s death in January, at the age of 96, is truly the end of an era, but his and Jessica’s work in building a community for black people across west London will never be forgotten—from the blue plaque on the house on Coldershaw Road where they started out, to murals of them both on the windows of West Ealing community library.
Most importantly, their spirit lives on in every young black Briton in Ealing Southall today who says, “I refuse to shut up. I refuse to go away. I refuse to accept things as they are.” I hope that this House will join me in honouring not just our communities but Eric Huntley, a true west London legend whose warmth, activism and determination continue to shape the lives of black Britons today.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on persevering through her speech; she was croaky in voice but stood tall at the Dispatch Box, and we are all proud of her. I am grateful that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), is still here, as she is always the very example of courtesy to me. We enjoyed the festive tune earlier, but I think she ought to choose “God Rest Ye Merry, Gentleman” for her alarm, as there is talk of comfort and joy in that song. I also thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for her contribution. We have heard excellent speeches from colleagues across the House.
I do not really like germs, and there has been lots of coughing and sniffing in this debate. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) needs some form of medication. I wish all colleagues who have the sniffles a speedy recovery.
I hope I do not upset some Members who are not here by pointing out that I am English. I am a rare breed, in that I am a black British man, born and raised in England with English roots, and I am a Member of this House. I have said this before, and I will say it again: each and every person who lives, learns and works in our United Kingdom—each and every person who moved here to work in our national health service, on our railways, in our schools and on our building sites—deserves to have their issues, concerns and needs heard, listened to and celebrated.
I am proud to be English, proud to be British, a proud son of a Zimbabwean-born Dad and the proud grandson of a Jamaican who came to our country in the 1940s to help us win world war two, as many other black and Asian men did. Indeed, many came to help in both great wars and have done so in the years since. I am proud to be a black British Member of Parliament, born and raised in England with a constituency in the county of Staffordshire, which has been home to my family for approaching a century. As the House knows, I am the first black man to represent a seat anywhere in the west midlands in this House. I do not say that because I am obsessed with myself, I promise—
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point? [Laughter.]
Adam Jogee
I say that because I do not want anyone else to have to say it. I will happily give way to my hon. Friend. [Laughter.]
Adam Jogee
My hon. Friend should be careful what he wishes for, because he will be caught out if he is not careful!
I want it to be normal—to be a given—and for it to happen right across this island home of ours that someone like me can serve in this House. We all know that black history is British history, and that is certainly true in the context of our United Kingdom. That should not be a controversial or difficult thing to say, so I will say it again: black history is British history.
I am tired of people who should know better—some who sit in this House—who appear determined to tear our communities apart; people obsessed with division rather than unity; people who profess an empty and meaningless care for and commitment to this country. It is not British to walk by on the other side, and those political leaders who seek to tell us otherwise should know better. Let me also say to some in this House, although I note they are not in the Chamber, “If you have an identity crisis and do not know who you are, if you are unsure how to be comfortable in your own skin, I am really sorry for you, but please do not project your insecurities on to the rest of us. Do not infect our national life with your complete and utter rubbish.”
I am proud of who I am and where I am from; I was blessed to be born into a family who made sure that me and my siblings felt that. I am proud of my white English grandmother who had some Irish in her too, of my Jamaican grandfather who made this country his home, of my dad’s parents born in Southern Rhodesia when it was run by this Parliament: I am proud of my Englishness, my African routes and my Caribbean heritage. Nobody—and I mean nobody—is going to make me feel otherwise, tell me otherwise, or make me question that. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
As we approach Armistice Day and Remembrance Sunday in a couple of weeks’ time, when our United Kingdom comes together to reflect and acknowledge the sacrifices of all the men and boys who went to war—and all the women who kept the show on the road at home—nobody in the Chamber today, in any political party, in any community in our country or in any corner of this land should ever forget that we would never have beaten the fascists on the beaches of Normandy or at Gallipoli without the bravery and valour of young men—black, white and Asian. Their bravery won the day.
For many of those who returned from the frontline, our United Kingdom became their home. Those black men and women rolled up their sleeves, put their shoulders to the wheel and helped rebuild a nation ravaged by war. As I have acknowledged before, with their skills and smarts, homes were built, our buses were back on the road, railways worked once again—though I say as someone who has to get the Avanti train back to North Staffordshire every Thursday that we could do with more of their railway working today. Our national health service was established, and as a husband to a nurse, that is particularly important to me. Restaurants opened and sold food with spice, seasoning and everything nice; fabric shops and tailors ensured that our country had some of the best dressed people on the world stage, and our United Kingdom bounced back.
So much more happened, and we as a country would and could not have done it without the sacrifices and contribution of the black British community. And you know what, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is okay for us to say that. I have said this before to the House, and I will say it again: that does not take away from white people, Asian people or those of mixed heritage. We all have a contribution to make, and we all deserve to have that contribution acknowledged and celebrated. It is that blend, that connection and that understanding that we must use Black History Month this year and every year to hold on to.
For me, this is as much about class as it is about race. The black families I represent in Chesterton, Silverdale or Madeley in Newcastle-under-Lyme who moved there to build a life and raise their families have not had the same experiences as people like Kwasi Kwarteng, for example. Those families live in exactly the same economic situations as their white neighbours. We have a wider challenge before us: how do we build an economy that works for all of our people? How do we uplift, enrich and empower all of our people?
While I absolutely believe that the contribution made by the black British community must be acknowledged every single day of the year, I welcome the focus that Black History Month provides for all of us to celebrate, enjoy and recognise that. As we celebrate Black History Month, I like to reflect on the promise of our country—to think that my grandfather arrived here on a boat during the war, and here I am today.
My grandfather came to this country before Windrush. Everyone who has spoken in this debate has, quite rightly, mentioned Windrush. I do not say this to them, but I say generally that there were black people in this country before 1948. The experiences of my grandfather and the men who came with him on that boat in 1941 made it ever so slightly easier for those who came after them, and it is important that we remember those people, too. My standing here today would not happen in many other parts of the world, but it happened in this, our United Kingdom, and we should never forget that.
I am proud of my race, but it does not define me. It inspires me every single day. It has opened doors for me; regrettably, I suspect it has closed a few, too. It allows me to show those who come after me that anything is possible.
My hon. Friend the Minister touched on online racism and the fact that some seek to normalise it, as did the hon. Member for Chichester when talking about our friend, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). I have never been so conscious of the colour of my skin as I have been when calling out the racists throwing abuse towards the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), and the hon. Members for Eastbourne and for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). While listening to colleagues, I have been looking through the responses on Twitter to when I called out that racism, and I want to share a couple with the House.
I was called “another foreigner” in British politics. I was born here. Boris Johnson, another former Prime Minister, was born in the United States, but I do not think he is called a foreigner. What does that tell us? Another called me a “parasite”. My favourite was being told that
“with a surname like that, you cannot be English.”
It is a real shame that there are some in our country who have so little going on in their lives that they have the time to talk such garbage. As my near-ish neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) pointed out earlier, no one is born racist. But it is important that I give this snapshot of what happens when someone who looks like me in this House calls out that racism.
Racism is not just online; it happens on our streets, too. Look at what we saw earlier this year in Northern Ireland—a place I know well, as my wife is from there and we spend as much time there as we can. The streets of this country saw black and Asian people chased out of their homes and hospital workers hiding in the boots of their white neighbours’ cars because they were scared they would not get home. [Interruption.] In 2026, that is an utter disgrace. It is not who we are, and it must never be who we become. [Interruption.] This is quite good going for me—I did actually cry when I gave my speech at my wedding, so this is an improvement. I spoke for 28 minutes when I got married, though, so I will have to see how tolerant you will be of me this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Over the past decade, I have had the honour of attending Black History Month events at local schools, churches and community hubs. I have listened to children speak of their lived experiences, good and bad, and heard pensioners recall the stories of their ancestors. The overwhelming feeling I come away with every year at the end of this month is how proud we should all be of the black British contribution made to our communities.
There has been talk of reparations in this debate and in recent weeks, ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Antigua. I am the descendant of slaves, and I want to share my view. I say this, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, as someone who is very proud of and aware of who he is, where he is from and what he is on earth to do. Who do we pay? What value do we put on the lives of those disgracefully, immorally and forcibly removed from their homes? Where does it stop?
I know where I think it can start: with a British Government who take the Commonwealth seriously and who stop lumping together the Africa and development briefs in the Foreign Office. We have to stop looking at our relationship with Africa through the prism of making ourselves feel better with a development policy approach—there is more to Africa and our relationship with Africa than just development. It starts by ensuring that we reflect on the legacy of the British empire and our collective and complicated history and by properly and effectively trading with the Caribbean and Africa—as much as I love Canada, Australia and New Zealand, we must do more and go further. We should be establishing genuine and real links between our leaders, and I hope that my more senior colleagues in government will lead by example. I want to see more ministerial visits to the former colonies—I say this word consciously—because it is on those visits that we can show our equal partners the respect that they deserve. That would go so much further in acknowledging the contribution that our forefathers made and that the black community is making today, and it would show that this Government get it.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) became Prime Minister, I was asked to become Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Education. I was told that that, on paper, is the first step on the ministerial ladder—in reality, on occasion it feels a little different. But it is an important role, because through it, I am determined to ensure that everyone who needs the skills to succeed is able to get them, that everyone who wants to seize the opportunities before them is able to do so, and that we give our young people—all our young people—the tools to succeed and thrive.
I said in my maiden speech that my becoming a parliamentarian
“was not inevitable, but it was possible.”—[Official Report, 29 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1122.]
The fact that I am a parliamentarian tells me how far the black community has come—from my grandfather getting off the boat in a cold Liverpool in 1941 to me this morning, late, getting off the tube at Westminster station and taking my seat on these green Benches. The fact that I am in Parliament reminds us of what we need to do to lift everybody up, and is a reminder of the age-old value that I have repeated on many occasions: anything can be possible in this United Kingdom of ours.
We all know that the black community has made an unbelievable contribution to the life and soul of this country, from music and the arts to film and sports—and, yes, to food, although the hon. Member for Beaconsfield mentioned the House of Commons jerk chicken earlier, and let me tell her: that is not jerk chicken. There are a couple of places we can go if she wants to taste some. Having said that, my white English grandmother was born and raised in a white working-class family in Birkenhead in the 1920s, but after having been with my grandfather for half a century, her rice and peas was second to none. I just wish she had passed that down to all of her 10 daughters—
Adam Jogee
No, no—we will talk about that later. [Laughter.] Some things are complicated.
Under this Prime Minister, there is a renewed determination and focus to bring our country together, to tackle injustice wherever we find it, and not to let the haters win. Let us get on with it.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to speak in the Black History Month debate. It is educational, it is inspiring, and while I know of many of the black Britons we celebrate, I always love hearing about those I have never heard about before, especially when Members tell us about black Britons from their own constituencies. That is what makes this debate matter.
Jess Brown-Fuller
Earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker mentioned the Serjeant at Arms. I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me for intervening to pay tribute to the Serjeant at Arms, because he was educated in my constituency at Bishop Luffa school. I want to put on the record how proud Bishop Luffa school is of how far he has come.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
We are all extremely proud of the Serjeant at Arms.
I start by congratulating my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on her powerful opening speech. I hope that there is some pepper soup in her future to help with her cold. I join her in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), who has, in our time in this place, led this debate on a number of occasions. I also pay tribute to her because earlier this week I read out a list of names and inadvertently missed her off it. She may wonder why this is the fourth time I am apologising. Perhaps it is the death stare she gave me on the day, or perhaps it is how she has looked at me from out the side of her eye ever since. It might be because I cannot allow the idea that I would shadily forget her, of all people. She is my fellow British-Ghanian MP, of whom I am extremely proud.
When we err publicly, we should atone in the same way. I put on record that my hon. Friend has been a huge support to me, particularly in the past few months, as I have dealt with a challenging time as the Member of Parliament for the Arday family. I know her well enough to know that she will look at me from out the side of her eye until at least 2027, which is not too far away, but I hope that this House now knows that she is somebody who I celebrate in my community.
As we celebrate our friends and community members, it is important that we do not lose sight of the dangerous times that we live in. Online hate is rising, and foreign billionaires such as Elon Musk pour time, money and energy into far-right movements, such as the one led by Tommy Robinson. Racism is no longer whispered; it is amplified, monetised and making its way into our politics. That is why this debate is not a nicety, but a necessity.
Despite what some in the Reform party would like to suggest, black Britons are British, our history is British history and our contributions are equal to those of other Britons and equally worthy of celebration. Before the online trolls pile in with the inevitable, “Why do we have Black History Month? What about White History Month?”, I remind them that had they paid attention in school, they would know that the history of other Britons has dominated our curriculum and that happens all throughout the year. We have a Black History Month as just one month to honour those who were clearly written out of our history books. Black History Month is intended to exist until such a time as those Britons are truly incorporated. It is a means to an end. It was never intended to be an end in itself. We say that black history is British history simply as a call to action.
Black History Month was first marked in October 1987, as we have heard repeatedly, and it was specifically done on the 150th anniversary of Caribbean emancipation. It was organised by Akyaaba Addai-Sebo, a Ghanaian-born special projects officer at the Greater London council. He has been trying tirelessly, particularly as we move to the 40-year celebration next year, to get in touch with Ministers, the Mayor of London and others to make sure that he is included in the celebrations. I hope Members have heard that and will encourage that, as he was the person who led on this.
I was pleased to hear the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), saying that black history is British history during her opening speech, because I understand from comments left on my own social media that that is not the view of everybody in the House. I posted a video of me speaking during Black History Month perhaps a couple of years ago, making that specific point that black history is British history. Her colleague commented that that was not the case. They did not make a racist comment, but they made a point about how it was divisive.
On the same post, I received a lot of racist abuse—some of a kind that I had not necessarily seen in that volume before. I had people calling me the N-word, people telling me to eff-off and go back to where I came from, and people sending monkey photographs. All those sorts of things show just how turbocharged things are. The hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) said that things seem to be going backwards, and I think we need to keep an eye on it. As we look forward to the 40-year celebration of Black History Month next year, I hope a lot more effort is put into challenging racism, right from the top in this House.
We have to remember that Black History Month began as an act of resistance, a way to challenge racism and inspire young people, and a way to repair the record. Today it is a fixture in our national calendar, with thousands of events every October. That is why we find that some Members are losing their voice because of all those events every October. It became a fixture not by accident, but because campaigners, activists and educators fought for it, and they still do. They make sure that our young people learn things that we were never taught. They lift up names that would otherwise be forgotten, and they push back against those who profit from dividing our communities.
Every year, however, black Members are forced to play a guessing game. We look on the Order Paper with no idea whether this month we will be honoured with a debate in this Chamber. While I am pleased that this debate is being held in Government time, Black History Month has happened every October since 1987. That means it is almost as old as me and, as my aunt reminded me last week, I am much older than she thought I was. There is absolutely no reason why this debate should not be a permanent fixture, and I hope that the Minister will take that request to the Leader of the House.
We cannot talk about black history without talking about reparations. I say that because the existence of black history is reparatory in itself. I pay tribute to those Members in this House—the first black Members in this House—who made that point repeatedly. There was Bernie Grant MP, who was the first to ask a question in Prime Minister’s questions on it. He was the founder of the UK reparations movement. Our Mother of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), has led many meetings in Parliament on this issue, including when I worked for her. Lord Paul Boateng continues to lead the charge in the other place on the restitution of artefacts and human remains.
My old history teacher, Mr Melvin Smart, passed earlier this year. He said that we study the past to live the present with an eye on the future, and that is just it. Reparations are not meant to be about guilt, but repair; looking at what we did wrong and attempting to fix it. It is not meant just to be about money, but that is what always happens. We talk about it in financial terms, and we talk about paying. We talk about who gets paid and all the things that can easily be slammed down, instead of talking about all the things that we could move forward with.
Dawn Butler
I thank my hon. Friend for her incredible conference last week, which saw thousands of people attend, and the debates we had. One of the signs that resonated for me, in terms of reparations, was “First stop the harm”. Does she agree that that is a fundamental part of reparations?
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The idea of reparatory justice is to acknowledge that the reason we have to have a month even to celebrate black history is that we have not addressed the harm. We have not gone about repairing all the things that are wrong, including in our education system. We talk about all the different elements of discrimination that black people face in this country, and that is because we have not gone about repairing those institutions that lead to that discrimination. She is absolutely right about that.
We need to make people understand that reparations cannot possibly just be about money. Money is perhaps the smallest part of it, because there would be no point in giving any individual or any country a whole heap of money if we were not first going to repair the institutions and the relationships, because otherwise things would not change. That is the reality of the situation, and I think people are beginning to realise that. That is why there has been a huge move forward this year with the campaign globally for reparations.
In March, the United Nations General Assembly declared the transatlantic trafficking of enslaved Africans as
“the gravest crime against humanity”.
That was 123 nations declaring that. In Accra, Governments and campaigners have gathered to decide what comes next. The Jamaican Government gave a petition to the King, which has now been referred to the Privy Council. CARICOM—the Caribbean Community—has revised its 10-point plan. In the UK, we had our largest conference ever on reparatory justice, with grassroots campaigners, scholars, parliamentarians and Heads of State speaking, all with one demand: understanding where a country like ours built its wealth, why that led to the discrimination faced by people in terms of enslavement, and asking that as a country we first apologise and then seek to do what we can to repair the damage. That can be done in a number of ways, including education—what we are doing right now is a form of reparatory justice—and returning artefacts, as was discussed, or even just human remains.
Some hon. Members may remember that earlier this year I had a ten-minute rule Bill when we found that numerous human remains are being held in boxes or sold on auction sites, and many of those have come from colonial times. It is a disgusting practice. To deny peoples of African descent dignity even in death points to the discrimination they still face. It is so important that this movement can no longer be ignored; it cannot be ignored by the Government or by the House. We need to think as a country about how we will go about the work of repair.
Black History Month cannot be only for talking about these issues and perhaps celebrating, as we have throughout the debate, although that is really important. It must also be about honesty and what we are still getting wrong. This year, our community lost Professor Jason Arday, the youngest black professor in Cambridge’s history, my constituent and my friend. How he died is a matter for the coroner—I will say nothing that gets in the way of that—but how he was treated is a matter for all of us. It is not right that we have not been given the opportunity to discuss that. Nearly 30,000 people stood in Trafalgar Square for Jason and vigils were held across the country. The public did not stay silent, yet when a few weeks ago at business questions I stood to ask the House why it had not discussed him, I was asking a question that I should never have had to ask in the first place.
The House has debated other issues in relation to press conduct—it has done so for Milly Dowler, Lucy Meadows, Caroline Flack and others—and Jason deserves no less. I put it to the Government that it is still not too late for them to come to the House with a statement. We cannot stand here every October and celebrate black excellence and then look away when black excellence is torn down in front of us. We cannot honour the names in the history books and ignore those being dragged through the newspapers today. Celebration without reflection is just performance, and we are no one’s minstrels.
Those who are good at maths will know that next year marks the 40th anniversary of Black History Month in the UK. Plans are already under way, with resources being prepared for schools and communities across the country. Again, I encourage the Government and the Mayor of London to be in touch with the founder of Black History Month in the UK, Akyaaba Addai-Sebo, and his team, who really want input into the conversation and the plans we have.
Adam Jogee
My hon. Friend and I have known each other for a long time, but I think this is the first time I have intervened on her—this is quite something, thinking back to when we first met. She makes a really important point about engagement with the Mayor of London and the Government. May I, through her, encourage local authorities up and down our United Kingdom to engage? I think of the Staffordshire Black Business Network in my community, which can play a really important role in helping ensure that we acknowledge that 40th anniversary in as effective a way as we can.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right: that should be the case, and the Government should be leading the charge by providing resources to others and supporting them in doing so. As I said, those 40 years deserve a momentous celebration.
I hope that when the Minister responds she will tell us exactly how the Government intend to mark the anniversary. I hope that the celebration will be honest about the whole of our history, with the pain, the resistance and the repair.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
It has been a real privilege to listen to so many powerful speeches this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) reminded us to ask the question, “Have you done your part?” and told us never to be afraid to make noise, which are really important points. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) reminded us that black history is correctly British history. My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) just gave a really powerful speech, reminding us of the stark reality today, where we find that racism is not just whispered but amplified.
As this is my first speech in the Chamber as the newly elected Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, I would like to start by paying tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). She is a brilliant campaigner who in her time as Chair shone a light on critical issues and secured significant policy change. Her work on bereavement leave for pregnancy loss in particular leaves a lasting legacy. In such debates, I always admired the way in which she shared stories that are not told often enough in this place, often from her own constituency. Therefore, when preparing for this important debate on Black History Month, I decided to spend some time looking in the royal Berkshire archives to tell one story from Reading’s black history.
I came across a man called Harvey De Pass. Harvey arrived on the HMT Empire Windrush in June 1948. After a brief dalliance with Staffordshire, he and his family moved to Reading. Harvey took up the role of Reading’s first community relations officer at the Reading council of community relations and spent years serving our community, in particular working with local schools.
In October 1970, Harvey organised a conference entitled, “Children in a Mixed Community”. At the time, he told the local paper:
“Our children aren’t immigrants…they know no home other than Britain”—
words that are just as poignant today. After a decade in that role, Harvey set up a local business, DePass Travel, on the Oxford Road. When Harvey died in 2012, he was remembered by the local community for his big heart and his love of cricket.
Harvey is just one example of the wonderful Windrush generation who have brought so much to Reading, with many working in iconic local businesses such as the Huntley & Palmers biscuit factory as well as at our Royal Berkshire hospital and on the town’s bus network. I am reminded of their stories every day when I drive through Reading as I pass the Reading black history mural, which depicts global figures alongside the local heroes who built Reading’s black community. When the site faced redevelopment, which threatened the mural’s future, it was local community campaigners—today’s Harvey De Passes—who successfully ensured that it was preserved for future generations.
As we have heard a lot today, the theme of this year’s Black History Month is “Honouring Our Communities.” As other hon. Members have said, this is about not just telling stories but confronting the inequalities that black people in our country continue to face at work, in healthcare and on the streets of our communities. The work of the Women and Equalities Committee shows how much more we have to do in that regard.
The Committee’s work on health shows that black women are still more than twice as likely to die in childbirth as white women, more likely to experience life-threatening complications, more likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit and more likely to give birth preterm and to lose a baby to stillbirth. Black people are almost four times more likely to experience homelessness, and experience worse outcomes as they progress through the homelessness system. In the workplace, it is more difficult to progress and there are more barriers. Throughout all the Committee’s work. there is one terrible constant: wherever people are adversely affected—be that by policies, attitudes or actions—those impacts are disproportionately worse for people who are black.
That is why, as Chair of the Committee, I am determined to use our platform to hear from black voices on the issues that matter, to ensure that the Government listen, and to hold the Government to account on the promises they have made to the black community, whether on ethnicity pay gap reporting, improved maternal care, or ensuring that those affected by the Windrush scandal receive the support and compensation they are owed, because commitments are meaningful only when they lead to change. Our history is important, but honouring our communities means that we must actively confront inequality to truly commemorate the contributions of those who have made progress. I look forward to building on the Committee’s important work and ensuring that we continue to challenge inequality wherever we find it.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I have thoroughly enjoyed sitting through the debate this afternoon. Last year I listened to just some of the debate, as I could not be in for the whole time. It has been a really enjoyable afternoon, and some powerful points have been made. I will reflect on a few before I get to the main body of my speech.
The first thing I want to talk about is the role of pioneers in the black community in Britain—none more significant than the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who has been mentioned by so many Members, including, first, by the Minister. I was reminded of how important pioneers have been to the House of Commons. I am an MP for Plymouth, and in 1919 the first female MP to take her seat was Nancy Astor, who also represented Plymouth. It was 68 years before there was a female black MP. Putting it in that context highlights the work that the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington has done.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) spoke about Windrush and its role in our education system. Probably about 15 years there was an exhibition at the Southbank Centre; I was living in London at the time, and that was the first time that I really engaged with the story of Windrush. As part of the shadow education team, I know that talking about an entire British history is incredibly important. I studied history myself, and always looked particularly at the immigration history of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston mentioned the role of black footballers today. It would be remiss of me not to use that as a hook to mention that the first man to be selected to play for England was part of the Plymouth Argyle football team. Due to the racism he experienced in the 1920s, although he was selected for England he was not then allowed to play. But while playing for Plymouth Argyle—indeed, he captained the team—he scored 137 goals in 400 games. It is good to get Jack Leslie’s name on the record once again.
I found the contribution from the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) particularly inspiring, especially the story of resilience she told. Something similar was said to me early on in my career. Someone said that I never win people over when I speak publicly. Well, I hope that after my speech this afternoon, people—at least those in this Chamber—will disagree with that comment. Regardless of our race, resilience is something that most of us have had to build up to get here. I think that is incredibly important to mention.
We also heard speeches from the hon. Members for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy)—with that gentle mayoral competition that he mentioned—and for Brent East (Dawn Butler). All the points made by those Members were particularly important. The hon. Member for Brent East mentioned the role of stolen labour. That is not something that I will touch on directly in my speech, but it is part of the theme of commemoration that we need to embrace going forward. The people who fought for this country have not always been remembered for the role that they played.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) made a particularly powerful speech that prompted me to remember two midwives I know well in Plymouth who are of Caribbean heritage. They came over here and served the city of Plymouth for many decades, delivering many babies. It is a real privilege to be able to mention Liz and Yvonne today. Right across our country, we have stories of people who have served—people who came from far-flung places and made the United Kingdom their home.
Finally, we heard from the hon. Members for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey). It has been a pleasure to hear everyone’s contributions this afternoon.
It is a privilege to respond to this interesting and inspiring debate on behalf of the official Opposition. We have heard many times this afternoon how the theme of Black History Month 2026 is “Honouring Our Communities” —sharing inspiring stories of black British life. I believe that there is no better way to do that than by reflecting on the lives of those men and women from the Commonwealth who served during the first and second world wars. Anyone who knows anything about me, right back to my maiden speech, will know that I had the privilege of working for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission before I was elected—indeed, I declare an interest as chair of the APPG for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and Commemoration. I hope Members will forgive me for using my time to talk about this, but I think it is an incredibly important story that we should be telling.
As I am sure Members know, the allied forces were comprised of many nations, including, importantly, a significant number of what are now Commonwealth countries. The imperial forces, as they were known, saw personnel serving together from India, South Africa, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom. In addition, serving under those six flags were men and women from the West Indies and other African nations such as Rhodesia, Nigeria and Kenya. Indeed, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme told us of his grandfather, who would have been one of those men who came from Rhodesia to serve—[Interruption.] Jamaica, sorry. But there was also family from Rhodesia—I was listening.
More than 700,000 black Africans served in the first world war, with tens of thousands more coming from the Caribbean, and over half a million black and mixed-ethnicity individuals served in the second world war. Many of those individuals are commemorated in places like Plymouth’s naval memorial on Plymouth Hoe. There are tales of black and mixed-ethnicity servicemen and women in many theatres worldwide, from frontline first world war combat in east Africa and the middle east, to labour and support units working worldwide, to action in Burma during the second world war, to the merchant navy and planes soaring in the skies with the Royal Air Force.
It is the role of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to commemorate each man and woman who lost their life serving in the Commonwealth forces with no distinctions. Each casualty should be commemorated by name on a headstone or memorial. Each casualty should have a single point of commemoration. Headstones and memorials should be permanent, and, importantly, headstones should be uniform; it does not matter where somebody was from, we cannot tell by looking at the shape of the headstone—instead we have to go and read their story. There should be equality of treatment for war dead, irrespective of rank or religion. This means that right across the world, in 153 countries, war dead are commemorated.
I will use my brief time this afternoon to highlight some of the black Britons who were included in the British forces who fought in the first and second world wars. There are many stories of the contributions of black Britons who served so faithfully during both world wars. The examples that I wish to share can be found on a new online portal hosted by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, where families and historians can share the stories of those recorded on war graves and memorials across the world. It is called the For Evermore project, and I encourage anybody who has a story or wants to advertise the project in their constituency to do so, because ultimately, by knowing more about the names, we have a much bigger picture of the cost involved in those two wars. I am grateful for those stories, and I have effectively lifted three of them from that portal to tell the House this afternoon.
Second Lieutenant Walter Daniel John Tull was one of the British Army’s first black commissioned officers and one of England’s first black professional footballers. Born in 1888 in Folkestone, Walter was orphaned young and brought up in an orphanage in Bethnal Green. Before the war, he played for Tottenham Hotspur and later for Northampton Town, where he remains a club legend. Shortly after the outbreak of the first world war, Walter joined the Footballers’ Battalion of the Middlesex Regiment and fought in the battle of the Somme in 1916. He was a natural leader and in May 1917 was commissioned as an officer—a remarkable achievement, given the prejudices of the time. He was mentioned in dispatches for “gallantry and coolness” while leading his company of 26 men on a raiding party into enemy territory. He returned to France in 1918 and was killed in action on 25 March while leading his men into battle during the German spring offensive. He is commemorated on the Arras memorial to the missing. He was a true pioneer whose military service challenged the racial barriers of his age.
Lance Corporal Horace Wilfred Miller from the Leicestershire Regiment was born in Hinckley, Leicester as the eldest of 10 children. His father hailed from St Helena, a British overseas territory off the coast of south-west Africa. Aged 19, Horace joined the Army in January 1913, enlisting with the Shepshed Company of the Fifth Battalion, Leicestershire Regiment. He was sent to France a year later and was known for being a keen musician and singer. Horace was killed on 10 September 1915 by a German sniper in the Ypres salient. Newspaper reports noted that
“Miller was a fine man, greatly loved and admired by all his many pals”.
Finally, Victor Emmanuel Tucker was born on 22 December 1916 in Jamaica to parents Adrian and Lydia Tucker. Victor emigrated to England in the 1930s, and the Oxford-educated Jamaican qualified as a barrister. In 1940, he was living in Highgate, London with his wife Wilhelmina. He enlisted in the RAF in August 1940 and earned his pilot wings in early 1941. He was also promoted to sergeant at that point. His Spitfire was painted with a yellow island of Jamaica symbol on the nose, representing Victor’s homeland. Sadly, Victor would not survive the war. He was shot down by a Messerschmitt FW109S on a raid over Le Havre in France. The Spitfires were escorting Boston bombers to Le Havre and turned away before the bombing run. By order, they flew a left turn, to which the pilots had protested, as that enabled the Germans to attack from the sun. Victor was one of the RAF pilots shot down in that encounter. His body was never recovered and, as he has no known grave, he is commemorated on the Runnymede air services memorial in Surrey, England.
Adam Jogee
The shadow Minister is making a thoughtful and appropriate speech, and I thank her for it. I thank her specifically for mentioning Victor’s story. It is one that gives voice to many of the points that have been raised on the Government Benches, and that some on the Opposition Benches could learn from.
Rebecca Smith
I hope that in all the stories I have shared, those men—women will have played a role, too, but in the early days it was often men—did what they did in spite of where they came from, their race and their background. We are incredibly grateful. That is why the Commonwealth War Graves Commission exists: to highlight their contribution.
This afternoon I have sought to highlight not just Commonwealth people, but those who fought under the United Kingdom’s flag. They were black British men who served and tragically lost their lives. Many survived, and no doubt they are the family members of many Members in this House, but sadly, the men I have highlighted paid the ultimate price.
These stories remind us that black history forms a part of our shared national story. These people came from different places, yet they shared the same values of duty, courage and service. They fought under the same flag, faced the same dangers and made the same ultimate sacrifice. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was right to state, during her tenure as Equalities Minister, that the achievements of black Britons
“belong to us all, whatever our skin colour.”
Black History Month is at its best when it reminds us of what unites us: a shared inheritance and a shared commitment to the country we all call home.
The Minister for Equalities (Satvir Kaur)
It is an honour to close today’s debate. I thank the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith for opening the debate and for everything she has done in a personal capacity and in her time here to champion our diverse communities. I thank everyone from across the Chamber for their heartfelt, powerful and thought-provoking contributions. It is rare for this Chamber to come together in this way, and I am pleased that it has done so over an issue as important as this one.
I know that Black History Month can at times be viewed as tokenistic, but it is only tokenistic if we allow it to be. I agree that we should mark the 40th anniversary, and that this should be a regular item of Government business. As we heard from the contributions this afternoon from Members who represent communities across our country, Black History Month is an incredible opportunity to honour our diverse communities, pay tribute to the huge contribution they make to our cities, towns and neighbourhoods, and celebrate the success stories that inspire people like me every single day—stories too often left untold.
This month’s theme is “Honouring Our Communities”, and I thank Members for doing just that. We pay tribute to trailblazers like Dr Allan Minns, the first black mayor in the UK, who was elected over 100 years ago in rural Norfolk; I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for telling us his story. We pay tribute to Paul Boateng, the UK’s first black Minister; our first black Serjeant at Arms; Councillor Faduma Mohamed, the Mayor of Ealing; Lord Rees from Bristol; and Yassin Mohamud, the current mayor of Bristol.
Satvir Kaur
The Lord Mayor of Bristol.
We pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who has been mentioned several times in the debate, as the first black woman elected to Parliament. I remember sitting next to her when she became Mother of the House and feeling incredibly emotional. We pay tribute to John Okungbaiye, about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) spoke passionately, as she did about others who have contributed in her constituency. As there is an ongoing love-in for my hon. Friend, I just want to add to it. There is a real sisterhood in Parliament, and I have felt that so strongly with my hon. Friend; I thank her for her friendship, support and encouragement. I feel as though the resilience she oozes is slowly seeping into my veins, so I thank her personally for that.
We pay tribute to Eric Huntley and the others who were spoken about passionately by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan); Harvey De Pass, from Reading, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey); and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), for being the first female black Minister in this country and for everything she has done to champion this cause. I pay tribute to the Government’s Race Equality Engagement Group members, who as we speak are all in Liverpool with the Minister for Women and Equalities discussing how we go further in making more meaningful change. I thank Baroness Doreen Lawrence for generally being an inspiration to us all, but also for chairing the group and bringing it together.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Could I add to that illustrious list Andrew Watson, who was the first black international football player when he captained Scotland to a 6-1 victory over England in the late 19th century?
Satvir Kaur
I pay particular tribute to Andrew Watson.
I join others in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) for her tireless work as the former Minister for Equalities and for her personal support to me in my new role.
I pay tribute to the likes of my great-grandad, Gyani Sundar Singh Sagar, who worked closely with local black leaders 50 years ago to help change the law so that bus drivers and those riding motorbikes could do so while wearing turbans and not compromise their faith. In fact, the family home is now owned by a Jamaican family whose dad was a Rasta and only got his job as a bus conductor wearing his locs and hat because of my great-grandad’s campaign. In my home city of Southampton, where our diversity is celebrated and which gave me a sense of belonging growing up, I pay tribute to the likes of Don John, Jayanti Shah, Suki Sitaram and Lou Taylor for their tireless work on race equality.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Tyne (Adam Jogee) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), for mentioning our Commonwealth soldiers who too often get forgotten when we talk about the contribution made in our world wars. They helped beat fascism and stood by us throughout it all. We celebrate the likes of Estlyn McFarquhar, a retired midwife whom I met in Bath. She told me that she has delivered thousands of babies, and she was instrumental in setting up a place for ethnic minorities to meet and get support in her neighbourhood.
Adam Jogee
On the subject of meetings, a second ago the Minister described my constituency as Newcastle upon Tyne—we are Newcastle-under-Lyme. To make up for it, will she come and meet the Staffordshire Black Business Network, which I feel sure would like to see her?
Satvir Kaur
Any excuse to meet the good people of Newcastle, and I will not make that mistake again—I thank my hon. Friend for calling me out on it.
In Bath, I met amazing people at Fairfield House who bring older generations together to celebrate their cultures through heritage, art and storytelling. They also make the most amazing food, which I felt compelled to try. We celebrate the fact that over 98% of FTSE 100 companies now have ethnic minority representation on their boards, acknowledging that having diversity at decision-making tables is not only the right thing to do, but good for business as it improves productivity and growth. We celebrate Croydon BME Forum for all it does, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) for talking passionately about it earlier.
We thank those who have taken up the mantle for race equality, accepting that it cannot fall on black communities alone. That has been reflected in Members’ contributions in this debate, including that of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), on her important experience in her constituency. We thank the likes of Salisbury museum, which gave local black communities the opportunity to own and narrate their own history, in their own words, on slavery.
Black History Month, however, gives us an opportunity not only to reflect on the huge strides made towards race equality, but to acknowledge that the fight is not over. As we have heard today, it is important to highlight where we are falling short and where we must go further, and to accept that we stand on the shoulders of giants and that now our generation owes it to the next generation to pick up the mantle, deal with issues that we thought were left far behind us, take on the next set of challenges and continue the fight for equality.
When I was growing up in Southampton’s inner city as the daughter of a market stall trader, my dad taught me to be a grafter, like him—to work harder and to go that extra mile to get the same opportunities as others, because the colour of our skin will hold us back. One of the reasons I am in politics is to ensure I can teach my baby girl, Emmy, and children of colour everywhere that because of the changes our generation made, when you work harder, you go further, because talent, ability and access to opportunities are everywhere, in every community, and the colour of your skin has nothing to do with it.
That is why this Government intend to introduce ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting, not as an end in itself but as a means to an end—it moves us towards a fairer chance to get on in life for everyone. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston asked for an update, and I am pleased to report that we are moving at pace and keen to get parliamentary time as soon as possible. I pay tribute to the likes of Change the Race Ratio and others who have campaigned on this issue for a number of years; I saw at first hand the important work they do earlier this month.
In health, the Amos review shone a light on the shameful discrepancies faced by ethnic minority women in maternity care—a service that many of us know only too well needs to show up for you, whoever you are. I am pleased that in response, as well as announcing the creation of the UK’s first ever maternity and neonatal commissioner to hold the system to account, this Government have committed to the national roll-out of the perinatal equity and anti-discrimination programme. This will tackle unacceptable inequalities in care and outcomes, particularly for black and Asian women, those from deprived backgrounds and other marginalised groups.
Hate crime and racism were sadly a common theme of the debate. I pay tribute to organisations that tackle those issues across the country, and particularly Stand Against Racism & Inequality—an amazing Bristol charity that I visited recently, which does the most inspiring work supporting victims of racial abuse and going into schools to give children a sense of belonging.
The truth is that there are forces out there that seek to divide us and pit one community against another, but in reality, when we rise, we do so together. There are forces out there that will tell you that you are English only if your skin is a certain colour or you are from a certain race. Well, I am here to tell you that they are wrong—they were wrong in the ’30s, they were wrong in the ’60s, and they are wrong now. They will never succeed in dividing this great country—not then, not now—because our diversity is our strength. It has made us who we are today: resourceful, skilled, vibrant, talented, innovative, cultured and so much more. At a time when members of our communities are feeling vulnerable and under attack, my message is clear: you belong here. Your heritage, your history and your culture is our heritage, history and culture, and it makes us proud to be British.
We know that the scale of the challenge before us is huge. That is why we must meet it with the same level of ambition to tackle it. Now is the time to be bold, brave and courageous and to re-own the narrative. That will be achieved only by fighting hard for race equality like those who came before us—by working together, with steely determination, and telling the world that we are the great country we are because of our diversity, rather than in spite of it. Together we can, and we will. I thank everyone again for their contributions, and I commend this debate to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Black History Month.
NHS Maternity Services
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
On Monday, the senior management of the Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS foundation trust will meet again to make an important decision: whether enough consultants can be found to reopen maternity services at North Devon district hospital. North Devon’s desperate maternity staffing crisis is entering its 10th week, with all births still being diverted two hours to Exeter. Hundreds of families in my constituency deserve answers.
NHS maternity services across the country face massive pressure, but the timeline of the past 10 weeks makes for sorry reading. On 27 July, the trust announced that it was about to fall below the minimum staffing level of obstetrics and gynaecology consultants needed to keep the Ladywell maternity unit open. From 11 August, all births were suspended, and the trust began sending expectant mothers to the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital until further notice.
What followed has been agonising. The fear and anguish of frightened local mums has played out in regional and then national media. The outcry from the public has been furious: hundreds gathered in Barnstaple town square for the first of several Maternity Matters protests, more than 15,000 people signed my petition to get the unit reopened, and our TV and radio appeals have been answered by doctors as far afield as Australia.
I have written to more than 50 maternity authorities, NHS public bodies, charities and women’s health organisations to ask for help in recruiting new consultants and holding the trust to account for its decisions. The suspension was extended again on 14 September, with seemingly no end in sight. Even as new doctors were found, I was on the phone to local landlords desperately trying to find them somewhere to live in North Devon, and getting the Home Office to urgently extend work visas. The tier 2 registrars rota has now been filled with two new permanent doctors. A new consultant locum started last week, and one candidate is in discussions to fill the final vacant post.
Even if that is achieved, we are not out of the woods yet. When North Devon was merged into a wider trust back in April 2022, that was justified partly on the basis that it would make both trusts more resilient. We were told that medical staff in North Devon could be cycled through Exeter to boost training, and staff could be shared between North Devon, east Devon and Exeter to deliver extra resilience in a crisis, yet three years down the line we discover that the consultant rotas in Barnstaple and Exeter are not even interchangeable, and our maternity unit is still dangerously fragile.
North Devon district hospital is the remotest acute hospital in mainland England, serving hundreds of square miles of north Devon, Torridge and north Cornwall. My constituents and I are left wondering whether senior figures in Whitehall, NHS England and even our own hospital trust actually understand the basic reality of the geography we are talking about.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on his indefatigable efforts on behalf of Barnstaple hospital; as he knows, although it is in his constituency, it also serves thousands of people in Torridge, which I have the honour to represent. Does he agree that the question the Minister needs to answer today is what the Government are going to do to ensure that isolated rural maternity services are resilient and can withstand the departure of a single consultant and prevent hundreds of mothers having to make a trek—in this case of 60 miles to Exeter, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well—to give birth. We need a policy that looks closely at how isolated rural maternity units can have built-in resilience, and trusts must have a duty to ensure it.
Ian Roome
I agree with the right hon. and learned Member and thank him for those comments. I hope the Minister has made a note of them.
It is a 53-mile drive from North Devon district hospital to the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital. We are talking about a catchment area larger than Greater Manchester without an open maternity unit.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
On the point about rurality, I was alarmed earlier in the week to hear NHS chiefs talking about the fact that in order to consolidate services they may have to cut rural and coastal maternity services further. In Frome and East Somerset I have mothers who routinely travel over an hour to access maternity services. I know they are not the distances that my hon. Friend and other colleagues are talking about, but efficiency of maternity services should not come at the cost of women living in rural areas simply being able to access maternity care in a safe and timely way. Does he agree?
Ian Roome
I agree with my hon. Friend. That is precisely the point I am making about rurality and the remote services that many people experience. Many of my constituents would not reach the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital inside two hours. If a hospital shuts down in London, neighbouring units can absorb some extra workload without a dramatically heightened risk to mother or baby, but in this case, no neighbouring hospital exists. Most of the road route is not even a dual carriageway. In terms of journey time, it is like announcing that women cannot have their babies delivered in London and that mothers going into labour must be diverted to Bristol.
It is little wonder that would-be parents across northern Devon and Cornwall are terrified at the extra pressure of getting to Exeter. I have recently been able to get the trust to agree to move some of the triage back to Barnstaple for women over 37 weeks with suspected broken waters, but many of those warned to travel early to Exeter have ended up being sent back to North Devon—a round trip that takes many hours.
Official trust figures record no “incidents” and fewer than five “births before arrival” over the past nine weeks. Will the Minister tell me the NHS’s official view on that? Is it credible to claim that a baby born in an ambulance or non-medical area of a hospital should not qualify as an “incident”? The Daily Mirror has reported that two babies have been born in the back of ambulances, two in accident and emergency, and one in a hospital reception, although I have not been able to verify that. The trust is clear that it reviews every one of those “births before arrival” carefully, and cannot give a more exact breakdown without breaching patient confidentiality. However, it also insists that:
“There is a difference between the NHS definition and a patient’s definition of experiencing an “event-free” birth.”
I am a father and a grandfather who remembers those tense few hours well, and I understand why trust senior management feel the need to be dispassionate about a baby arriving early, but when expectant mothers are travelling so far by ambulance, that kind of statement surely stretches the credibility of NHS guidance to breaking point.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I like my hon. Friend’s analogy of pregnant women having to travel from London and Bristol to give birth. The issue is not just that they are having to travel that distance—it is what they find when they get there. A constituent from Ottery St Mary wrote to me earlier this week to explain that the Exeter labour ward has only 10 rooms plus two birthing centre rooms. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a question not only of distance travelled but of the experience of the queues encountered on arriving?
Ian Roome
I totally agree with my hon. Friend that the problem is extending and forcing problems on to neighbouring maternity units. I know that the maternity unit in Exeter is now under pressure because it is having to cope with the births coming from North Devon.
I appreciate the Government’s maternity adviser meeting me last week. She speaks passionately about fixing the crisis in our maternity units across the country. When the new Prime Minister addressed this question in this House, he was up front that North Devon is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to structural weaknesses in NHS maternity services. Things have clearly come to a head in the south-west. First, Yeovil maternity unit suffered a staffing crisis and closure last year, and now Barnstaple has suffered the same. In Yeovil's case, a full reopening took almost a year. I am told privately by senior figures that there are other NHS trusts around the country that are also perilously close to something similar. Just like North Devon, their maternity units hang in the balance.
The national maternity and neonatal taskforce’s new action plan is due in December, and I want the Government to treat this sorry episode as a case in point. Maternity units should not be suddenly suspended out of the blue. Our trust wrote its own continuity plan for our maternity services, set its own staffing benchmark below which closure would be needed, and decided its own reopening criteria. If the unit at North Devon district hospital can reopen with a fully staffed doctors’ rota, we are at least protected against this happening again in a few weeks’ time, but without national guidance on when suspensions should happen, we are running this unit on an operational cliff edge of the trust’s own design.
We know that the trust was struggling with maternity recruitment since at least December last year, which continued right through to the spring. It is no wonder that my constituents are angry; it seems impossible that no emergency alarm was ringing months ahead of this crisis reaching boiling point. Why does it take a sudden suspension and a national media backlash, driven by me and local Maternity Matters campaigners, to get this issue to the very top of the chief executive’s to-do list?
Secondly, the Government’s workforce plan is already overdue, and it needs to have a special focus on maternity services in at-risk areas. For example, I am told that when the deanery decides placements for trainee consultants, especially in their final years, the trend is towards large urban centres that offer them more specialised teaching. The unintended consequence is that many of those candidates stay in whichever area they last trained and already know well. That boosts the ability of urban hospitals to recruit, even while hospitals in remote areas such as North Devon are crying out for doctors. I ask the Government to work with deaneries to ensure that trainee consultants are able to do their final years in rural and coastal acute hospitals. I believe that that would help to tackle the maternity workforce crisis in smaller maternity units.
On 2 October, North Devon district hospital’s consultant body passed a vote of no confidence in the trust’s senior management. When senior NHS staff with years of experience and dedicated service say that something is wrong, it should be a wake-up call. I am shocked to learn that senior figures in the trust have not even taken the opportunity to win hearts and minds by being present on site at North Devon district hospital during the crisis. Such things are completely symbolic, and that is entirely the point.
Thirdly, my constituents are owed a full, independent review into how this crisis came about. We need the official record to show what led to the suspension in North Devon, what happened, how it might have been averted and how we ensure that it never happens again. The trust has appointed Audit South West Assurance to conduct the review, but a letter that I received from the trust’s chair of the board on 12 October implies that the terms of reference for a review are being set by a sub-committee of the trust’s board of directors. If that is true, I ask the Minister if the Department of Health and Social Care has an official standard for the impartiality of reviews such as that one. Many of my constituents will suspect the tell-tale signs of a whitewash in the making—something that does not improve health outcomes for anyone—and I hope that we can count on the Government’s support.
Fourthly, what accountability exists for strategic failings in the NHS? A well-established structure exists to pursue clinical negligence and medical malpractice, but how can the NHS stamp out corporate failings, bad decision making or simply a lack of attention given by senior managers? I have asked that question of many organisations already, but I am yet to get a clear answer. If this crisis had been even worse, as it might be at someone else’s local hospital next month, what recourse would the public have? I was utterly shocked this week to read that the NHS Alliance’s lead director for acute care had told The Guardian that as many as 20 NHS maternity units across the country may be forced to close entirely. In more remote parts of the country, that should be unthinkable.
When services are centralised again and again, it is always remote communities such as mine that pay the price. There are many more questions that my constituents need answering, but above all, the question is: how can it be that senior NHS figures feel less publicly accountable for suspending maternity services entirely than they do for staffing an open maternity unit? To answer that question, I am forced to turn to the ultimate policymakers in government.
Short of defending this country from attack, I can see no greater duty for the British state than ensuring that the next generation can be born safely. Most people would struggle to think of any NHS spending that should take priority over that sacred responsibility. As such, my final question is whether the Minister understands that in remote rural and coastal communities such as mine in North Devon, which has suffered this nightmare for the past nine weeks, losing maternity services would be seen as the beginning of the end for the national health service itself.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I am very grateful to both the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) for allowing me the opportunity to contribute to this debate, and I am glad that we have a little bit of time for me to do so. I have to admit that I have interpreted the title of the debate, “NHS Maternity Services”, a little broadly, but I represent a rural constituency in Scotland, and I recognise many of the things that my hon. Friend has referred to in his speech, as well as the contributions of other right hon. and hon. Members. My hon. Friend has demonstrated not only a real understanding of the acute needs in his constituency, but a broader understanding of the challenges that maternity services face. That is why the issues he has described are replicated in many parts of the UK, including Scotland.
In the UK, a baby is born roughly every 50 seconds. Given that, we might expect maternity services to be among the best-resourced and best-supported parts of our NHS, but we know, as we heard this afternoon, that this is not the reality. In Scotland, nine in 10 midwives report chronic staff shortages, and nearly three quarters of maternity units are not staffed at levels that are considered safe. In rural areas such as mine in North East Fife, those pressures can be even more acute. Despite the extraordinary dedication of our midwives, nurses and support staff, an overstretched system too often leaves women and families without the care and support they deserve.
In the limited time I have, I want briefly to share the stories of two of my constituents. The first is Kristie Haldane, who has shown immense courage in speaking publicly about her experiences so that others do not have to suffer in silence. She experienced both an incomplete abortion and a traumatic miscarriage. On both occasions she received treatment that, for a variety of reasons, fell far below the standard anyone should expect. It is important for us to remember that this is not just about the experience itself, but the impact it has on people’s mental health, as it has on Kristie’s. It has impacted her employment and her confidence. Following her experiences, she lost her job and experienced homelessness, and struggled to access the support she desperately required.
What struck me was not only the grief that Kristie endured, but the loneliness and isolation that accompanied it. After her miscarriage, she was discharged from hospital and feels that she, her partner and her wider family received little support. At the moment when compassion and care were needed most, she felt abandoned by our system. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the patient experience team at NHS Fife. As constituency MPs, we all support constituents when they are making complaints, and the reconciliation process that Kristie has gone through—with my support and that of my team —has helped in some ways to understand what happened, but also to ensure that we learn lessons.
Turning to my second point, we talk about maternity care in the context of pregnancy and birth, but we know that there are key challenges in reproductive health more broadly. I have another constituent whose experience highlights the importance of informed patient safety. Tammy Payne was prescribed the contraceptive injection Depo-Provera more than a decade ago, but was not warned about the potentially increased risk of developing meningiomas, a type of brain tumour. After experiencing persistent double vision, she was diagnosed with multiple meningiomas and subsequently underwent surgery to relieve pressure on her optic nerve. When one of the tumours returned, she required a craniotomy, a major operation involving the temporary removal of part of the skull to access the brain. She has been left without the use of one eye, and feels betrayed by a system that was supposed to inform, protect and support her.
I place on record my admiration for both Kristie and Tammy, because it takes enormous courage to relive those kinds of deeply traumatic experiences in public. I hope the Minister will engage with me, particularly on Tammy’s case, to discuss Depo-Provera and the risks it poses more widely. The truth is that neither of those women should have gone through what they did, which is one of the reasons why my party has long called for an independent maternity commissioner for England. We welcome the Government’s commitment to establish one.
In Scotland there has been constant, long-term campaigning by the Caithness Health Action Team, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and the new MSP for Caithness, David Green, for the SNP Government to finally provide better maternity services in the far north of Scotland. We welcome Professor McCourt’s independent review, which has a focus on the far north and will look at maternity services in Scotland. That will take into account the unannounced inspections of all 18 acute maternity units in Scotland that are currently being carried out. That is really important, but I think it demonstrates that we have much more to do across the UK to provide reproductive health support and maternity support. Women deserve better, families deserve better, and our maternity services deserve the resources that they need to deliver better care.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I thank the hon. and gallant Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) for raising this very important matter. He calls attention not just to his own constituency but, as we have heard from others, to a broader issue that we face, particularly in our rural and coastal communities. I want to stress that the Government are clear that all women have the right to receive the same high-quality, safe and compassionate care, wherever they have their babies. We need to ensure, and mums need to know, that services are there for them when they need them, including at the time they go into labour.
I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for sharing the experiences of her constituents Kristie and Tammy today, and I agree that we need to bear such experiences in mind. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has chosen to prioritise maternity, and why the work of the national maternity and neonatal taskforce is so important. In particular, the new modern service framework will define the standards needed to deliver care across the country, whether in large inner-city areas or small rural places.
I know the hon. Member for North Devon understands that the North Devon maternity unit was closed for a good reason: the trust could not provide a service that it knew was unsafe. It is really important that we all bear that in mind as we discuss this issue. We must support good, sound clinical assessment, particularly in this area. However, it is unacceptable that, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), expectant mothers are travelling all the way to Exeter or Bristol, and the current situation is not sustainable. I have given birth very healthily three times, and I am grateful for the care that I had. I had to travel only a short distance down the road and, frankly, that was enough, so I empathise deeply with women who have to endure long journeys.
I will not rehearse the recent history that led us to this point, because I know the House is well acquainted with that. As the hon. Member for North Devon knows, the responsible Minister is the noble Baroness Merron, but I will do everything I can to take this opportunity to update him and the House on where we are, and follow up in writing on any specific questions, if necessary.
The trust has set the following three tests before the unit can reopen: first, there must be 24/7 consultant and registrar cover in place through an on-call rota; secondly, three quarters of those staff must be employed full time; and thirdly, new staff must have gone through employment checks, onboarding and induction. Today I can update the House that the outlook on safe staffing was more positive last week, but unfortunately some recruitment has fallen through since then. The trust is still seeking the additional clinical staff that they must have to provide a safe service. As hon. Member for North Devon knows, the issue is not that the roles are not funded. They are generously funded, and the trust has even gone so far as to offer salary top-ups, but the roles remain unfilled. The question is how we attract the best talent to our rural and coastal communities, and show them that Barnstaple and other similar places are among the best in the country to build a life.
I want to thank partners that are working with the trust on recruitment, including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The trust is also exploring hiring international candidates, but ultimately we want the unit to have enough staff to provide a safe service that is sustainable—another point that has been well made today—even if a doctor is unwell or otherwise on leave. Every week, the chief medical officer at the trust conducts an assessment to see whether the unit is ready to reopen its doors. Every two weeks, the trust updates key stakeholders on the status of the unit. Once safe staffing is secure, there will be a short period of time to stand up rotas and put services in place. I have had assurances that, during that period, the trust will get in touch with every mother and give them the chance to change their birth plans to Barnstaple, should they want to do so.
Richard Foord
I accept that this is a point about recruitment, but it is also a point about retention. A constituent of mine who visited the maternity ward at Exeter hospital heard that the staff temporarily redeployed there from Barnstaple are having to pay the full car parking charge of £20 per day while they are doing the additional service of travelling to Exeter. Does the Minister think that retention also needs to be looked at?
Karin Smyth
Yes, of course, and that is what the trust does. I would gently urge all hon. Members to work very closely with the entire trust on these issues to solve these problems. It is absolutely right that the trust is working with MPs. It is reviewing its decision on a weekly basis, and it is important that it communicates openly and transparently with all its partners when those decisions happen. I am always very clear that Members of Parliament speak on behalf of their constituents and can be helpful in communicating those messages, because we want to make this work.
In the meantime, the trust continues to offer a range of maternity services, and it has taken steps to help the women covered by its duty of care. There is a dedicated helpline for women to discuss their birth plans, a maternity triage line for urgent help, special appointments to talk about travel costs and accommodation, free taxis for women who do not have their own transport and are advised by the triage line to go to hospital, and mental health support. These are good and sensible steps, but it is still unacceptable for women to have to travel for two hours while they are in labour.
Trusts in our rural and coastal communities do face systemic pressures, because they have fewer births and because it can be hard for the local NHS to recruit. Last year I visited North Devon district hospital, as part of my remit in overlooking the new hospitals programme, to see how it is using the £30 million the Government have made available to support the rebuild of the 50-year-old staff accommodation block and invest in MRI scanners. We are committed to those services in Barnstaple, and it is important for all hon. Members’ constituents to be clear about that.
Our 10-year health plan, produced last year, clearly set out the issues for rural and coastal communities, which the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) noted. We particularly highlighted those communities in the 10-year health plan because we recognise that they have specific needs and do not benefit from a one-size-fits-all approach. However, the broader systemic issues they face, particularly in staffing, must be addressed in our upcoming workforce plan, and I do agree that retention is a key part of that.
Ministers have made it clear to the NHS that we must do everything possible to help reopen North Devon maternity services. NHS England, the ICB and the regional team in the south-west are working with the trust to resolve these issues as soon as possible. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has rightly made maternity a national priority for this Government. She is chairing the national maternity and neonatal taskforce to drive forward reforms, and to deliver systemic and sustained improvement across maternity and neonatal care, including in relation to the failings exposed in the south-west of England in recent months.
The Barnstaple maternity unit will reopen. I cannot give the hon. Member for North Devon a guarantee from this Dispatch Box of the date when that will happen, because it will depend on securing safe staffing. That is the problem that everybody needs to focus on, and this Government are focused on doing that with the local system. We will do everything we can to help the hon. and gallant Gentleman get those services back on track on behalf of his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Members are reminded to bob to catch my eye if they wish to speak in any debate.
Clause 22
Interpretation of Refugee Convention: “lawfully staying”
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)
I beg to move amendment 133, in clause 22, page 21, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would omit the transitional provision for clause 22. Amendment 135 would provide for clause 22 to be commenced by regulations, and that would mean that the transitional provision could also be included in the regulations rather than in the primary legislation.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 61—Removal of persons within Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention: disapplication of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998—
“(1) Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (acts of public authorities) does not apply to a decision of the Secretary of State to remove from, or require to leave, the United Kingdom a person who is not to be taken to be lawfully staying in the United Kingdom by virtue of section 37A of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (as inserted by this Act).
(2) In proceedings relating to such a decision, a court or tribunal may not treat the decision as unlawful by reason of its incompatibility with a Convention right.
(3) In this section ‘Convention right’ has the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This new clause would mean that the Human Rights Act 1998 would not prevent the removal from the United Kingdom, where the Refugee Convention permits their return, of a refugee who is a danger to national security, or who has been convicted of a particularly serious crime and is a danger to the community.
Anna Turley
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. If the Committee will bear with me, I will set out some reminders of the purposes of the clause to which amendment 133 refers, to give some context to the discussion and debate that I look forward to this morning.
Clause 22 provides that those who are excluded from the protections of the refugee convention because they have committed a “particularly serious crime” or who are a danger to the security of the UK cannot expect the same entitlements as refugees who comply with our laws and contribute positively to life in this country. The UK has a proud tradition of providing protection to those who need it, in accordance with our international obligations. It is right that we help individuals from around the world who flee conflict and oppression, but the asylum system must be fair and effective so that we can better protect, support and focus our efforts on those in genuine need of protection. Those who break our laws and undermine our way of life do not deserve to have our support or indulgence any longer.
Those granted refugee or human rights protection status are provided with the rights and support necessary to rebuild their lives, to integrate into our communities, to support themselves and their families, and to contribute to the UK. That includes access to employment, education and, where appropriate, public funds. However, we are equally clear that those who commit serious crimes are not welcome. Those who can be deported will be deported, and those we are unable to remove will be denied the benefits of protection status. They cannot expect the same treatment as refugees who respect our laws. Through their serious offending, they have demonstrated conduct that justifies a different approach to the benefits and entitlements associated with protection status.
All those who claim asylum undergo a series of security checks against immigration and police databases, and they are screened to identify individuals who may have been involved in criminality, both inside and outside the UK, or are of national security interest. Under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, we have already acted to ensure that those guilty of the most serious crimes will not be welcomed here. We have expanded the definition of “particularly serious crime” so that any registered sex offender or any individual convicted of a schedule 3 sex offence can be denied protection status, alongside individuals who have received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
This is a huge concern in rural constituencies like mine. There is no support any more for the immigration and asylum system. Will the Minister explain how she believes that these changes will assure people that there is a safeguard in place to make sure that those who are threats not only to individuals but to our nation will not be welcomed here?
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, and one that my constituents share with his. There is real concern that anyone who comes here and breaks our rules should not enjoy the benefits that we provide to those genuinely fleeing persecution who abide by the rules and standards we expect of them. No member of this Committee should be in any doubt about our intention to ensure that those who have committed serious offences are deported. We have deported more than 12,000 foreign national offenders, up 41% on the two years before we came into power. As I say, no one should be in any doubt about our determination.
The clause focuses particularly on those who have committed serious crimes but cannot currently be removed. Where removal is not possible, those individuals are already granted shorter, more restricted leave, with conditions attached, and are subject to regular review until they can be removed at the earliest opportunity. We are clear that we will continue to monitor and review these individuals until removal is possible. They cannot qualify for settlement, and their continued presence in the UK is permitted for only so long as the barrier persists.
We are determined that protection from removal, where required by international obligations, should not automatically confer the broader benefits associated with protection status. It is right that there is a clear distinction between those who commit serious crimes and those who do not—those who make the effort to integrate into the UK and those who do not.
Certain rights under the refugee convention are owed only to individuals who are “lawfully staying” in the UK. The Secretary of State’s policy is that refugees who have been excluded from the protections of the refugee convention under article 33(2) are not lawfully staying in the UK. Clause 22 puts that policy on a statutory footing for the first time, so that it must be applied by courts and tribunals. That will support efforts to distinguish between those who commit serious crimes and those who do not. I hope the Committee agrees that it cannot be the case that those who have committed those crimes against the public are automatically able to access the same benefits and entitlements as refugees who have respected and complied with our laws.
New clause 61, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, would enable the removal of refugees who pose a danger to national security or who have been convicted of a particularly serious crime and pose a danger to the community. I look forward to hearing his argument for the new clause, but it is important to clarify that we would always seek to remove any foreign criminal convicted of a serious crime. My initial response is that simply disapplying the Human Rights Act 1998 does not address the point about international law or customary international law, and that any attempt to ignore those obligations would likely result in people being removed to places where they face torture or death. That would not comply with our obligations under the refugee convention, which we ourselves established, to ensure that we never again see the kinds of scenes we saw under Nazi Germany.
Ben Goldsborough
Is not one of the risks with the Opposition’s proposition that, by disapplying the European convention on human rights, we would have to strike a new deal with other nations every single time? That is the reason for the slow returns processes we currently have with countries that are not in the ECHR.
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why, in every experience I have ever had in this portfolio and others, international co-operation has been the solution, not the problem, whether it is driving down fraudulent asylum applications or dealing with those who break the rules when they are here.
Finally, Government amendment 133 will simply allow for transitional provisions to be included in the commencement regulations, rather than being on the face of the Bill.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker.
The current rules allow too many foreign national offenders to avoid deportation. That undermines public safety and confidence in our immigration system, so it is right that through the Bill we strive to balance the public interest against individual rights, and to ensure that the application of article 8 of the ECHR in deportation cases reflects that balance. The existing tests do not place enough weight on the public interest, especially on public safety and crime prevention. The tougher action that the Government propose is intended to ensure that the courts consistently prioritise public protection, which is welcome.
It is incomprehensible to most people how those who have been granted permission to live and work in the UK and then seriously break the law of the land do not then forfeit the rights that have been conferred on them. That view is heightened when people are part of organised crime gangs, have only recently arrived in the country or have arrived without permission and request asylum. We say that the UK is a tolerant country, but I see that tolerance fracturing as UK citizens see the rules of the country failing in the face of modern migration. We are not the only country experiencing this, and failing to address it will only ensure even greater civil unrest.
It is worth noting that, between 2016 and 2021, about 70% of successful appeals by foreign national offenders allowed them to stay solely on article 8 grounds. Other data shows that nearly 20,000 foreign offenders remain in Britain due to a clogged appeals system, with many winning cases based on human rights arguments. It is interesting to see an amendment propose incredibly tough, specific measures when, during their time in government, the Conservatives failed to implement any changes that would have prevented the disgraceful scenes that we see around the country today.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Even before these incredibly welcome tough new actions, we saw the deportation of foreign national offenders go up by 41% compared with under the last Government. Does that not demonstrate the abject failure of the last Administration to deal with the issue?
Melanie Onn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we will come to that. Even within the existing rules, there was an opportunity for the previous Administration to take tougher action to prioritise this. Instead of using those rules, they looked at fanciful arrangements with other countries, with completely empty planes taking off. They wasted huge amounts of public money on schemes that were little more than a gimmick.
The stats that I mentioned—that 70% of appeals are successful, and that there are 20,000 foreign offenders in a clogged appeals system—do not demonstrate a system that is fair or working at full capacity, or indeed working as it should.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech. It is right that our immigration and asylum system should, first and foremost, be fair to the population of the United Kingdom. Does she agree that, on the question of whether we can remove people who have committed serious crimes, it is also unfair to legitimate asylum seekers, who risk being tarred with the same brush, with their reasons for fleeing often serious and horrible situations in other countries coming under suspicion?
Melanie Onn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Where people seek to game the system, it undermines it for those with legitimate claims. That is where we start to see a real breakdown of trust in the system, with everybody being put into the same category. In my view, that creates even greater civil unrest and the potential for pretty heinous actions to be taken by those in local communities. We have seen the situation around the country spiral in recent times, with very vulnerable individuals being targeted because of an improper and unfair narrative due to those who have sought to exploit weaknesses in a system that was left abjectly under-resourced under the previous Government.
The Minister and my hon. Friends have mentioned that around 70,000 people have been deported since July 2024, an increase of over 41%. It has probably gone up since I made these notes, because my next sentence says, “of these, 10,000 were foreign national offenders.” As we have heard, it has gone up to 12,000, and the increase is 41%, not the 36% that I noted. That is a remarkable achievement within the confines of a system that is straining at the seams, and it demonstrates this Government’s determination to try to fix a broken system and give that reassurance to the British public. It is worth reiterating that at every opportunity.
There are other signals that the Home Office is intent on providing that reassurance, as enforcement funding is rising. Immigration enforcement spending will increase from £681 million to £1.33 billion by the end of this Parliament. Staffing numbers will rise from 4,500 to 7,300. Those are not small measures, and they not only reassure the public but make the system work as it is supposed to. Although deportations have increased, there remains a substantial backlog, so new powers allowing immediate deportation after sentencing for most determinate sentence offenders will start to show a reduction in the coming months and years. There is also the added benefit that earlier removal will reduce pressure on prison capacity, which we all know is under great strain.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point, especially as she is caveating our relative success in removing foreign offenders by providing the wider context about criminality in this country. The vast majority of crime is committed by British citizens—indeed, British-born citizens. Sometimes that is lost in this debate.
Following on from that point, does my hon. Friend agree that foreign offenders are often synonymously conflated with violence against women and girls? There are certain elements in our politics that wish to leverage that narrative to demonise certain communities and to further their own political interests. Does she share my concerns about the politicians who do that, and does she agree that when it comes to people who commit violence against women and girls, the common theme is largely not one particular community or immigrant population, or indeed foreign offenders, but men?
Melanie Onn
I understand my hon. Friend’s point, and I agree that the commonality is men. I would also say that there is great fear in communities. Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, there is already suspicion when there are new arrivals. There is work to be done to demonstrate the reality that, where there is criminal activity, this country has strong institutions in place that are prepared to set the record straight. There can often be unfounded rumours that lead to vigilante groups and the targeting of individuals—I have seen that happen in my constituency, and it is completely unacceptable.
When there is criminal activity, swift action should be taken to apprehend that individual and, whatever their background, they should be subject to the full force of UK law. They should be dealt with quickly, and where appropriate, if they are a foreign national offender or an asylum seeker, they should be deported as quickly as possible. Immediate deportation after sentencing would address the issue and comfort people in communities around the country. I take my hon. Friend’s point, and perhaps I have not given him enough comfort that we share entirely the same perspective. There is certainly more that can be done.
We have to do all we can to strengthen public confidence and to restore trust in our systems. We have to be honest about the scale of the issue, the backlogs and the delays. Removing people more reliably and quickly through improved co-operation with receiving countries, as the Minister mentioned, will go a significant way towards doing that.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I know I am a voice in the wilderness, but I wish Parliament would use these Committee sessions to try to improve legislation instead of collapsing into the pantomime of the Chamber. That is not a criticism of the hon. Lady by any means, or any of the contributions I have heard, but sometimes we fall into political discourse when we should be trying to improve things.
Melanie Onn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because this is his first appearance and we are now five days into the Committee. He will have no doubt looked at Hansard or listened to the recordings and seen that we have gone through the detail of this legislation line by line in previous sittings.
Mr Kohler
That was not an attack on the hon. Lady at all. I have been in the Chamber on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill Committee for the last few sittings, which is why I have not been here. I still think we should try to work together on improving legislation, but I am a voice in the wilderness, as I said—[Interruption.] Well, we do not; we turn it into a political debate where we just make points against the other side. We replicate Parliament. It should be more than that.
The UNHCR has been critical of this provision—this is not a political point; I am asking a question. I will read a paragraph from its critique as I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about it:
“The proposed provision conflates two distinct concepts within the Refugee Convention: whether a refugee falls within the exception to non-refoulement contained in Article 33(2), and whether that refugee is ‘lawfully staying’ in the territory of a Contracting State. While a finding within the meaning of Article 33(2) that a refugee constitutes a danger to national security or, having been convicted of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community may give rise to removal proceedings, it does not, in itself, determine whether they are lawfully staying for the purposes of the Refugee Convention. Particularly where removal is not possible, including because of other applicable non-refoulement obligations under international human rights law, a refugee may remain authorised to stay in the UK under domestic law. At a minimum, such a person would remain ‘lawfully present’ in the UK for the purposes of the Refugee Convention. Accordingly, they would continue to be entitled to those rights and standards of treatment under the Refugee Convention that are contingent upon ‘lawful presence’ in the territory. Whether they also remain ‘lawfully staying’ is likely to depend on the nature of the leave granted and the extent to which it provides a sufficiently stable and durable basis for residence. UNHCR therefore encourages the Government to reconsider this provision.”
If a refugee is not lawfully staying under these provisions, but cannot be removed for other purposes, what is their status? Are they lawfully present or do they have no status whatsoever?
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. We support clause 22, and I rise in support of new clause 61, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire. Both address the same question: what happens when someone claiming our protection is a danger to this country?
Clause 22 says that a person who falls within article 33(2) of the refugee convention is
“not to be taken to be lawfully staying in the United Kingdom”.
That covers two categories: someone whom there are reasonable grounds to regard as a danger to our national security and someone convicted of a particularly serious crime who is a danger to the community. Those are, by definition, the most serious cases our asylum system deals with. The public will understand why such a person should lose the rights that depend on lawful stay, such as the right to work and access to public funds, but they will ask a far simpler question: why are they still here?
Clause 22 changes how we describe someone’s stay. It does not cancel their leave, make a deportation order or remove the human rights barriers to sending them home. In particular, article 3 of the European convention on human rights can still prevent removal, however grave the danger they pose, so the clause on its own does not give Ministers a clear route to removal.
New clause 61 addresses that gap. For decisions to remove or require to leave anyone covered by proposed new section 37A of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, it would disapply section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and prevent a court or tribunal from treating that decision as unlawful because it is incompatible with the convention right. It would apply only where the refugee convention already permits return. The measure is targeted squarely at the dangerous individuals identified by clause 22.
The Minister may say that the new clause would not change our obligations under the convention and that cases could still go to Strasbourg. That is true and is precisely why we believe this country should leave the ECHR.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member not agree that we are currently a proud member of the European Court of Human Rights and, with that membership, we have still managed to deport 12,000 foreign national offenders to other countries that are signed up to it? It is absolutely no barrier and, in fact, it helps us to fulfil our obligations. We are a proud nation of sanctuary in Wales and we are also going to have safe and legal routes for immigrants. Surely he agrees that being part of the European Court of Human Rights does not prevent us from deporting people.
Matt Vickers
If you believe that we are deporting everyone we should be deporting, and if you do not believe that the European convention on human rights has got in the way of us removing people, you start from a very different place from me. People I represent are very concerned about our immigration system. They are very concerned that the laws we are making in this place are not acting to control that immigration system. I think we start from very different perspectives.
Matt Vickers
The hon. Member makes a fair point. We have had lots of things to say about the past. It is that experience that has led us to the point where we believe that some of the human rights framework that is in place gets in the way of deportations. Clause 22 actually concedes that point. It says that these people should not be able to exercise some of those rights, but it does not remove them. New clause 61 is the step that actually solves that problem.
This system is not working. I would be celebrating if we were a bit further forwards than we are. Actually, 7,042 people arrived from Eritrea in the year to March—how many went back? Two. There were 4,490 who arrived from Afghanistan—how many went back? One. And 4,389 arrived from Eritrea—how many went back? Zero.
The system is not functioning. Progress is progress. We would welcome progress. The opportunity with this Bill is to make much further progress and remove the people who should be removed.
Melanie Onn
Perhaps the hon. Member might like to take the opportunity to correct the record. He mentioned Eritrea twice there.
The hon. Member says the system is not working. It plainly is. It could work better, but we are seeing big increases from the failure of his Government to manage to deport people under the current rules. By applying what rules we have and exercising them by putting additional resources behind them, as well as tightening up some of the deportation rules, we will see a marked improvement in the number of foreign criminals who have no right to be here being returned to their country.
Matt Vickers
We welcome deportations of people with no right to be here, but when we start going back through the records to see who arrived and who left without us even knowing, we have the Home Office scratching numbers together to work out who has gone. It is a positive that we can improve deportations, but in recent times, we have gone from the point where we said that somebody who arrives in this country illegally cannot claim citizenship—there was legislation in place—to a point where that has been unpicked by this Government. We sat through the debates on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 on that subject.
This is an opportunity to improve things. We are determined to get among it. We are determined to improve it. Whatever the deportations are, they need to be significantly higher for my constituents to be happy.
I will correct the record—7,042 arrivals from Eritrea, two were removed; 4,490 from Afghanistan, one was removed; 4,389 from Sudan, zero removed. That is not a satisfactory system. That is not working. This is the opportunity to improve that.
David Smith
Notwithstanding the abject failure of the last Government to manage our immigration system, there are many ways to skin a cat. The hon. Member mentioned Eritrean immigrants or asylum seekers and deportations. He may have noticed that the Government are looking to work with the Eritrean Government to say that there will be no access to visas to the UK for Eritreans unless that Government agree to take people back. There are many ways to address this.
Those on the Opposition Benches repeatedly mention the ECHR. We have had a long debate about the part of this Bill that addresses article 8 of the ECHR, which has been problematic, but does he ultimately want to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Do he and his constituents care about article 2, the right to life; article 3, the prohibition of torture; article 4, the prohibition of slavery; article 7, no punishment without law; or article 9—something very close to my heart as the UK special envoy for freedom of religion and belief—the freedom of thought, conscience and religion? Is it not true that the Opposition’s approach is to simply throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Matt Vickers
We are talking about people who pose a threat to our national security and are, categorically, a danger to our community. I think that the rights of the people in my community should trump the rights of people who pose a threat to our national security and are a danger to that community—[Interruption.] I will try to make a bit of progress, or we might be here for quite a while.
New clause 61 would remove the domestic legal barrier that too often leaves Ministers unable to act. It is a concrete step that the Committee could take today. If the Government reject that approach, what is the answer? Where removal is lawful, how quickly will it happen? Where return home is barred, will Ministers seek agreements with safe third countries? While the person remains here, what measures will manage the risk, and who is accountable for making sure that they work?
Government amendment 133 removes the transitional provision from clause 22. As introduced, the clause applies only to decisions made after it comes into force. The Minister’s explanatory statement says that amendment 135
“would provide for clause 22 to be commenced by regulations,”
which means that the transitional provision can be dealt with in those regulations rather than in the Bill. That means that the question of who this clause applies to and whether it reaches existing cases or only future decisions will be settled by Ministers, not by this Committee. I ask the Minister directly: will existing cases be reassessed, or will this apply only to future decisions? When will the regulations be published, and when will this clause actually take effect? Until Ministers commence clause 22, neither it nor new clause 61 can apply to a single person.
We also need to know who will decide that someone falls within article 33(2) of the refugee convention, what evidence will be required and how challenges will be handled. Those decisions must be robust, otherwise we risk years of litigation while the person concerned stays put.
We will support clause 22 because it tightens the position of these individuals, but our support should not be mistaken for confidence that it solves the problem. Declaring someone dangerous is not the same as protecting the public from them. New clause 61 confronts the gap between the two, and we will press it to a Division at the appropriate point. If Ministers will not support it, they must explain what they will do instead to keep this country safe.
Anna Turley
I thank Members for their contributions. It has been a lively one this morning; I think colleagues have had their Weetabix, and I welcome that.
As I said in my introductory comments, clause 22 shows the Government’s determination that those who are excluded from the protections of the refugee convention because they have committed a particularly serious crime or who are a danger to the security of the UK cannot expect the same entitlements as refugees who comply with our laws. When an individual is released from prison, clause 22 will allow the Home Office greater distinction and flexibility to grant shorter periods of leave, restrict access to work or public funds, and impose additional requirements such as reporting and residence.
To pick up on the challenge from the hon. Member for Stockton West, some of the conditions could include restricted leave, a constant renewal of their status every six months, not being able to come back if they leave the country, no access to public funds, restrictions on work, being tagged and reporting requirements. Hopefully that gives him some indication of the steps those people will have to take. The clause will allow a greater distinction between those individuals and those who respect the values of this country and refrain from committing heinous crimes.
I will pick up on the challenge from the hon. Member for Wimbledon. I welcome him to his place on day four; I hope that he has had the chance to read—[Interruption.] I have good intentions. I genuinely hope that he has had the opportunity to read the transcript of our previous sessions, because they have been incredibly constructive. I have welcomed the challenge, the Divisions and the nature of discussion and debate we have had in this Committee.
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about democracy in this country. The Government have a majority because that is what the British people voted for in 2024, but the importance of this Committee for us is to listen to challenges and criticisms. I hope Opposition colleagues will recognise that we may not always agree, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we listen and take things very seriously. There is a long process to go through on this Bill yet. There may well be more changes as we go. I hope he feels valued and respected within this Committee, because his presence is certainly welcome.
Catherine Fookes
I gently remind the hon. Member for Wimbledon that his party has abstained at every Division. What does that mean about their partaking in democracy? They cannot seem to choose a side.
Anna Turley
I appreciate that, but I will make some progress, because I want to maintain our focus and seriousness, showing the hon. Member for Wimbledon that we respect and will respond to his challenges. He asked about the status of people who are not “lawfully staying” and cannot be removed. At the moment, there is a vacuum and a free-for-all. The purpose of the Bill is to introduce clarity to the law. They will be a refugee who is present but not lawfully staying, as clarified in the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman also, rightly, mentioned the challenge from the UNHCR that this clause conflates two issues: article 33(2) and “lawfully staying”. We are confident that our interpretation is compatible with the refugee convention. The convention refers to a variety of attachments that a refugee may have to the UK. Where a refugee commits a particularly serious crime, we are satisfied that they have forfeited the lawfully staying attachment, even if states have reached similar interpretations in their own provisions of entitlements under EU law.
I turn to new clause 61, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire. The new clause concerns enabling the removal of refugees who pose a danger to national security, or who have been convicted of a particularly serious crime and pose a danger to the community. Article 33(2) of the refugee convention allows this sort of refugee to be removed, notwithstanding the convention’s usual protection against refoulement. Removal, however, may still be prevented by the UK’s wider international obligations. The hon. Gentleman’s new clause seeks to address that issue. In practical terms, new clause 61 would disapply the Human Rights Act, including articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR, thereby enabling the Secretary of State to remove any person who falls within the ambit of the proposal under clause 22 of this Bill, and prevent a UK court from treating any such removal decision as unlawful.
The trouble with new clause 61 is that disapplying the Human Rights Act domestically does not disapply our international obligations, nor does it remove the jurisdiction of the ECHR, address interim measures issued by that court, or remove other relevant international obligations, including under customary international law or the prohibition on refoulement set out by the UN convention against torture. Conservative colleagues may reach for the easy response of, “Leave the ECHR.” We have had interesting discussions throughout Committee on that. Although I completely understand the emotion and desire to ensure that those who commit crimes in this country are not protected by human rights courts, it is important to understand how we got here and the situation into which the ECHR was born.
As the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White), powerfully put it in a debate last week, a previous member of the Conservative party, Sir Winston Churchill, was the first champion of the convention, which upheld basic human rights following his experience of standing up to the tyranny of the Nazis during the second world war. Some 13 million people were murdered, and in the face of that, the European convention of human rights defines what we mean by “never again”.
The ECHR includes freedom of assembly, freedom to a fair trial, the prohibition of torture, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the right to life, including the right not to be murdered in one’s own state. That is what the Nazis did and that is where the ECHR comes from. Those principles remain essential. The only two countries that have chosen to stay out of the ECHR are Russia and Belarus. By leaving the ECHR, we throw away protections against show trials and political persecution. We will not hand over our freedoms to the whims of tyrants and dictators.
That said, the current situation is not perfect. Many of our constituents are concerned that their human rights are being violated by individuals in this country, and we know there has been over-interpretation. Through the Bill, we are seeking to correct the problem. Last year, the Home Secretary committed to overseeing reforms to bring the ECHR into the modern age. She committed to make the ECHR work for everyday people and ensure that the human rights of individuals who have been wronged are upheld above the rights of those who choose to commit unspeakable crimes.
This Government intend to stand with the principles of Churchill. This Government will continue to build a fair and controlled immigration system that is free from abuse. The issue is not the existence of the convention but the way in which it has been applied over time. That is partly what the Bill seeks to address. We do not fix it by walking away and leaving the UK isolated—by throwing away our global moral and ethical leadership. We sort it out by restoring the right balance and ensuring that the system works as intended.
That is why all 46 members of the ECHR adopted the Chişinău declaration in May, which creates a solid basis for reform. That gave us a really good opportunity to go further in terms of removals and deportations. It was a shared view on maintaining public confidence. That is really important—this is about ensuring that the EHCR operates as it was intended.
Ben Goldsborough
That gets to the crux of the issue that we are trying to combat within the Bill. The issue itself is not necessarily the principles behind the ECHR; it is the over-interpretation—the juridification—of the law. What we are seeking to do through the Bill, which my constituents greatly welcome, is rein in the courts and make them understand that Parliament sets the rules of the game. We will ensure that they are firm but fair for all residents, as well as for those stuck on waiting lists who need swift action.
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the crux of the Bill: ensuring that we define matters for courts so that we do not see the free-for-all of over-interpretation that we have seen before.
I see this as a binary choice: reform the ECHR and have greater control over our borders, or leave and lose our ability to return illegal migrants and foreign criminals. I choose the powers that the ECHR gives us, which protect our individual rights and freedom.
Matt Vickers
The Minister talked about Winston Churchill. Does she think that Winston Churchill would have desired legislation that allows people who are categorically a threat to our national security, or a danger to the community, to stay in this country?
Anna Turley
I would put that back to the hon. Gentleman and ask whether he thinks that Winston Churchill would have desired the British state to seek to remove people to places where they will face almost certain death, torture and war.
Matt Vickers
The clause relates to people who are too dangerous to lawfully stay in the country. It is not giving us a perspective by which to remove those people. Those people are a danger to our community—you are saying that they are a danger to our community and a threat to our national security—yet we are not going far enough to remove them. It undermines the entire clause.
The Chair
Order. I remind Members that there have been several uses of the words “you” and “your” this morning. This is not about me.
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the purpose of the clause. We have taken plenty of action on deporting people, and we are pursuing plenty of other provisions. The clause sets out that people who we cannot deport should not have the same rights and entitlements as people who are genuinely fleeing war and persecution and abide by our rules and laws—we are making a very clear distinction. Although I am questioning it now, I am sure that his intent would not be to create a situation whereby this country removes people to places where they face death. I will leave it there in the hope that he will not pursue new clause 61.
Anna Turley
I will be generous and give way again, but then we have to move on.
Matt Vickers
This new clause sets out that we would remove people under the mechanism only where doing so complied with the refugee convention. It is there in black and white: we are complying with our obligations under the convention on refugees.
Anna Turley
The hon Gentleman’s new clause appears to override those protections and would very likely result in people being removed to places where they face torture, inhuman treatment or even death. That is very clearly the consequence of his new clause, whether he intends it or not.
Melanie Onn
I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being incredibly generous with her time. Is there a point to be made about retaining our responsibilities in relation to the ECHR? Critically, international co-operation will enable us to deport more easily people who have no right to be here.
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is what we seek to do. We seek to show leadership, just as Winston Churchill did in Europe after the second world war, by working with our partners—all 46 members of the ECHR. This year, they agreed a declaration to give us a stronger platform to drive change through the courts, improve our outcomes in removals and deportations, and have a shared view of how that can be applied in the modern world.
Matt Vickers
Disapplying the Human Rights Act is about disapplying our domestic legislation—our domestic barriers. That is entirely compliant with the international refugee convention. This is not about international barriers; it is about our domestic barrier, the Human Rights Act.
Anna Turley
That Act is the interpretation of these principles in our domestic law, so it is the same outcome.
I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate this morning. Clause 22 ensures that our protection system remains fair, and preserves our commitment to providing sanctuary and the benefits of the refugee convention to those who genuinely need them. At the same time, it recognises that those who commit serious crimes should not be entitled to the same benefits and privileges as those who respect our laws. We are rightly obliged not to send them back to face death or torture, but that does not mean that we should give them the package of support and entitlement that other decent law-abiding refugees get. In so doing, the clause delivers a clearer, fairer and more meaningful distinction between those who deserve our protection and those who have fundamentally abused it.
Amendment 133 agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Power to require payments from recipients of asylum support
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 81, in clause 23, page 21, line 33, at end insert—
“(3A) Subject to subsection (3B), where the Secretary of State did not make a decision on a person’s protection claim within 180 days of the making of the protection claim, any sums to be paid by the person under subsection (3) must be reduced by 20% for every period of 30 days that elapsed before a decision on the person’s protection claim was made.
(3B) Subsection 3A does not apply where a decision on the protection claim was not made within 180 days of the claim being made due to the actions of the applicant.
(3C) For the purposes of subsection (3A), ‘protection claim’ has the same meaning as in section 82(2)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.”
This amendment would reduce the level of payments required from a person by 20% for every 30 days longer than six months that passed before a decision was made on the person’s asylum claim.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 124 and 125.
Amendment 76, in clause 23, page 22, line 6, leave out from “without” to end of line 7 and insert
“them or their household becoming impoverished.
(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5), a person or household is impoverished if its equivalised net income for the relevant financial year is less than 60% of median equivalised net household income for that financial year.”
This amendment would amend the provision relating to repayment of asylum support so that people would not be required to make payments if doing so would leave them, or their household, impoverished (defined as having an equivalised net income of less than 60% of the median).
Amendment 79, in clause 23, page 22, line 7, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (4) must include provision to ensure that a person is not required to make payments in excess of the cost of the support provided to them while in receipt of asylum support.”
This amendment would ensure that an individual would not be liable to repay amounts above the actual cost of the support they received.
Government amendment 126.
Amendment 141, in clause 24, page 23, line 3, at end insert—
“(7A) In deciding an application for entry clearance, leave to enter or leave to remain in the United Kingdom (including indefinite leave to remain), the Secretary of State may take into account any amount that a person has been required to pay under section 23 and has not paid.
(7B) Nothing in subsection (7A) applies to an amount which, by virtue of regulations made under section 23(4) in accordance with section 23(5), the person was not required to pay.”
This amendment would mean that any sums that a person has been required to repay towards asylum support and has not paid may be taken into account when deciding applications to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, including for settlement.
Siân Berry
It is pleasure to have you back in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I hope my voice holds out, as I will speak at some length on these amendments.
The Committee has reached the part about charging refugees for the support that they receive, so I want to make some points about my overall discomfort with these proposals. Requiring retrospective payments from refugees after they have secured the right to stay is completely wrong. Many organisations, including the Refugee Council, are rightly calling the proposal a refugee tax, because it is a tax for successfully claiming asylum, and it breaks our commitments under the convention.
The proposals do not guard against destitution, so I believe that they also breach article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights—my favourite article—which states:
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
That absolutely applies to refugees.
Local authorities have told us that the requirements will push more families into poverty and will place a greater strain on family support services, advice services, crisis response services and housing services at the local authority level, for which duties towards children will remain. I am not certain that the Government have properly considered the impacts.
Catherine Fookes
I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from in relation to local authorities, but does she agree that clauses 23 and 24 exclude certain groups of people, including under-18s and those whom the payments would make destitute?
Siân Berry
One of my amendments would raise the level for repayments beyond mere destitution, which is wise in the circumstances, given some of the feedback we have received from support services, charities and local authorities.
The clause will also entrench inequality among refugees. Not all refugees applying for asylum in this country require support; some have managed to flee the circumstances that led to their needing asylum with some resources. In her letter responding to questions in the oral sessions, the Minister confirmed that
“around two in every five people awaiting an initial decision on their claim were in Home Office provided accommodation”.
She also said that some of them may have received accommodation in the past, but that figure is not a high proportion of refugees. The clause therefore targets the most vulnerable—those without the means to support themselves—in an already vulnerable population. The clause will apply only to those who use Home Office accommodation, but, given the randomness of the circumstances in which people become refugees, many come with skills from previous employment—jobs that have been torn away from them—and would be able to support themselves if they were simply allowed to work, as I propose in my new clause 24, which we will debate later.
I believe the whole clause needs to go, but I have also tabled targeted amendments with constructive measures to mitigate its impact. Amendment 81 would reduce payments if the Home Office’s decisions are delayed. At the moment, the main driver of cost in asylum support is delayed decision making, and sometimes poor-quality initial decisions leading to appeals. The Bill reflects neither that nor the detrimental impact that delayed decisions can have on people’s ability to find employment and thus make repayments. The amendment would require that, once someone has been awaiting a decision for longer than six months, or 180 days, the charge intended to be levied against them—the refugee tax—would decrease by 20% for every further 30 days that passed.
Amendment 81 is only fair, given that, according to the Home Secretary, the aim of part 4 of the Bill is partly to tackle the cost of asylum support. The Home Secretary must recognise that the drivers of those costs are delays in decision making and poor decisions. How long it takes to process a claim is not up to the individual, and delayed decisions will have a detrimental impact on their ability to find employment, integrate and make repayments. In some professions, continued practice is a condition of continued recognition in that role, so delays could have disruptive consequences on people’s ability to earn. The reduction in payments that the amendment proposes would also reflect those kinds of impacts.
Ben Goldsborough
One really important aspect of the Bill is the focus on avoiding destitution. This is not about asking people to pay a never-ending tax or preventing them from living and working in the UK. When they can afford to, they can pay back to the state. I would just like the hon. Lady to bear that in mind, because the system we are proposing is fair but firm.
Siân Berry
I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The evidence we have heard about the impact on people’s ability to integrate and on community cohesion has been clear. Amendment 81 in particular would be a good measure because it would incentivise the Home Office to reduce those costs and make decisions on time. It would also mean that people kept in the system for longer than necessary are not unfairly penalised for overly long decisions. That is the focus of the amendment. If the asylum claim took longer than six months because of the actions of the applicant, this would not apply—the amendment covers that as well.
On my amendment 76, as mentioned earlier, if the Government decide to go ahead with the payments, they cannot guard against destitution with their requirement. Poverty ought to be the defining measure. That would allay a lot of the fears of local authorities, which are nevertheless obliged to deal with the consequences of people being in poverty. It would also save money, reduce those impacts and be much clearer about what would happen. People are fearful that the word “destitution” is a very low bar. As defined in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, someone is destitute if they do
“not have adequate accommodation or any means of obtaining it”,
or if they have
“adequate accommodation or the means of obtaining it, but cannot meet his other essential living needs.”
The Government’s definition of “essential living needs”, as set out in the Asylum Support Regulations 2000, is extremely minimal. As the Bill is drafted, individuals or families could be required to pay this charge, regardless of whether they are deemed to be in poverty, or even deep material poverty, if we are to use those definitions.
Ben Goldsborough
The hon. Lady is being very generous with her time. She said that if we changed definitions, it would save the state money. Could she elaborate on that and give evidence that that is the case?
Siân Berry
The evidence I have comes from local authorities that have given evidence to the Committee and are very worried that their obligations will be extended by this Bill. People will be driven into poverty by the Home Office taking this money away from the overall system in the local area. It would be useful if the Home Office told us where the money will be spent in order to alleviate that. I am not sure that the Bill sets out where the repayments are going to go, but the implication is that they will go to the Home Office, not to local authorities.
Amendment 76 would change the provision related to the repayment of asylum support so that people would not be required to make payments if doing so would leave them or their household impoverished. It also defines impoverishment as having an equivalised net income of less than 60% of the median—a fairly normal definition of poverty that is also the Government’s own definition for whether a household is low income.
Clearly, it is the Government’s intention to provide safeguards to ensure that people are not made destitute. This amendment would strengthen that safeguard on the face of the Bill so that people who fled war and have been granted protection are not plunged into deeper poverty, just as they are starting the process of rebuilding their lives and integrating into communities.
Finally, my amendment 79 is fairly pragmatic. It sets out that payments may not exceed the actual cost of supporting an individual. Currently, there is no link in the Bill between the level of the charge and the cost of support provided to someone. I would like to hear what the Government’s intentions are in setting out those charges. There is a broad power in the Bill and it would come through regulations. However, we need reassurance that no one could face a charge higher than the cost of the actual support they have received.
On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that clause 23 creates a power
“that requires those who have received taxpayer-funded support to pay back a portion when they can.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 13 July 2026; c. 678.]
The implication is clearly that this should not exceed the cost of being supported. Government amendment 124 would allow the Home Secretary to reduce the payments owed. It would be useful to hear more detail from the Minister about the criteria for applying the power to reduce the payments and about the cases in which they would expect the amounts people owed to be reduced. If the Government plan on reducing them, in line with the amendment, would they consider putting that on the face of the Bill?
Mr Brash
I fear that there may be some issues with the numbers that the hon. Lady has just given. One of the commitments that this Government have made on dispersal accommodation is to disperse more fairly across the country. As a result of the private contracts signed by the previous Conservative Government, areas of low housing cost were targeted in my Hartlepool constituency. This Government, as I understand it, are looking to do that much more fairly to reduce the burden on deprived communities such as mine. As a result, dispersal accommodation costs will probably go up.
Siân Berry
That is an entirely fair point. There has been a focus on the lowest-possible-cost accommodation, and it is only right that people can stay closer to where they may have a connection and all the other considerations.
It is important that those figures are just the current average. Overall, given the gravity of the impacts and the concerns from local authorities and many of my constituents about the problems, I want to see answers from the Minister on the amendments that would mitigate the impacts. I will be pressing my amendments to a vote if I do not hear good answers, and I will be opposing clause 23.
Melanie Onn
On the point about contributions, it is worth reflecting on this country’s tradition of collective contributory institutions. Whether it is the welfare system, the NHS, education or pensions, we recognise that we all pay something in so that we can all benefit. Some pay less and some pay more, and some people use those institutions a lot and some use them very rarely, but we accept the balance and the level of fairness in the system. Provided we get our bins collected and we can see a doctor and so on, we are all generally fairly satisfied. When people are feeling a great financial squeeze—it is fair to say many across the country are—and they see examples of others not participating in that agreed settlement, which is our social contract with the state after all, it starts to breed discontent. We should have measures in place to ensure where people have received from the state, they give something back when they are able.
Those who arrive on a work visa are already required to pay reapplication fees every few years for them and their family, which can amount of a significant sum, and to pay annual NHS surcharges. The question is why those on work visas who are aiding this country in shortage occupations have to pay that while others are not required to contribute anything. Should they be granted asylum and are able to work and participate in general life, they should recognise the contribution that enables them to live a settled life in this country. Why should one group be required to pay something and another group not?
Ben Goldsborough
In my South Norfolk constituency, I have the Norfolk and Norwich University hospital trust, which has a huge number of people contributing to our society and making sure the NHS in my area is performing some of the best cancer services available. It is an issue that they are paying the NHS surcharge. It would surely be unfair to continue down a line of thinking where there are two tiers in our immigration system.
Melanie Onn
My hon. Friend makes a valid point that we should seek to avoid multiple tiers of different systems applying to people in those circumstances wherever we can. He is also right to recognise the contributions that people make to this country.
Siân Berry
I take the hon. Lady’s point that people who have claimed asylum should be regarded as akin to those here on work visas. However, does she understand the points in my amendments about how different groups of asylum seekers are being treated differently? People who needed accommodation due to poverty will be asked to pay back, while those who did not need accommodation, due to not being in poverty, are not. That distinction, which sets different asylum seeker groups against each other, is unhelpful.
Melanie Onn
I recognise the point the hon. Lady is making. However, as I pointed out in my opening statement, some people pay more and benefit more already. We have an accepted system that there is a general balance between those who pay higher rates of tax and others who pay lower rates, and between those in receipt of more NHS care and support, and others who rarely need it. We must recognise that we will not be able to get everything exactly right or accurate for every subsection of society.
Melanie Onn
Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene on my broad, non-specific contribution?
Melanie Onn
That is a slightly different argument. I was trying to explain how we have a broad group of existing British citizens who pay, contribute and get some benefit. It is the same for asylum seekers: those who benefit should contribute at a later stage when they are able. That is a fair and reasonable point.
Siân Berry
For clarity, if this is akin to those on work visas, why are the Government proposing that only those asylum seekers who were here in poverty should pay back those contributions? Why not have a more redistributive approach and also charge the most well-off people seeking asylum, or make it more progressive?
Melanie Onn
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. I feel uncomfortable about dropping the shoulder like this, but you are asking about what the Government should be doing, yet there is a Minister in the room—who will hopefully provide more detail.
Melanie Onn
Did I say “you”? Apologies, I am normally very good at avoiding that, Mrs Barker.
When Ministers and the Government look at the payment and repayment schedules further down the line, they will have the opportunity to look at that point in greater detail and see whether flexibility is required. But the anticipation is that people who are here and were given the opportunity to settle and start their life again—as we have seen with so many people who have come to this country in asylum circumstances and have gone on to do great things—will be able to make the contribution as it is set out.
David Smith
Not to do my hon. Friend’s work for her, but the hon. Member for Wimbledon asked why anyone else in receipt of benefits should not make a contribution. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a clear distinction? By definition, if someone coming here to seek asylum has not contributed to the wider economy—and if we can guarantee that historically—that differentiates them from someone who is already here and most likely did, in most cases, make a contribution, through work or otherwise, to the benefits that they receive? As I have already mentioned, before my time in Parliament I ran a homelessness charity, and we often had asylum seekers in our accommodation—which is literally behind where we are sitting right now, in Southwark—who were desperate to make contributions. They repeatedly told us—they made it very clear—that they wanted to make a financial contribution to the country that had given them sanctuary.
Melanie Onn
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I am going to come to that, because making sure that what is and will be expected of people is clear and up front, without any ambiguity, will help those applying to understand the expectations that will be conveyed upon them. That will also give some reassurance to the UK public that this country is not seen as a soft touch. It might help to reset some negative views about how migrants who arrive here to claim asylum are, in some way, only here to milk the system and get all they can, or that they only want to take, take, take, and are not prepared to give, give, give. My hon. Friend’s example proves the exact opposite: people claiming asylum want to contribute.
Melanie Onn
I will not, because I am on my final sentence.
Rather than having a negative perception of those asylum seekers, this could help the public to understand that they are making a contribution—that they are willing to make a contribution. Then we will see a settlement that is deemed to be acceptable and that hopefully contributes to a much more cohesive society.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I will try to be as efficient as I can, given the time.
As we have heard, clause 23 gives a new power to the Home Secretary that requires people to pay towards the cost of any asylum support they have received, once they are able to do so. In contrast to the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion—Members will not be surprised to hear this—this does not make me uncomfortable. I reject the notion that it is a refugee tax; I think that is just scaremongering Green campaign nonsense. [Interruption.] I said I was going to be efficient, so I will not take an intervention. Our constituents pay considerable amounts of taxation, and we are spending incredible sums on the asylum support system. It is entirely reasonable, and fair to the British taxpayer, that people who have received support should contribute to that cost.
This group contains three amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about how much people should pay, three Government amendments about waivers and insolvency, and amendment 141, which I tabled, about what happens when people do not pay; Members will not be surprised to hear that we will be opposing the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. Together, they give the Minister an opportunity to tell the Committee something that the Bill does not: what the scheme will actually charge and how it will operate.
Mr Kohler
Just to correct the record, I did not say that there is no point in scrutiny; I said that we need scrutiny. What we do not need is politicking, where you each stand up and say how wonderful you are and your position will not move. We need to move on as a Parliament. I know that none of you likes that, but that is what we should be doing.
Blake Stephenson
The hon. Member has proved my point: if you turn up to scrutiny meetings and make your point, sometimes the Government listen. They did so by taking on one of my earlier amendments. Turning up and contributing is helpful.
David Smith
I am delighted to hear the Opposition spokesman say that this is not a refugee tax. Does he agree, as we approach other issues in the Bill and elsewhere, that redistributions of funding and contributions in other areas are not always a tax?
Blake Stephenson
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is not a refugee tax.
On 18 March 2025, Labour Members voted down that new clause 37. The then Minister told that Committee that it was not sufficiently developed to be put into primary legislation. Interestingly, we heard the same criticism from witnesses about clause 23 of this Bill, and even the Government’s own impact assessment rates the impact of these measures as “uncertain”. I ask the Minister what amount and what income threshold the Government intend to set. The Home Office has spoken of £10,000; will that be a flat rate per adult, and over what period? How will the threshold be set so that the charge does not deter people from taking work or declaring their earnings—a risk that the Government’s own impact assessment identified?
Amendment 76 would prevent any payment that would leave a person or household with below 60% of median household income. Clause 23(5) already provides that no one will be required to pay if it would make them “destitute”. Amendment 76 would go far beyond destitution: with a 60% median test, very few people who had been supported by taxpayers would ever pay anything; it would turn into a repayment scheme in name only.
Amendment 81 would cut the amount owed by 20% for every 30 days beyond six months that the Home Office took to decide a claim. I understand the point being made—delays cost money and are not the claimant’s fault—but it is the taxpayer who has paid for those months, and the answer to delays is making faster decisions, not giving a discount. What is the current average time to an initial decision, and what is the Government’s target?
Amendment 79 would cap repayments at the cost of the support received. I would be surprised if the Government intend anything else. Will the Minister confirm that nobody will be asked to repay more than the support they receive, which is the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion? If so, the amendment is unnecessary.
Government amendment 124 will enable repayments to be reduced, waived or refunded, including by giving the Secretary of State discretion. Amendments 125 and 126 deal with insolvency. The supplementary memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee says that the powers will be subject to the negative procedure because they can only benefit individuals. The Opposition will not oppose the measures, but the use of a discretion to waive, exercised on a case by case basis and never reported, is how schemes like this quietly stop working. What criteria will govern waivers? Will the number and value of waivers be published each year? Will a person be able to clear the debt by making themselves bankrupt?
The Committee is entitled to know whether the scheme will ever recover meaningful sums. Migration Observatory expects that unless the threshold is set significantly below the minimum wage, the number of people earning enough to reach it will be relatively small. That is set against the enormous cost to the British taxpayer. Around 97,500 asylum seekers receive taxpayer-funded support, costing the taxpayer roughly £4 billion in 2024-25. Simple division of that figure suggests that the costs are close to £40,000 a year per person supported. A £10,000 contribution, if it were ever collected, would recover only a small proportion of the initial cost.
During the Committee’s oral evidence session, when my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West asked the Minister what measurable difference the Bill will make, she said:
“I do not want to put a specific figure on it.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 72, Q127.]
Can she do so now? How many people do the Government expect to pay? How much will be recovered each year, and over what period? How much will it cost to build and run the system? Given that the Government do not have a good history of running systems, can she assure us that the scheme will raise more money than it costs?
Amendment 141, tabled in my name, would ensure that where an individual has been required to repay asylum support costs, any unpaid amount can be considered when deciding applications to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, including for settlement. That would give the scheme more weight by providing that the debt will influence settlement decisions until it is paid off. If amendment 141 is not made, the consequence of not paying will depend on earned settlement rules that have not been laid before Parliament. Will the Government support the amendment?
The Opposition oppose amendments 81, 76 and 79, but not Government amendments 124 to 126. As I mentioned, the principle of clause 23 was originally in a Conservative proposition, so of course we support it, but our concern is that a repayment scheme with discretionary waivers and no consequences for non-payment will be ineffective. We look for assurance from the Minister on that. I will be pressing amendment 141 to a Division.
Anna Turley
I thank Members for their important contributions to this debate on asylum costs and the mechanism the Government are creating to recover some of them. As we heard from my hon. Friends, fairness is at the heart of this debate. We are discussing the concept that individuals who have benefited from the sanctuary and generosity of this country and its taxpayers should contribute towards the support that they received. That is not about punishing anyone; it is about those who have received support having a stake in the success of this country and contributing to the cost of that support, and thereby to the sustainability of giving it to others, once they are financially able.
The right to receive support must come with responsibilities. Each year, the taxpayer funds £4 billion of asylum costs. While it is right that we support those fleeing war and persecution, it is also right that those who have received that support make a fair and proportionate contribution when they can. The measures will ensure that they put back into the system that supported them and contribute towards the provision of that support to others, as well as ensuring that others who are paying for that support consent to doing so.
We have heard examples of our constituents contributing to many different forms of collective support, including through national insurance, and through tax to fund access to healthcare. Contribution is an important principle of the social contract in this country. For that reason, the Bill introduces a new power, under which asylum seekers will pay back a portion of the cost of their support when they are financially able to do so. It will be possible to recover those costs through tax receipts, benefit payments and/or as a debt to the Home Office. That mirrors the way in which the Department for Work and Pensions deducts from universal credit where people have child support payments due, owe money for hardship payments, or have unpaid bills or tax.
Amendments 81, 76 and 79, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, seek to prescribe in the Bill how and when asylum support contributions should be calculated and reduced. The Government cannot accept the amendments because they would be too complex to enable effective delivery of the policy and would move us away from the policy intent of a fair and proportionate contribution towards the costs of support once a person is financially able to pay.
Clause 23 establishes an important principle that, where someone has received asylum support at public expense and later has the means to contribute, it is fair that they do so. Of course, any contribution must remain affordable and not push a person into destitution. Clause 23(5) already requires regulations to include provisions to ensure that nobody pays where it would leave them destitute. Further details of this important safeguard will be set out in the regulations that we have committed to sharing during the passage of the Bill.
Anna Turley
I have a huge pile of responses to the points the hon. Lady made, and there are some important clarifications I want to make. If I do not answer her questions sufficiently, I will be happy to take an intervention.
I want to pick up the hon. Lady’s point about destitution and poverty. I think it is right to set the provision at this level, and I do not think it is appropriate to define poverty in the statute book. Given I have wards in my constituency where as many as 60% of children are growing up in poverty, as per the definition that the hon. Lady set out—I am sure the same is true for the constituencies of other Members present—I am afraid I cannot accept an amendment that says that people in my area can be below that poverty line but asylum seekers cannot. All my constituents have obligations to pay that are contributing to the challenges that they face, and I do not think it is appropriate to safeguard one group and not another, as much as we all have a desire—an absolute commitment—to reduce poverty, particularly child poverty, in this country.
The hon. Lady also raised the matter of whether the Bill breaches article 25 of the declaration of human rights. We are absolutely confident that it meets our international obligations, including under the refugee convention. We believe it is compatible with both the letter and the spirit of our international obligations, while maintaining a sustainable system for the future.
The convention does not anywhere require states to provide indefinite support, free of charge and irrespective of an individual’s circumstances. What it does require is that people fleeing persecution be given protection and access to support, which we are doing. Asylum seekers receive a comprehensive package of taxpayer-funded accommodation support, which is very different from the state support provided to destitute British nationals. Nothing in the refugee convention prevents us from requiring asylum seekers to make a contribution, when they can, towards the system that they benefit from. Protecting refugees and ensuring fairness to taxpayers are not mutually exclusive—we can and will do both.
The hon. Lady also asked how we got to the figure. The figure is an indicative amount. The exact figure will be set out in regulations. I want to reiterate that we have committed to publishing the regulations during the course of the Bill’s passage, and I undertake to do that as soon as possible. I am sure that colleagues will understand that it requires a lot of complex engagement with the Treasury and others. We want to make sure that we have got this absolutely right and that we do not fall foul of the situation Opposition Members found themselves in when they tried to introduce this Bill—the workings out had not been done.
The hon. Lady asked why anyone should pay more than the cost of the support they received. This policy is intended to generate a contribution towards the overall cost of asylum support, not to be an itemised recovery of the precise costs incurred by an individual. That would be extremely difficult—nigh on impossible—and it would undermine the ability for us to raise any money through the measure. The flat rate will be calculated by reference to average support costs and the average time spent in asylum accommodation. A flat rate is clearer and more feasible to administer, while payments will remain linked to affordability.
The hon. Lady also asked about the Home Secretary’s power to make exemptions. I want to flag that it is very similar to an existing power that the Home Secretary has that is covered by the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015. It is really important to maintain the ability to make exemptions in extreme and unusual circumstances.
I want to pick up the point about forcing people into destitution. That will not be the case. Payments will apply only where someone has the means to pay. Safeguards will ensure that no one is pushed into destitution. Payments will be linked to income and affordability thresholds. Deduction rates and exemptions will be designed to protect those without the means to contribute. As I said, further guidance will be set out throughout the course of this Bill’s passage. Could a person be penalised where a payment could cause destitution? No. Clause 23 requires regulations to contain provisions that ensure that a person is not required to pay where doing so would cause destitution, as we have already flagged.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Jade Botterill.)
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Government amendments 124 and 125.
Amendment 76, in clause 23, page 22, line 6, leave out from “without” to end of line 7 and insert—
“them or their household becoming impoverished.
(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5), a person or household is impoverished if its equivalised net income for the relevant financial year is less than 60% of median equivalised net household income for that financial year.”
This amendment would amend the provision relating to repayment of asylum support so that people would not be required to make payments if doing so would leave them, or their household, impoverished (defined as having an equivalised net income of less than 60% of the median).
Amendment 79, in clause 23, page 22, line 7, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (4) must include provision to ensure that a person is not required to make payments in excess of the cost of the support provided to them while in receipt of asylum support.”
This amendment would ensure that an individual would not be liable to repay amounts above the actual cost of the support they received.
Government amendment 126.
Amendment 141, in clause 24, page 23, line 3, at end insert—
“(7A) In deciding an application for entry clearance, leave to enter or leave to remain in the United Kingdom (including indefinite leave to remain), the Secretary of State may take into account any amount that a person has been required to pay under section 23 and has not paid.
(7B) Nothing in subsection (7A) applies to an amount which, by virtue of regulations made under section 23(4) in accordance with section 23(5), the person was not required to pay.”
This amendment would mean that any sums that a person has been required to repay towards asylum support and has not paid may be taken into account when deciding applications to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, including for settlement.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I appreciate all the discussion and debate we have had so far today. I will pick up my response to the various Opposition amendments, starting with amendment 141, in the name of His Majesty’s Opposition, which would allow outstanding liabilities to be considered in immigration applications, including for settlement. The Government are already considering the wider approach to settlement, as hon. Members will hopefully have seen from some of the media debate. That is currently undergoing a lot of discussion, so it would not be appropriate to pre-empt that work through this amendment. For those building a life in the UK, paying towards the cost of their asylum support will form part of their wider contribution to society. People with outstanding asylum support debt will be prevented from returning to the UK until that debt is repaid. It is our intention that those who receive support will be expected to make contributions when they are financially able to do so.
The detailed operation of the scheme will be set out in secondary legislation. As I have mentioned to hon. Members already today, we have committed to sharing draft regulations during the passage of the Bill, providing them with the opportunity to scrutinise the detail of the policy and how those provisions will operate in practice. That approach ensures appropriate parliamentary oversight, while retaining the flexibility needed to develop the scheme in the light of wider decisions on settlement policy. The draft regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure and will afford a further opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny before they are made.
I will take this moment to respond to some of the questions that the hon. Member for Stockton West raised this morning. He asked whether the scheme would raise more money than it costs, which I think is an important challenge. The Government are determined to reduce the cost to the taxpayer. That is part of the principle of this, although the primary objective is fairness and sustainability, with any revenue generated reducing the burden on the public purse. As I have said, details of the scheme are under development and will be published in draft regulations. We will look for as much transparency as possible, not just in the process but in how we can publish data in our regular asylum statistics.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned amendment 124, which is about the powers given to the Home Secretary for exemptions, and the circumstances in which they might be used. The amendment enables regulations to confer a discretion on the Secretary of State to waive, reduce or refund liabilities arising under the asylum support contribution scheme. As I mentioned this morning, that is commensurate with article 8 of the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015, which gives the Secretary of State for the Home Department the same discretionary power to reduce, waive or refund part of that charge. The power will of course be at the discretion of the Secretary of State, and we anticipate that it will be used only in exceptional cases.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the amount payable and how the income threshold will be set. Hon. Members have raised the £10,000 figure, which is an indicative estimate of the standard contribution that may be required. The final flat-rate contribution will be set in secondary legislation. As we discussed this morning, it is intended to reflect average asylum support costs across the system, rather than the precise costs incurred in an individual case. That is how the figure was reached. The estimates will depend on the final design and implementation of the scheme, including collection mechanisms. We will continue to assess the expected costs and benefits as the scheme is developed. However, we do not consider it appropriate to make commencement legally dependent on five-year forecasts, which may be subject to considerable uncertainty. I hope I have addressed the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
On Government amendment 124, the policy intention remains that those with the means to contribute towards the cost of the support they previously received should do so. However, there may be circumstances in which it would be fair and proportionate to depart from that general principle. The amendment provides flexibility to respond to such circumstances and supports the fair and effective administration of the scheme. The detailed circumstances will be set out in regulations and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment therefore complements the wider contribution scheme, while ensuring that it can operate fairly and proportionately in individual cases.
Government amendments 125 and 126 are technical amendments that deal with how the requirement to pay back a contribution towards asylum support operates if the recipient becomes bankrupt or enters another form of insolvency process. The amendments enable the Secretary of State to make regulations that set out the effect of a person becoming insolvent on their liability to make payments. They also define when a person is to be treated as insolvent across the jurisdictions of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That will allow the Government to set out in regulations that, where appropriate, liabilities under the scheme are not extinguished by bankruptcy or certain other insolvency processes.
In addition, the amendments provide a power for regulations to make consequential provision in relation to insolvency legislation where necessary. The amendments provide the flexibility needed to ensure that the asylum support scheme can operate effectively alongside existing insolvency frameworks across the United Kingdom. They make no changes to the safeguards that will be built into the scheme.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is very good to have you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Twigg. From the discussions we have had today, I think it is clear what a mess the proposals in clauses 23 and 24 are. If it is not an itemised recovery of costs, it is a refugee tax—worse, it has become clear that is only a poor refugee tax. As such, the philosophical basis for the proposals is broken.
The Government have set a terribly high bar for being excused, and they are not seeking any payment from successful refugees who have the means to support themselves while they wait for a decision. That is despite the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes likening the proposal to NHS surcharges for those on work visas, to which the Minister also referred. The Government have been clear that they are setting a flat charge rate, but they will not apply it to all asylum seekers. Why not? If one accepts the premise of the charge—I do not—would that not be fairer across the board? The Government propose to charge it only to those people who are destitute when they arrive here.
This will do much harm to these people’s ability to settle in the future. Why would the Government drive them into poverty for extended periods and cause that kind of problem? It seems unfair to impose this on people. The Government have introduced this in clause 23, while amendment 141, tabled by the Conservatives, tries to codify it further. In my view, any kind of refugee tax should not be an additional barrier to stability. These clauses are reckless, unfair, cruel and irrational. Without my amendments, they become even worse. I will seek to divide the Committee on them.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 23, page 22, line 9, leave out “18 at all times” and insert “21 at any time”.
This amendment would extend the exemption for repaying asylum support from any person who was under the age of 18 at all times they were in receipt of support to any person who was under the age of 21 at any time they were in receipt of support.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 50, in clause 23, page 22, line 9, leave out “all times” and insert “any time”.
This amendment would exempt from being required to make payments to the Secretary of State any persons who were, at any point, under 18 years of age during the time they received asylum support.
Amendment 78, in clause 23, page 22, line 9, at end insert—
“(aa) were over the age of retirement at the time they ceased to be an asylum seeker (within the meaning given by section 94 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999),
(ab) have received a positive conclusive grounds decision (within the meaning of Part 5 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022),
(ac) are a survivor of sexual or gender-based violence, or have been a victim of domestic abuse (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021)
(ad) are an individual who has been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence,”.
This amendment would add people over retirement age and victims of modern slavery, domestic abuse, or serious sexual or physical violence to the list of people who would be exempted from repaying any asylum support they received.
Amendment 82, in clause 23, page 22, line 9, at end insert—
“(aa) were granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom following an appeal by the person against the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse a protection claim.”
This amendment would exempt from the requirement to make payments under Clause 23 anyone who is granted protection following a successful appeal.
Amendment 139, in clause 23, page 22, line 10, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would remove the exemption from making payments for asylum support received for people who received support before clause 23 comes fully into force.
Amendment 80, in clause 24, page 23, line 3, at end insert—
“(7A) The Secretary of State must cancel the liability of any person to make payments required under section 23 when one of the following occurs—
(a) the person dies;
(b) the person receives a disability-related benefit and because of the disability is permanently unfit for work;
(c) the person reaches the age of 65; or
(d) the tenth anniversary of the date on which the person stopped receiving asylum support (as defined in section 23(2)).”
This amendment would set out circumstances in which the liability for making payments for asylum support received would cease to apply: the death of the person; the person turning 65; the person being permanently unfit for work; the tenth anniversary of the person stopping receiving asylum support.
Amendment 142, in clause 50, page 52, line 13, at end insert—
“(d) regulations under subsection (6)(c) of section 23.”
This amendment would make regulations exempting further categories of people from the requirement to contribute towards the cost of asylum support subject to the affirmative procedure, so that they cannot be made without the approval of both Houses.
Siân Berry
I have four amendments in this group, and I will speak as briefly as I can about each of them. They are in the spirit of trying to improve the clauses even though I oppose them in principle.
Amendment 77 seeks to strengthen the exemption on children and increase the age to 21. As the explanatory statement says, it would
“extend the exemption for repaying asylum support from any person who was under the age of 18 at all times they were in receipt of support to any person who was under the age of 21 at any time they were in receipt of support.”
It is welcome that the Government have already acknowledged that children should not be counted within this policy, including that parents should not have to pay £10,000 for any dependants who are children. However, there are two concerns that this amendment is seeking to address. First, on the face of the Bill, an individual has to be:
“under 18 at all times at which they received asylum support”
That implies that if someone turns 18 the day before they are granted status, they would still be liable for the full payment of up to £10,000, which the Government have confirmed they want to charge at a flat rate. That seems particularly unfair, especially when one considers that applicants have no control over how long it will take for their application to be processed.
Additionally, the Bill does not reflect that when someone turns 18, they are still a young person just starting their adult life. Through measures announced elsewhere, such as the work and study protection framework, the Government have made it clear that they want people to be encouraged into study and work opportunities. It therefore seems both harsh and counterproductive to be giving a young person thousands of pounds of debt when they are taking their very first steps in building a new life in a new country. The change in amendment 77 would therefore better protect children and young people who have gone through the asylum system and allow them to have the best start at rebuilding their lives in the UK.
Amendment 78 adds further exemptions to those that the Government have outlined. The only exemption on the face of the Bill is currently for children who are under 18, although more amendments could be added through regulations. I am happy for amendment 78 to be a probing amendment, provided that the Government are prepared to give some clarity on further exemptions that they might be prepared to add.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Amendment 50 addresses the fact that, according to the clause, children will become indebted on their 18th birthday—we have heard an indicative amount of £10,000, but it might be more. Clearly, no child has contributed fiscally when they reach maturity to the benefits they have received from the state—be that benefits or education—but the clause is othering child refugees and seems wrong in principle and wrong in practice. I ask the Minister: does it apply to all child refugees who reach maturity while receiving asylum support? Does it apply to victims of trafficking, for example? This seems wholly wrong. As I say, if we want refugees to integrate, othering them in this way does no good whatsoever and simply fuels the frankly toxic debate in this country that refugees are somehow not part of our community. We need them to become part of our community. Othering them in this way does no good.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. This group is about who should be exempt from the duty to repay asylum support and when a debt should be cancelled. Five of the grouped amendments—four in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion and one tabled by the Liberal Democrats in the name of the hon. Member for Wimbledon—would widen the exemptions or write off the debt. The Opposition take the opposite view, unsurprisingly. The exemptions in clause 23 are already too wide, which is why I tabled amendments 139 and 142.
Clause 23(6)(b) exempts anyone who
“started to receive asylum support before the day on which this section comes fully into force”.
That is not an exemption for support received before the law changes; it is an exemption for all the support that a person will ever receive before or after commencement. The Government tell us that about 97,500 people are receiving support and, as the Bill is drafted, every single one of them will be exempt for life. Between now and the commencement date, which the Government have not yet given us—with appeals taking over a year, the first charges under this clause may be many years away—how many people will be exempt under subsection (6)(b)? Why not exempt only the support received before commencement, so that people already in the system contribute to the support they receive once the law has changed? When do the Government intend to bring clause 23 fully into force and levy the first charges?
Clause 23(6)(c) will allow the Secretary of State to exempt “any other description” of a person by regulations. The explanatory notes tell us that victims of modern slavery will be exempt. Under clause 50, those regulations will be subject only to the negative procedure. The Government’s reasoning is that exemptions do not disadvantage the people affected. They may not disadvantage the people exempted, but they certainly affect the taxpayer. A series of negative instruments could hollow out the scheme without a debate in the House. Which further categories do the Government intend to exempt, and why do Ministers not think that Parliament should be able to approve those?
Amendment 139 would remove subsection (6)(b), which is the exemption for everyone who started to receive support before clause 23 is fully in force. As I said, that will exempt around 97,500 people for life for the support that they receive, as well as anyone who enters support before a commencement date that nobody has given us. The Opposition’s intention is simple: people already in the system should contribute for the support they receive once the scheme is in force.
Amendment 142 would make regulations creating further exemptions under subsection (6)(c) subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government say that the negative procedure is enough because exemptions do not disadvantage the people exempted. That may be the case, but it certainly is not the case for the taxpayer, who is burdened with the cost. A series of negative instruments could hollow out the scheme, as I mentioned earlier.
Amendments 77 and 50 would exempt anyone who was under 21 or 18, respectively, at any time while they were supported, rather than those who were children throughout. That would mean that someone who arrived at 17 and was supported for years as an adult would pay nothing. We will oppose both those amendments.
Amendment 82 would exempt anyone granted leave after a successful appeal. Mr Featonby of the Refugee Council made the point for us. He said that
“the majority of people who will ever be in a position to even start to pay back that money are people who are going to go on to get protection.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 32, Q53.]
Exempting those who win on appeal would remove a large share of the people who could pay, and would reward the cases that took the longest.
Amendment 78 would add exemptions for people over retirement age, recognised victims of trafficking, survivors of sexual or gender-based violence and domestic abuse, and victims of torture, rape or serious violence. Those are sensitive cases, and the Government have said that victims of modern slavery will be exempt. The right way to decide those exemptions is in regulations that the House has seen and approved, not by negative instruments that can hollow out the scheme, as I mentioned earlier. Which categories will the Government exempt, and will draft exemption regulations be provided before Report?
Amendment 80, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, would require the Home Secretary to cancel a person’s liability upon death or permanent incapacity, when they reach 65, or 10 years after their support ended. There is a fair question underneath that. Student loans, which are the basis for the model that we proposed, are written off after a set period, but a 10-year write-off that starts when support ends would allow anyone to wait out the debt and simply not pay. The amendment is far too wide, and we will oppose it. Do the Government intend to have any write-off period at all, and if so what?
Finally, the Opposition will oppose amendments 77, 50, 78, 82 and 80. The clause already exempts everyone now in the system for life and allows further exemptions by negative instrument. Amendment 139 would close the first gap and amendment 142 would close the second. I will press amendment 139 to a Division.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I will speak briefly about two of the exemptions to requiring someone to make a payment for their asylum support. They have been referred to already; they are in clause 23(6)(a) and (b).
Subsection (6)(a) states a person is exempt for the purposes of this section if they
“were under 18 at all times at which they received asylum support”.
I accept that if someone was a child throughout the entire period they received asylum support, they would be fully exempt, but I think I disagree with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion on an interpretation point. That is the problem with the Bill; it is badly drafted and unclear in places. If someone under the age of 18 was receiving asylum support, then turned 18 and sought it afterwards, they would not be exempt—of course not, because they also received asylum support as an adult—but one would assume that they would not be charged for the portion of time that they had received asylum support while under 18. The Minister needs to clarify that point, but giving clarity in Committee is not sufficient when it is unclear in the legislation. She would do better to clarify it in the legislation.
The second exemption I want to briefly refer to, as the shadow Minister has, is subsection (6)(b). It gives an exemption to someone who
“started to receive asylum support before the day on which this section comes fully into force”.
As a counterpoint to what I just said, I do not understand why, if someone received asylum support for a year—let us say; typically it is a lot longer—and day one was before this section came into force, but day two and 364 of the 365 days were after it came into force, they would be exempt from making contributions for their asylum support. They would receive the vast majority of that support after the legislation comes into force, so I would have thought it a fairly obvious pro rata exercise to say that they do not pay for the portion of time they spent receiving support before the law was in place— I take the point that we do not have retrospective law in this country—but they do thereafter.
It makes me wonder whether my understanding of the child-becoming-an-adult element is wrong. The Government need to be clear about whether a pro rata approach is being taken when a child becomes an adult. If so, why is that not being applied when someone starts receiving support before the Bill comes into play and continues to receive support after? I hope the Minister can give us some clarity.
Anna Turley
I thank hon. Members across the Committee for tabling the amendments in this group and for the explanations that they have given. The Committee will forgive me if I once again stress that clause 23 establishes an important and fair principle of contribution and reciprocity: where someone has received asylum support at public expense and later has the means to contribute to help to maintain that system and the public consent for that system, it is reasonable that they should do so. That ensures that those who have a right to support still receive it, but that comes with responsibilities and expectations.
Joe Robertson
It sounds like the Minister is saying that when a child becomes an adult and is still receiving support, they will then be liable to pay for the support they received as a child and it is their choice whether to continue with their asylum application.
Anna Turley
Apologies for any misconception. A person will not have to pay for the support they received entirely as a child. I will make sure that I clarify the wording of that for the Committee’s understanding.
The Bill also includes a power to establish further exemptions through secondary legislation. That is the appropriate mechanism. It provides flexibility, allows clear definitions aligned with wider frameworks, such as in relation to debt, and enables the approach to be kept under review. The amendments do not establish consistently how eligibility would be evidenced, when liability should cease or how particular circumstances should interact with an individual’s current means. Those details are critical to protect the policy’s aims and mitigate against abuse, so such exemptions should not be in the Bill.
In relation to amendment 82, which suggests an exemption for those granted status on appeal, the policy in the Bill seeks a contribution from all recipients of asylum support, regardless of the outcome of their claim. I note the wider areas of interest of hon. Members in terms of those exemptions. We will consider everything discussed and heard in Committee when preparing the secondary legislation to which the Government have committed during the passage of the Bill.
I will respond to some of the issues raised in the discussion. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion mentioned targeting those who are destitute. I want to be clear: we are still providing support to those who need it most. The repayment begins only later, when individuals have the means for it. There are clear safeguards, such as income thresholds and exemptions, to protect the most vulnerable. There will also be a grace period after support finishes but before repayment is required to allow individuals time to establish themselves. Far from being punitive, the policy reflects a principle that when someone can contribute, they should.
The hon. Member also mentioned exemptions for vulnerable groups. Those exemptions are not in the Bill because that is the wrong place for them, but we will make those regulations. Hon. Members’ contributions and concerns have been heard and will form part of that discussion. For the reasons I have outlined, I respectfully ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.
Amendments 139 and 142 concern the scope, enforcement and parliamentary oversight of the asylum support contribution scheme. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire for tabling them, but we cannot accept them. Amendment 139, which aims to allow liability to arise for support received before the scheme is fully commenced, goes against the principle of this legislation. The Government’s approach is deliberately prospective: liability should arise only once the detailed rules, notification arrangements and safeguards are in place. Applying the scheme retrospectively to earlier support would create uncertainty, move the goalposts and not provide people with sufficient clarity about the potential consequences of receiving support.
Joe Robertson
I take the point that the scheme should not be applied retrospectively, but let us take the example of student loans: students take out loans on terms that are then changed in the future. If UK students have to deal with that, why should it be any different for asylum provisions?
Anna Turley
That example is about changing the level of a loan that has been provided. I do not think we can expect people who may have fled war and persecution to come to this country on one understanding, only to have that changed while they are here. This is an entirely new system; it is not about changing the level of a loan or a return. It is important that we do it only going forward; trying to apply it retrospectively would be open to an extreme amount of legal challenge.
Amendment 142 would require any regulations that specify further exemptions under clause 23 to be subject to the affirmative procedure. We will reject the amendment, but again, with an emphasis on consensus, I say that I firmly believe in the principle of parliamentary debate and discussion, particularly on important regulations such as these. Although we are rejecting the amendment, I undertake to review the matter during the passage of the Bill, because such important exemptions need appropriate scrutiny, and these regulations will need the full scrutiny of Parliament. As I say, I am open-minded about considering that as the Bill progresses.
As we have already committed, the detailed scheme will be published in secondary legislation during the passage of the Bill, so I hope that will give hon. Members plenty to engage with during the process.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Blake Stephenson
I beg to move amendment 140, in clause 23, page 22, line 13, at end insert—
“(7) This section may not be brought fully into force until the Secretary of State has published and laid before Parliament—
(a) a draft of the regulations which the Secretary of State proposes to make under subsection (4), and
(b) an estimate, for each of the first five years after this section comes fully into force, of—
(i) the number of persons expected to be required to make payments under subsection (3),
(ii) the sums expected to be recovered, and
(iii) the cost of administering the requirement to make payments and of collecting those payments.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish its draft regulations for the asylum support repayment scheme, together with an estimate of how many people will pay, how much will be recovered and what the scheme will cost to run, before the scheme is brought into force.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 23 stand part.
Clause 24 stand part.
New clause 62—Asylum support payments: annual report—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, for each financial year beginning after section 23 comes fully into force, prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the exercise of the power in section 23(3).
(2) A report under subsection (1) must set out, for the financial year to which it relates—
(a) the number of persons required to make payments under section 23(3);
(b) the total sums required to be paid;
(c) the total sums recovered, including sums collected by HMRC under regulations made by virtue of section 24(4);
(d) the total sums written off or treated as irrecoverable;
(e) the number of persons exempt by virtue of section 23(6), by description of exemption; and
(f) the cost of administering the requirement to make payments and of collecting those payments.
(3) A report under this section must be laid before Parliament within six months of the end of the financial year to which it relates.”
This new clause would require the Government to report to Parliament each year on how many people have been charged for asylum support, how much has been charged, recovered and written off, how many people are exempt, and what the scheme costs to run.
Blake Stephenson
Clause 23 gives the Home Secretary a new power to require people who have received asylum support to pay towards its cost once they are able to do so. Clause 24 is the machinery that sits behind it. The Opposition supports both clauses, so my questions are not about whether clause 23 is right in principle; they are about whether, as drafted, it will recover anything at all—and when.
Amendment 140 would mean that clause 23 could not be brought fully into force until the Government have published and laid the draft regulations and a five-year estimate of how many people will pay, how much will be recovered and what the scheme will cost to run. That is not an obstacle to the scheme—it is the minimum that Parliament needs in order to judge whether it will work effectively. Will the Minister commit to publishing the draft regulations and those estimates before the clause commences? If she does, I will not press the amendment to a vote.
Clause 23(1) applies the scheme to anyone who has received asylum support and is not exempt. Subsection (2) defines asylum support. Subsection (3) is the core power: the Secretary of State “may” require payments. Subsection (4) leaves everything else to regulations. Subsection (5) provides that no one can be required to pay if it would make them destitute. Subsection (6) exempts people who were children throughout, anyone who started receiving support before the clause comes fully into force, and anyone else the Secretary of State specifies in regulations.
Clause 24 is the machinery that sits behind clause 23. It sets out how the charge can reflect support given to dependants, allows His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to collect it, allows information to be shared with the Home Office for that purpose, and makes unpaid sums recoverable as a debt. Clause 23 is the principle, which we support; clause 24 is where we assess whether any money will actually be collected.
We agree with the principle, but the Government have not provided the detail that we expect. There is no amount detailed in the Bill. There is no threshold. There is no repayment period. There is no collection model. All of that is left to regulations that we are yet to see. If our new clause 37 to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 was not developed enough for primary legislation in March 2025, I invite the Minister to explain what makes clause 23 in this Bill developed enough now.
The explanatory notes state that the power applies to those
“who have had their case concluded”;
but that condition is not in the clause. Can payments be required while a claim or appeal is outstanding from people with savings, for example, and how does that relate to the separate contributions mechanisms announced in November?
The Home Office says that the measure will ensure that refused asylum seekers
“take responsibility for the financial impact of their presence in this country”,
but a refused claimant who remains here unlawfully is not going to be paying through pay-as-you-earn. How much do the Government realistically expect to recover from refused claimants who stay? Why does the definition in clause 23(2) leave out section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—initial accommodation, including hotels—so that time spent there appears to be free of charge?
Subsection (4) allows regulations to provide for HMRC to collect amounts due. We believe that this is the correct model. It is how student loans are recovered—automatically, through the pay packet, once earnings pass a certain threshold. It is the model the Opposition proposed. However, subsection (4) is only an enabling power; it says that regulations “may” provide for HMRC collection. Under clause 50, those regulations will be subject only to the negative procedure, and the Government describe collection as a more technical and administrative matter. Has HMRC agreed to collect the charge? Will collection be through PAYE by default, as it is for student loans, and from what date will it happen?
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
I will speak in favour of clauses 23 and 24 stand part. The clauses reflect an important principle at the heart of the Government’s approach to immigration. We must have a properly managed system that commands public confidence and treats people fairly, while ensuring that taxpayers’ money is used responsibly. My South Norfolk constituents want a firm but fair immigration system. They want rules to be enforced, decisions to be made promptly and public money to be spent wisely. They also want a system that operates with humanity, upholds the law and does not allow people to exploit weaknesses in its administration. Those expectations are entirely reasonable. Indeed, they are complementary. Fairness and effective enforcement are not competing objectives; they are both essential to rebuilding trust in our immigration system.
That is why I welcome the principles behind clauses 23 and 24. They have established a framework through which the Government can require appropriate payments from certain people who have received asylum support, while providing protections for those who cannot afford to pay. That is a practical measure designed to ensure that, where someone has received support at public expense, their circumstances can be taken into account and a contribution can be sought where it is appropriate and affordable. That demonstrates that this Government are serious about responsible management of our asylum system. We are not simply talking about reform: we are putting in place the powers and mechanisms needed to make the system work better.
Clause 23 establishes the central power for the Secretary of State to require payments from people who have received asylum support.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
It strikes me that the point that the hon. Gentleman is making goes some way towards answering the point that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion was making regarding the financial circumstances in which asylum seekers may find themselves, and her suggestion that poor asylum seekers would perhaps be required to pay back while those who had wealth would not. If somebody does not have the means with which to pay, they will not be required to.
Ben Goldsborough
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As it says on the face of the Bill, deprivation has to be taken into account. Again, that reinforces the idea that the Government are putting forward a firm but fair immigration system.
Siân Berry
Does the hon. Member have any insight into the gap that I think the Minister left in the discussion on the last group, between claims that repayments will be affordable and what it says in the Bill, which is that it will only avoid destitution? Does the hon. Member agree that there is a gap between those two definitions?
Ben Goldsborough
What was really important in the Minister’s closing comments on that group was that this is obviously not something that is taken into account for our own constituents who have not sought asylum themselves. There is no definition of destitution versus poverty. What we need to do is have a fair system, not only for those that are seeking asylum, but for our constituents as well. We need to ensure we do not create this two-tier running that then undermines the confidence in the system that we need.
Subsection (2) makes it clear that provision covers support provided through several existing statutory routes, including sections 4, 95 and 95A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as well as accommodation in accommodation centres under section 17 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. That is an important foundation for a coherent approach. Asylum support is delivered through different statutory arrangements, and the Government need a framework that can operate across those routes rather than leaving gaps in the system.
Subsection (3) provides the power to require payments, while subsection (4) allows regulation to establish how those payments will be calculated, when they will be required, the timeframes for payment and how individuals will be notified. I welcome that approach, because effective reform requires more than setting out a principle in legislation; it requires practical machinery to implement the principle consistently.
Taxpayers rightly expect public money to be managed responsibly across our public services. We have to make difficult decisions about how resources are allocated and ensure that money is used where it is needed most. The asylum system should be no exemption from that. Where someone has received support at public expense and is subsequently in a position to contribute towards those costs, it is reasonable for the Government to have the power to require an appropriate payment. That is not about penalising people for seeking asylum; it is about recognising that the public support comes with responsibilities where an individual has the means to meet them.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
At the danger of reiterating a point from earlier, does my hon. Friend agree that, not only does the contributory principle approach a sense of fairness, but it enables a dignifying process for asylum seekers to show that they actually belong—that they are part of something that we are all part of?
Ben Goldsborough
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As he rightly said earlier, as a former homelessness support worker, he has seen the difference it makes when people want to provide support and repay the UK for giving them refuge.
This is precisely the kind of practical reform that can help restore confidence in the immigration system. It demonstrates that the Government are prepared to address the detail of how the system operates, rather than relying on grand announcements that do little to resolve the underlying challenges.
One of the most important features of clause 23 is subsection (5), which states that a person cannot be required to make payments where those payments would render them destitute, as defined under section 95(3) of the 1999 Act. I strongly welcome that safeguard.
A responsible Government must be able to pursue appropriate payments, while recognising that there is a fundamental difference between someone who has the means to contribute and someone who does not. The purpose of the clauses is to establish a fair and workable payments system, not to create further hardship for those who are already unable to meet their basic needs. The protection against destitution ensures that the Government’s approach can be firm without being indiscriminate. It allows the system to take account of financial circumstances and to distinguish between those who can reasonably pay and those for whom a payment would put their basic welfare at risk. That is an important distinction.
I also recognise the practical value of allowing regulations to take account of a person’s financial means. Circumstances can change, and a system that is capable of recognising those changes is more likely to operate effectively.
I look forward to the Government setting out how the regulations will ensure that payment requirements are clear, proportionate and based on the relevant circumstances. That will help to ensure that the scheme delivers its intended benefits, while maintaining the safeguards Parliament has rightly included.
Subsection (6) sets out the exemptions from the payment requirement, which include people who were under 18 throughout the period in which they received asylum support and people who began receiving support before the relevant section comes into force. It also allows additional exemptions to be specified in regulations. I welcome those inclusions and exemptions as part of a balanced legislative framework.
The exemption for children is particularly important, and I know it will be important to my constituents as well. Children should not be expected to carry the financial obligations arising from support provided to them during their childhood. Their circumstances are different from those of adults and the legislation appropriately recognises that difference.
The provision for people who began receiving support before commencement also establishes a clear distinction between existing recipients and those who enter the system once the new arrangements take effect. That is important for a fair implementation of the policy.
Taken together, these provisions demonstrate that the Government are seeking to establish a system with clear expectations and appropriate protection. That is the right foundation for lasting reform.
Clause 24 builds on the framework established by clause 23, setting out further provisions relating to the calculation and collection of payments. The Government are right to provide a framework that can account for the circumstances in which support was provided, rather than assuming that every case is identical. That flexibility should help to ensure that payment requirements are based on relevant factors and that the scheme can be administered fairly.
Subsections (4) and (5) provide for HMRC to undertake preparatory work ahead of regulations that may give it the responsibility for collecting payments. I welcome the Government’s intention to establish a workable arrangement for collection. There is a strong practical case for making use of existing administrative expertise and infrastructure where doing so can help to deliver policy effectively.
Subsection (6) amends the UK Borders Act 2007 to permit HMRC information to be shared for the purposes of determining liability for payments and requiring them. Appropriate information sharing can support accurate assessments and effective administration. It can help to ensure that decisions are made on the basis of relevant information and that payment systems operate as intended. Of course, that information must be handled lawfully and securely; public confidence depends on people being able to trust public authorities to use information for legitimate purposes and in accordance with the law. Those safeguards are compatible with effective administration—indeed, they help to underpin it.
Finally, subsection (8) allows consequential regulations to be made in support of the operation of clauses 23 and 24. That is a necessary part of creating a coherent framework. Legislation of this kind needs to work alongside existing arrangements, and the Government must be able to make the consequential changes required to implement it effectively.
Mr Kohler
As we have heard, the Bill offers little detail on how the asylum support repayment system will work in practice, such as how repayments will be made, the exact amount that refugees will be expected to pay back, and how much refugees need to earn before they are required to make repayments. Can the Minister commit to a timeline for bringing forward those crucial details?
Requiring refugees to pay back their asylum support is likely to create barriers to integration, leaving refugees in debt at exactly the point where they should be focused on rebuilding their lives. How will the Home Office ensure that this proposal does not undermine wider Government objectives on improving social cohesion? The Red Cross questioned that in its evidence. How will the Home Office ensure that the asylum support repayment system does not leave refugees vulnerable to exploitation if they are struggling the repay their debt? Hon. Members raised questions on clause 23(5). As the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion said, affordability is very different from destitution—destitution is such a high bar. If people are trying to integrate into society and they cannot afford these repayments, what will happen? They will become vulnerable to loan sharks. That is the kind of problem they will face.
I would also like to focus on the consequences of non-repayment. If refugees are required to fully repay their debt before being eligible for settlement, that risks leaving the most vulnerable with prolonged insecure status. Can the Minister clarify that point? Will refugees who are unable to work through no fault of their own, for example due to medical conditions or care responsibilities, still be able to qualify for settlement? I would also like to hear an answer on that from the Minister.
Siân Berry
I have spoken quite a lot about my overall position on these clauses, but I would like to say a little more about the fact that clause 23 gives the Home Secretary the power to require these unfair payments from a minority of asylum seekers who are destitute when they arrive here. The Minister needs to consider the lack of safe routes and the extent to which people wanting to claim asylum here end up more destitute as they are exploited the entire way by the kind of organised criminals that are currently running the only routes into this country. We need to see much more detail than is on the face of the Bill about how the system will work.
I essentially wish to speak in support of amendment 140, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire. He makes a good point. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary promised that Parliament would have the opportunity to see draft regulations, but we have not seen them yet. The Committee is being asked to assess and approve a system when we are not able to scrutinise the details. We deserve to see more of them now. They are not minor details. We have already spoken about the fact that £10,000 is the amount that the Government are talking about, but that is not on the face of the Bill, and neither is the payment threshold nor how much people will have to pay over that amount. All of that is information that we would need to assess the impact that this policy would have on individual refugees at the point they are trying to rebuild their lives, not just on the public purse, as the Opposition amendment seeks to set out.
Although the Government have indicated how they might recover those payments, the detail of the Bill does not cover everything. They say it will enable the Home Office to have its own cost recovery mechanism, supported by HMRC, which will apparently play its part. How will that work, how will it sit within other parts of the Government’s core protection system, and how much will it cost? That is especially important when weighed against the fact that the policy might bring in only limited amounts and may even reduce the overall tax take from this group. Without knowledge of the decisions about the system, the Government may be proposing something that costs the public purse large amounts in cash terms, let alone in its wider impacts. I think we need to see the Government’s analysis of all this.
It is also important to acknowledge that individuals claiming asylum have fled war and persecution and are not responsible for the overall cost of asylum support. That cost has grown, often as a result of policy decisions or failings of this Government and the previous one. Earlier, we discussed the difference in cost between nightly paid hotel accommodation and properly settled dispersal accommodation in genuine homes. The Government are not spending their money wisely at present, and I think Ministers are seeking to address that. Would tackling that not be more cost-effective than trying to recover money from close-to-destitute asylum seekers?
The Home Secretary has also said this policy is introducing a “contributory principle”. What she ignores, however, is that refugees do contribute, and have always done so, through working, paying taxes and contributing to their local communities. In fact, on wider impacts, the refugee tax is not introducing the idea that refugees should contribute. In my view, it is making it harder for them to do so, while also harming community cohesion and integration.
A policy that was truly focused on increasing refugee contributions could look at how barriers to employment can be removed, so that people can access work more easily, progress in a career and transfer their qualifications to this country. I have had casework on those matters, which are barriers to refugees contributing to society through their taxes and making the most of the skills they can bring here by accessing education and further training. That would all help the Government to address asylum support costs, but it would do so by supporting vulnerable refugees, not targeting them with this tax.
Has the Minister really addressed, in any of her comments today, the facts in the letter she wrote to us at the end of the oral evidence session, which admits fully that three in five of the people currently awaiting a decision are not claiming support? Why are those people not being asked to contribute in any way, if recovering the costs from people is the most important thing to the Government? Amendment 140 gets to the heart of that: what is the balance of payments?
Finally, I believe this policy is cruel. It seeks to deter people from coming to this country, and that is the key reason why it is so targeted at the most vulnerable refugees, and not at those who can pay their own way. However, will it actually work as a deterrent? In general, the Home Office already has evidence that punitive measures such as the refugee tax have little impact on where people choose to seek asylum. Furthermore, in the oral evidence session, when asked about this, the Refugee Council highlighted that people will be able to avoid these payments simply by not applying for asylum support while their application is being processed, a risk also recognised in the Home Office’s impact assessment. Although that may reduce asylum support costs, I do not think that such a result is the Government’s intention, as it will push more people seeking asylum into vulnerable situations in which they can be exploited further. Do the Government not think that policies from this and previous Governments have already done enough of that?
Anna Turley
I thank hon. Members for their amendments in this group, as well as for the discussion and interest they have shown in this provision, which we have debated at length today.
Clause 23 enables the Secretary of State to require those who have received asylum support and accommodation, known as section 4 and section 95 support, to pay a contribution towards those costs. The clause contains an important safeguard: it requires the regulations to ensure that individuals are not required to pay when doing so would cause them to become destitute. That means that people will not be required to pay if it meant they could not meet their essential living needs or if it would place them at risk of homelessness.
The clause exempts children. Other exemptions will be set out in secondary legislation to ensure safeguards, thus protecting vulnerable groups. I look forward to working further with Members on that throughout the course of the Bill. Details of how the charge will be applied and how the system will operate will be set out in regulations and the Home Secretary has committed to sharing a draft of those regulations with Parliament.
The Bill is built on a balance of rights and responsibilities. This reform protects support for those who need it most, while reinforcing the principle that support should come with an expectation of contribution when that is affordable. When confidence in the asylum system is low, and with asylum support costing the taxpayer around £4 billion, it is right to take steps to reduce costs and ensure that those who can make a proportionate contribution do so. This policy achieves that.
The measure is not a tax on asylum seekers or refugees. It does not affect a person’s right to claim asylum nor their entitlement to receive support when it is needed. The clause reflects the broader principle that, alongside the rights and protections afforded to those seeking asylum, there are responsibilities that our constituents would expect one another to undertake: to contribute towards public costs where it is fair and reasonable to do so. This aids integration, helping to foster a shared sense of fairness, responsibility and belonging. It says to our constituents who contribute for their entitlement that no one should be entitled to a free pass.
Building on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, the measure is also about asking people to contribute for those who come after them. My hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland mentioned the desire that he heard expressed by asylum seekers coming to this country that they want to pay and contribute. Many of them will want to enable the system to continue, so that other people fleeing war and persecution can benefit.
Clause 24 enables asylum support repayments to be recovered through the tax system. It provides a power for regulations to make provision for HMRC to collect repayments on behalf of the Secretary of State from individuals who are liable under clause 23. The clause also creates the statutory framework for information sharing between HMRC and the Home Office where that is necessary for the administration and collection of repayments.
Hon. Members asked whether HMRC will be responsible for collecting payments. We are ensuring a range of repayment mechanisms, including options that could make use of the tax system. Decisions on the final repayment model will be taken in due course, informed by our discussions. We will continue to work across Government to identify the most effective and proportionate response.
The powers we are introducing will help ensure that, should the Government decide to use the tax system as a collection mechanism, repayments can be administered effectively and efficiently. The clause therefore provides the legislative framework necessary to support recovery of asylum support costs through the tax system. I listened carefully to the points made by hon. Members and their detailed questions on the set-up of the scheme, its processes and the collection mechanisms. The Home Secretary has committed that information on those factors will be published during the process of the Bill. I undertake to ensure that hon. Members continue to get more information as the drafts are published.
Moving on to the amendments in this group, amendment 140 and new clause 62 concern transparency and reporting on the asylum support contribution system. The Government recognise the importance of scrutiny, but we cannot accept these provisions. On amendment 140, the Government have already committed to sharing draft regulations during the Bill’s passage, allowing Parliament to discuss the detailed operation of the scheme. Building on the conversation we had on the previous group, I will review whether exemptions will be subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. I hope hon. Members will take that commitment.
The amendment would also make commencement of the scheme conditional on publishing five-year estimates of the number of people liable, sums recovered and administrative costs. Those will depend on the final design and operation of the scheme, and may be subject to considerable uncertainty. For example, the numbers of asylum claims in this country are coming down, so five-year estimates would not necessarily give us any degree of certainty. We will provide relevant analysis through the impact assessment, and are committed to providing data to support transparency on the effectiveness of the scheme as implemented. However, we do not consider it appropriate to make commencement dependent on such five-year forecasts.
Likewise, we do not think that a separate reporting scheme on liabilities, recoveries, write-offs, exemptions and administrative costs, as set out in new clause 62, should be prescribed in primary legislation. We will explore what appropriate information on the operation of the scheme can be incorporated into Government asylum statistics and reporting once the scheme is operational.
To conclude, the Government are committed to ensuring that the scheme is transparent and deliverable, and provides value for money.
Matt Vickers
The Home Office confirmed that it spent £22,000 on its “don’t rape women” guide for asylum seekers. Can the Minister confirm that clause 23 restricts the sums that are recoverable purely to accommodation and subsistence, rather than to the Home Office’s comms budget?
Anna Turley
I moved to my conclusion too quickly; forgive me, Mr Twigg. I still have a number of points to respond to—I thought we were getting an early escape.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and one that I wanted to cover, regarding asylum support. Section 98 support is temporary emergency accommodation, which is not within the scope of clause 23. Section 98 is the immediate emergency support, and asylum seekers then apply for section 95 support, which is what the clause addresses. He asks why that is not included, and I take his point. We are trying to move away from the kind of expensive and unsustainable emergency support that we saw explode under his party’s Administration. We have already saved more than £1 billion by closing hotels, so that will not be part of this measure. The asylum support that people apply for is what is covered by the clause.
The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire asked about repayment thresholds. As I said, the Bill establishes the principle and the key framework for the recovery of asylum costs; the detailed operation, including thresholds, will be set out in secondary legislation. That is a common and proportionate approach to drafting such legislation, for which operational detail may be adjusted over time. The policy intent is that repayment will begin only once an individual reaches a defined threshold for repayment, and that deductions will be set at a manageable rate, so that recovery remains proportionate and does not cause hardship or destitution. Any regulations will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and there will be clear safeguards.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion asked whether we expected to raise any money. The answer is yes. As I have mentioned, the asylum system represents a significant cost to the taxpayer of about £4 billion. The Government are determined to bring those costs down. The policy of recouping asylum support is a world first. It is about ensuring that those who benefit from this specific, targeted form of support contribute towards its cost, when they can. Our objective is fairness to everyone in this country, as well as sustainability, with any revenue generated reducing the burden on the public purse. It is about not just recovering costs, but contribution. Costs will be recouped over time from individuals who have moved into employment or otherwise have the means to contribute.
Anna Turley
I was going to mention work and study, but I will come back to that.
Siân Berry
My question is more about the revenue and its spending. We have heard from local authorities concerned that they might have higher costs as a result of the measures. Can the Minister give us any reassurance that the costs will not spill over into services that might be affected by some of the things in the impact assessment?
Anna Turley
The hon. Lady makes an important point, but I do not see that the implications will fall on local authorities. As I said, in the course of publishing regulations as a result of the passage of the Bill, we will explore the mechanisms for bringing the money in and for where it will go in the Exchequer. However, at this point I do not want to commit to any undertakings to local authorities. The measure is about ensuring that people contribute and pay their fair share.
The hon. Lady mentioned work—we share that commitment. We all want to see those who have come here fleeing persecution move as quickly as possible into work and into contributing to this country. That is why our new work and study routes will allow people to get off core protection, off dependency and as quickly as possible into the work and study routes that we will provide and encourage asylum seekers to use.
Mr Kohler
I wish to make two swift points about what the Minister has just said. First, does the tax system not allow people to contribute—is that not the whole point? When people are integrated, they contribute via the tax system. Othering refugees because they came to us as refugees strikes me as completely the wrong approach, and one that we do not apply to other forms of state help.
Secondly, I am no doubt being obtuse here, but can the Minister point me to the consequences for non-payment? I am still not clear on that.
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman’s first point is not correct. We ask immigrants to pay a number of other things, including the health surcharge. Asylum seekers have the opportunity to contribute not just through taxes, but by making a significant contribution to these substantial costs. There are very few benefits that our constituents get and would not be expected to pay back in some form.
Mr Kohler
The Minister mentions the health surcharge, but it is different for somebody who comes to the country on a work visa and goes in with their eyes open about what the deal is, how they will be paid and how the market assesses costs to them. We are talking here about supporting people who are desperate and have come to us for help, and then saying, “Oh, by the way, you now owe us a vast amount of money.” What we should want is for them to contribute by integrating into society and paying their taxes.
Anna Turley
I think the hon. Gentleman completely misses the point about the principle of fairness. I invite him to come and talk to some of my constituents, who might feel differently from his. Some of them feel extremely aggrieved that a huge number of people create this £4 billion burden on the taxpayer. I invite Members to think about what we could do with that money. Of course, we want to fulfil our obligations to those who come here fleeing war and persecution, but we are giving them quite substantial support, and I do not think it unacceptable or inappropriate to ask them to contribute towards those costs when they are integrated, in work and earning enough to do so.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the scheme is transparent and deliverable, and provides value for money. As we have discussed, this debate is, at its heart, about fairness. What we are discussing here is the concept of individuals who have benefited from the sanctuary and generosity of this country and its taxpayers making a contribution to the support that they have received. This is not about punishing anyone; it is about those who received support having a stake in this country’s success, and contributing to those costs—and thereby to the sustainability of that support for others—when they are financially able to do so.
The right to receive support must come with responsibilities. It is right that we provide support to those fleeing war and persecution, and that those who receive our support make a fair and proportionate contribution when they can, putting back into the system that supported them, contributing themselves to such support for those who come after them, and ensuring that the consent of the British public, who pay for that support, remains. Our constituents would expect nothing less. I therefore invite the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire to withdraw his amendment, and I commend clauses 23 and 24 to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Digital Government
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
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
We begin with a Select Committee statement. Dame Chi Onwurah will speak on the publication of the third special report of the Science and Technology Committee, “Rewiring the state: Delivering digital government: Government response”, HC 651, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, Members will ask questions on the subject of the statement, and Dame Chi Onwurah will respond to those in turn. Questions should be brief, and Members may ask only one question.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Thank you so much, Ms Furniss. I am really grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement on the Science and Technology Committee’s report entitled “Rewiring the state: Delivering digital government” and to discuss the Government response. I place on the record my thanks to the Committee Clerks and specialists who supported this complex inquiry, as well as to all those who gave evidence, in person or in writing.
Both the previous Government and the current one have spoken of their ambition to make the UK a truly digital state, transforming citizens’ experiences of the health service, the education and justice systems, and indeed all public services, increasing productivity and efficiency and reducing costs. I am a tech evangelist; I believe that technology should make the world work better for people, and my Committee welcomes and supports the Government’s ambitions, but our report raised serious concerns about how achievable they are.
In our report, we identified four building blocks for successful digital transformation. The first is money. Money always matters, but we found that inadequate data on digital spend prevents the Government from making informed decisions or holding those responsible to account. The second is people. Do we have the right people and skills to deliver digital transformation and cultural change to ensure that skills are valued and embedded in leadership roles? For example, how many permanent secretaries have the digital experience required? The third is information and data security. There are serious data hygiene failures across the public sector. Public bodies hold public data on trust; it needs to meet the highest standards. The fourth is delivery. We need a detailed and measurable plan to ensure the success of the digital transformation agenda.
We also identified four barriers to realising the benefits of digital transformation. The first is hype. Both tech companies and the Government are guilty of this. Tech companies hype their solutions, often without reference to the problems, and the Government talk up the impact, such as the supposed £45 billion annual productivity saving from digitalisation. Hype undermines the credibility of the Government’s arguments, confuses and demoralises civil servants, and encourages the belief that over-optimism, rather than achievement and honesty, will be rewarded.
The second barrier is legacy systems. Outdated, obsolete or unsupported IT infrastructure, systems, hardware or processes pose an unacceptable level of risk. Our report found that, without a plan to address legacy systems, the Government’s digital ambitions will struggle to be achieved.
The third barrier is vendor lock-in. If significant costs or reductions in functionality are associated with changing vendors, we have vendor lock-in, whereby vendors can hold the Government hostage, raise prices, require additional contracts or reduce performance. The public sector depends on a small number of large digital and technology providers—such as Palantir, Microsoft and Amazon Web Services—and the Government appear to be worryingly comfortable with that.
The fourth barrier is lack of technology sovereignty. While the over-reliance on a small number of foreign vendors exists, the Government cannot set out to deliver their own sovereign digital agenda for the United Kingdom or fully support a competitive UK tech ecosystem. The Government should set out a public sector definition of sovereignty.
Palantir is a case study in three of the four barriers. Palantir’s relationship with the NHS began during the covid-19 pandemic when it was paid a nominal £1 fee to provide what its chief executive Louis Mosley described to us as “aggregating data”. It is now hyped as being uniquely essential to the NHS’s mission to save lives. It is a clear example of growing vendor lock-in as well as an over-reliance on foreign tech giants. Our report called on the Government to commit to exercising the February 2027 break clause in the federated data platform contract.
I thank the Government for their response, which came from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, although I understand other Departments were involved, so it is a welcome example of cross-Government working. Some parts of it are excellent, particularly the commitment to develop a strategy within the Government Digital Service to end vendor lock-in. That is a real step forward, as is the commitment to strong central co-ordination to drive progress on fixing legacy systems across the public sector, which is what we recommended.
An action plan is promised, as well as a remediation plan, subject to security considerations. The Government also reveal that 36 tech company employees have had access to either the federated data or specific datasets assigned by NHS England when initially Palantir said that none of its employees had access to it. So there is more transparency.
Other parts of the response are less encouraging. Significantly, in response to our recommendation that GDS develop and publish a framework to evaluate the performance of digital spend, we are told that they cannot count spend by Department. So as we embark on a complete digital transformation, we do not know how much is being spent and on what. How can we ensure that Ministers make informed decisions and can be held to account? Every single Government Department might be buying the same cloud services from the same vendor, and we will not know or be able to assess our resilience or performance.
Despite repeated data breaches, the Government refuse to share which public bodies and Departments meet basic data hygiene practices. That is due to “security considerations”. So we cannot hold Government to account for bad data management because it might alert the Chinese—I fear they know our limitations better than we do. Rolling out AI-driven public services over bad data infrastructure is a recipe for disaster and will require strong, rigorous standards and implementation to address it.
On open source, the Government are inconsistent and contradictory. They agree it is an important tool against vendor lock-in, but reject our recommendation that public bodies prioritise open-source tools and technology over proprietary offerings, citing the “essential commercial accountability” offered by suppliers of proprietary software. So is open source a good or a bad thing? The Government did not even engage with our request to provide impact assessments relating to the US CLOUD Act 2018, under which US headquartered companies can in principle be compelled to provide the US Government with access to UK customers’ data held in their UK data centres. The Government accept the need to strengthen sovereign capability and they promise updates, but reject a cross-Government strategy on sovereignty or a definition. They confirm efforts to support UK start-ups and scale-ups through procurement.
Two further key issues: we learned for the first time that the digital inter-ministerial group has been replaced by an official-level bimonthly digital executive committee, which sounds like a significant downgrade, just as digital is moved from the centre of Government—the Cabinet Office—to DCMS. Yet there is no commitment to appointing a dedicated Cabinet-level Minister responsible for driving effective digital transformation across the public sector.
Yesterday in the Committee hearing with Ministers on the machinery of government changes, the diffuse nature of responsibilities was apparent. Ministers and officials spoke repeatedly about working together effectively, but it does not give confidence that digital transformation will be achieved when there is not one person accountable for it or able to impose digital standards.
Finally on Palantir, the Government state that if a decision is taken not to extend Palantir’s contract, then the contract includes measures to support transition and continuity of services. I have since had a letter from the Minister for Health Innovation emphasising the significant costs associated with moving to another vendor while denying that there is vendor lock-in. I am seeking further clarification.
The British people deserve a modern, flexible digital state designed to meet their needs, with public services that improve their lives. Trust is essential to achieving that and bad data hygiene, outdated systems, vendor lock-in, hyped solutions and lack of sovereign capability is a recipe for failure. Without clear leadership that can drive and deliver the scale of change needed, we remain very concerned that there will be no successful digital rewiring of the state.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to ask a question, and that questions must be succinct.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, and the Committee itself for all its hard work. Advanced technology is what the Government are tasked with doing. Moving forward with modern technology is the way forward; however, I have two quick comments.
First, on the relationship between Government and business, it is important that businesses are able to keep up with the Government’s technological advances. That is the same for individuals. I am not tech savvy, and nor are some of my constituents. The Government’s way of doing business could limit their interaction with Government and their ability to take part. The hon. Lady also wisely referred to data protection. Many of us are suspicious of where our data ends up.
I have made three points there. You were very clear, Ms Furniss, about being allowed one question; I hope you will forgive me for my three ideas around the one point.
Dame Chi Onwurah
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions, which go to the heart of the matter: the relationship between the public sector and business, and that between the public sector and the people it is meant to serve.
On business, the public sector should be able to call on the support of businesses as they themselves adopt digital products and services. It should be able to include many different businesses, from Northern Ireland to the north-east of England and across the country, rather than being reliant on a small number of often monopolistic providers. That is a point that we make very strongly in our report. It is important that the interface between the Government and business be open and competitive and not be monopolised. That is one of the things we think that the Government’s response to our report, in terms of looking to ensure the end of vendor lock-in, should help to promote.
On the interface with the public, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the public should not need to be digital experts or super-knowledgeable on AI. The responsibility falls within Government to ensure that people’s data is safe and secure and that the public can trust the Government in handling that data, and to ensure that we have the best digital infrastructure, and transparent providers and suppliers as well.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I very much appreciated this excellent report from the Select Committee. Does my hon. Friend feel that we can learn lessons from other European nations? I understand that the French Government have eschewed Palantir for their intelligence services, at least partly because of concerns about digital sovereignty. Does she agree that the UK Government should be working with our European allies on these questions of sovereignty?
Dame Chi Onwurah
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question and the expertise she brings to this debate, particularly with regard to working with our European allies. I very much agree that we should be working with our European allies on this matter.
As I have set out, there are concerns about Palantir, specifically with regard to vendor lock-in, hype and sovereign capability, but that underlines a wider desire for effective competition in the supply of technology. That is competition in terms of the companies and organisations but also the countries that offer the technology; we do not want to be dependent on one country. Europe should develop its own capacity, with companies that can deliver world-leading, excellent services. This should be a joint endeavour and ambition, and I was very pleased to meet with the French ambassador yesterday to discuss areas of shared ambition and concern when it comes to technology and its delivery and roll-out.
Public trust is dependent on an understanding that the Government share the values of the public, and the public services do as well. Having a European technology offering in open competition with other countries and other offerings is a worthwhile ambition.
Backbench Business
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
Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation
(1 day, 8 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
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of compensation for Equitable Life policyholders.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank hon. and right hon. Members for attending this debate. Before I begin, I hope you will allow me to convey the apologies of a long-standing supporter of justice for Equitable Life policyholders, the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). He is sadly unable to join us this afternoon, but he has asked me to say that he has several constituents, as we all do, who remain without full redress following the collapse of Equitable Life. He asked me to mention those victims of the scandal in my speech today.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
On the issue of stalwart supporters, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) has been a magnificent supporter. I have come along to these debates for several years, and what I am looking for is at least some prospect of a result, because we have done this year in, year out. I have affected constituents, and I still support them, but what we need from the Minister is at least some sign that we are not flogging a dead horse.
Fabian Hamilton
I thank the right hon. Gentleman—and, dare I say, my right hon. Friend. We have known each other for many, many years, and he has also been a stalwart supporter. If he and the Minister have enough patience and are able to listen to what I have to say, they will hear me offer certain ideas that I hope will be pursued, because it is about time this issue was wrapped up for good.
I am grateful to all those who have continued to campaign for justice for the victims of Equitable Life and the scandal that followed, including the Equitable Members Action Group, whose work has helped to keep this issue before parliamentarians, as the right hon. Member just pointed out.
Of course, this debate is about more than just money; it is about fairness, accountability and the relationship between the state and the people it is supposed to represent and protect. It is about whether people who worked hard, saved responsibly for their retirement and trusted the regulatory safeguards established by Parliament should be left to bear the consequences of acknowledged Government and regulatory failure.
My central argument is therefore straightforward: the state has accepted responsibility for serious regulatory maladministration that caused policyholders substantial financial losses, yet the majority of those policyholders received only a fraction of the compensation for their losses. That injustice remains unresolved, and I believe the Government should now take practical steps to put it right.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. Does he agree that one of the fundamental issues is who regulates the regulators? When the regulators failed in this case, ultimately the ombudsman tried to regulate the regulators, but the regulators were too stubborn to accept the ombudsman’s recommendations. So who is going to regulate the regulators?
Fabian Hamilton
I think that is above my pay grade. The fact is that we all need to be vigilant to ensure that the regulators are properly regulated. I imagine that it is up to us as parliamentarians to make sure that those who are charged with regulating—or with regulating the regulators—do their job properly and prevent this kind of injustice from ever happening again. But the fact is that it has happened, and many people have suffered.
Equitable Life is one of the biggest scandals in the history of UK financial services, with more than 1 million people losing a significant proportion of their hard-earned retirement savings. Those people had done what successive Governments encouraged them to do: they worked hard, saved and made provision for their later years, rather than relying entirely upon the state. They trusted that the regulatory system established by Parliament—I hope this addresses the hon. Gentleman’s point—would provide appropriate oversight and protect the public from serious failures in the financial services sector. However, they were let down by Government Departments and regulators that failed to do their job to an acceptable standard.
Following a four-year inquiry, the parliamentary ombudsman found that policyholders’ losses were directly attributable to a decade of serious and serial regulatory maladministration. The ombudsman made 10 determinations of maladministration and five of injustice, and concluded that the serial maladministration had resulted in the true financial position of Equitable Life being concealed and misrepresented. The findings were exceptionally serious. The ombudsman stated that
“the prudential regulation of the Society…failed comprehensively”
and catastrophically, but that, crucially, it was not a failure of the regulatory system itself. It was
“a failure properly to implement in the particular case of the Society the system of regulation that Parliament had enacted.”
The ombudsman also made it clear that no other party could be said to be at fault, because the regulators, acting with the advice and assistance of the Government Actuary’s Department, had “acted with maladministration”. Those were not merely the complaints of disappointed investors; they were the formal findings by our independent parliamentary watchdog after a forensic and lengthy investigation. The ombudsman recommended that
“the Government should establish and fund a compensation scheme…to put those people who have suffered a relative loss back into the position that they would have been in had maladministration not occurred.”
In 2010, the Government accepted the ombudsman’s findings in full. They acknowledged losses of £4.1 billion, yet only £1.5 billion was actually allocated to compensation. That is the fundamental unfairness that the victims of this scandal want to put right.
Of the policyholders affected—forgive me for all the statistics, but they are relevant—37,000 with-profits annuitants are receiving full compensation through annual payments for life: so far, so good. However, approximately 895,000 other policyholders received a one-off payment amounting to just 22.4% of their acknowledged losses, barely one fifth of the compensation needed to address the losses that the Government accepted had resulted from maladministration. According to figures supplied by EMAG, those policyholders are still owed £2.6 billion before any consideration of interest. I ask the Minister to reflect on what that means in human terms. For many people, retirement savings represent decades of sacrifice. They are the savings that are put aside instead of taking holidays, improving homes or spending more freely on themselves and their children during their working life.
Dr Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent job he is doing of speaking on behalf of our constituents. A constituent of mine, who wishes to remain anonymous, told me that he would today be receiving £20,000 a year had he invested his money elsewhere. He invested it where he did only because he believed the state was saying that it was safe to do so. I thank my hon. Friend for fighting on behalf of those people. I hope the Government will listen carefully to the recommendations.
Fabian Hamilton
I thank my hon. Friend, because what happened with Equitable Life meant the difference between a comfortable retirement and a struggling retirement, as his constituent, and constituents of every other Member in this room, will know full well.
The moneys from investing in Equitable Life policies were intended to provide security in old age—to pay household bills, to fund care and to reduce dependence on family members and the taxpayer—but the financial losses that people suffered in very many cases, as my hon. Friend points out, fundamentally changed their retirement. It has meant struggling with everyday expenses, it has prevented planned support for children and grandchildren, and it has meant facing later life with far less independence than anticipated. For some, it has led to the loss of the family home and to depression, stress and anxiety—there are plenty of examples of that. Of course, many feel intense guilt for having invested their family savings with the most respected, the longest-standing and, supposedly, the safest pension company at the time only to see it fall apart and dissolve.
The Government of the day argued that the £1.5 billion allocated for compensation was fair to both policyholders and taxpayers. Of course, public money must always be spent responsibly and the interests of taxpayers must always be considered. However, I think most people would agree that redress of just 22% of someone’s acknowledged losses is not fair—far from it—particularly when the state has accepted responsibility for losses caused by its own failures. I expect most people would think there is an undeniably compelling case to provide full redress.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
A constituent of mine, who is now 76, changed jobs around the time of the collapse and was able to move his pension into a local authority pension scheme, although the transfer value took a 26% hit. Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituent that there must be greater transparency on this issue and that we must have meaningful reform of financial regulation, so that the experience of my constituent and of so many others is not repeated?
Fabian Hamilton
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, and I will elaborate on that in a few moments.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) pointed out, there are many issues connected with this scandal that have affected people’s trust in pensions. The Minister will know that I have also been a very vocal champion of those affected by the lack of indexation for pre-1997 pensions.
Does my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) share my concern that the fundamental risk is that individuals will choose not to invest in pensions, having lost faith that, if something goes wrong, it will be put right? Ultimately, that will cost the taxpayer more, as people will not make the sound choice we want them to make of saving for their retirement.
Fabian Hamilton
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I certainly agree that at the heart of this matter is the issue of trust. As people throughout society lose trust in the institutions of government and the state, we will find increasing chaos and instability. Stability comes from trusting the institutions to deliver, and that trust is a two-way process. I thank him for his intervention.
The principle matters, not just to Equitable Life policyholders but, as we have just been saying, to wider public confidence in Government and the regulatory institutions upon which we all rely, as we have heard.
Aside from looking at full redress, I urge the Government to consider another issue. EMAG has calculated that, as of 31 May 2025, approximately £171 million of money already allocated for compensation had been held back by the Treasury rather than being paid to policyholders. This is not new money; it is money that had already been allocated. This situation deserves serious attention. It must surely be right that at least the value of all the money actually allocated for compensation as far back as 2010—16 years ago—should reach those affected.
It is important to understand the figures and what policyholders fear is the Treasury’s plan. Of the £1.5 billion allocated in 2010, £625 million was assigned to compensate with-profits annuitants; £100 million was retained as a contingency against the possibility that those annuitants would live longer than expected; and £775 million was allocated to the remaining eligible policyholders. Importantly, the £625 million allocated to annuitants was a discounted figure, reflecting the value at the time of future payments. The forecast cash cost of those annual payments was £836 million through to 2050, which is still a long way ahead of us. The forecast total cash spend of the compensation scheme as a whole was £1.7 billion—I hope everybody is following these figures.
According to the figures compiled by EMAG, actual payments to with-profits annuitants were around £599 million by 30 May 2025—just over a year ago—compared with forecast expenditure of approximately £646 million. That represents a difference of £47 million. And of the £775 million allocated to other policyholders, approximately £751 million had been paid out, leaving £24 million unspent. Together with the £100 million contingency, which EMAG argues is no longer required for its stated purpose, the total underspend as of May 2025 was said to be approximately £171 million. I will make sure the Minister gets those figures later; of course, they will all be in Hansard.
I recognise that the Minister may wish to examine or even dispute those figures and the assumptions behind them, but I think we can agree that it is in everybody’s interests that there is absolute clarity around this. I hope that the Government will provide that clarity. If funds have been allocated but are not needed to meet the liabilities for which they are intended, they should be used to compensate people who have still not received their full redress. Those people are already known and their losses have been calculated. There is therefore a strong case that additional payments could be administered without much cost and complexity. Releasing those funds would not address the issue of the full outstanding debt still owed, but it would be a positive step forward in this long-running saga.
There is a group of people whose position deserves particular attention and for whom an underspend could be used: around 10,000 with-profits annuitants were excluded from the compensation scheme because they bought their annuities before September 1992. When the Equitable Life (Payments) Bill came before Parliament in 2010 and 2011, I tabled an amendment to bring those 10,000 pre-1992 with-profits annuitants into the scheme, but it was sadly lost.
The argument for excluding those annuitants was that they could not have known about the true parlous state of Equitable Life at the time, but that does not take away the financial losses that they too suffered. They were affected by the same underlying regulatory maladministration and the near collapse of the society. They have seen their annuity payments drastically reduced just as other annuitants have. The ombudsman’s findings and recommendations did not distinguish between those who had taken out annuities before and after September 1992; that distinction was a construct of the Treasury, not the ombudsman or the society.
Those annuitants are, of course, among the oldest and most vulnerable victims of the scandal. Many will now be at a very advanced age, and many more have sadly died already. Every year that passes reduces the opportunity for them to receive the redress that they have long sought. Justice delayed is justice denied, but it has a particularly cruel consequence when the people waiting for it may not even live to see it delivered.
The Government should therefore examine how the underspend could be used to bring those annuitants into the scheme. EMAG has suggested that payments could be distributed in proportion to their current annual annuity payments, avoiding the need for individual actuarial calculations. The ex gratia payments made to them in 2013 following representations by MPs, including me, and EMAG could be offset against any additional payments, because they will be recorded. I urge the Minister to look closely at what can be done for the surviving pre-1992 annuitants—there are not that many of them.
An important core principle is at stake here. The Government, on behalf of the Crown in Parliament, have accepted the ombudsman’s findings and acknowledged £4.1 billion in losses attributable to maladministration. They have also calculated the specific losses suffered by individual policyholders. When the state accepts responsibility for a mistake and identifies the financial harm caused, it should be prepared to provide proper redress. The Government should not be exempt from the principles of accountability and fairness they expect others to observe.
Fuller compensation would also recognise the importance of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to our unwritten constitutional system. Independent investigations and formal findings of maladministration must surely mean something. If those findings are accepted but the recommended redress is not delivered, public confidence in the system risks being further weakened, as has already been said.
I would also suggest that further compensation would not be money spent to no positive effect—quite the opposite, in fact. Additional compensation would help people to meet the costs of care and everyday living, support their families and contribute to local businesses and communities, and I have absolutely no doubt that a significant part would return to the Exchequer through taxation, so it is not all losses. More importantly, it would give people back some of the financial security that was taken from them through failures for which the Government have accepted responsibility. I will conclude by asking the Minister to address four specific questions. I apologise for the lengthy nature of my introductory remarks, but those points had to be made.
First, does the Minister believe that, in cases where the state has accepted responsibility for a failure leading to financial loss for individuals, and that loss has been calculated by it, the default position should be to provide full redress?
Secondly, can the Minister confirm that total cash expenditure on with-profit annuitants was forecast to be £836 million, that that figure was discounted to arrive at the £625 million allocation for those annuitants, and that actual payments to date are below forecast?
Thirdly, I will be grateful if the Government will confirm whether the £100 million contingency fund remains necessary to cover the risk that with-profits annuitants live longer than expected. If that contingency is no longer required for its stated purpose, will the Minister commit to considering its use for further compensation?
Finally, will the Minister agree to carefully examine the possibility of including the surviving pre-September 1992 annuitants who were excluded from the compensation scheme? The victims of this scandal have waited long enough. That is why there are so many colleagues in the room today. The victims did not create the regulatory failures that damaged their retirement savings. They followed the advice to save responsibly, trusted the system established by Parliament and were let down by the institutions charged with protecting them.
The Government have acknowledged the wrongdoing and losses and established a compensation scheme, but that scheme left the overwhelming majority of affected policyholders with only a small proportion of what they lost. Clearly, we cannot undo what has happened, but we can decide whether to leave this long-standing injustice unresolved or to take practical steps towards putting it properly right.
The Government should review the unspent compensation funds, reconsider the exclusion of the pre-1992 annuitants and set out a path towards full and fair redress. Those who lost their savings deserve more than just our sympathy. They deserve fairness and justice now through action by the Government, not more empty words.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. A big thank you to the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for setting the scene incredibly well, as he always does in subject matters that he brings to Westminster Hall and the Chamber. He has been very much at the fore in leading the campaign for this. He clearly set out the injustice suffered by Equitable Life policyholders and made a compelling case for proper compensation. I do not intend to repeat everything that the hon. Gentleman said, but the core argument underlying this unresolved issue is profoundly important.
When the state accepts responsibility for a mistake, and acknowledges the financial losses flowing from it, the state should make good in full. I fully recognise that, as was the case in 2010, the state of the public finances is not as we would wish, and the competing demands on the Government are legion. But there are some principles that we should uphold at all cost. I hope that the Government will set out a path to ensure proper justice and fairness for those people affected, as they have rightly done in other important cases.
I am always pleased to see the Minister in his place, and I hope that he can give us the answers and reassurance that we seek on behalf of our constituents. I will focus on one specific issue that I believe requires immediate attention and answers from the Minister: the apparent underspend in the existing compensation scheme and whether funds originally set aside to compensate victims are being retained when they could have been used to provide the redress.
At the heart of this is a simple question. If the Government have acknowledged that people suffered losses because of serious regulatory maladministration, and if money was allocated to compensate those people but it will not be spent for a particular cohort or purpose, should that money return to the Treasury or should it go to the people who were wronged? I suggest the latter. This is not an abstract accounting question; it is one of fairness and public accountability.
I will start with the figures: in 2010, the Government allocated £1.5 billion to compensate victims of the Equitable Life scandal. That allocation was divided into three principal elements: £625 million for the with-profits annuitants via annual payments for life; £100 million held by the Treasury as a contingency in case those annuitants lived longer than expected; and £775 million for other policyholders. The £625 million allocation for the with-profits annuitants was not the total amount of cash expected to be paid over the lifetime of the scheme, it was a discounted valuation of future payments. EMAG has established that the forecast cash cost of those payments was £836 million, extending to 2050.
The distinction clearly matters, because Government must be transparent about what was committed when, what the forecast spend was and what is now expected to be required. We always thank the Library for the information it gives us, and its briefing on this says:
“The scheme was set up in 2010 to make payments to eligible policyholders who had suffered a ‘relative loss’ (meaning the policyholder would receive less under the Equitable Life policy than they would have if they had invested with a different company).”
In his intervention, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dr Rushworth) referred to the fact that people saw Equitable Life and said, “This is the one to invest your money in”. But that did not work out, and it is clear that that has been the issue right down the line.
The EMAG figures also state that approximately £171 million of compensation funding was expected to be unspent as of 31 May 2025. There are three clear elements to that figure. First, approximately £47 million is from the lower-than-forecast annual payments to the with-profits annuitants. Secondly, a £100 million contingency was held back in case those annuitants lived longer than expected; the fact that annual payments to annuitants are significantly below forecast strongly suggests that that contingency is no longer needed. Thirdly, approximately £24 million of the £775 million allocated for other policyholders was unspent—for what reasons, it is unclear. Answers are needed, and I would like to see answers on that unspent figure if possible.
I appreciate that the Minister may wish to distinguish between money that has not yet been spent, money reserved for future liabilities and money that can genuinely be released. That is a legitimate distinction—I understand that—but it makes the need for transparent accounting all the more important. I am sure that the Minister will give us the answers we are seeking. The Government must explain to those affected precisely how much was forecast to be spent, how much has actually been spent and what liabilities are thought to remain outstanding. I must put this on the record on behalf of my constituents: victims of this scandal are concerned that, as well as their having to bear a cut of their acknowledged losses of 78%, the Treasury may be trying to pocket, through clever accounting tricks, more than 10% of the limited compensation that was allocated. I believe that that is a question that must be asked, and the Minister has to answer it on the record.
Can the Minister confirm that the £625 million allocation for the with-profits annuitants was calculated on a discounted basis? Can he also confirm that at the outset of the compensation scheme, cash payments to that cohort were forecast to total some £836 million, so the total cash spend under the scheme was forecast to be around £1.7 billion? If those figures are correct—I understand that they are based on Government-published documents, ministerial correspondence and freedom of information requests that are on record, so the Government have to acknowledge that they are—I ask the Minister for an explanation as to why those funds cannot be redirected towards further compensation right now, because they should be. If they are not correct, we need to understand how and why, although I suspect that as Government figures, they are correct.
The victims of maladministration deserve to know whether the Government are holding on to money that could be put to the use that Parliament intended when legislating for the Equitable Life payment scheme. If the Government dispute the figures, I ask that they publish a detailed breakdown and analysis explaining the difference, which will give us all a chance to come back on that. I will conclude on this point, as I am conscious that others want to speak. If the £100 million contingency remains necessary to cover longevity risk, let us see the evidence. If money can be released, I ask the Minister to set out a plan for doing so. I hope that will be the answer to our queries today. If it is, it would be a massive step forward. I thank the Government for recognising that my constituents need help, but more needs to be done right now, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister how that can be accomplished.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
Order. The winding-up speeches will begin at 2.38 pm, so I am restricting the time to five minutes each.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for securing this debate. For 17 years, he has been limpet-like in this campaign for justice for Equitable Life victims, as have other Members of this House. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who asked some very pertinent questions of the Minister, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
I am sorry once again to have to stand up on behalf of my constituents who have faced a clear injustice over many years. I know at least four constituents who have been impacted, and it is likely that there are many more. I want to touch on a slightly wider theme: the injustice caused by what I can describe only as a series of financial scams and the weak response of successive Governments. This is not just about the Equitable Life scandal. Since I first entered this House in 2015, I have spoken up on the loan charge scandal, the Football Index scandal, the London Capital & Finance scandal, and now the Equitable Life scandal. The common theme of all those scandals is that the victims suffer financial hardship.
One constituent affected by the Equitable Life scandal was estimated to have had over £20,000 taken from him. “Taken” is the key word; it was not lost. That is what campaigners who were fleeced when Football Index collapsed made sure to tell me: “Use the word ‘taken’, not ‘lost’, Ruth.” A wallet is lost behind a sofa; money is taken from a wallet by a crook.
My constituent is not alone. Many people have had money taken from them as a result of this scandal. As other Members said, many are now much older. My constituent is in his 80s, and that is precisely the stage of life when people need money for social care, for their families or simply to enjoy their remaining life. It should be a time when people can relax, but they cannot. In too many cases over the past 30 years, the actions of private companies have led to constituents suffering.
During the Football Index scandal, one of my constituents had £10,000 taken. During the collapse of London Capital & Finance, a constituent had £120,000 taken. In both cases and that of Equitable Life, it is clear that the regulators, which exist to protect our constituents, failed to act.
Why does that matter? First, our constituents end up having money taken from them and their lives turned upside down. Secondly, the Government have to step in and provide financial compensation—taxpayers’ money—but it is too often inadequate and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East said, some do not get any money at all. It is right that the Government provided compensation for my constituents and others who suffered as a result of this injustice, but we should not have got there in the first place.
The Equitable Life scandal is a reminder of what happens when regulators fail to act and private companies operate in an underhand manner and get away with it. Over the past decade, too many regulators have become hollowed out and either have failed to act at all or have acted too late. I feel somewhat nervous about even my own party in government talking about doing away with regulators. We sadly need regulators, because there will always be scammers.
It is the Government, taxpayers and ultimately the victims who end up picking up the tab when operators act against the honest aspirations of hard-working people. Far too often in these scandals, the private companies and directors get off scot-free. In many cases, they get to make more money and go on to fleece someone else.
The Equitable Members Action Group continues to campaign on behalf of those affected, and has argued that there needs to be greater transparency from the Treasury about the remaining money that has not been allocated to victims. I hope the Treasury can meet and engage with those campaigning on this injustice. I hope the debate serves as an opportunity for this House to remember the importance of having regulators that are able to act and to act swiftly.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for the way in which he brought the issue forward and articulated the case, which I thoroughly endorse. I could repeat the points made by all speakers so far, but I will not—there will not be time anyway.
All I will say is that I was engaged on debates on this issue prior to starting my nine-year sabbatical from this place in 2015. At that stage, I thought we were making progress, particularly after the Government had at least accepted the ombudsman’s case, although they did not provide sufficient compensation at the time. I assumed that, by the time I came back nine years later, the matter would be resolved and there would no longer be an issue. However, we are no further forward than we were in 2015.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for the debate. Exactly the same thing happened to me: I have had my nine-year sabbatical and we were talking about this for five years before I left. I pay tribute to the late Michael Oliver, who lived in my constituency. He is one of the 1,500 people who were affected by this absolute scandal. I am disappointed to find that I am back here, 16 years later, running through the same flipping arguments. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Andrew George
Perhaps we should form the nine-year sabbatical club, and compare this issue with others that have simply not moved forward.
As the hon. Member for Leeds North East explained, the situation is entirely down to regulatory maladministration and failure. It is Government failure. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth implied that there were crooks involved; certainly money was taken improperly, and there was a failure on the part of Government to protect investors in the way that they should have done at the time.
I say gently that I remember at the time that the then Labour Opposition complained that the announced package of £1.5 billion was insufficient—Oppositions do this, and I am not making a Punch and Judy point, but here is an opportunity for a Labour Government to stand up to the criticisms they raised at that time and to address the issue.
As the hon. Member for Leeds North East rightly said, there is still money in the pot. If more than a third of the £4.1 billion that was identified as needed in compensation was provided through the £1.5 billion package from the Government, why is it that my constituents who I talk to and who are still very embittered, understandably, about this situation, are only getting 22.4%? The sums do not add up. As the hon. Member for Leeds North East explained, it is because of the way this particular cake has been cut up.
The Minister responding to the debate also replied to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) in March this year, saying that the scheme is
“on track to distribute the remainder of the £1.5 billion as planned”
in annual payments to eligible policyholders. If that, at least, could be done, that would be great, so that those who should be receiving compensation actually receive it—although, again, it is insufficient.
In my view, it is best to humanise the situation. For the many constituents who brought their cases to me, the situation has caused a strong sense of embitterment. My constituency has a large number of people who are self-employed but still live on the margins, and they have scrimped and saved to invest in their pensions and future. They looked for a reputable company, thought that Equitable Life was one and invested through it. One such person is Howard, who in 1978, started to save with what he understood to be the best company he could find: Equitable Life. He told me:
“I was self-employed living and working in a Cornish village where I was born and brought up and still live after 86 years with my wife, who has dementia and is registered blind. We pay for and rely on others to do everything for us like food, cleaning, driving...even twice every day carers come attending both of us...THIS IS SHOCKING, THIS IS ROBBERY BY OUR GOVERNMENT!!”
In 1995, Teresa opened an Equitable Life personal pension plan with a small monthly payment, as well as a separate bond. She told me:
“When Eq. Life ceased business, I transferred the small pension amount to link it with a work pension I had.”
She is supposed to be retired, but she now has to work part time to make ends meet. She said:
“I have always endeavoured to save as best as able, which all governments encourage us to do. However, after all this time I don’t think we will ever receive what is owed to us.”
Surely we can reassure people that they will get what they are due. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East and all other Members who have engaged with the issue; I hope that the Minister is listening and will address it.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Let us put the issue in context. The headline today is that we now have £3 trillion of national debt, which represents an increase of £1 trillion over the last six years. That debt has accumulated largely because of Treasury neglect and bad policy. The Treasury continues to talk about having low interest rates and an inflation target of 2%, but as we now know, it consistently allows inflation to be above 2%, with the most recent figure being 3.5%. That erodes the value of people’s pensions. Under successive Governments, the Treasury has behaved appallingly on the Equitable Life pensioners. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this debate and introducing it so well. He asked four pertinent questions—nice, easy, simple questions—and I hope that the Minister will answer each of them affirmatively in his response.
My interest in this subject goes back many years, not only because my constituents were badly affected by the collapse of Equitable Life, but because I was a shadow Treasury Minister when the Treasury set up Lord Penrose’s inquiry into the scandal. That inquiry is another example of the Treasury delaying the process to try to kick the can down the road. Although the inquiry was initiated in 2001 and Lord Penrose reported to the relevant Treasury Minister at the time, Ruth Kelly, in December 2003, it was three or four months before the Treasury deigned to publish his report, and another four years after that before the publication of the ombudsman’s report. In setting up the inquiry, the Treasury deliberately prevented Penrose from finding issues of maladministration. The Treasury has been complicit in denying the victims of regulatory failure the compensation to which they should have been, and still are, entitled.
Successive Governments are responsible for allowing this appalling saga to continue. Today, the Minister has the opportunity to change that and restore public confidence in the Government, the blob and the way in which such things are administered. Earlier I asked the question: who regulates the regulators? If a regulator is in place and that regulator falls down on his responsibilities, people expect that there will be some redress, but that does not seem to be accepted at the highest levels in Government, so I hope that that can change.
This issue is not going to go away. That is a tribute to the persistence of parliamentary colleagues, the EMAG campaigners and our constituents, who are behind all this and who are saying, “What has happened to this extra money? Why can’t we have it paid out to us?” I said at the beginning that in the context of where we are with the national debt, this is very small beer, but it is not the money so much as the principle that is important, and I think that the principle is overridingly in favour of paying out what is due to these people, who were victims of Government maladministration.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. Many thanks to the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for such comprehensive opening remarks. Certainly for those of us who have been in Parliament for slightly less time, that was a very useful reminder of how we got to where we are today.
The Equitable Life scandal involved the near collapse of the UK’s oldest mutual insurer after it failed to honour guaranteed pension payouts. The debacle exposed regulatory failures and caused significant financial losses for nearly a million policyholders across the country, including many of my constituents in Richmond Park. Approximately 2,000 people in every single constituency across the country have lost pension savings because of mistakes by successive Governments and the regulators. The collapse of Equitable Life was one of the biggest scandals in UK financial services history. Over 1 million people lost a significant part of their retirement savings. Their retirement plans were blown apart, as we heard from many contributors today. Typical Equitable Life victims included retired nurses, teachers, civil servants, factory and shop workers and small business owners—people who had worked hard and saved diligently for decades.
In 2008, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman concluded that victims’ losses were directly attributable to a decade of serial maladministration by Departments and their agencies. The state has accepted responsibility and accepts how much people lost, but the ombudsman’s recommendations have not been fully implemented. In recommending redress, the ombudsman called on the Government to establish and fund a compensation scheme
“to put those people who have suffered a relative loss back into the position that they would have been in had maladministration not occurred.”
In 2010, the Government accepted in full the ombudsman’s findings. The Government accepted that victims’ losses amounted to more than £4 billion. Although 37,000 with-profits annuitants are being fully compensated, 895,000 people have received only 22.5% of their acknowledged losses.
When the Liberal Democrats were in government, we made good on our manifesto commitment to set up a proper compensation fund in line with the ombudsman’s recommendations. The initial compensation scheme was set up during the time of the financial crisis and sought to balance victims’ needs with the capacity of public finances. Many victims still have concerns about the allocation of that compensation and the methodology used to distribute it. Although I am personally not disappointed to welcome my hon. Friends the Members for St Ives (Andrew George) and for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) back from their “sabbaticals”, I share their frustration that after all this time, this issue is still being discussed.
Constituents of mine in Richmond Park, like many other constituents, have been affected by this situation. I have heard from one couple who, after having diligently worked and served as respected professionals for decades, have had their retirement burdened by this appalling miscarriage of justice. Along with many other long-suffering members and former members of Equitable Life, they saw their life pension savings decimated by Government malfeasance.
According to the Equitable Members Action Group, as of 2025 more than £170 million of compensation already allocated and forecast to be paid to victims was set to be kept by the Treasury and not reach the people affected. The Government should release that money in full and immediately to affected policyholders, as it was always intended to be. In addition, the Government should listen to the concerns of those affected by the collapse of Equitable Life and establish an independent commissioner to assess individuals’ claims. That would ensure that the victims of the Equitable Life scandal, such as my constituents, were finally treated fairly and properly compensated.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. We know that issues of injustice can take an awfully long time to reach a resolution in Parliament. It is important that people who have or feel that they have suffered an injustice at the hands of the state should have worthy champions who have the doggedness and stamina to continue to make their case, so I am delighted to congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing today’s debate.
As has been noted, the issue goes back through this Labour Government, previous Conservative Governments, the coalition Government, the Brown Government, all the way back to Blair. Let us take a moment to think about the individuals who have already been waiting two decades and more for what they would see is a full resolution. As a Member of Parliament myself for periods of that time, I have had a sense that this matter is unfinished business.
I was interested to listen to some of the comments. One issue that was raised, most notably by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), was on regulation and the role of regulators. On the different perspectives and remedies, I think I am closer to the one suggested by my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth made the point that regulators are being hollowed out. I would say that on average they have greater scope, greater funding and more people. There is an issue with their focus, but more importantly, the structures to hold regulators to account are insufficient. There is no annual review of each regulator that is performed as effectively as in other areas, so I would encourage the hon. Member to press that point to improve our system of regulating the regulators.
Ruth Cadbury
I respect the shadow Minister’s views, but adequate powers and adequate resources go together. Too often since I have been in this place I have heard again and again that regulators would like to have done more and simply do not have the capacity. They do not have the staff in place. That is my view.
Richard Fuller
I do not want to go too far off the topic, because I am a bit of a nerd on regulating regulators. We can find time later to talk about that. It was an important point, as was the point made by the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). I am glad he did not make a party political point, but it is a relevant point that the Labour party’s position in opposition was that the compensation was not sufficiently substantial.
I want to make three broad points in the lead-up to questions on each to the Minister. The first point I want to establish is that making changes to the settlement is not set in stone; it is a matter of Government choice. I want to give an example, which I raise solely for the purposes of talking about choice on pensions, not to talk about the decision that was made, because it is about choice. This is about mineworkers’ pensions. The incoming Labour Government made the choice in the case of the mineworkers’ pensions to move the surplus that had been accumulated in their fund to the mineworkers rather than back to the taxpayer—back to the Government. So it was a use of otherwise public funds that resulted in a boost to mineworkers’ pensions of about 30% to 32%. That was a choice.
I just ask the Minister to consider this. It was a choice by the Government to boost pensions that were already being paid “in full”, and yet the Government seem to have no choice about people who had an 80% decline in their pensions. It might strike some as odd, with a different set of values, to treat one differently from another. I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that, but the point that I am trying to make is that this is a matter of choice for the Government.
My second point leads from a quote given by the Minister’s colleague, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who said on this matter in September 2026:
“There are no plans to reopen any decisions relating to the Payment Scheme or review”.
That is an interesting phrase, because part of the conditions around those decisions are couched in different wordings of the phrase—that the settlement amount was determined in consideration of the “position of public finances”. That was stated way back in 2008 and also when the settlement was announced in 2011. It was alluded to again in 2016. Given that the Minister’s colleague said there are no plans to reopen any decisions, can the Minister confirm that it is still the case that considering the state of the public finances is a live factor that is encapsulated in that?
What I mean by that question is, should there be a change in the public finances, would there then be scope for the Government to change their mind? That is an important point. I do not want to lay out a false hope, but the settlement amount was decided specifically in consideration of the public finances at the time. Times now may be better or worse, but they are certainly different. When we hear the Minister’s response or read the statement made by the Minister’s colleague saying that there are no plans to reopen any decisions, it is important that it is clear that they are still open to consideration if the public finances change.
I want finally to return to what the hon. Member for Leeds North East said in his excellent speech about unallocated and unspent moneys. He said that if funds have been allocated but are not needed to meet the liabilities for which they were intended, then they should be used to compensate people who have still not received full redress. That really is a question about what those unspent funds would do. That partly encompasses the reserve and partly encompasses unallocated moneys. In the big scheme of things, it would be very helpful if the Minister could confirm that it is the intention that those moneys in that envelope will be reallocated to policyholders, rather than being swept back into general taxpayer money.
The last thing we want to come out of this debate is the Minister being unclear with Equitable Life policyholders, who in some cases have lost 80% of their pensions already, or suggesting that if there are moneys left in the envelope, which was set at a particular level at a particular time because of the state of public finances, any surplus moneys will be squirrelled away and given to the Government again. I would be very grateful if the Minister could answer those three questions.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
It is always a privilege to respond to a debate under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. Let me start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for opening the debate. He was referred to as a limpet earlier, but he has been more proactive than that in his campaigning on this issue over the years. It is an important issue to him and to lots of other hon. Members. I should echo the point he made at the beginning about the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who is not in the Chamber but who has been focused on this issue for a long time. Members have campaigned on this issue with tireless energy and kept the issue in the spotlight.
I want to reflect on some of the astute points that several hon. Members made. The truth is that it is not possible to restore trust entirely—certainly, not in the firm that was involved in this among the people affected, but also probably in the regulator, but hopefully Members’ campaigning has restored trust in local representation and the campaigning energy of local representatives.
The issue is even more important to the thousands of Equitable Life savers who were affected. The point, which was well made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and others, about the human effect is one that I am sure everybody in this Chamber has at the front of their mind. Those affected included my grandfather, and I have met lots of other constituents who were members of the mutual before it disappeared. I have also met with the action group, which many hon. Members have also met with. We have all heard about the kinds of human impacts that hon. Members have set out well today.
On the big picture, several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East and my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) talked about the importance of people having trust in pensions. This is a particular part of the pension system, but the point also applies to the entire pension system. That is something I take very seriously indeed as the Pensions Minister. I was up in Liverpool at the Pensions UK conference last week talking in those exact terms about how our task is to make sure that we address what is today, if we are honest, too low a level of trust in pensions. That is true of both state and private pensions. It is our job to rebuild that trust. That includes how, in some parts, pension scams are on the rise—my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) raised that.
Obviously, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme now exists, in a way that it did not in the period that we are talking about, when we are talking about pensions operating within the contract-based part of the pensions system. That is a big change, and it is compensation paid not by taxpayers, but by the financial services industry itself. That is the answer to the specific question posed by the hon. Member for Christchurch about what happens when the regulators or, more importantly, the providers fail. The answer is that there is a compensation scheme, although we are here because there was not a compensation scheme in place—and it has caps in terms of the compensation due.
I will make some progress on the specifics of this case. Hon. Members will be aware this is a topic that has been well documented and explored over the years—the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) set out the role of the sabbatical for him in the period in which that has taken place. The Equitable Life payment scheme was established to make payments to eligible policyholders where maladministration had been found. That maladministration contributed to some savers suffering a relative loss totalling £4.1 billion. Relative loss was defined as the difference between the value of the policyholder’s funds with Equitable Life and what they would have received if they had made a comparable investment elsewhere. I am merely pointing out that that is not a cash loss; it is a loss relative to a counterfactual of having invested in a different but similar product.
That approach followed the 2008 parliamentary ombudsman’s report into the collapse, and was the foundation of the payment scheme. In 2010, the Government of the day accepted the ombudsman’s findings and chose to allocate in the region of £1.5 billion —the quote from the Chancellor at the time—to make tax-free payments to eligible policyholders in respect of the reduced returns that they received from their investments. That Government chose what they saw as the correct balance of interests between the interests of the affected policyholders and taxpayers. That is the choice that was made. I am obviously fully aware that, as we have again heard today, people are dissatisfied with that £1.5 billion and suggest that the issue should be reopened.
It is not for me to defend the decisions made by the then Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition Government. To be fair to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), she came closest to doing so today, but other colleagues chose not to—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady chose to defend the decisions of that Government to some degree and others obviously did not. The balance of opinion in this Chamber is that the then Government made a mistake in the size of the compensation that was allocated. It is not for me to make that case, but were they here to do so, they would say that decisions need to be fair to taxpayers as well as policyholders, and they would point out that there is a wide range of people responsible for the disaster that we saw in Equitable Life, including those who were responsible for the firm through that period in the 1990s when very reprehensible actions took place.
Richard Fuller
The Minister is making the case that the position when that settlement was made about balance between taxpayers and policyholders was a matter of fault and responsibility. Does he not also recognise that a substantial part of that balance was to do with the state of the public finances? Will he confirm that that is still a live consideration in the Treasury that could in future lead to the settlement being reopened?
Torsten Bell
I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s last question towards the end of my remarks, but on his first point he is absolutely right to say that the then Government’s key consideration—when I referenced taxpayers—was the public finances. That is the point being made. That was the key driver in the decision by the then Government about how much money to allocate, rather than trying some kind of specific accounting for the impact of the maladministration per se.
Ministers at the time also noted the consistency of their decision with the ombudsman’s report—we have discussed a bit of that today—and the ombudsman subsequently wrote on this issue to the all-party parliamentary group, which I think several hon. Members present have been part of, confirming that the then Government’s decisions
“cannot be said to be incompatible with the report.”
As hon. Members know, following representations from groups such as the Equitable Members Action Group, the Government prioritised those acknowledged by all parties to be the most vulnerable—the with-profit annuitants. They received 100% of their losses. That meant that, of the £1.5 billion, £725 million was allocated to with-profit annuitants, to be paid annually over the duration of the annuity, which continues to this day. That included the £100 million contingency fund—that is the answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—to ensure that the provision for the annuitants, should they live longer than expected, was there. That is obviously a standard actuarial process; it is what sits behind the regulation of the insurance sector when annuities are being sold. The remaining £775 million was allocated to be paid as lump sums to with-profits non-annuitants holding other products.
As for the details of how much has been spent, I can provide answers to the questions put by several hon. Members. As of 30 September 2026, the total value of payments made by the scheme was almost exactly £1.4 billion—it is just short of that figure—and that is an increase on the previous figure that the hon. Member for Christchurch cited.
I note the references in this debate to the pre-1992 with-profit annuity holders. The coalition Government excluded them from the scheme, not because they had not suffered real impacts from the collapse of Equitable Life—I think the then Government recognised that they had suffered real impacts—but because their purchase of those annuities, which is the point at which someone locks into the decision in the case of an annuity, was outside the period of maladministration, so the Government would have struggled to find a locus to make a payment in the terms of a scheme, because there was no maladministration to tie a payment to. Again, it is not for me to defend that Government. However, if they were here today, that is how they would explain the decision that was taken. That is why the 2013 decision, which was referenced by the then Government, to provide separate, tax-free ex gratia payments was the way in which the previous Government chose to proceed.
The scheme has now been fully wound down; it was closed in 2016 by the then Conservative Government. That is now over a decade ago. I suspect that hon. Members know that I cannot give all of them, or indeed all the impressive campaigners on this issue, the answer that they would like—a straight “more compensation”. I suspect that hon. Members know that that is the case. However, I want to give them what I think is the next best thing, which is a straight answer, and it is the direct answer to the question put by the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), the Opposition spokesperson. It is that there are no plans to reopen the previous policy decisions taken by the previous Government. The previous Government made decisions given the public finances at the time. Those decisions were debated by that Parliament—some Members present were part of that Parliament, and the rest of us respect the decisions of that House.
The only part of the payment scheme in operation is the annual payments made to eligible annuitants. The scheme is on track to distribute the remainder of the funds allocated, as planned, on that basis. The right thing for this Government to do is to ensure that the ongoing payments to those eligible with-profit annuity holders—the group recognised, I think by all of us, to be the most vulnerable—continue to be made. I will finish by assuring them that the funding for those payments remains protected and again thanking all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
Fabian Hamilton, you have two minutes in which to respond to the debate.
Fabian Hamilton
I, too, thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have taken part in the debate: the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is always direct and forthright; my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury); the hon. Members for St Ives (Andrew George) and for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who made excellent contributions; the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson; the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), the shadow Minister; and, of course, the Minister.
I first tabled a debate on this issue in June 2009—that was the first debate on this issue in this Chamber—and other Members have been debating the issue for even longer. I leave Members with the thought that compensation for Equitable Life policyholders is not just something that unfortunately not been fully fulfilled. My view, which was the view of many at the time, is that compensation is a moral obligation that has never been fulfilled. It is tragic that there is no question of reopening the scheme or using the statistics—the figures—about the moneys that are left; I think the Minister has just completely contradicted the view that there is no such money left.
Unlike two colleagues—the hon. Members for St Ives and for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt)—I have not had a sabbatical. Nevertheless, I and many others who have campaigned on this issue will continue to campaign until the compensation is paid in full, however unlikely that may be. I again thank everybody for the part they have played in today’s debate, and also EMAG for all its work.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of compensation for Equitable Life policyholders.
Jarrow Crusade
(1 day, 8 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
Kate Osborne (Jarrow and Gateshead East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the legacy of the Jarrow Crusade on the 90th anniversary.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. The Jarrow crusade is now rightly remembered as a pivotal moment in UK history, not just in my brilliant constituency of Jarrow and Gateshead East but across the UK. Jarrow is a town with a proud history of people organising together to stand up to injustice and demand something better—one that refuses to accept that poverty, exploitation and inequality are simply the natural order of things.
On 5 October 1936, 200 unemployed men left Jarrow to begin a near-300-mile journey to London. Their petition represented the hopes of a community devastated by industrial decline and mass unemployment. They demonstrated the strength, solidarity and determination of the people of Jarrow. Ninety years later, their story is still relevant and needs to be heard.
Standing with the marchers’ descendants in front of No. 10 this week, with the original petition box that they carried all that way, was extremely moving. The Prime Minister bringing the descendants into No. 10 for a cup of tea and a discussion, and listening to their memories and our history, helped to right the historic wrong by giving the families the welcome that the marchers should have received back in 1936. I place on record my thanks to the Prime Minister and his team for the time they spent with us all and for helping to host the events this month. Listening to memories and stories of those crusaders from their children has been moving and inspiring.
It is a real honour to lead this debate today. Our history must be remembered and celebrated for the benefit of a new generation, but it must also be used to move forward, to learn from and to build a better world, because while some progress has been made, there is still a lot to do. Those marchers in 1936 were demanding the right to work, the dignity of providing for their families and the opportunity to build a future for their community. They were fighting against health inequality, poverty and a lack of housing. Ninety years later, many of those challenges remain.
In my constituency, 39% of children still live in food poverty, too many people are still in insecure work, and the north-east is still being left behind. Across South Tyneside, the number of people aged 18 to 21 claiming unemployment benefits is 61% higher than the national average. Local weekly earnings remain below the national average. Almost a century on from the march, generations are still growing up in and around Jarrow unable to find suitable work and with high levels of inequality and poverty.
Since becoming Jarrow’s MP in 2019, I have had to confront what those circumstances mean for the people I represent. We know all too well the lasting consequences that the loss of industry can have on a community. After the closure of the shipyards, skilled workers were left without jobs, families faced poverty and uncertainty, and the businesses and communities that depended on the shipyards suffered too. The loss of industry was not confined to the factory gates; it reached into people’s homes, affected children’s prospects, undermined the confidence of an entire town and shifted our identity. We see similar challenges playing out now. These commemorative events and today’s debate are about remembering those who bravely marched to demand better, but they are also about looking to the future and embracing the potential of the north-east, because the challenges that faced working-class communities then continue to face them.
We must appreciate the progress we have made and recognise what remains to be done. Thanks to this Labour Government, good steps have already been taken to deliver for our community, and I welcome them. Our landmark Employment Rights Act 2025 means that workers can feel more secure, valued and stable, with stronger rights to dignified, unionised work that pays well. Access to decent work that pays fairly and provides security is intrinsic to ensuring that no community like ours is left behind.
Similarly, thanks to the Pride in Place programme, I have secured £20 million for our community. Priorities for the investment include creating opportunities for young people, rebuilding our town centre and strengthening community organisations. Strengthening community organisations matters, because investment alone does not change communities; giving communities a voice in what that change looks like does.
For too many families in Jarrow, being in work does not provide the financial security that they deserve. Parents are working hard, but their wages are still insufficient to provide the opportunities that they want for their children. Too many young people are struggling to find secure, well-paid employment that would allow them to build a future in the communities where they grew up. Those are the same fundamental challenges that the Jarrow crusaders marched to confront 90 years ago, and they are why we cannot afford to be complacent about the progress we have made.
Although we can and should celebrate the progress that the Government have made, and the welcome new steps of our Prime Minister, it is clear that we still need more investment in the north-east to create well-paid and secure jobs and to give local people more of a say in decisions that affect their lives. That includes bringing shipbuilding back to the Tyne, with more jobs, more apprenticeships and more investment. We must build on the industrial heritage of the north-east, which has a history of skilled, hard-working people that continues to define my constituency to this day and will do so long into the future.
I put it on the record how pleased I was to hear the Chancellor mention Jarrow and the crusade in one of his speeches, and how pleased I am that he met apprentices from Balaena. Will the Minister commit to pushing for more shipbuilding and other investment in the north-east and to tackling youth unemployment and poverty with good, highly skilled, well-paid jobs and education opportunities for our communities? I also ask him what further steps the Government are taking to ensure that communities such as Jarrow are at the heart of plans for industrial growth and that the jobs and opportunities created by that investment benefit local people. As we mark 90 years since the Jarrow crusade, will he join me in recognising not only the extraordinary determination of those who marched then, but the importance of continuing the fight for decent jobs, dignity at work and opportunities for working-class communities today?
It has been wonderful to bring the hope that the Prime Minister has been speaking about back to the north, particularly the north-east, and to share our history with a new generation. The greatest lesson of the Jarrow crusade is what ordinary people can achieve when they organise, work together and stand up for one another. By the centenary in 2036, I want us to be able to celebrate real progress in tackling poverty and creating opportunities for every child in Jarrow, and I hope the Minister joins me in that commitment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for setting the scene incredibly well.
It is no secret that I love history, but I love the history of social politics as well, and this story is a great example of that key issue. The nature of my life, and I suspect the life of most of us here, is to look out for those who are less well off. Our job, and my privilege and honour as the MP for Strangford, is to chase the bread-and-butter issues. Having read this story over the years, I am pleased that the hon. Lady has brought it forward. It is not just a significant historical moment for her constituency; it holds immense importance for workers across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I will mention this later in my speech, but the shipworkers at Harland & Wolff in Northern Ireland were of a similar mind and made a similar protest to that of the men from Jarrow.
I am pleased to see the Minister in his place; I have absolutely no doubt that we will get an encouraging response to our requests. I am also pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). It is incredibly encouraging to hear that, 90 years after the Jarrow crusade, the men’s descendants were invited to Downing Street. That is a real privilege. It is an acknowledgment of the significance of their work—those 200 men marching some 300 miles—that they were recognised centrally in Government by our Prime Minister. It endorses that campaign of many years ago. That has offered a sense a closure for many whose ancestors have passed on, as the difficulties that their families faced have finally been formally acknowledged.
The determination of those formidable men who marched almost 300 miles to make their case for employment was admirable. We must remember that they did not take the train, a vehicle or a horse and carriage; they walked 300 miles, because they believed in the campaign. As someone who loves history, I love the idea that people thought so much of the campaign that they did that. Although they probably returned from London feeling dejected because they had not achieved their goal, I want to make a point about what they did achieve. They achieved the establishment of some social reforms. They achieved the right to have work. They were perhaps the first people to see the NHS and the welfare system introduced, as it was later by the Labour Government. Those were the key social issues that they were chasing way back then. They may have felt dejected some 90 years ago, but the Jarrow crusaders can claim that their walk introduced some of those social reforms. It introduced the issues to which the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East referred: better housing, the right to better working conditions and the right to secure work.
Shipbuilding is an industry that Northern Ireland shares with the north-east of England, and both have experienced the consequences of industrial decline. When the Jarrow men were marching some 90 years ago, men in Belfast were doing something similar—maybe not as far as 300 miles, but they were out protesting in support of the Jarrow men. Both communities have experienced the consequences of industrial decline, striking or taking action over job losses and increasing poverty. Poverty was as rife in Jarrow as it was in Belfast and in other parts of the United Kingdom. However, we must never be tempted to write off shipbuilding and engineering as industries of the past. With the recent investment in defence, there is an opportunity to rebuild industry in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and support job creation.
In his response to our requests, the Minister will undoubtedly tell us about the progress that the Government are making. I can see that progress in Belfast with Harland & Wolff: the Government are handing out contracts to ensure that Harland & Wolff can recruit in Belfast again—not like it did when there were 25,000-odd workers, but 1,000 or 2,000—and establish itself at the forefront of modern shipbuilding. That is good news for Northern Ireland, for the shipyard in Belfast and for my constituents in Strangford, who are only 15 or 20 minutes away from possible employment.
I want to make a plea, if I can. Today, too many young people across the United Kingdom feel, as the men who took part in the Jarrow crusade did, that their efforts are being ignored. As elected representatives, we always encourage our constituents—especially our young people—to apply for jobs, but some young people say to me, “I’ve made application after application, and I haven’t even had a letter of response from the employers,” so many of them despair. I am really encouraged by the Prime Minister’s commitment to try to help young people. He is saying the right things, but the right words mean something only when they become the reality. He said that young people today face
“an economic catastrophe and a moral failure”,
and he and the Government have indicated that that must be righted.
I will tell a quick story about my youngest son. He is a young man now, married with two children, but I remember that when he first applied for a job he made something like 70 applications. Unfortunately, not one was successful and he did not get one reply—that was even more discouraging. If someone writes you a letter, you might not agree with them, but for goodness’s sake, you should write back and tell them that.
It was disappointing, but then a part-time job came up. It was only four hours—this was when he was just 18, 19 or 20—and he said, “What should I do?” I said, “You take the job, mate, and I tell you what: make sure you are 15 minutes early and stay 15 minutes later.” He did, and then the job was eight hours, then 16 hours, then 24 hours, then 36 hours and then 40 hours. Then he became the deputy manager of the shop, then the manager and then the manager of another shop. Those are the things that give our young people encouragement.
In the Prime Minister’s commitment, I see an opportunity to encourage our young people and give them hope for the future. Not that I am better than anybody else, but when the Prime Minister came here to take his oath, I saw him beforehand. I remember him from when he was last here in 2015. I shook his hand, gave him a hug and wished him well. I said, “Prime Minister, our people need hope. Our people need encouragement. That’s what I ask you to do for our people.” The Prime Minister’s word has been “hope”, not because I said it to him, but because he appreciated—perhaps we both appreciated—what the word was to be.
The concern must be acted upon. I call on the Government to grow British industry and invest in job creation to ensure that our young people are supported into employment. The 200 men who marched from Jarrow some 90 years ago should never have had to walk to London to make their demands, but they did, and they perhaps changed a part of history. That encourages us all as we look forward. Similarly, young people today should not feel that they have to go to extreme lengths to be heard by the Government. Like the Prime Minister, I hope for a change that makes a difference, encourages our young people, lifts this nation and makes us more united so that we can do better for our people and young people of the future. To the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East, I again say well done.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for her work in securing this debate and keeping the march in public and political discourse. The descendants of the marchers have a strong voice and champion in this place.
The Jarrow crusade stands as a reminder of the devastating impact that chronic poverty and mass unemployment can have, as was experienced in Jarrow during the 1930s. Led by David Riley and former MP Ellen Wilkinson, the Jarrow crusade highlighted many of the challenges that Britain faced in the 1930s. The global depression had devastating repercussions for areas of heavy industry such as Jarrow. Many towns and cities that relied on industry passed through a period of intense industrial depression. Many towns, including Jarrow, saw the closure of shipyards and steelworks, which meant that thousands of jobs in critical sectors were lost.
Thousands of jobs were lost across Jarrow. Of the 8,000 people previously employed, many of them skilled workers, only 100 remained in work, often in unreliable and unstable positions. In October 1936, 200 unemployed men set out from Jarrow on a 26-day journey to London to demand jobs and investment for their town, following the widespread unemployment after the closure of Palmer’s shipyard. The marchers aimed to arrive in Westminster at the opening of Parliament to present a petition signed by 12,000 residents of Jarrow. While there was no immediate support provided, the publicity that accompanied the crusade helped to generate some renewal for the town, and the relationship between large businesses and the Government remained under scrutiny.
On the 90th anniversary of the Jarrow march, we are confronted with an alarming unemployment crisis that is not restricted to just one sector and that extends far beyond the town of Jarrow. Within this concerning picture, the trajectory of youth unemployment has been even worse. The joblessness rate for 16 to 24-year-olds currently stands at an alarming 15%, but in London, that figure is 25%. That is the highest youth unemployment rate in more than a decade, and the first time on record that the UK’s youth unemployment rate has exceeded the EU average.
The symbolism of the Jarrow march ending in the country’s capital is ironic because it no longer represents the hub of employment opportunities that it did a century ago. While London sends the Treasury a net £43.6 billion a year, unemployment in the capital is on the rise. Londoners are not seeing the same opportunities that were available even a decade ago, while businesses in London are struggling under increasing financial pressure. Average employment costs have increased by 11% since Labour took office, which disproportionately affects sectors that traditionally offer entry-level jobs. Policy decisions taken by this Government are making it impossibly hard for businesses to provide young people with a chance to get their foot on the career ladder.
We must do everything we possibly can to bring young people into work. Let us cut national insurance contributions, fairly implement the secondary legislation from the Employment Rights Act 2025 and invest to create a skilled workforce by properly reforming the apprenticeship levy, which will benefit jobseekers and employers alike. The Liberal Democrats recognise the courage and determination of the marchers, and while we may not have a similar symbolic protest currently, the challenges facing our towns and cities need the same urgent attention as the town of Jarrow did 90 years ago. We believe that the Government need to listen to communities and take meaningful action to tackle poverty, boost industry and create good, well-paying jobs.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse—I think for the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) on securing this debate to recognise the 90th anniversary of the Jarrow march. Her predecessor secured an Adjournment debate on the 75th anniversary; I am pleased that the hon. Lady went down the route of a Westminster Hall debate so that more colleagues had the opportunity to contribute.
I note that some of the Members who contributed to the 75th anniversary debate are here today—I am, of course, referring to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I asked my team if they could find out whether he was there and they said, “He’s not that old!” I said, “I didn’t mean the march—I meant the debate.” He spoke with eloquence and integrity about the need to get young people back into work, which is something I recognise, as I have a 20-year-old and a 17-year-old. I confess to being very jealous that the new Prime Minister has had a hug with him and I have not.
I must ask the forgiveness of the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East, because Jarrow is over 300 miles from my Bromley and Biggin Hill constituency, so it is not a place that I am overly familiar with. However, as the former home of the Venerable Bede and the original home of one of the most important Bibles in the world, the Jarrow codex, the town is steeped in historical significance. In the early 19th century, a coal industry developed before the shipyard was established in 1852, becoming the first armour plate manufacturer in the world. Over the next 80 years, more than 1,000 ships were launched from Jarrow.
Jarrow has had a lasting impact on the direction of our country, and the Jarrow marchers on that crusade undoubtedly played their part in that. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for bringing some of the families of the marchers to Downing Street this week alongside a copy of the original petition. I also pay tribute to the Prime Minister for receiving them at No. 10. It will surprise nobody that I rarely speak ill of Stanley Baldwin, but failing to receive the original marchers was wrong, so I am pleased that the current Prime Minister received their families. That rights a historic wrong, and I would like to hope that any Prime Minister of any party would have done the same.
While it was an inherently political event, what makes the Jarrow march stand out in my eyes is how it avoided being too partisan. All the local political parties—Labour, Conservatives and Liberal—gave their support to the march, as did the town’s churches and business community. On top of that, during the journey down to London, the Jarrow marchers received sustenance and hospitality from local branches of all the main political parties.
The Jarrow march was triggered by industrial jobs being lost following the collapse of Palmer’s shipbuilding and iron company and the closure of the shipyard. That is a lesson for today. When we look at the news of the recent 4,000 job losses at Britain’s biggest car manufacturer, the risk of losing our industrial base could not be clearer. Once those industries are gone, it will be incredibly difficult to get them back.
This has been a good-natured and well-intentioned debate, so I say the following out of respect. I want the current Government to consider the chemical, automotive, steel and many other factories and plants that are shutting down because of crippling energy policies, £66 billion in tax rises and burdensome red tape, such as the Employment Rights Act. As a result of that, there are 176,000 fewer jobs available now than when the Government took office. Our industries need to be supported and currently many feel they are not.
Opposition Members do not want to see communities go through what Jarrow experienced in the 1930s, but I fear that we risk seeing our country deindustrialising before our eyes. As we remember the Jarrow march today, I hope the Minister can set out how the Government plan to create the conditions in which countless businesses across the country can manufacturer competitively in Britain.
Cornelius Whalen, who at his 2003 was the last survivor of those who marched the full distance, described the march as “a waste of time”. I respectfully disagree. His family and the families of all the marchers should be proud. History now remembers the march very differently; the Jarrow marchers rightly have an immovable place in our country’s history. Their legacy is far-reaching and will continue to inspire people for years to come. I am proud to be here on behalf of the Opposition to recognise their important contribution to our national story and to hold the Government to account on delivering for British industry and manufacturing.
The Minister for Science, Innovation and Investment (Chris McDonald)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for securing this debate. She follows in the proud footsteps of her predecessor Ellen Wilkinson, who was the MP for both Jarrow and Middlesbrough.
As we have heard, there is an incredible history of the Jarrow march. For anyone interested, I can strongly recommend Ellen Wilkinson’s book, “The Town that was Murdered”. My own copy is at home on my bookshelf, so I have borrowed the House of Commons Library’s copy. I will be returning it later today, so Members may wish to take it out and study more about the social conditions in Jarrow at the time.
As we have heard, in October 1936, around 200 unemployed men set out from Jarrow and walked almost 300 miles to London asking for the opportunity to work. They carried with them the hopes of a community and a petition signed by 12,000 of their neighbours, but they were ignored by the Government of the day. Those men and their community will not be ignored by history, nor by this Government.
The story of the Jarrow crusade cannot be separated from the story of British industry and shipbuilding. Today, we recognise the UK’s civil maritime sector as it should have been recognised then, as a strategic national asset underpinning prosperity, resilience and security. Shipbuilding ended in Jarrow, but the wider Tyneside retains ship repair capability at Hebburn—a yard recently acquired by Balaena Tyne during my tenure as the shipbuilding Minister. I am pleased to offer reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East that as Minister for Investment, I am concerned with ensuring that we continue to attract investment into British shipyards. I am working with ministerial colleagues to maximise the opportunity of Government procurement, including opportunities for Hebburn.
Those areas where modern shipbuilding, ship repair and marine fabrication continue benefit from highly skilled, well-paid industrial jobs, and they are often areas of the country that are otherwise lacking in alternatives. That contributes to the growth in every postcode scheme that the Prime Minister has committed to across the whole of our United Kingdom. When I was the shipbuilding Minister, I was pleased to visit Harland & Wolff in Belfast and learn from the managing director. When I asked him, “What is your greatest concern?” he said, “The lack of space,” which is quite remarkable at Harland & Wolff. It shows the strength of British shipbuilding and the opportunity for new orders.
The pride in skill that we saw in Jarrow and that I have seen in British shipyards was demonstrated during the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders dispute of 1971 to 1972. Faced with liquidation and threatened job losses, shop stewards representing 8,000 workers staged a disciplined work-in: they kept the yards operating and continued to build ships under contract. The campaign helped to secure Government investment and preserve shipbuilding employment on the upper Clyde.
A firm tradition of shipbuilding continues today. The sector supports more than 38,000 skilled jobs across the country. The Government are expanding the role of the National Shipbuilding Office to oversee civil shipbuilding decisions and to use procurement more strategically to give British yards and supply chains a clearer pipeline. The forthcoming shipbuilding and maritime technology action plan will seek to align procurement, innovation and industrial capability, to improve pipeline visibility, to accelerate technology adoption, and to strengthen UK supply chains across defence and civil maritime markets. The Government are investing £440 million in UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions research and development between 2026 and 2030: the largest Government investment yet in the UK commercial maritime sector, including £150 million for zero emission infrastructure and vessels, and £120 million for clean maritime demonstration projects.
The tragedy at Jarrow—for it was a tragedy—was that the shipbuilding industry and the community that depended on it were left at the mercy of the market, not to improve efficiency or productivity but to effect consolidation that would raise prices. For shipbuilding, a project-based industry with high fixed costs and high economies of scale, that was a disaster.
The community in Jarrow understood the need for industrial transition; they had already transitioned from mining to shipbuilding. They were asking for a transition from shipbuilding to steel. The Government of 1936 took a free market approach; this Government take a different approach: supporting a transition. Alongside our plans for shipbuilding we are reindustrialising the UK, building on our industrial strategy. Reindustrialisation is creating more, better, well-paid jobs in manufacturing and industry, including in those sectors critical to the UK’s resilience. It is bringing back jobs, pride and decency to the places that deindustrialisation most badly affected.
But saying what we will do is not enough; we also know how we will address the situation. The jobs plans that we have set out will ensure that workers have the opportunity to develop the skills they need for the jobs in growing areas, and there are opportunities across the whole country. We have published job plans for digital and technologies, clean energy, life sciences, financial services, construction, and professional and business services. They set out practical actions to tackle workforce and skills challenges.
The jobs plans for professional and business services and for construction were published on Monday and will support 22,500 new under-25 apprenticeships a year in businesses such as accountancy, legal services and consultancy. That comes alongside 40,000 construction placements annually, as part of a previously announced construction industry ambition to create 100,000 jobs a year. Over the next year, the Government will further cut industrial energy costs, roll out further jobs plans in partnership with employers, see our new apprenticeship units and technical excellence colleges train people for growing industries, and strip back unnecessary administrative costs to businesses.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), was generous in his remarks, particularly those relating to the Prime Minister, and in his criticism of Stanley Baldwin, but it has been nearly a century so I do not think he is going to get any comeback from that. He also expressed his concern about deindustrialisation in the UK, so I remind him that under the previous Government we lost around 50% of our automotive output, 30% of our chemicals output, 50% of our steel output, and around 30% of our ceramics output.
This Government have made efforts to support those industries, to reinvest and to reindustrialise. Last year, as Industry Minister, I announced a £350 million chemicals resilience fund, a ceramics support scheme, £2.5 billion of support for the steel industry through the steel strategy, the critical minerals strategy, and of course the nationalisation of British Steel. This Government remain committed to supporting the growth of and investment in our industry.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) mentioned the issues affecting young people and their employment. That was also a great concern for those who marched in Jarrow. The social conditions in Jarrow were quite appalling and were the sort of social conditions that can be found today in parts of the country where there are high levels of unemployment. Unemployment and poverty also result in cramped and squalid housing conditions, such as those found in Jarrow at the time. There were high levels of ill health among young people, particularly tuberculosis, and there was a shortage of food, as was noted at the time by the very low consumption of milk by children in the local area. This was compounded by the inability of the local council to raise local taxes sufficiently high enough to provide relief for local people—a product of the inequality of land values in places like Jarrow compared with other parts of the country. In fact, Ellen Wilkinson, in her book, makes a direct comparison with the property taxes that were able to be raised in Westminster, a comparison that my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) made in his own area, so the problem persists until this day.
What the town council in Jarrow did do with the resources that it had available was always put education first because it knew, as we know, the success of our country and industry depends on the next generation of people who will build, design and operate the industries of the future. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East has made a particular point during this anniversary of working to include young people in the commemorations of the Jarrow Crusade. It is vital that our young people have the opportunity to understand the histories and values of their forebears. I do hope that Elise and Imogen had a very memorable meeting with the Prime Minister at Downing Street.
It is also important that we support our young people to access work opportunities, which they were asking for, but were rejected, in 1936. With around 1 million young people not in education, employment and training, this Government will not leave an entire generation of young people behind. Our measures are helping more young people take their first step into work. Since announcing an additional £2.5 billion to create up to 500,000 opportunities to earn and learn by 2029, we have begun rolling out youth guarantees across Great Britain. The youth guarantee gateway is now available in jobcentres. We are expanding youth hubs. We have launched the £3,000 youth jobs grant and are rolling out the jobs guarantee. Youth hubs are a crucial part of our youth guarantee. They bring together the employment skills and wider support that young people need to move into work, training or education. By expanding the network to over 360 locations across the country, more young people will be able to access personalised and wraparound support in their local community.
Jim Shannon
I commend the Minister for his comprehensive and helpful response to the things that we have asked. He is outlining the programme, strategy and focus here in the mainland, which I certainly encourage. There are lots of good things in the Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that we could all learn from. I know the Minister has been to Harland & Wolff in Belfast. He was keen to go; I remember him telling me he was going there. Has he had a chance to discuss strategies so that we can maybe develop them ourselves and try to work more consistently across all the nations to improve opportunities for young people, wherever they may be?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Member makes an important point. The solutions that will help young people get into work are understood well in local communities, because they need to respond both to the needs of that local community and the needs of local industry. There are, both in Northern Ireland and in many places around the country, excellent collaborations between industry and local colleges, particularly in Northern Ireland with the work being done around the Short Brothers aerospace location, where there are excellent opportunities for young people and close working with local further education colleges, for instance. I am sure there are lessons there that could be learned in other parts of the country, too, so I thank him for making that point.
We commissioned Alan Milburn to independently review the crisis of young people not in employment, education or training, and we will consider the findings in the interim report to continue to build our reforms. We look forward to the final recommendations being received shortly.
We remember not only the men who marched, but, as the shadow Minister said, the people who provided them with support and assistance along the way. Those working people showed solidarity, offering shelter, food and medical supplies. Just like the marchers in 1936 and all the people from around the country who supported them, this Government recognise the value of secure work, fair pay and opportunities to progress. Employment laws have not kept pace with modern working patterns. Too many workers lack the protections that they need at work, and responsible businesses face unfair competition from those willing to exploit gaps in outdated employment laws.
That is why this Government came up with our plan to make work pay, which will modernise employment rights to respond to a changing labour market and create a fairer, more secure economy for workers and business. Evidence drawn from UK and international research, alongside economic modelling, suggests that the Employment Rights Act can support a better-functioning labour market, more secure work, better job quality, improved productivity and fairer competition, and will have a positive, direct impact on economic growth.
More than 18 million employees are expected to benefit from the new protections, with lower-paid workers in sectors such as social care, hospitality and retail seeing the biggest gains. Analysis suggests that the north-east is likely to be one of the UK regions that benefits the most from the measures in the Employment Rights Act.
Many of our reforms are already making a difference for workers. Employees now have access to family-friendly rights from day one of employment, up to 1.3 million more people are eligible for statutory sick pay, and we have made it easier for workers to connect with trade unions. We also created the Fair Work Agency, bringing the enforcement functions of three predecessor bodies together so that employment rights can be enforced more effectively and efficiently. Together, our reforms ensure that economic progress is shared by the people and communities who create it.
Ninety years ago, the men of Jarrow walked to demand something fundamental: the chance to work, to contribute and to build a better future for their families. Their journey stands as a reminder not only of the consequences of economic decline, but of the resilience, determination and solidarity of working people. I share that belief in the dignity of work, as do all working-class communities. As we commemorate the Jarrow crusade, we have the responsibility both to remember their story and to learn from it. Through investment in industry, support for skills, stronger workers’ rights and renewed opportunities for young people, we will build an economy in which every community can succeed.
Kate Osborne
I thank the Minister for his detailed response; it will mean a lot to the descendants of the marchers and members of our community who may be watching this debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his engagement and support, and all those who came along to my exhibition on the Jarrow crusade earlier this week.
As I leave this debate, I reflect on the legacy left behind by the brave men who marched for better. To the descendants of those who marched, to those watching at home and to the people of Jarrow, this debate belongs to you. Your voices matter today as much as those voices did in 1936. The greatest tribute we can pay to the Jarrow crusaders is not simply commemorating their march, but continuing their fight for decent work, dignity, solidarity and a fairer future, for our community and every community.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the legacy of the Jarrow Crusade on the 90th anniversary.
Written Corrections
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Correction
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Northern Ireland
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Robinson
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.
[Official Report, 21 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 1096.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):
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 Ireland 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.
Written Statements
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Enhanced Free Trade Agreement: Turkey
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, Lord Sarwar, has today made the following statement.
The sixth round of negotiations on an enhanced free trade agreement with Turkey took place in London between 28 September and 2 October 2026.
International trade is central to the Government’s ambition to deliver good growth in every part of the UK. The UK and Turkey already enjoy a strong trading relationship, with total trade reaching £28.3 billion in 2025, an increase of 3.9% on the previous year. By building on this foundation, we can help unlock new opportunities for businesses, workers and consumers across the UK.
Negotiations were constructive, with positive progress being made in a number of areas:
Trade in services
Sessions were held across a range of important areas, including digital trade and investment. UK negotiators continued to pursue ambitious outcomes across these areas and beyond, seeking an FTA that supports the UK’s world-leading services suppliers. Text-based discussions on digital trade, domestic regulation and investment took place. We look forward to continuing discussions across trade in services over the coming months.
Trade in goods
Negotiations covered a range of market access and regulatory issues, including goods market access and sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Discussions focused on reviewing respective proposals, recognising regulatory equivalence and reviewing audit requirements, while maintaining and upholding the UK’s high standards. Both sides discussed their first tariff offers, alongside their respective market access interests and sensitivities. These sessions were productive, with both sides seeking an ambitious outcome that supports businesses and drives progress forward.
Additional areas
Further productive discussions took place across a number of chapters, including intellectual property, state-owned enterprises, environment, core text, Government procurement and trade remedies.
The UK will only ever sign a trade deal which aligns with the UK’s national interests, upholding our high standards across a range of sectors.
Both sides will work constructively towards the seventh round of negotiations in the coming months. Ministers will continue to update Parliament on progress as discussions with Turkey advance.
[HCWS403]
Strengthening Community Resilience
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
On 14 July 2026, the Government published their annual update on the implementation of the resilience action plan, outlining significant steps made to bolster the UK’s resilience in the year following its publication. We also announced our intention to launch a campaign to raise awareness of the simple steps people can take to be ready for everyday emergencies.
The storms last winter and the wildfires this summer have shown how severe weather events can cause disruption to our everyday lives and impact the services we rely on, like phones, power, water and the internet. They have also shown the strength of our communities and the skill and bravery of our emergency services, and are a reminder that we can all play our part to keep ourselves, our loved ones, and our communities safe in times of emergency.
Since committing to launch a campaign, we have:
published updated research that shows just 13% of people in the UK feel they are prepared for an emergency that could cut them off from the services they rely on, and that 84% want the Government to do more to share information about the steps they can take to increase their preparedness;
met with international partners to gain insight about their efforts to improve household resilience; and
engaged with more than 500 organisations from across the country—ranging from emergency services, local authorities, businesses, voluntary community groups, charities, and advocacy organisations representing older people, disabled people, people with mental health needs, and people who rely on foodbanks—to help ensure that our advice is simple, relatable, reassuring and meets communities’ needs for a range of emergency scenarios.
I am therefore pleased to confirm that we have today published updated advice for households at gov.uk/beready, and that members of the public will begin to see more information about what they can do in a three-year campaign to “Be Ready”.
The updated advice calls on households to be prepared to be self-sufficient for three days in the case of an emergency, and it includes a checklist of simple steps people can take. This brings the UK into line with many of our European peers who also have the “three day” message at the heart of their campaign. There are two key actions:
sign up to the priority services register if they are eligible; and
have three days-worth of bottled water and non-perishable food stored at home.
Many simple steps on the website are completely free, and items on the checklist can be gathered or ticked off over time. For example, signing up to the priority services register is a straightforward process that costs nothing. Taking a few minutes to ensure eligible households are signed up ensures utility companies know who prioritise for additional support in an outage.
We also understand that not everyone will be able to take all the simple steps. This campaign is simply about providing basic advice on how to prepare, so people can take the steps that work for them. Our emergency services will be ready to respond when needed, and other charities, community organisations and services will be there too. When households take steps to look after themselves during an emergency, it reduces the strain on our emergency services. This ensures first responders can help those most in need first.
As part of the steady campaign roll-out, we will also publish a partner toolkit, with products and information that community groups and local businesses can use to share messages locally.
“Be Ready” has been developed by the UK Government, working closely with the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, and Northern Ireland Executive—as well as mayors and local councils—as we collectively seek to improve national resilience across all communities in the UK.
[HCWS409]
Critical Undersea Infrastructure Security and Resilience: Modernising the UK’s Legislation
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Online Safety (Ian Murray)
I would like to provide the House with an update on the Government work to strengthen the security and resilience of undersea infrastructure that is critical to the United Kingdom.
Today, the Government are publishing a White Paper on “Critical Undersea Infrastructure Security and Resilience: Proposals for modernising the UK’s legislation”. At the same time, we are launching a 12-week public consultation on these proposals.
Critical undersea infrastructure underpins services essential to the UK’s security, economy and daily life. Subsea telecommunications cables carry approximately 99% of the UK’s international data traffic, while subsea pipelines, interconnectors and other offshore energy infrastructure play a vital role in supporting the UK’s energy needs. As reliance on this infrastructure grows, so too does the importance of ensuring it remains secure and resilient.
In April, the then Defence Secretary revealed that the UK’s armed forces, working with allies, tracked Russian submarines tasked with surveying subsea cables. Incidents of this kind underline the global risks to CUI and the need for modern legal frameworks to protect it.
The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy has made clear that UK legislation has not kept pace with the growing importance of CUI or the risks it now faces. The Government agree. The principal offence for damaging subsea cables dates back to 1885, refers to “telegraphic” communications, and makes limited provision for energy infrastructure. It no longer provides an adequate deterrent.
To address such deficiencies, the White Paper sets out detailed proposals for:
A new criminal penalties regime to strengthen deterrence against harmful conduct affecting CUI;
New security and resilience duties for providers of subsea telecoms cable systems and services;
A new national security power to enable the Government to require industry to take specified action where necessary and proportionate to ensure the security and resilience of subsea telecoms cable infrastructure and services; and
A new regulatory framework to help ensure the secure deployment and operation of subsea sensing technologies.
Through our consultation, the Government welcome views from anyone with an interest in these proposals, including individuals, industry, academia and civil society organisations. The responses will inform the development of future legislation. The White Paper contains 72 consultation questions covering the proposed framework.
The proposals are based principally on the reserved competences of telecommunications, national security and defence. The Government recognise that some proposals will interact with devolved responsibilities, including environmental and marine management functions.
The White Paper has been presented to Parliament as a Command Paper and will be placed in the Library in both Houses. It is also published on the gov.uk website.
[HCWS404]
Improving Children’s Outcomes
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Paul Waugh)
The Government have today published the early years foundation stage profile assessment data for the 2025/26 academic year.
The Government have set a national ambition for 75% of children in England to achieve a good level of development by 2028, as set out in the “Giving every child the best start in life” strategy. Achieving this ambition requires a collective effort across schools, early years providers, local authorities, health services and wider family support services, including Best Start family hubs, recognising that children’s outcomes at the end of reception are shaped by their learning and development throughout the early years.
Early childhood development is strongly associated with later outcomes, providing the foundation for achievements throughout school and beyond. Children who achieve a good level of development at age five are more likely to succeed at school and less likely to be not in education, employment or training later in life.
The latest data shows strong progress towards this ambition, with 72.3% of children reaching a good level of development, an increase of 4 percentage points on last year. This brings the country significantly closer to the 2028 target and reflects the dedication and hard work of teachers, early years practitioners, school leaders, local authority teams and wider partners across England.
While this progress is encouraging, the gap between children eligible for free school meals and their peers widened slightly, underlining the importance of the whole system working together to ensure that all children benefit from continued improvement. Further progress will depend on schools, early years providers and local leaders using data and evidence to identify gaps, target support effectively and implement approaches proven to improve outcomes.
To support delivery of the national ambition, the Government have set local authority-level targets. Publishing these targets provides greater transparency and accountability, while enabling local leaders to focus action where it will have the greatest impact for children.
The Government will continue to support local areas through delivery of best start local plans, investment in teaching and learning across the early years system, and action to strengthen support for children and families. Working across education, health and family services will be particularly important in improving outcomes for disadvantaged children and those most at risk of falling behind.
Today’s results demonstrate the progress that can be achieved through collective effort. By building on this momentum and maintaining a focus on evidence-led improvement, we can move closer to our ambition of 75% of children reaching a good level of development by 2028—a first step to ensure that more children get the best possible start in life.
[HCWS405]
Renewables Obligation to Exchequer Scheme Expenditure: 1 July to 30 September 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ms Polly Billington)
I am making this statement to update hon. Members on expenditure incurred under section 13 of the Energy Prices Act 2022, in accordance with the statutory requirement to provide quarterly reports to Parliament. £million b) Expenditure incurred between 1 July to 30 September 2026 c) Cumulative expenditure incurred to 30 September 2026 RO to Exchequer scheme (GB) £530,253,737.06 £1,050,963,025.28 Note: The expenditure figures set out above relate to Great Britain only, reflecting the territorial extent of this scheme, which applies in England, Scotland and Wales. Previous energy affordability schemes Actual cumulative expenditure incurred up to and including 30 June 2026 Status Energy bills support scheme GB & NI 11,874.00 Closed Energy bills support scheme alternative funding 59.47 Closed Energy price guarantee GB & NI 24,075.00 Closed Domestic alternative fuel payment 401.20 Closed Energy bills relief scheme GB & NI 7,533.37 Closed Energy bills discount scheme GB & NI 481.79 Closed Energy bills discount scheme heat networks GB & NI 113.38 Closed Non-domestic alternative fuel payment 62.30 Closed RO to Exchequer (GB) 520.71 Open Total (£ billion) £45.1 billion 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 Exchequer impact +0 -2,580 -2,100 -2,195 +0 +0 Note: Costs for the renewables obligation to Exchequer policy are based on forecasts costs of the overall renewables obligation scheme and an assumption of the proportion of electricity usage that relates to domestic consumption. Actual costs will vary depending on actual domestic supply volumes and the actual renewables obligation and buyout price.
This quarterly report is required under section 14 of the EPA. It covers expenditure incurred from 1 July to 30 September 2026 under the renewables obligation to Exchequer scheme.
The renewables obligation to Exchequer scheme was announced at autumn Budget 2025 as part of the Government’s package to reduce energy bills for households. It came into effect on 1 April 2026 and will run for three years. Under the scheme, 75% of renewables obligation costs are removed from domestic electricity bills and funded instead by the Exchequer, thereby reducing costs for consumers.
The expenditure set out in this report relates to the delivery and operation of the scheme during this reporting period, as well as the cumulative spend to date.
The figures in the table do not include administrative or running costs.
The expenditure incurred between 1 July and 30 September 2026 includes an adjustment for the first quarter of this financial year, reflecting the reconciliation between forecast and actual supply volumes. A reconciliation between forecast and actual supply volumes for the period 1 July to 30 September 2026 will be calculated, paid and reported as part of the quarter 3 payment cycle.
All former energy affordability schemes under which section 13 EPA expenditure has been incurred have now closed, and their final expenditure positions have been fully reconciled. The table below sets out the cumulative expenditure incurred under those schemes.
Future costs
At autumn Budget 2025, the expected cost of the renewables obligation to Exchequer policy was estimated as follows:
[HCWS408]
Six-monthly Report on Hong Kong: 1 January to 30 June 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Ed Miliband)
The latest six-monthly report on the implementation of the Sino-British joint declaration on Hong Kong was published today and is attached. It covers the period from 1 January to 30 June 2026. The report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. A copy is also available on the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office website, which can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/six-monthly-report-on-hong-kong-january-to-june-2026
I commend the report to the House.
[HCWS407]
Representation of the People Bill: Contingencies Fund Advance
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
I hereby give notice of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s intention to seek approval from HM Treasury for advance expenditure totalling £2,800,000.
This request follows the passage of the Representation of the People Bill, which is currently before Parliament and which the Government expect to receive Royal Assent by spring 2027.
The funding for this work has already been provided through the Department’s spending review settlement and does not represent new or additional spending. Approval for expenditure in advance of Royal Assent is required to enable the Department to commence essential digital development activity to implement the Bill’s provisions, specifically the manifesto commitment to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. Deferring this work until after Royal Assent would compress delivery timescales and increase the risk of delays to implementation.
The proposed expenditure will support the development of the digital infrastructure required to implement the legislation. This includes a secure service enabling eligible young people to register to vote using data held by the Department for Education as part of appropriate identity checks. It will also support development of the wider systems required to implement the reforms, including electoral management systems, the citizen-facing service and electoral registration officer portal functionality. The advance will allow this work to progress alongside the Bill’s passage through Parliament, reducing implementation risk and supporting timely delivery. This will help ensure the necessary systems are in place to provide local government with an efficient and resilient mechanism for processing applications and maintaining electoral registers.
Parliamentary approval for additional capital of £2,800,000 for this new service will be sought in a supplementary estimate for Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £2,800,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS406]