Westminster Hall

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 27 October 2026

[Sir Desmond Swayne in the Chair]

Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Hon. Members should rise in their places repeatedly if they wish to catch my eye.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of recognising the production and serving of cask ale as Intangible Cultural Heritage.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for originally securing this debate. He has now reached the dizzy heights of Parliamentary Private Secretary, so is unable to open the debate. I believe it started as an idea in the Brunswick Inn in Derby, an excellent pub combining my interests of railways and beer, and one that I have frequented. I also thank hon. Members who supported the application, and Brad Evans and Jonny Garrett for their tireless work through the Keep Cask Alive campaign.

It is worth reminding ourselves what cask or real ale is. It is ale that, once brewed, is put straight into the barrel. That distinguishes it from most other beers, which tend to be filtered, pasteurised or carbonated before being put in the barrel. The shape of the cask barrel is different from that of the kegs that other beers are put into, to allow a natural, secondary fermentation process to occur within the barrel, allowing more flavour to develop after the barrel has left the brewery. Cask ale is a living product, a live beer, drawn out of the barrel using a hand pump—which is always a popular photo op for politicians.

Cask ale is uniquely British—indeed, uniquely English. The cask method started here and, until the arrival of lager in the 20th century, cask ale was the main choice of drink for people across Britain. Cask is part of who we are, our heritage and British culture.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

My constituency was the proud of home of Banks’s Brewery for more than 150 years, until its closure last year saw production of its signature cask ales either moved elsewhere or discontinued. Those beers were part of our local cultural and historic identity, reflecting generations of skill and pride in our brewing heritage. Does my hon. Friend agree that that heritage deserves protection, and will he join me in supporting the work of organisations such as the Campaign for Real Ale to preserve that heritage for future generations?

[Jacob Collier]

I of course join my hon. Friend in supporting those organisations. We have had conversations following Carlsberg’s decision to close Burton’s Marston’s Brewery, where my hon. Friend’s ales are brewed. We will work closely to protect a heritage that is so important to his constituents and the rest of the country.

I now have the immense privilege of serving as Member of Parliament for the residents of my home town of Burton upon Trent. We would not be who we are without cask ale. Our waters are rich in minerals, perfect for the brewing of cask ale. From our town a brewing empire was born, exporting beer across the world. Names such as Bass, Allsopp’s, Marston’s, Salt & Co and Ind Coope enjoyed spectacular success from the 19th century onwards. At one time, over half the population of Burton upon Trent was employed by the breweries. My predecessors in this House include Bass, Ratcliff, Gretton and Evershed, before some were elevated to the other place. I can assure colleagues that, if I fail to be elected at the next general election, I am not in line for a “beerage”.

Burton’s waters were so good that others copied them through a process called Burtonisation, but, of course, the original is always the best.

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

It is great to hear my hon. Friend mention the titans of the brewing industry; I have enjoyed a few pints from his constituency in my lifetime. In my constituency, traditional brewing skills are being kept alive by small, independent businesses, often driven as much by a love of the product as commercial considerations. Brewers such as the Allanwater Brewhouse in Bridge of Allan, Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing Brewery in Dunblane and Brewing at the Fintry Inn all bring their own character and creativity to a local brewing tradition. I must also mention what went on in Alloa, my neighbouring constituency, over many years. Does my hon. Friend agree that preserving that cultural heritage is about protecting not just traditional skills, but the diversity, innovation and passion that smaller producers bring to the industry?

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order. Can interventions be a little shorter?

[Jacob Collier]

My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) is absolutely right. The independent brewery sector has a real pride in and love for what it does. I think we are moving to a place where perhaps larger brewers are falling out of love with cask ale. It is smaller, independent brewers, which he spoke about, that have that real love for the craft and pride in what they do.

If you look around Burton today, Sir Desmond, you will find our brewing past and present everywhere. Our football team are nicknamed the Brewers, the smell of hops permeates the air, and our pubs tell the stories of days gone by. As a Burtonian, it fills me with immense pride to see the words “Burton Ales” on the side of a pub or the No. 1 trademark of the Bass red triangle in a place where you are not looking for it. Many of my constituents worked for the breweries, or their ancestors did, and so feel a strong connection to this, which is why the news from Carlsberg about the closure of Marston’s brewery was such a hammer blow for our town. Burton’s brewing heritage might not matter to some, but it matters to us, and it really matters to me.

Heritage is our link to the past. It gives us pride in place and a sense of identity. If places like Burton lose their distinct heritage, they lose a sense of identity and everywhere starts to feel the same. In an increasingly globalised world, place matters now more than ever.

Burton is just one example of the heritage value of cask ale. More broadly, we must recognise how British agriculture and farming have been shaped by cask ale. The pub itself is there historically because of cask ale; they are cask ale’s umbilical cord. From farmer to brewer, to publican, to pint in the pub, that process is a piece of living British history. Cask ale is an essential fabric within the tapestry of British heritage and identity.

This debate is about the specific status of intangible cultural heritage, in relation to which there has been a campaign to get cask ale recognised by UNESCO. That status was created by UNESCO’s convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage in 2003, and in 2024 the UK signed up to that convention. Since 2024, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and UNESCO in the UK have begun to collect an inventory of living heritage in the UK. Cask ale should be included in that inventory.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

I am a lover of craft ale and real ale, and that includes Mad Squirrel in my constituency and Tring Brewery in a neighbouring constituency. I declare an interest, in that I am a member of Tring Brewery, which is currently experimenting with some Japanese hops from my garden. I pay tribute to Jared, the chairman of Mid-Chilterns CAMRA—the Campaign for Real Ale—who has worked at Tring Brewery for many years as a beer sommelier and who, together with Rev. John Williams, organises a fantastic festival in our old town to promote real ale. Does my hon. Friend agree that recognition from UNESCO would have real tourism benefits, just as it has in Belgium, where Belgian beer has the status?

[Jacob Collier]

I am sure that my hon. Friend, as the UK’s trade envoy to Japan, would be able to use UNESCO heritage status to strengthen the links we have with our Japanese friends, and I certainly agree with what he has said.

Intangible cultural heritage status was created for the purpose of preserving traditions and social practices, just as previous efforts at protecting heritage had done for artefacts and buildings, neglecting the fact that we can learn so much about who we are and how we got here through established traditions. Cask ale is one of those traditions in this country. The brewing and barrelling of cask ale is an art form requiring specialist knowledge and skills honed over decades and even centuries. It is science and engineering, and it is innovation. Once the ale is brewed and barrelled, further specialist knowledge is required by the publican to serve it. We all know what an off pint tastes like; there is real skill in handling these products.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group, I was really pleased that my hon. Friend, in his role as chair of the pub group, came to visit my constituency of Gower. He realises that there are great challenges for the industry, especially in relation to the UNESCO heritage status that he is speaking about, which I think would be really valuable. Does he agree that there are wider problems in the industry and that we need to big up our communities and pubs and get people back into the pub and enjoying their community beer?

[Jacob Collier]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She has been a real champion on these issues as chair of the all-party parliamentary beer group. I am a co-signatory to the letter to the Chancellor—we will await what he says tomorrow—and I did very much enjoy the Gower Gold that I sampled alongside my hon. Friend last month.

There is no doubt that cask ale is a tradition of the kind that could be included in the inventory of living heritage. The reason it should be is because of the particular risk facing cask ale at the moment. Jonny Garrett of the Craft Beer Channel suggests that craft ale accounts for around 5% of beer sales annually, compared with around 50% in the mid-1990s. There are many reasons for that. Big brand lager provides significant competition at the bar, and the pub tie makes it difficult for smaller brewers to get their beers on sale in pubs across the country. I know that the Government have launched a review of the access to market rules, and I would welcome an update on that.

Cask ale suffers when our pubs struggle, and declining footfall and rising bills force many pubs to concentrate resources on higher margin products, of which cask ale is not one. When footfall declines in pubs, so does the sale of cask ale—although we must remember that we have seen a recent growth in certain cask ale brands, largely where brewers have recognised the heritage value of their product and used that as a unique selling point.

There are a growing number of successful brands, including Timothy Taylor’s Landlord, St Austell’s Tribute, Theakston’s, Boddingtons and Burton’s very own Bass, which is brewed at the Marston’s site. Samuel Allsopp’s brand has also been revived by Jamie Allsopp, most recently relaunching the famous Allsopp’s IPA. In my constituency, there are several successful independent breweries such as Burton Bridge, Tower, Outwoods, Roebuck, G3, Gates and the Uttoxeter Brewing Company. Some say that we may have reached the end of the road for large-scale cask ale brewing. However, the brands that I have listed show that there is a route to continued success for cask ale brewers, based on smaller-scale brewing dedicated to individual brands.

The other path is decline and cask ale ceasing to exist. If we are to ensure that the right path is taken, certain steps need to be taken, which include, but are not limited to, formally recognising the production and serving of cask ale as living heritage. Doing so would not be unprecedented: this is the 10th anniversary of UNSECO adding beer culture in Belgium to its list of intangible cultural heritage. Including cask ale in the inventory would give it protection and recognition. Cask ale can be marketed as world-renowned heritage and become a staple treat for tourists visiting Britain—as we know, many sample the delights of cask ale anyway. Including cask ale would create incentives for private sector investment and efforts by local and central Government and those such as CAMRA and SIBA—the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates—which are preserving cask ale heritage.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) said, heritage status is just one step that needs to be taken. Further steps are required so that cask ale can continue to thrive commercially. These include the reforms to access to market, to make it easier for cask ale to appear in pubs. There is also beer duty. Hopefully, the Chancellor will increase draught relief tomorrow—I am sure we would all raise a glass to him. As the APPG on beer has highlighted, we should also consider whether to include brewing or hospitality as a whole in the industrial strategy and in industrial energy schemes.

However, the status of intangible cultural heritage would be an important step. The serving and production of cask ale is uniquely British and is still alive today, centuries later. It is living history that deserves our protection; I look forward to the debate today.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order. May I suggest five minutes for speeches?

09:44

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my Staffordshire colleague, the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), on introducing this important debate so effectively.

Five years ago, when I was chairman of the all-party parliamentary beer group, I chaired an inquiry examining the importance of cask ale to British pub culture and how to revive real ale. We took evidence from more than 30 witnesses for our May 2021 report, “Caskenomics”. Five years on, rather than celebrating a renaissance, cask ale is facing an arguably even worse situation than in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic. Nothing illustrates that more starkly than the recent announcements that Molson Coors will close Sharp’s brewery in Cornwall and Carlsberg will close the historic Marston’s brewery in Burton upon Trent, having already closed the famous Banks’s brewery right on my doorstep in Wolverhampton last year. Losing Banks’s, Marston’s and Sharp’s should set alarm bells ringing across Whitehall.

Cask beer is a uniquely British product, and the handpump at the bar defines the British pub. Cask ale has a proud history, and having a proper pint in a British pub is consistently one of the top three things that overseas tourists say they want to do while they are in the United Kingdom. Pre-pandemic, cask ale was worth £577 million, directly supported 72,500 jobs and accounted for one in nine on-trade pints while providing up to 70% of output for small and regional brewers. Delivered live for the publican to condition in the cellar, its freshness makes it uniquely vulnerable when footfall falters. Once tapped, a cask must sell within two to three days, averaging 23 pints daily, or it spoils. Without thriving pubs, cask has no route to market as it cannot be properly reproduced at home. Conversely, without real ale, pub footfall suffers. That can be either a virtuous or a vicious cycle, depending on the decisions we take.

During the pandemic, cask volumes understandably plummeted, with 87 million pints, worth over £300 million, having to be poured away, and more than 2,000 pubs closed for good. As “Caskenomics” warned five years ago, uncertain trade forces publicans to rationalise handpumps in favour of longer-life kegged lagers, as the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter said. That reduces the variety that draws drinkers into our pubs. Five years later, mounting cost pressures, some of which are the direct result of decisions taken by this Government, have turned the pandemic shock into a structural crisis for cask ale.

Why does it matter so profoundly? First, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is an “umbilical cord” that links cask ale to community pubs. Three quarters of British Institute of Innkeeping members view cask as vital to their pub, and cask drinkers spend twice as much on average as other adult drinkers, while typically choosing a venue for mixed groups. It is a genuine heritage product and should be recognised as such.

Secondly, cask underpins the social service that pubs informally provide in tackling loneliness and bolstering wellbeing. Professor Robin Dunbar’s Oxford University study for CAMRA, “Friends on Tap”, proved that regulars at a local pub have more close friends, higher life satisfaction and greater community trust. They socialise in conversation-sized groups of three to four, unlike in large city venues where bigger groups fragment conversation and encourage heavier drinking. Thirdly, at typically between 3.5% and 4.8%, cask ale served in pubs is tailor-made for responsible consumption. Fourthly, brewed with domestic Maris Otter barley and British hops in casks that are reused thousands of times, it is a near zero-waste, low-food-mile product that sustains a British hop industry dating back to the 14th century.

To protect this important heritage asset, the Government must act on three core lessons that we found in “Caskenomics”. First, they must reform taxes and widen draught duty relief. The Treasury takes about a third of every pub pint, and pubs massively overpay business rates compared with other businesses with similar profit profiles. Brewers such as Black Sheep see about 60% of their turnover taken in taxes. Lowering business rates and building on a reduced duty for draught beer are vital for shifting sales from supermarkets back to cask ale in our local pubs, so widening the draught beer duty differential introduced by the previous Government should be a no-brainer tomorrow.

Secondly, we need to back British agriculture. Following New Zealand’s $8 million hop sector investment, we need targeted support for British hop growers and maltsters, who are so important to British cask ale. Thirdly, we need fair market access to champion and celebrate British cask ale as a heritage product. With multinationals closing, independent cask brewers need fair access to pub cellars. Alongside that, cask ale deserves official heritage designation to celebrate it as uniquely British, just as champagne is French, chianti is Italian and port is Portuguese. Cask ale is the lifeblood of our brewing heritage. It is important to the local identity of so many of our communities, and it is the anchor of our community pubs.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

Will the hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating John Longden from Pub is the Hub, because pubs are where community lies? Does he also recognise the investment this Labour Government have given to that scheme?

[Mike Wood]

The investment that successive Governments have given to Pub is the Hub could not be better spent, so I certainly welcome additional investment. As the hon. Lady says, John Longden has done a formidable job with Pub is the Hub. I remember going around Cornwall with him to see pubs that were not only the last pub standing in a village but the job club, the post office and the village store. In one case it was even the hairdresser, and I think there is a photo of John pretending to cut my hair in the saloon lounge.

Cask ale needs these protections, and there is action that the Government can take starting tomorrow. I urge the Minister, and more importantly the Chancellor, to give our brewers and publicans the fighting chance they deserve.

09:51

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for stepping up and leading this debate. Derby knows a thing or two about a proper pint. In fact, we have been described as the best place in the world to drink real ale, and I am sure that everyone in this room agrees with me. [Interruption.] Maybe not. Visiting our heritage beer festival, brilliantly organised by Derby CAMRA and festival chair Russ Gilbert earlier this month, it is not hard to see why. Hot off the press after winning pub of the year, I am chuffed to welcome Alan from The Brunswick to Parliament today. We have so many other publicans to be proud of, whether it is Jim and Steph at the Falstaff in Normanton, Mel and Sue at The Needles in Alvaston, freedom of the city recipient Steve at The Neptune or the fantastic team behind Ay Up at Dancing Duck brewery. Our city’s reputation is built on our brilliant pubs, publicans and breweries, and of course our amazing punters.

In Derby, we know that a pub is far more than just a place to enjoy a pint. Kat Higgins, our local CAMRA pubs officer, who could not join us today, knows that better than most. What is more, we know that a pint of cask ale is about more than just what is in the glass: it is about the brewer who understands the craft and the publican who takes pride in serving it properly, completing the brewing process at the pub. That is proper living heritage. These traditions do not survive by accident; they depend on the people who keep them going and the pubs that give them a home.

But the threats to cask ale are alive and well. In 1995, cask ale represented 50% of beer sales; today, it is less than 8%. We are seeing practices creep in where fresh ales are masquerading as cask ales, misleading punters while companies close breweries and reduce their cask lines, and we have heard examples of that this morning. CAMRA has been leading the charge to tackle this with its “Handpump Hijack” campaign, and I thank it for its work. Recognising cask ale as intangible cultural heritage really matters. It will not solve every problem that the sector faces, but it will help to recognise the people, the skills and the communities behind this great British tradition. Let us protect the best of British brewing and make sure that there is a great pint waiting for generations to come by giving cask ale the recognition it deserves.

09:51

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

I remember the first day I tasted a true cask ale—I think it was my 18th birthday, when I first supped a pint of Timothy Taylor’s Landlord. It is a truly beautiful pint and something that I hope many 18-year-olds and people of advancing years continue to enjoy, but it is under threat. I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on securing the debate because it is important. In the historical boundaries of Staffordshire, we have been under assault, with the shutting of some of our greatest, best and longest-standing breweries. First, Carlsberg decided to close the Park brewery in Wolverhampton and then the Marston’s brewery. Frankly, a company that thinks Special Brew is a good alcoholic beverage does not have much care or consideration for true, quality cask ales.

We see a real challenge in our brewing industry. The Swan in Brewood has a bar serving some of the finest cask ales from across the country, with 12 always on tap. That was once seen regularly across the country, but it is increasingly rare today. Although the number of small brewers has grown over the last 30 years, with some 1,500 breweries across the country, some major breweries—as we have seen with Carlsberg—have been pulling out of cask ale. The point has already been raised that major breweries are misleading customers by making them think that they are getting a true cask ale, because it is served from a traditional handpump, when in reality these are not cask ales. As companies such as Carlsberg shut historic brewery sites such as the Park brewery in Wolverhampton and Marston’s in Burton, skills and traditions are being lost.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), I note that the Chancellor is not a passive observer. Tomorrow, he can do something important for the brewing industry and all our communities by making changes to the duty relief for cask ale. He can also support our pubs, because if we do not have vibrant pubs in our communities, we do not have a cask ale industry. If the breweries do not have anyone to sell to, they will simply wither and die.

Yes, it is about duties, but it is also about rates. So many pubs across my constituency still feel the squeeze from a double impact imposed by this Government not just on rates but on the cost of employing young people. There is an opportunity for the Chancellor to stand up, with a traditional alcoholic beverage by his side—I would suggest a nice pint from the Lymestone brewery in Stone—to celebrate and toast our brewers by not only helping them with the duties charged on cask ale but by helping out every single pub in our constituencies by getting rid of the national insurance increases imposed by the previous Chancellor.

I very much support the arguments advanced for special heritage status for our cask ale industry. Everything that we can do to promote the industry, and to make sure that people understand how special it is and how much work goes into every single cask, is for the best. I would also be interested to hear from the Minister about whether the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has dragged the chief executive of Carlsberg into the Department to demand to know why he is wrecking and doing so much damage to our brewing industry. She should demand answers and a commitment to investment in these incredibly important historic breweries, which are at the heart of so many of our communities.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order. I am imposing a formal five-minute limit.

10:00

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) and for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing today’s important debate and giving us all the opportunity to speak in support of recognising cask ale as intangible cultural heritage.

When I think of cultural heritage, I think of notable historic buildings like Carlisle castle or Carlisle cathedral, or structures like the Bewcastle cross and Hadrian’s wall, but heritage is also about the skills and traditions we pass on between generations. Few capture that better than cask ale. A great pint depends on the craftmanship of the brewer who makes the beer, the cellarperson who conditions it and the publican who serves it. These skills require knowledge, experience and care; they are worth celebrating and preserving.

Carlisle has a distinct place in brewing history. In 1916, during the first world war, the Government brought the city’s pubs and breweries under state control with the Carlisle state management scheme. Members might be interested to know that that remained in place between 1916 and 1973, and the last pub that the state built and opened was in 1973. I am not advocating for the nationalisation of our brewing sector; however, that remarkable experiment shaped pub design and licensing policy and left a lasting mark on my city’s identity.

That brewing tradition continues today. Carlisle is fortunate to have four independent breweries: the Carlisle Brewing Company, West Walls Brewing Co., the Great Corby Brewhouse and the Old Vicarage Brewery. Those small breweries support jobs, attract visitors and help to sustain our local culture. I am very much looking forward to sampling a little of their product at the Carlisle beer and cider festival later this week. West Walls Brewing is a success story, having opened its taproom just two years ago. It is a particularly good example of how independent brewing can attract new customers and create a vibrant hub of community life in our city centre.

Carlisle’s cask ale has even found its way into popular fiction. Readers of M. W. Craven’s “Washington Poe” novels will know of the detective’s fondness for the Carlisle Brewing Company’s Spun Gold ale and his appreciation of a properly kept beer, usually poured from The Kings Head in Carlisle city centre. Behind that fictional example is a serious point: getting cask ale right is a craft, and it depends on skills we cannot take for granted.

However, getting pints of independently brewed craft ale into the hands of consumers is a challenge due to the practices of the large brewing companies. I therefore invite the Minister to set out in her remarks where the Government’s thinking is on the introduction of a guest beer agreement in England. What discussions have been had with SIBA about improving market access for smaller breweries?

As I am sure a number of Members know, SIBA has looked at the impact of the Scottish guest beer agreement and what it has done for tied pubs, and 86% of the tenants who have an agreement in place have said it improved their trade. I feel it acutely because I represent a borders constituency, and I can literally walk a matter of metres to a pub that can enjoy a guest beer agreement. I urge the Government to get on with introducing a guest beer agreement in England.

Recognising cask ale as intangible cultural heritage would celebrate much more than a drink; it would recognise the people, craftmanship and community traditions behind it. At a time when pubs face many pressures and independent breweries are working hard to remain competitive, that recognition would send an important message: traditions matter and good beer matters. From Carlisle’s unique brewing history to the businesses keeping it alive today, our great border city—my great border city—shows why cask ale deserves to be celebrated and passed on to future generations.

10:04

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I commend the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for introducing the discussion incredibly well. This issue cuts directly to the beating heart of our local communities, our economy and our shared cultural identity. It is always a pleasure to see the Minister in her place—Members always look forward to her responses, and she will not be found wanting today.

I want to speak about the economic boosts, tourism potential and craft in relation to what the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter said. The potential merits of recognising the production and serving of cask ale as intangible cultural heritage under the UNESCO framework are vast. Cask ale is not just a commercial liquid in a glass; it is a living, breathing testament to an artisanal craft passed down through generations. It requires a meticulous partnership between the maltster, the farmer, the brewer and, most uniquely, the publican, who has specialised expertise.

[Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)]

For the record, I do quite like an after-work pint. Constituents I represent run the fantastic independent Courier Brewing Co., and they make cask ale because they love it, but rising business costs and big international breweries dominate markets and make it harder for them to carry on. A pint of cask ale is a huge part of our heritage—as British as fish and chips. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that protecting it requires urgent action, such as giving pub tenants the right to request an independent beer on tap, like in Scotland? That will not solve everything, but it is a start.

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do, and I am sure the Minister has taken note of the hon. Lady’s comments. In an age of mass-produced, globalised conformity, cask ale remains stubbornly and beautifully local.

I want to bring a Northern Ireland angle to this vital debate, ever mindful of the hospitality industry, our independent producers and the social fabric of our communities. Elevating local crafts to the status of intangible cultural heritage would send an unequivocal message to policymakers at every level that our traditional liquid heritage must be actively nurtured, protected and legally accommodated, rather than stifled. The hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter highlighted the importance of that when setting the scene. He also mentioned British wealth and prosperity, and we are part of this Great Britain. I am proud to be British, probably more so than some people where I live. The safeguarding of intangible heritage can transform a region: look at the spectacular revival of the drinks and spirits sector across Northern Ireland. The liquid arts are part of our DNA in Strangford and across Northern Ireland.

It does not brew cask ale, but the Echlinville distillery was Northern Ireland’s very first farm distillery. It crafts spirits from field to glass, by growing, harvesting and floor malting its own barley on site. That underlines the craft that goes into brewing ale and takes place in distilleries. Hinch distillery is another example; it brews triple-distilled whiskeys that are winning global acclaim. Rademon Estate, through the passion of Fiona Boyd-Armstrong and her husband David, also promotes craft distilling and successfully marries historic estate heritage with a thoroughly modern, sustainable vision, powered by its own on-site hydro and wind energy.

When we look at cask ale and the craft industry across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, those distilleries exemplify the preservation of the craft, the celebration of local raw materials and an unwavering commitment to quality that cannot be replicated by a mass production line. What do those world-class distilleries have to do with the perseveration of cask ale? It is simply this: they prove that liquid heritage is an economic and cultural engine. When we protect and celebrate traditional production methods, we do not just create jobs in the mash house or the bottling hall; we create a tourism boost and boom. We give people a reason to visit Strangford, stay in the guest houses, eat in the restaurants and sit in our historic pubs.

It is worth reminding the House that even a giant like Guinness was once a traditional cask product, naturally conditioned in wooden barrels; however, the commercial shifts of the mid-20th century saw the multinational brewers abandon the cask system entirely in favour of highly processed, pasteurised kegs to maximise global shelf life. That is precisely why this debate is important and why we must act now. It is important for our independent craft brewers, farm distilleries and local publicans to step up and keep these historic skills alive.

By granting cask ale intangible cultural heritage status, we would protect the fragile living traditions that global corporate models have left behind. By seeking UNESCO intangible status for the production and serving of cask ale, we are not dwelling on the past but securing the future. We are protecting the fields of our farmers, the livelihoods of our independent publicans and the heritage of our people. I urge the Minister to work closely with the devolved Administrations to support our independent producers and back this campaign, ensuring that our unique hospitality and manufacturing heritage continues to thrive for generations to come.

10:10

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) and for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this debate on what is undoubtedly a crucial part of our national heritage, especially in the midlands. Cask ale has been part of British life for generations. The skills involved in brewing, conditioning, storing and serving it have been passed down over centuries. Recognising these traditions as intangible cultural heritage would be a fitting acknowledgment of their importance.

It is about more than just the beer itself. Pubs are places central to community life. They are places where friendships are made and people come together, and are therefore significant in the fight to reduce loneliness in today’s world. In many rural communities, the village pub is one of the last remaining places where people of all ages and backgrounds can meet. Nowhere is that more apparent than in our local authority area of Derbyshire Dales, where we have around 132 pubs, equivalent to 18.5 pubs per 10,000 residents. Excluding some unusually small local authority areas, that gives us the highest number per capita in the country. Those pubs are enormously important to our visitor economy, supporting jobs not just behind the bar, but in brewing, farming, food production, distribution and hospitality. They encourage visitors to stay longer and spend more money in our local businesses.

One excellent example is Thornbridge Brewery in Bakewell. Thornbridge produces some outstanding cask ales, which are enjoyed locally, across the country and internationally. Its riverside brewery and taproom employs more than 100 people, and the taproom is also an important events and live music space. As a former musician myself, I particularly welcome that. Pubs and breweries provide opportunities for emerging artists to perform, develop their skills and find an audience. Their contribution to our cultural life goes well beyond what is in the glass.

I welcome the vital steps taken by the Government to support pubs and breweries, including reduced duty on qualifying draft beer and improving small producer relief, but there is more to do. At the autumn Budget in 2024, the Government announced that they would consult on improving access to pubs for smaller breweries, including through greater provision for guest beers. I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on the conclusions of that work, when it might be published and what measures are being considered to improve market access.

As has been said, there is a useful example in Scotland, where the Scottish pubs code provides pub tenants with a route to request a guest beer agreement, allowing them to sell at least one beer of their choosing outside the usual supply arrangements. I encourage the Government to consider introducing a similar provision in England. It could give independent breweries greater access to the market, offer publicans more choice and allow customers to enjoy a wider range of locally produced ales.

Recognising cask ale as intangible cultural heritage would be a positive step, but recognition should be accompanied by practical measures to safeguard the breweries, pubs and skilled workers who keep that heritage alive. Our pubs are not simply businesses; they are part of the fabric of our communities, our economy and our national identity. They are worth celebrating and protecting.

10:13

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friends and constituency neighbours, the Members for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) and for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), for securing this important debate.

Full disclosure: back in the early noughties, in my early twenties, I went to work for a company selling wine and spirits. I did a Wine and Spirit Education Trust advanced qualification, but not long after, we merged with the Beer Cellar at Chesterfield, and I had the great pleasure of learning all about cask ales. My patch covered Nottingham city, Derby city, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, and I would frequently work with incredible landlords running fantastic pubs on pulling together their beer festivals. It was always a highlight of the year. Whether it was the beer festivals or going to pitch guest ales each month, it was always a joy to see what new beer mat might be on the tables that month. So this plays deep to my core, and I am really grateful for this debate being secured, because it means a heck of a lot to the people of South Derbyshire as well.

When I knew the debate was going to happen, I put a shout out to Facebook—because that is where the real communication happens in South Derbyshire—asking people their favourite ale and the best place to buy and drink it. They were not backwards in coming forwards. I will refer to some of the recommendations they made in a moment, but I want to give a particular shout out to Tollgate brewery, the current owners of which have celebrated having it for 10 years. They have The Milking Parlour, a lovely venue that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and I visited together in the summer. They have two ales that are well beloved in South Derbyshire: Ashby pale ale and Hackney blonde, which my hon. Friend and I are hoping to get into Strangers Bar.

Having put that Facebook post out, I was invited to the Melbourne rugby club’s beer festival over the weekend, by a brilliant local parish councillor, Andy Dawson, who is co-chair of the club. There, I got to meet the master brewer of Leatherbritches, a very small brewery based at the Tap House in Smisby, whose formal name is Edward Allingham but who is known colloquially as “Mad Ed”. He was telling me all about the history of Leatherbritches and where the name comes from. I would encourage everybody to google “ale connors” to learn a trick or two about how we used to tax ales back in the day.

Talking about Melbourne, it would be remiss of me not to give a huge shout out to The Spirit Vaults, which came up time and again, as a pub that brews some of its own beer on premise. The Reverend bitter came out loud and proud as a big favourite. Another small brewer that came out loud and proud was the 3Ps brewery at Woodville—3Ps standing for pits, pots and pipes, which speaks to our heritage in South Derbyshire.

While national brands were mentioned and places to drink them, like Pedigree at The Freehold Tavern in Newhall, and having a pint of Timothy Taylor’s Landlord—one of my favourites, actually—at The Robin Hood in Overseal, or a pint of Theakston at The Wheel Inn in Ticknall, there was one ale in particular that came out time and time again as a favourite. I do not know whether it is because of our close proximity to Burton that it is so very special to the people of South Derbyshire, but that is Bass. On the best places to get a great pint of Bass, people were not quiet in coming forward. Whether it is The Miners Arms in Church Gresley, the Swadlincote Constitutional Club, the Thorn Tree or The Crown Inn in Newhall, the Chequers Inn in Ticknall, The Bull’s Head in Rosliston, The Malt in Aston, The Harrington Arms in Thulston, The Coopers Arms in Weston, the Green Man in Willington, The Admiral Rodney in Hartshorne, The Brookfield in Barrow, The Hawk & Buckle or The Spread Eagle in Etwall, or The Colvile Arms in Lullington, Bass came out overwhelmingly as the people’s choice in South Derbyshire.

It was also very obvious to me that mainly men like to drink cask ale; they must work some magic because the average bladder can contain 400 ml, but the average pint of course is 568 ml, so I am not quite sure where they hide it. That is the one thing that prevents me drinking pint after pint of cask ale, I have to say.

The important thing about cask ales and the pubs that serve them is the sense of community they help bring. The excitement of guest ales is a joy but the consistency of a good pint of Bass is one thing that seems to bring real joy to the people of South Derbyshire.

10:18

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Sir Desmond, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on getting this debate. It is brilliant that we are sitting here this morning and recognising the production and serving of cask ale as intangible cultural heritage.

Intangible cultural heritage is about the traditions and skills that are passed down through the generations that have shaped our communities. The UK’s cultural heritage is a national treasure. Our creative and tourism industries contribute billions of pounds to the economy. The latest research from Historic England is very clear: the heritage sector contributed £15 billion to the economy in 2022. Pubs are at the heart of our communities. They provide much, much more than somewhere to have a pint—and in my case, a good old-fashioned Somerset ploughman’s with a decent chunk of Cheddar cheese. I am not a drinker, but I do appreciate hugely the people who work in the industry in my part of Somerset.

It would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to mention some of the cask ale producers in my part of Somerset. They include Butcombe brewery, which is located a little outside my constituency, but has three pubs within it. There is Badgworth Brewhouse and the Cross brewery, which is based at the White Hart Inn in Cross near Axbridge, which I had the pleasure of opening a short number of months ago. Cheddar Ales is probably known across the nation because it is stocked so frequently in many of our supermarkets, as well as our best pubs, and we have the Bason Bridge Brewing Company and the Beer Shed. Several of those locations are places where I have run my surgeries in the past, and I thank the publicans for the support that they have offered. Pubs bring people together and help tackle isolation, which is particularly key in a very rural area like mine. They carry a lot of history and help our culture.

Brewers and pubs are struggling. When a pub closes, community cohesion is weakened significantly, so we need to make sure we support the tradition. I ask the Government to make sure that they listen to people and communities, uphold the traditions and ensure they are supported so that they can continue and be shared for generations to come.

At a time when cask ale faces challenges, the Government should consider how its cultural significance and the skills associated with its production can be supported and recognised. The craft sector alone contributes thousands of jobs every year and over £400 million annually. Cask ale represents one of Britain’s most distinctive brewing traditions. Unlike filtered or pasteurised beers, it is a living product that continues to mature and develop flavour after it has left the brewery. The beer undergoes secondary fermentation in the vessel from which it is served, and each brewery’s unique yeast, creating natural carbonisation and complexity, cannot be replicated through industrial processes. It is unique. It involves a high level of skill both in brewing and in the cellar.

I am aware that the Government were asked to recognise the production and serving of cask ale as an intangible cultural heritage under e-petition 716686, which closed on 1 October 2025 and had a marvellous 41,026 signatures. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said it would welcome a submission from the cask ale community to the UK inventory. Cask ale would be included if the submission met the criteria.

The United Kingdom ratified the 2003 UNESCO convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage on 7 March 2024. We became the 183rd state to join UNESCO’s convention, which came into force on 7 June 2024. UNESCO’s convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage recognises traditional craftsmanship, oral traditions and expressions, social practices, festive events, knowledge and practices related to nature and the universe. To this end, the UK Government launched their public consultation in January 2024 on the creation of a new register, on to which communities across the country could nominate their most cherished local traditions. In 2016, UNESCO inscribed beer culture in Belgium on the representative list of intangible cultural heritage of humanity. We Lib Dems would like some of that, please, Minister.

As passionate supporters of craft beer and brewers and the publicans who pull the pints, I would be delighted if the Minister could recognise the passion, love, commitment and contribution to the community of good brewing and good beer—enjoyed so often, as I said, with a ploughman’s—and back the campaign.

10:24

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on picking up the mantle and securing this debate. It gives us an important opportunity to debate the merits of recognising the importance of the production and serving of cask ale, as an example of our living cultural heritage. This debate has been all one way so far and I will not be changing that.

Cask ale is more than a drink; it reflects the combination of craftmanship, knowledge, tradition and community. Cask is produced by hundreds of small breweries, often using British hops and malt. My own county of Norfolk has a fine real ale brewing tradition, with our first-class malted barley. I should mention Duration Brewing in West Acre and its Grasshopper beer, which I was enjoying last weekend. As we have just celebrated Trafalgar Day, I also mention Woodforde’s Nelson’s Revenge.

As CAMRA, which does so much to champion it, says, cask ale is synonymous with our great British pub. Its significance lies not only in what is brewed, but in the craftmanship involved, in how it is made and served, and in how it brings people together. Because the final conditioning happens at the pub, both the brewer and the publican must have specialist knowledge. Much of that knowledge is practical and acquired through experience, and skills are often passed through generations. It is precisely that kind of living knowledge that intangible cultural heritage seeks to recognise and protect. Our brewing traditions reflect our local areas and local beer styles. By taking this step of recognition, we could safeguard a living tradition that has helped shape the cultural and social life of Britain for generations.

The opportunity to recognise cask ale under the UNESCO convention follows its ratification by the last Conservation Government in 2024. I was talking to my noble Friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, who personally secured the ratification to support awareness of heritage and potentially increase demand across our country. For cask ale, such awareness could help support inward tourism—we have heard about the importance that people attach to the experience of a pint in a pub across the country.

This debate comes at a time when the sector is facing challenges, as we have heard. SIBA has reported a 20% reduction in cask consumption year on year—part of a longer-term decline. Despite that, it is worth noting that smaller independent brewers are finding success in the sector—compared to some of the larger breweries that are withdrawing from the market. We heard a passionate speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) railing against Carlsberg’s recent decision. Breweries benefitting from small brewer relief now account for 58% of the cask market—up from 40% a decade ago. Small brewer success is centred on local pubs, community spaces and taprooms offering experiences that people want to go and enjoy.

It is also important to recognise the role that beer festivals play in supporting cask ale, by introducing new people to the delights and the taste of cask ale. The Norwich beer festival is this week, and I heartily recommend it to everyone. I am planning to be there because I will be part of the judging panel for the champion bottled beer of Britain. It is hard work, but someone has to do it.

Tomorrow, we have the Budget. UK beer duty is the second highest in Europe—nearly 12 times more than most of our European counterparts. The Prime Minister has talked about giving everyone breathing space, as well as pork scratchings. The practical way to do that would be to increase draught relief, as a number of hon. Members have referred to, which was introduced by the last Government. Along with many members of the all-party parliamentary beer group, I have signed a letter to the Chancellor calling on him to freeze beer duty and to increase draught relief to 30%, which would take 10p off a pint. We also need to see action on business rates, employment costs and energy prices.

Cask ale culture has been submitted as an expression of interest, strongly backed by the 40,000 people who signed the petition and by hon. Members across the House. The Government have said that the panel is reviewing that submission. Can the Minister tell us when she expects a final decision to be taken? Will she also confirm how the Government intend to meet the requirements under articles 13 to 15, regarding measures to safeguard living heritage? Such recognition for cask ale would show that cultural heritage is not simply about buildings and monuments; it is about traditions, customs and our communities.

10:29

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on securing this debate. He is a strong champion for his constituents, local employers and our brewing traditions. For decades, our heritage policies have focused on physical buildings and monuments, and we are expanding that by recognising living heritage: the crafts, skills and community traditions passed down through generations. This debate is a brilliant way to illustrate that. My hon. Friend made a strong case for the heritage, and explained the traditions associated with cask ale brewing with colour and detail. The support for this debate is reflected by the attendance and contributions from hon. and right hon. Members from across the House today. I recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) originally applied for and championed this debate.

Following the ratification of the 2003 UNESCO convention, we launched the nationwide search to document our living history, and the upcoming launch of the domestic inventories will be an important milestone. We have heard a strong argument for the inclusion of cask ale, led by the Campaign For Real Ale, the Craft Beer Channel and grassroots supporters and amplified today by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter and by hon. and right hon. Members from across the House. Cask Ale Culture has been formally submitted and is currently being assessed by an independent panel.

Alongside living traditions, DCMS continues to protect physical pub heritage. More than 12,000 listed buildings in England are current or former pubs. Through our arts everywhere fund and our £200 million investment in heritage to 2030, we are helping communities to restore and safeguard historical venues. We have heard from right hon. and hon. Members—I will not attempt to list them all—speaking about their local brewers, including Allanwater Brewhouse in Stirling and the Dancing Duck in Derby, and the sheer number of pubs—I believe it was 132—that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) quoted.

To answer one of the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter, next year, DCMS will launch a public consultation on safeguarding living heritage to identify the practical steps needed to keep these traditions alive. I encourage the brewing industry and the pub sector to take part. Cask ale protects skilled jobs, strengthens communities and preserves practical crafts. It is a vital living tradition.

My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the proposed closure of Marston’s brewery in Burton upon Trent, which I know he raised directly with the Prime Minister during Prime Minister’s questions. Carlsberg Britvic’s proposal is a blow to the workforce, the local community and the identity of Burton upon Trent and the surrounding area. Brewing is part of the fabric the area, and with more than 300 potential job losses and workers facing uncertainty, the Government stand ready to support them through Jobcentre Plus and the rapid response service. We will ensure that tailored support is available to help people to find new opportunities and to protect their livelihoods. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will remain in close contact with Carlsberg Britvic throughout the consultation process.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I welcome the work that the Government are doing, but has the Secretary of State dragged in the chief executive of Carlsberg? This seems to be a pattern of behaviour, happening not just in Burton, but in Wolverhampton as well. It seems intent on closing down all its cask ale breweries.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I was about to answer the right hon. Member’s question. Of course, that would be for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I will speak to Ministers directly following this debate. While this debate is not on that particular issue, I absolutely recognise that it is integral to the right hon. Member’s area and the surrounding area. I will speak to DEFRA Ministers directly.

The right hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) rightly highlighted the closure of Banks’s brewery. Of course, that announcement comes alongside Molson Coors proposing the closure of Sharp’s brewery in Rock. Both companies have pointed to the decline in cask ale demand. I totally hear the points that the right hon. Member made. UK cask ale volumes have halved in less than 10 years. I think we heard a statistic from my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter about cask ale sales accounting for 5% of the market today compared with 50% in the 1990s. We are seeing a decline, but there are some positive signs. Industry data reveals a 50% increase in young adults aged 18 to 25 regularly drinking cask ales in pubs. We want that renewed interest to grow, and we heard a number of examples of how we might do that, including the Hemel Old Town Beer festival mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor), or the local festival that the shadow Minister mentioned—I wish him luck in judging the competition.

Pubs and hospitality venues are essential social infrastructure. They combat loneliness, bring generations together and provide places to bring people together in our communities.

[Phil Brickell]

On the occasion of the then Mayor of Greater Manchester, now the Prime Minister, visiting my constituency, I was proud to host him in Blackedge’s Brewery Tap on Market Street in Westhoughton. Recognising that he understands the value of cask ale and local independent businesses and breweries, would the Minister perhaps persuade his good offices to see what they can do to support the cask ale business and breweries to continue this fine tradition?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important point. As he illustrates, and from the visit that the Prime Minister made when he was the Mayor of Manchester, I am sure that he will be very supportive. I do not want to speak for him, but I will reflect it to his Parliamentary Private Secretary.

I see the importance of pubs in my area and my constituency of Barnsley South. I take this opportunity to thank and pay tribute to Dan at the Cross Keys pub in Darfield, who has made the pub a brilliant community hub. As he moves on, I wish him and the team the very best. It is just one of the brilliant pubs that Barnsley has to offer.

I attended the British Beer and Pub Association dinner and awards evening earlier this month and had the privilege of meeting John Longden, the chief executive officer of Pub is The Hub. I join Members from across the House in paying tribute to him and the work that he has done. As many Members will know, Pub is The Hub is a not-for-profit that helps rural and remote pubs to diversify their businesses and to provide essential local community services. The evening saw brewers, pub operators, suppliers and patrons celebrate the industry, with awards presented to extraordinary community champions.

To support pubs and venues directly, the Government have launched a £10 million hospitality grant. Over £3 million of that funding has been awarded to Pub is The Hub to support its work. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government announced a £210 million funding package for our high streets, including £125 million for derelict buildings and £65 million for community ownership. The Government have previously supported pubs through alcohol duty reforms, including introducing and expanding draught relief for products below 8.5% alcohol by volume and cutting duty on qualifying draught drinks in February 2025.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for a very comprehensive and helpful response to our questions. What is important is not just the craft, but the tourism potential. Do the Government recognise that there is tourism potential for the economy to grow and create jobs and prosperity?

[Stephanie Peacock]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As the Tourism Minister, I absolutely echo and agree with the point that he is making. I was about to say that pubs were included in the recent announcement on additional business rate support, which is 15% in 2026-27 and will be 20% from April. That will save the average pub £1,100 a year. Members would not expect me to anticipate the Budget tomorrow, and we look forward to hearing the Chancellor in the Chamber tomorrow afternoon.

The sector relies on skilled people. We see industry taking the lead with the launch of the British Beer and Pub Association Academy, opening its doors to degree apprentices to build the next generation of pub leaders and brewing managers. The Government want to back them, and this Government are transforming the apprenticeship levy into a new growth and skills levy in England. We are fully funding apprenticeships for eligible young people under 25 and offering a £2,000 hiring payment to non-levy-paying small businesses that recruit young apprentices. Backed by £1 billion, that investment will support 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships by March 2029, helping to train the next generation of brewers, coopers and cellar staff.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) for highlighting the rich brewing history of Carlisle, from the historic state management scheme to its independent brewers. She and a number of other Members asked whether the Government have considered extending a guest beer arrangement model to England, akin to the guest beer provision in the Scottish pub code. Ministers are giving it their consideration and DEFRA colleagues regularly discuss market access and competition with industry representatives. We will continue to listen to brewers and publicans on how best to sustain consumer choice, but given the interest in those policy areas, I will make sure I speak to the relevant Ministers following this debate.

I end by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter and all Members from across the House for bringing this debate to the House. I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to safeguard the brewing future.

10:39

[Jacob Collier]

I thank the Minister for her response. I also thank hon. and right hon. Members for their support. Not many issues get cross-party support in this House, and we have definitely had that today. I thank everybody for their contributions, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), who wins the award for the most pubs mentioned in this debate. It is no surprise to me that Bass is the most popular drink in her constituency. It is my drink of choice at The Devonshire Arms in Burton.

As we have heard today, cask ale is at risk because of changing attitudes and market conditions, but also because of some of the barriers that have been put in place. I welcome the Government looking into this and we all welcome what the Chancellor has to say tomorrow to hopefully support this sector, cask ale and giving it the UNESCO recognition that it deserves.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of recognising the production and serving of cask ale as Intangible Cultural Heritage.

10:40

Sitting suspended.

SEND Provision: Rural Communities

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Westminster Hall

10:59

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members not to rise to catch my eye unless they have the permission of both Mr Jermy and the Minister to speak.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered SEND provision in rural communities.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond, and I am delighted to have secured this debate. Discussing this subject in detail will be hard in a 30-minute debate, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for her positive engagement with it. Given the time constraints, I will be able to accept only a few brief interventions, largely from those hon. Members who indicated in advance that they will intervene.

I will begin by thanking the parents, carers and families of children with special educational needs and disabilities who have contacted my office and shared their experience of the realities of SEND provision in rural communities. Many of the conversations I have had with those constituents in South West Norfolk have been incredibly difficult. The same themes arise time and again: frustration, exhaustion and a profound fear for their child’s future.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. Travelling long distances to attend schools creates anxiety, distress and sensory overload, potentially affecting children’s ability to engage in learning when in school. Does he agree that we must invest in developing SEND provision in mainstream schools to ensure that children can access appropriate support closer to home, with less travelling, less anxiety and fewer problems?

[Terry Jermy]

I entirely agree, and I am sure the Minister will speak about that.

Prior to serving as a Member of Parliament, I spent many years as a county councillor in Norfolk, so I was aware of the SEND system and its difficulties from my councillor casework, but nothing could have prepared me for the avalanche of SEND-related cries for help that have arrived from right across my constituency. Since I was elected in 2024, more than 250 families have contacted my office to express serious concerns about the way their children’s needs are being assessed and met by schools and local authorities.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Access to assistive technology is another huge issue. Only 18% of young people surveyed by the British Dyslexia Association had access to assistive technology. Does the hon. Member agree that, just like diagnosis support, assistive technology should be available not just for those lucky enough to be in well-off urban areas or for those who can afford to pay private providers huge sums?

[Terry Jermy]

The hon. Member is right that investment in technology can make a significant difference to children and young people. Many of the conversations I have had with children and their families describe lengthy consultation processes to find a suitable school, daily battles to secure even the most basic provision, and periods of extreme distress as they struggle to navigate a system that often feels stacked against them.

I was keen to secure a debate on this motion because it is clear that children and young people with SEND in rural areas face a distinct set of structural challenges that affect access, equity and outcomes. Those challenges arise not necessarily from higher levels of need but from the complexity and cost of delivering education, health and care services across geographically dispersed communities.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

The hon. Member is making a most informed speech. In North Norfolk I have heard from several families whose children cannot get, or have struggled to get, access to specialist settings. Children must travel further from home in rural areas, which is tougher for them and increases the transport bill. Does the hon. Member agree we need to do much more to ensure that children and families in rural communities can access specialist support when they need it?

[Terry Jermy]

I thank the hon. Member, my county colleague from Norfolk, for raising that point, and I entirely agree.

I want to explain and give information to the Minister about the experiences I have documented in my rural constituency. I have produced a SEND report, “Rural Realities”, and I have shared a draft with her. Through in-person group sessions, questionnaires and our detailed casework, we have gathered data about what is happening on the ground. At the first SEND roundtable in the market town of Downham Market, it was clear that many of the parents and carers from the local villages did not know one another. They arrived individually but soon discovered that their experiences were remarkably similar. They spoke of not receiving much support in their child’s early years. Health visitors came less frequently, and in many cases an in-person visit did not happen at all. Warning signs and opportunities for support were ignored at primary school, and when their child entered high school, often some distance away in a rural setting, the impact of having little to no support was further compounded. From our own assessments, it is clear that rural areas typically have a limited range of local SEND provision.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I thank my fellow co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on farming for giving way. The bottom line is that SEND provision in rural areas is only as good as a child’s ability to reach it. Would the hon. Member agree?

[Terry Jermy]

Absolutely. A key theme of my contribution is the impact of distance and geography, so I entirely agree with. Lower population density restricts the viability of specialist settings and enhanced mainstream provision, resulting in reduced parental choice and greater reliance on out-of-area placements.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

That is a particular problem in Cornwall, because we are on a peninsula. Numerous children had no specialist place at all by September, because the options simply were not there. Going out of county is just too far for many people.

[Terry Jermy]

Absolutely. I can relate to many of those points, as I know of children and young people travelling significant distances to access suitable provision, affecting their wellbeing, attendance and readiness to learn. It is not uncommon for children my team and I have worked with to travel for an hour and a half in each direction every single day. At a system level, home-to-school transport costs are substantially higher, placing sustained pressure on higher needs budgets and limiting the resources available for early intervention and in-school support.

Workforce capacity presents a further challenge. Rural areas experience ongoing difficulties recruiting and retaining specialist staff, including special educational needs co-ordinators, educational psychologists and therapists. That contributes to delays in assessment, inconsistent access to specialist advice and slower delivery of support. When I visit schools across South West Norfolk, the variety in approach is stark. The Government are right to put additional SEND training and capital funding at the forefront of their decision making. Schools can do more to accommodate pupils with additional needs. I have seen that opportunity myself. More must be done to ensure that schools and local authorities embrace that responsibility and are held to account.

Specialist support, however, will always be needed. Areas like mine, with historical specialist gaps, should not be overlooked. The trends are clear: a lack of early intervention, rising travel costs and an increase in the number of children requiring specialist support. For too many families, the SEND system no longer provides what it should, instead becoming a source of additional stress and anxiety.

When I became an MP, I was determined to help families navigate that system, which is why I became one of only two MPs in the country to employ a dedicated SEND specialist caseworker. I am incredibly proud of the work my casework team have done to help families secure education, health and care plans, progress tribunal cases and, most importantly, obtain the support that children need and deserve. Those experiences have shown me that, despite the challenges facing SEND provision, positive change is possible, but only when local need is recognised and acted on.

Earlier this year, I campaigned strongly for a new specialist SEND school in Downham Market, and I was delighted when the Government approved the project and committed £20 million towards the new school at Ryston End. Once completed, it will transform opportunities for children and young people across a large part of Norfolk, bringing specialist provision closer to home.

Although I welcome that success, one school alone will not resolve the wider challenges facing SEND provision in rural communities. There are 32,000 children and young people identified as having SEND in Norfolk, including more than 13,000 with an education, health and care plan. Since 2016, the number of EHCPs has risen by 217%. That is placing increased pressure on schools, families and local authorities alike.

For rural communities, those pressures are often intensified by distance. Evidence shows that pupils attending special schools in rural areas travel an average of 10 miles each way, compared with approximately 4 miles in urban areas. In the most rural parts of England, one in 10 pupils travels more than 23 miles each way to their appropriate school. Families told me repeatedly that they feel like they have less choice, fewer local services and more barriers to accessing support than families in urban areas.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

What I found talking to people in places like Pyecombe and Warninglid is that this issue has a wider implication for parents’ capacity to get into work and stay in work. There are certainly parents in my constituency who have had to step back from the workforce. Did the hon. Gentleman also hear that when talking to families in his constituency?

[Terry Jermy]

Absolutely. The hon. Member makes a really important point about the impact on the wider family. For SEND parents with more than one child, it is incredibly difficult to navigate the logistics of getting to different schools in different locations. We have certainly experienced that in South West Norfolk.

Rurality also creates additional layers of bureaucracy because parents are often required to navigate multiple agencies spread across large geographical areas and to repeatedly explain their child’s needs to different professionals. They have to travel long distances to appointments and spend months, and sometimes years, pursuing assessments, reviews and support.

The pressures are being felt not only by families but by schools. Three quarters of schools that responded to my survey said they did not feel able to provide adequate support for pupils with SEND using their current resources. Many reported receiving insufficient support from the local authority with SEND and EHCP casework. Worst of all, 46% of parents who responded reported that their child had spent significant time out of school because their needs were not being met. Some families describe children being out of education for months, and sometimes years, and the story is always one of years of disruption with no suitable placement available.

Education is not a privilege in this country; it is a right, yet too many children with SEND are being denied that right, not because their potential is lacking but because the system around them is struggling to provide the support they need. For children in rural communities, the challenges are often even greater. That is why I hope the Government will fully consider the added impact of rurality, which I have highlighted through my South West Norfolk SEND report. They must consider the added pressures as part of their wider reforms to the SEND system, so that families across constituencies like mine and those of other hon. Members who have spoken can finally feel heard, supported and confident that their children will receive the education they deserve.

11:13

[The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for his speech and for all his work on this issue. I have his report with me; it is a deep and thoughtful reflection on the challenges in his area and also reflects some of the challenges that, as we heard from other Members, are common to rural communities.

I understand that my hon. Friend spoke to more than 300 parents. The themes that came through—the need to battle for support, children being out of education, and the huge stress this issue puts on families—are sadly ones I have heard from many parts of the country. It is incredibly important that he has brought those voices to us, and I want to assure him that the voices of the parents and teachers in his constituency are being taken seriously as we work through the consultation on the SEND reform plans.

My hon. Friend also took the time to sit down with me to discuss some of these issues in detail, which I really appreciate. He raised critical issues and common pressures, but some of those common pressures are exacerbated in rural communities by difficulties with recruitment, the long distances needing to be travelled and the availability of provision.

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

The Minister recognises the difficulties in rural areas. I must stress that in Cornwall we have seen a 300% increase in the cost of home-to-school transport in the last seven years. In addition, two thirds of Cornish families waiting for an EHCP have to wait for more than 20 weeks. Does she agree that SEND provision is particularly difficult and costly in remote peninsula communities such as Cornwall, and that budgets and support need to recognise those geographical factors?

[Georgia Gould]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for raising these issues. I absolutely recognise the additional pressures that exist in rural and more remote communities. I will go on to discuss some of the things that we are doing to address those pressures, and I will come on to home-to-school transport when I go through that list.

One of the first things that I want to highlight is the new Experts at Hand service, through which £1.8 billion is going in nationally, not only to deliver more occupational therapists, educational psychologists and speech and language therapists, but to provide support from special schools and alternative provision into mainstream schools. We have just started rolling that service out and we are working with local authorities around the country. Every local authority has been asked to deliver a SEND reform plan and we are getting quarterly feedback on the data on how that is going, including the Experts at Hand service, so we will have a much clearer view of the gaps that sit around the country. As we build out the service, there will be the ability to work with those areas that are struggling to recruit and that see real gaps, in order to try and improve their provision in those areas. We will also be working with MPs to share some of the data that is coming through that national picture, which we have not previously had access to.

The second thing that I wanted to flag is access to teacher training. We are investing £200 million into teacher training. The first set of resources has gone out into the system and those resources can be used by schools on their inset days. A host of different resources are coming out across the year, making it easier for schools in more remote locations to implement training. We will also develop a set of courses, starting from next year, which will be a mix of online teaching and live teaching for teaching assistants, school leaders and teachers. Where it is not possible for teachers to attend courses in person, it will be possible for them to take those courses online, if that is what they want. I also want to flag the investment that is going directly into schools through the inclusive mainstream fund, alongside the existing funding in the system.

As we move forward on SEND reform and respond to the consultation, one of the big parts of that process is asking schools to come together in clusters. Some of the extra funding that will go into schools will go through clusters; some of it will go directly to schools and some of it will go through clusters. One of the things that we are really considering is how we can ensure that those clusters work in rural communities. We want to do a test and learn process in a mix of different contexts. I am really keen to talk to Norfolk MPs about this, to see whether it is something we can work on.

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

The Isle of Axholme in my constituency is a big rural area. Many children have to travel long distances for EHCP assessments, but also to receive specialist support for special educational needs. At the Axholme school in Crowle, we have historically had a higher number of children with SEND than the national average. Of course, that is a concern, because I want to ensure that there is no postcode lottery when the SEND reforms are being made. Will the Minister absolutely and categorically reassure me that if someone lives in a rural community, they will get support equitable to that given anywhere else in the country?

[Georgia Gould]

As we move into this new system, we will be looking at all the funding going into it, whether that is through the local funding formula or the high needs funding.

The thinking behind the cluster approach is that in the new system we want every school to be inclusive, and to take and support students with a range of needs but who do not need to be in specialist provision. Within that, some schools might have higher need and the cluster approach is to ensure that we can move money to where the need is highest. However, we must ensure that that works in different contexts, which is why we are committed to testing and learning within rural contexts.

I also want to flag capital investment. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk mentioned the new special school, and said that that alone is not enough, which I agree with. We are investing £3.7 billion into capital investment to deliver a range of changes. Some are to mainstream schools to make them more accessible, but the funding can be used for new special schools. We are clear that it should drive an expansion of inclusion bases, which are really important because they bring SEND provision to more remote communities and closer to families. I have seen many examples where children were out of school and really struggling to get an education, and having that inclusion base on their doorstep has been completely transformative in opening up that access and reducing the need to travel. The high-needs capital funding that is going into Norfolk is £13 million in 2025-26 and £15.8 million in 2026-27, so there is significant investment going in to help that capital challenge and deliver inclusion bases.

[Adam Dance]

The Government are currently piloting assistive technology lending libraries. Will the Minister update us on that trial and whether it can expanded to more rural areas such as Somerset that do not have mayors so that kids do not have to miss out and schools are not ripped off on assistive technology by private companies?

[Georgia Gould]

We absolutely recognise the importance of assistive technology in the system. The hon. Member has raised and championed that, and I will follow up and give him a proper update on how it is going and our plans.

My next point is about the importance of partnership. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk talked about how parents have to navigate myriad different services and are bouncing between them. One key thing we want to deliver in the immediate term is asking local areas to strengthen their partnership arrangements across health, education and local authorities but critically also with parents and young people. In the long term we aim to have much stronger partnership arrangements in place so that whichever stage a child is at, whether they need early intervention or more specialist support, that comes in a timely manner and without a fight.

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

In my rural community of South East Cornwall, I had the honour of visiting the Learning Paddocks, which is a specialist provision that worked very hard to get set up but faced many barriers to being a specialist provider of care. In areas such as mine with huge transport problems and when mainstream education is not the right choice, how are the Government going to work with providers to support specialist provision such as the Learning Paddocks?

[Georgia Gould]

We have an expert panel that is developing a set of specialist provision packages, which will set out what we expect from settings to meet a whole range of needs that will be consulted on. The expectation is that local authorities will need to commission against all of those specialist provision packages so the full range of need should be met within a local area. That will make it much easier for providers and local authorities to understand what is expected of them and to provide those packages. Critically, when a child requires that support, they will not have to wait for it because it is commissioned and available in that area. At the moment, there is a huge postcode lottery with some support available in some areas while in others it is completely absent—that is why we see some of the long distances that we have heard about.

[Steff Aquarone]

To go back to the Minister’s point about partnership working, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) talked about health visitors, rurality, schools, transport and the impact on work—those are five Departments. In a previous life, she and I met and discussed the need to shake things up in Westminster and rewire Government so that it works for people and not within silos. Does she agree that this is a classic example of how the Government need to change the way they work so that they can serve humans and not processes?

[Georgia Gould]

I agree. In a previous life I led a council, and I used to sit in frustration, asking, “Does anyone in Government talk to each other?” because we often saw very siloed decisions. People’s lives are not split into different Government Departments: they live in communities, travel, need healthcare, and work, and all those things come together. It is critical that we work together, and SEND is an area where there was a promise of greater integration in the 2014 reforms, but the experience, as we have heard, is that that promise has not been delivered. Working closely across Government, particularly with colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care, we are determined to drive integration, so that families get a seamless experience. That is a really important point.

I also want to respond to the points made about distance travelled. There are two important things to say. First, one way to reduce that is to ensure the right provision is available in local areas. Whether that is the greater roll-out of inclusion bases, or the development of specialist provision packages, which make clear what should be available locally, we expect to see a much greater range of local provision. We also recognise that the nature of rural communities means that travel distances are greater. That is why, in the changes to home-to-school transport, there is now a separate formula that includes distance travelled, and that is a key part of the system.

I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate; I know how important these issues are. Our aim is to ensure everyone gets early intervention, without a postcode lottery. People will get the support they need, wherever they live. That requires a focus on rural communities to understand the specific challenges.

We are committed to testing and learning, looking at those challenges, understanding the data and disparities, and working alongside local authorities to ensure that the national vision is felt by families and communities everywhere. I encourage hon. Members to stay involved in that conversation, to keep working with us by sharing feedback on the challenges in their areas, as Experts at Hand, the inclusion mainstream fund and teacher training roll out, so that we can respond.

[Alison Bennett]

Has the Minister considered the role of parent-carers and the assessment of their needs? Access to mental health services is worse in rural areas. Siobhan O’Dwyer said that 41% of parent-carers have had suicidal thoughts, which will be more acute in a rural area. Is that a consideration for the Government’s work?

[Georgia Gould]

Absolutely. That is why we have said that every Best Start hub needs a lead SEND practitioner. We are investing £200 million in the roll-out of SEND support through Best Start hubs, working closely with parent-carer forums on support for parents.

We have talked about integration. Another big programme we are rolling out is the Family First Partnership, to rebuild early help and support for parents. We want to ensure those partnerships are working with Experts at Hand and schools, so that parents and families get the support they need at the same time as young people. That is an important part of bringing it all together, looking at all the investments to ensure they work on the ground. I thank everyone for the debate and you, Sir Desmond, for your chairship.

Question put and agreed to.

11:28

Sitting suspended.

Council Housing

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Jeremy Wright in the Chair]

11:09

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the delivery of council housing.

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I must declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on council and social housing, for which Shelter expertly provides the secretariat. The APPG is currently undertaking an inquiry into barriers to council house building and the solutions required. Although I do not want to overly pre-empt our findings today, I do want to take the opportunity to invite the Minister to attend the launch of the report from that inquiry, and I invite hon. Members across the Chamber today to attend the evidence sessions we are currently holding, including that taking place shortly after this debate.

Given the imminent Budget, I will not ask the Minister for lots of spending commitments today. Instead, I would be grateful if he could answer just one specific question: will he put a number on what is meant by

“the biggest council house building programme”

since the end of the post-war period? I think we would all be interested to know what precise target the Government are setting.

I am keen to be optimistic and positive in my contribution today, so I will get the polemical bits out of the way first. There is, I am afraid, a nasty strain of ideology infecting political circles these days that seems to think of our fellow citizens as a lumpen mass of incorrigible misanthropes motivated only by mercenary selfishness and having no care for the good of their wider community when it comes to housing and development. That is certainly not my experience. It says more about the miserabilism of the so-called YIMBY—yes, in my backyard—movement than it does about those they accuse. There is no public support barrier to building high-quality homes in the towns and villages in my constituency. Indeed, people are crying out for it. When the public tell us they do not want this particular rubbish, the problem is the rubbish, not the public.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this vital debate; he is right. People in Leeds and across the country know there is a council house crisis and they support, I believe, Shelter’s campaign for the Government to make national council house building a mission, because building council houses not only provides homes; it is a bit like rent controls. An intervention in the private market can bring rents down because the private sector cannot solve the council house crisis and the housing crisis. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Chris Hinchliff]

I completely agree. We have seen for many years that the market cannot solve this problem. In fact, it speaks to a rotten lack of ambition that the political response to children living in cramped, damp and overcrowded conditions has so often been to demand that we lower our expectations for the future, promising that the only way to get families out of temporary accommodation is to reduce insulation standards, concrete over the countryside and ignore risks such as flooding and the lack of infrastructure. Then, it might be more profitable for developers to cast their crumbs down to our communities. What a tragic irony that we are told that the only way to rescue families from low-quality emergency housing is by lowering the standards of the permanent homes we build instead. The problem was never that our standards were too high. It was the surrender to neoliberal capitalism and the lack of political will that accompanied its hollowing out of our state’s capacity to function that stopped the building of decent, affordable homes at scale.

Secondly, it is worth paraphrasing Keynes early on in this debate by reiterating that claiming it does not pay to house the people of this country in affordable, high-quality housing is one of the most dismal notions ever advanced by modern economics. We have the technology and the capacity to house everyone safely, comfortably and in beautiful surroundings. If private capital says it is not profitable enough to do so, the problem is with the economic model, not with the hope for our nation’s future.

Having dispensed with those points, before we get to the question of how, I want to dwell briefly on the possibilities of a future in which the Labour Government achieve their council housing goals. When we debate this subject, we often focus—and rightly so—on the immediate crisis and urgent need that council housing can alleviate, but the power of council housing to transform the future of our society does not end there.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this timely and important debate and for the excellent speech that he is making. Although he briefly touched on the urgent need before moving on to the longer-term situation, does he agree that in places like Bradford, where we currently have 25,000 people on a waiting list—many are families with young children living in poverty and the same squalid, damp conditions that he mentions—there is an immediate, urgent need? Therefore, as well as asking the Minister how many—

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he can see the level of interest in the debate. We must have short interventions, please. Two or three more words and then we will let the hon. Gentleman respond.

[Imran Hussain]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the urgent need requires immediate housebuilding?

[Chris Hinchliff]

I agree; my hon. Friend is absolutely right about the immediate need, which I will come to later.

This is a slightly incongruous point, but I am sure that, like me, every hon. Member in the Chamber visits schools in their constituency often. When I see the potential in pupils such as those at Little Hadham primary school, where I was last, I cannot help but contemplate what future we are building for them. If it is one in which hundreds of thousands of council homes have been built in every community—and I do mean in our most rural villages as well as our greatest cities—for people of every background, including doctors, academics, farm workers, bus drivers, bin men and bar staff, then what our country will be able to offer them will be far greater than the prospects that adulthood currently holds.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Hinchliff]

Not at this point; I had better make progress.

Housing is by far and away the most oppressive, anxiety-inducing and life-stunting part of the cost of living crisis in this country. The price of rent or a mortgage leaves millions struggling to make the bills add up at the end of the month, and millions more only just staying afloat, with little left over to experience life’s other possibilities. If we build enough council housing—to end the years wasted on waiting lists, to ensure that every child has somewhere safe to learn and play and make that a normal part of life again, and to provide an anchor on housing costs for our whole society—then our economy, society and culture will be much healthier than they are.

Let us briefly imagine a boy or girl in a primary school classroom. If, when they reach adulthood, they are able to begin an independent life without shelling out upwards of a third or even half of their salary for a roof over their head, imagine what that would mean for our high streets, coffee shops, pubs, clubs, bars and restaurants. In a future with plentiful council housing, when genuinely affordable housing is recognised as a right of our citizens and not a rare collector’s item, no one, no matter how wealthy, will be able to buy up property and charge others extortionate rents for somewhere to live. With that model of economic vampirism finally laid to rest, billions of pounds currently sucked out of our local economies will begin to flow through our independent shops again.

Suppose that that young man or woman has artistic talents and wants to make their contribution to our society. With our current lack of council housing, how many of us really have the opportunity to explore talents and abilities that do not immediately help to enable us to pay rent? With plentiful, genuinely affordable homes, such that covering the cost of life’s essentials is no longer such an uphill battle, who knows how many McCartneys, Joan Armatradings or Michaela Coels we might have? Delivering council housing is about more than just bricks and mortar; it is about unleashing lost creativity across Great Britain and re-establishing our place as the world’s pre-eminent cultural superpower.

[Sean Woodcock]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Hinchliff]

I had better make progress; I am sorry.

Perhaps most importantly of all, if we succeed in delivering council housing in every community, we will take one of the most important steps in fighting the atomisation of our society, which brings so many social ills. If today’s children are able to put down roots wherever they are growing up, should they want to, with no need to move away in search of prospects and a home of their own, then friendships forged at school will no longer need looked back on with regret, as connections that once meant the world but could not survive the splintering imposed by a lack of homes for the young. Similarly, if the next generation is able to grow into adulthood alongside their parents, supporting them through older life will be a natural part of everything we do, not something we struggle to find time for, with the constant sense that we are left snatching for precious moments all too quickly passing by.

If our imaginary hero should fall in love and think about children of their own—and if we deliver council houses now—we can hope for a future in which the choice is simply whether a couple wishes to start a family, not whether they can afford one. Parents will be able to take time out of employment to raise their child and share in all their first memories, rather than living on borrowed time as burdens mount up.

In short, delivering the council homes our country needs to transform our housing market will make possible a society in which all the parts of life that really matter can finally come ahead of the relentless and disproportionate financial costs of housing that we see today.

How, then, do we realise these hopes? First, building a new generation of council housing is being held back by a pile of largely fictitious debt created by central Government. We cannot ask local councils to deliver the homes of tomorrow while burdened by a model that failed yesterday. Armed with even the best intentions, councils remain suffocated by housing revenue account debt; cancelling that HRA debt could deliver more than 280,000 additional social rent homes in the next decade.

To reverse decades of retreat from public house building and restore the public sector as the driving force in our housing market, new funding must come with new powers for local democracy. If we recognise that social housing delivers a public good, its provision cannot be put on a level playing field with speculative land promoters looking to make a quick buck, or be beholden to the supposed right of wealthy landowners to inflate the value of their land to extract more from the public purse. Councils need to be able to assemble all the land we need for developments, large and small, including where it is already optioned, and to acquire land at existing-use prices, so that council house building is viable in every part of the country.

Above all, we must invest in our councils’ institutional capacity to deliver the housing we need. Even with the fairest possible wind, and even if all the economically destabilising military conflicts around the world came to a close, the truth is that, if the Chancellor showered every local authority with all the funding they could want, the expertise and institutional knowledge to use it would no longer be there.

To deliver the council housing that I suspect every MP in this room wants to see, we need to attract the best and brightest in the country to work in our local authorities, whether as an elected member or as an officer. We need to restore the standing of our underfunded, undervalued and overworked councils, so that the whole country can see that a career in local government is the most tangible route to shaping the future of our nation. From town planning to architecture, design, ecology and construction standards, only the very best is good enough for our constituents, so local councils must be where people go to excel.

In our determination to remove the institutional barriers holding back council house building, we cannot undervalue solutions to get families out of temporary accommodation and off waiting lists now. The Prime Minister was right in his recent conference address to set out plans to take control of empty properties. We should back councils to acquire neglected and empty properties at scale. We have seen throughout our modern history that, in times of crisis, our citizens are conscripted for the common good. Where housing lies dormant during an emergency, we must be willing to take the same approach to property.

The truth is that, from the standing start that we have inherited, in which local authorities such as mine have not built a single council house in decades, new house building will take years to ramp up. However, the housing crisis is one that requires urgent resolution. We must therefore make the acquisition of existing properties to rebuild our council housing stock as important a part of the Government’s mission as new builds. With the housing market in the doldrums, we have a much-needed opportunity for councils to purchase and re-let at affordable rates hundreds of thousands of homes across the country, to bring down waiting lists now.

There are, of course, up-front costs, legislative hurdles and, I expect, a mouthful of teething problems, but it is the bitter medicine we must take today to stop the bleeding of public money to those profiting from the broken system. We must never forget that the Government’s £39 billion investment in affordable and social housing is dwarfed by the £70 billion that the Government are set to spend over the next five years on housing support to subsidise the gap between the rents that private landlords charge and what tenants can afford.

The need for the housing is there, and we are already paying for it. The only question before us is whether we turn that spending into a lasting public asset or keep paying over and over again for failure.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I remind all Back-Bench colleagues that you should continue to stand up, so that we know you still want to be called. You can see that there is a great deal of interest in this debate. I suggest that you all keep to about two and a half minutes; that way, we will get everybody in.

14:44

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy, and I say a big thank you to the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for securing this debate on an extremely pressing issue. The fact that so many hon. Members are present is an indication of that.

In England alone, over 1.3 million households are on the waiting list for social housing and it has been estimated that if the speed of delivering new social homes continues at the current rate, it will take more than a century to clear the waiting list. For every social home delivered this year, about 110 households were still waiting for one. Despite those shocking figures, in 20% of council areas across England not a single social home has been built in the last two years, and in 30% of council areas fewer than 10 social homes have been built. This is a massive issue.

We see the effects of a lack of social housing on private rental properties. In 2025, rents reached the highest level on record, amounting to a staggering 36.1% of average earnings. Rental accommodation is out of the pockets of many and buying a house is just a dream. That perpetuates a devastating cycle, as wages fail to keep pace with rising living costs, including energy bills and food prices, pushing more people into poverty and increasing demand for our already limited social housing.

I will quickly add a Northern Ireland perspective to the debate. In Northern Ireland, social housing is supplied by the Housing Executive, which face issues similar to councils in England. As of June this year, 50,000 households in Northern Ireland with no existing Housing Executive tenancy were on the social housing waiting list. For those who are already in Housing Executive properties, the wait for a transfer can be long and needs can evolve. In August 2026, it was estimated that almost 800 households had spent over a decade on the waiting list for transfer. It would be great to see a light at the end of the tunnel, but unfortunately we do not.

In rural constituencies, such as my constituency of Strangford, allocations of social homes have not kept pace with rising demand. The situation is particularly acute because rural areas have hidden housing need, older homes and increased exposure to fuel poverty. Investment in social housing is urgently needed to end the distress so many people are in, and we must recognise that such investment will indeed deliver long-term benefits. It is needed to end the distress and the uncertainty faced by families who have been left in limbo as they wait for a home.

14:47

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Sir Jeremy, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on securing this important debate.

If we track the history of council housing in Amber Valley, we see a story that I fear will sound all too familiar to other Members from across the House. It is a story of decline, neglect and short-sighted political choices, the consequences of which are still being felt today. In 1985, there were more than 5,000 council houses in Amber Valley. By 2003, just one remained. Why was that? During the period between 1985 and 2003, a Conservative-led borough council sold off virtually the entire stock. Make no mistake—it was not because the need for affordable housing had disappeared nor did it represent some great act of financial prudence. To add insult to injury, it is estimated that those houses were sold off to private ownership for only a ninth of their market value. Assets that had been built up over generations, which were paid for by local people and intended to provide secure and affordable homes, were effectively given away.

When Labour took control of the borough council in 2023, it inherited not only a shortage of council homes but the legacy of decades in which the council’s capacity to deliver new homes had been hollowed out. It was not just the housing stock that was gone. As a result, the first task facing the new Labour-led borough council was to rebuild the council’s ability to build homes. It had to restore confidence, capacity and the mechanisms to deliver, before bricks could be laid and properties acquired. Council officers have reskilled themselves admirably, and since 2023, 32 council houses have been acquired, with plans to deliver a further 33 in the pipeline. Those numbers sound modest, but they represent the hard work of rebuilding a housing programme from almost nothing.

More importantly, the council is now in a position to look beyond individual acquisitions towards larger-scale regeneration and house building. After years of stagnation, Amber Valley has adopted a local plan for the first time in two decades. It includes proposals that could deliver up to 180 new council homes on land around Aldreds Lane, and the council is also working closely with the East Midlands Mayor, Claire Ward, to unlock brownfield sites for future development. There is real momentum now. A Labour-led council has begun rebuilding the stock it had lost.

With that in mind, will the Minister outline what support the Government will provide to councils such as Amber Valley that have demonstrated the ambition and the capacity to deliver new council housing, and will he outline how the Government will help authorities to scale up those ambitions so that more families can access the homes that they need?

14:49

[Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)]

Britain’s housing crisis did not happen by accident. It is the direct result of political choices that placed profit over people. For decades, Governments have chosen to allow the stock of genuine council housing to decline while expecting the private market to pick up the pieces, and it clearly has not.

Across our region of Manchester and Tameside, 3,180 households are in temporary accommodation, including more than 5,000 children. Kids should be thinking about whether they are having their favourite meal for tea, not how they will crowd into accommodation unfit for purpose or facing the prospect of sleeping rough. To pay for temporary accommodation, councils have spent almost £3 billion in the past year, which is a staggering increase of 88% in just five years. That money is going straight into the pockets of private landlords, often to banks and big corporations that call property investments assets rather than homes.

I see what that means for people in Gorton, Denton, Abbey Hey, Burnage, Longsight and Levenshulme every single day. I see domestic abuse survivors paying eye-watering private rents while sat on waiting lists, despite being assessed as a priority, hard-working young people giving up on the dream of ever owning a home of their own, and elderly people who know that they will simply not be able to afford their rent once they retire.

The Green party is clear: we need a new generation of council housing that matches the scale of the challenge before us. That starts with putting an end to the loss of housing stock. Right to buy has removed hundreds of thousands of homes from the social sector, which are often now being rented out by private landlords. To be clear, I do not blame anyone who has bought their council home. The problem is with the policy that allowed affordable homes to be sold off without replacing them. Protecting existing stock is only part of the answer. Councils have to be given the tools and resources to build their own homes and to purchase privately owned ones. It means making better use of public land and helping councils to acquire the hundreds of thousands of long-term empty homes that should be brought back into public use.

The Government can continue to kick the can down the road by spending billions to manage the ever-worsening consequences of the housing crisis, or they can invest in solving it. My message to the Minister is simple: stop the loss of social housing, allow councils to buy homes back into public ownership, build council homes at scale and bring empty homes back into use, introduce rent controls and give councils the powers they need to lead the way. Every family deserves more than a roof over their head. They deserve a place to belong, and council housing remains one of the most effective ways the Government have of making that a reality.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

The good news is that I can be a little more generous and allow you all a whole extra 30 seconds each. With three minutes, I call Josh Newbury.

14:49

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I will start by singing the praises of what we have done in my constituency, because Labour’s record at Cannock Chase district council shows what can be achieved when a council is ambitious about providing the homes its residents need.

After more than 30 years without building new council homes, the last Labour administration, which I was proud to be part of as deputy leader, got building again. It started with the most unglamorous of sites: old garage blocks that were becoming increasingly difficult to rent out, many of which had turned into magnets for antisocial behaviour and drug dealing. We turned them into new homes, filling some of the biggest gaps in our housing stock. We also partnered with Lovell Homes to redevelop the former Aelfgar school site in Rugeley, where 58 new homes have been delivered, including 29 council houses. The ribbon may have been cut under Reform, but the groundwork was done under Labour.

That brings me to the Government’s plans to help councils do more, because in Cannock Chase a lack of ambition was never the problem, finding affordable finance was. That is why I welcome the extension of preferential public works loan board rates, which will help make the numbers stack up for councils looking to invest in new homes.

I also welcome the council house building support fund because councils need the right people and expertise to develop schemes, build pipelines of projects and put together strong bids for funding. That is something that my council found that we often missed out on when councils of other similar sizes were getting funding awarded. I hope that my district council will make full use of that opportunity.

I will also touch on empty homes, something that two constituents raised with me just last week. One is concerned about the number of green belt sites having to be released. The other, who is trying to get on to the housing ladder, very much welcomed the upcoming Your First Home scheme announced by the Prime Minister but felt that bringing empty homes back into use should also be part of the answer.

I therefore welcome the Government’s boost to the powers that councils can use to tackle the issue of long-term empty properties. Again, I encourage Cannock Chase district council to make full use of them, including for two semi-detached houses on Poplar Street in Norton Canes that have stood empty for many years. I am also interested to hear from the Minister about whether there is scope to take the number of long-term empty homes into greater account when housing targets are calculated.

Finally, I welcome the Government’s plans to tighten right to buy because we need to ensure that the council houses that we build remain available to people who need them well into the future. As we make it easier for councils to build again, I hope that we can gradually work towards ending right to buy altogether and protect that housing stock for the long term. That is ultimately what the debate is all about: making sure that people have access to a decent, secure and genuinely affordable home, whether that means building on a neglected garage site, regenerating a former school or bringing empty property back into use. Cannock Chase Labour has shown that councils can deliver, and I hope the Government’s measures will give more councils the means and confidence to do so in future.

14:56

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

Meur ras, Sir Jeremy, and it is an honour to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for securing this debate.

The single greatest barrier to economic regeneration in Cornwall is housing insecurity and affordability. Employers cannot recruit and retain, young people cannot remain in their home communities and families cannot put down roots unless we have access to a secure, affordable home. That is before we mention the key workers required to run civic society.

Social housing accounts for less than 13% of Cornwall’s entire housing stock, compared with 17% nationally. In peak season, we have 24,000 short-term lets across the duchy, while 25,000 Cornish households sit on waiting lists on the housing register. In fairness, Cornwall council has delivered 850 homes in the last six years through its housing revenue account and general fund, but its capacity to go further is deeply constrained.

How do we revitalise social house building in Cornwall? First, Ministers must review Cornwall council’s £90 million HRA debt arising from 2012’s self-financing settlement. The assumptions underpinning the settlement no longer reflect today’s pressures and servicing that inherited debt diverts money from maintaining existing stock and rebuilding new homes.

Secondly, councils should receive the same access to low-cost development finance as registered providers. Refinancing £52 million of planned development borrowing at 0.1% could save Cornwall council £19 million over 14 years, creating up to £1.8 million in annual revenue headroom and supporting up to £41 million of additional borrowing for new homes.

Thirdly, Cornwall must not be excluded from housing and investment powers because of our national minority status. A strategic place partnership with Homes England could provide both the framework and funding needed to deliver social housing at scale. We will never be part of a mayoral combined authority because of our national minority status, and we cannot be discriminated against and locked out of that funding.

I therefore ask Ministers to review the HRA debt, extend low-cost financing to councils and ensure Cornwall’s immediate access to a strategic place partnership with Homes England.

14:59

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on securing this important debate.

In Poole, we have one of the widest gaps between average wages and private rents in the country, and we suffer from a distinct lack of truly affordable housing for local people, with house prices that are 16% higher than the national figure sitting alongside rents far higher than rents in other parts of the south-west. In 2024-25, my local council built just 89 affordable homes, out of a total of 988 new properties. What we do have is a proliferation of luxury seafront apartments that local people cannot afford. It is no wonder that housing is the biggest issue raised by my constituents. Just 1% of properties in Poole are affordable to rent at the local rate of housing benefit. The freeze on local housing allowance is making rents unaffordable; it needs to be uprated urgently. Also, we need a system of rent controls, as a step towards easing the housing crisis while the building gets started .

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is giving an impassioned speech about Poole that is really resonating with me as the MP for Chichester, because I see in my constituency large-scale developments delivering four and five-bedroom luxury houses that are not affordable for most people. Does he agree that middle-income earners are particularly affected? A lot of our frontline service workers cannot afford private rents, but earn too much to be eligible for social housing. That is why we need to see a number of social homes across the whole country that the Government will deliver, so that developers cannot renege on their commitments to deliver the homes that we are asking for.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Yes. Obviously, there is an issue about viability and the way developers use that to renege on their earlier commitments to local authorities. There is also the key point that if we want the public sector and public services of the future, the workers who provide those services need to be able to afford to live in the area, so it is a circular argument that we need to keep making with the Government.

Building a new generation of council houses is essential to ending the housing crisis. The £39 billion social and affordable homes programme is welcome, but does not go far enough. The Government need to be more creative when it comes to longer term financing of the sector. Currently, £88 billion-worth of UK pension funds is invested in fossil fuel companies. What better use of that money could there be than redirecting it into council housing?

Let us be more ambitious in our growth agenda. Let us see a council house building programme as a key part of that ambition. Let us remove the historical debt from councils’ housing revenue accounts, which other Members have mentioned. Let us unlock low-cost financing for council house building, enable councils to buy land at the right price to build social rent homes, and bring empty properties back to life. Let us give future generations the hope that was there after 1945, with a real housing revolution that offers everyone a place they can call home.

15:03

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the chair, Sir Jeremy.

South Devon is a beautiful part of the world, with its stunning coastline and idyllic rural villages, but scratch the surface and you will find a severe housing crisis, which is eating away at the viability of our rural and coastal communities, threatening the very fabric of village life and turning parts of it into a theme park for the rich. Wages have fallen so far out of step with housing costs that local people are just being priced out of the communities they grew up in. I welcome aspects of the Bill, but it simply does not address the mechanics driving this crisis.

Housing associations exist to provide homes for people who cannot afford to buy or rent on the open market, yet a growing number of those homes are leaving the sector altogether. Since 2018-19, English housing associations have sold more than 25,000 social and affordable homes to private buyers, and the pace is quickening. Last year’s sales were the highest on record, having risen 89% in just two years.

Towns such as Salcombe and Dartmouth in South Devon are among the most expensive places to live in the country. Yes, they are full of second homes and short-term lets, but they are not just holiday destinations. Real people live there. These are people who grew up there, people who work there and people who keep essential local services running, but they are being priced out. One local housing association has sold 49 social homes since 2022, with the biggest losses in those high-cost areas. In Kingswear, another beautiful village by the sea, more than a third of the social housing stock has vanished in just three years; the primary school has closed down and with so few affordable homes left, there is nothing to draw young families back to the area. When challenged, the housing association points to replacement homes that it has bought in Sherford, a new town on the edge of Plymouth that is 30 miles away. That is no comfort to a family forced out of Kingswear.

Let us set that against demand. Across the South Hams and Torbay, 3,600 homes have been built in five years, but more than 2,500 households remain in formal housing need. That is because most of the new homes are sold at full market price, far beyond the reach of those who need them. When a social rented home does come up, the competition is extreme: there were 119 bids for one home in Malborough, 113 for one in Salcombe and 190 for one in Brixham.

The council has no say when a housing association decides to sell. The Social Housing Bill introduces a new disposal notification requirement intended to give local authorities a better chance of acquiring homes that would otherwise leave the sector. That is a step in the right direction and I welcome it, but it is not going to work, because being told that a home is about to be sold is not the same as being able to do anything about it. The Bill gives the council no first refusal, no priority and no right to step in ahead of a private buyer.

I would like to give a shout-out to Clay Park in Dartington, where a community land trust is delivering 39 energy-efficient homes, all for social rent, for people with local connections. We need to see this in all our villages: a few social homes in every village to keep it viable, keep young families there and allow older people to downsize. Community land trusts need to be able to build more easily. What provisions have been made in the Bill to support the work of these much-valued bodies?

15:06

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on securing this vital debate. I know from years in Cornwall how big an issue the lack of affordable and council housing has become in my constituency of Truro and Falmouth.

In Cornwall, the picture is stark: we have far lower levels of council housing than other parts of the country: only 11% of our stock is social housing, and the country-wide average is 18%. Cornwall’s HomeChoice register has over 26,000 households waiting for a home, against an estimated stock of 33,000 social and affordable homes right across Cornwall. We also have 800 households in temporary and emergency accommodation. The housing revenue account has a legacy debt of £92 million from the 2012 self-financing settlement, and that severely constrains Cornwall council’s ability to build, maintain and deliver social housing. Cornwall housing also has very low rental income, the result of decisions made by previous Lib Dem and independent council administrations. Bringing rents closer to national levels through rent conversions will take time, and the lack of income from low rents has resulted in a backlog of repairs that it is really struggling to get on top of.

The Government’s extra £1 billion for the social and affordable homes programme and the preferential rates for council house borrowing are very welcome, as are the safeguards in the Bill, for example, on rights to buy new builds. In Cornwall, we have housing associations that are strategic providers, working hard to build and provide homes in Cornwall, but our HRA struggles with its debt and repairs and has no headroom to borrow. HRA reform will be crucial if we are to build council homes in Cornwall, as will making it easier for HRAs to borrow.

15:08

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for securing this debate.

In my constituency of Horsham, the council stock was sold off long ago to Saxon Weald, a housing association, which does a pretty good job. For years, under a series of Tory administrations, there was little council interest in building any more, so I applaud the current Lib Dem-led council for its recent announcement of 22 new homes for social rent—that is a start, at least. However, having the will is not enough; you also need the means. In this context, the Government’s main housing strategy—the standard method for allocating local targets—is having a destructive effect. It did not work for the Tory Government, and it is not working for Labour, either.

A new Horsham district local plan is passing through the system right now, but it is simply not possible for an authority in an area such as mine to require the provision of large amounts of social housing—or, indeed, any. The subsidy system, based on section 106 taxes, does not generate nearly enough, and that means that councillors cannot set a guaranteed percentage of homes for social rent in the plan, even if they want to. Such a plan would be ruled unsound by the inspector because it is financially undeliverable.  That is exactly what happened to me when I was cabinet member for planning a few years ago.

Because Horsham ranks as a relatively affluent area, it is not in line for Government subsidies. Ironically, the locations that face the highest housing costs are precisely those least likely to get any Government investment support. We have a system designed to deliver cheap housing in areas that, on average, have more cheap housing. The Government obsession with counting permissions instead of actual real-life houses has directly undermined Horsham’s ability to deliver low-cost housing. Unfeasibly high targets force the council to accept developer proposals that are optimised for quantity not affordability. In reality, private developers are principally in control of choosing the sites; councils merely edit them.

In an area like Horsham, where most of the district is farmland, the market drives developers to buy up green spaces on the edge of existing settlements. The result is a strong incentive for suburban house building, which by its nature tends to poorer affordability and wasteful land use. At the same time, we have a construction industry trapped in a boom-and-bust cycle.

The absence of consistent local authority house building makes it much harder to bring in low-cost models, such as modern modular construction, because that depends on a continued reliable delivery pipeline. That is one reason why Legal & General, which bravely invested in this market, was forced to close its modular arm a few years ago. Whatever the Government decide to do, some further change of policy is necessary. I hope the Minister will be honest and realise that the current trajectory is not going to solve anyone’s problem in any reasonable length of time.

15:11

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for securing this debate.

Norwich was at the birth of social housing, building its first council house on Angel Road 100 years ago. Shortly after, came the Mile Cross estate, one of the first of its kind. By the 1970s, our city had a higher proportion of council housing than any other in the country. Labour in Norwich continued that delivery. We delivered Goldsmith Street—105 council homes built to Passivhaus standards and the first council housing project to win the Royal Institute of British Architects Stirling prize. At the old Mile Cross depot in my constituency, a Labour council planned and funded 67 new council homes for rent, with more on the full site. Anglia Square stood undeveloped for years, then a Labour Government gave a Labour city council the funding to unlock the site and get building, delivering 1,100 homes, with a commitment that at least 50% will be affordable, many at social rent.

I pay tribute to the former Labour council leaders, including Mike Stonard, Alan Waters, Brenda Horner and Steve Morphew, for their work driving that vision forward, and Carli Harper, who has put housing at the centre of her campaign to be Mayor of Norfolk and Suffolk.

That is what delivery looks like, but it is not finished. We have to do much more to ensure that the council homes my constituents need are delivered. Since May, the Green party has run Norwich city council. I want them to succeed and not squander Labour’s legacy on housing. My message is simple: see those schemes through; do not let them slip and do not dilute them. The need is real, with almost 4,000 households in Norwich waiting for a home. Those are not statistics; they are people who have done everything right and are still waiting.

What needs to happen? First, we need investment, so I welcome the Government’s £39 billion programme for social and affordable homes. I declare an interest as the chair of the East of England housing delivery group. The region is expected to deliver 227,000 homes to support the Government’s targets over the course of this Parliament. If we are to do that, we must get our fair share of investment. Houses do not build themselves, so we need to ensure we have the skills in the pipeline to accelerate construction and deliver them. Our need for homes must be recognised as urgent.

Secondly, with others, I welcome the decision to let councils keep their right-to-buy receipts, which will make a huge difference. Thirdly, it is not enough to build homes; they have to be of good quality. People in council housing deserve high-quality homes, such as the ones Norwich Labour built on Goldsmith Street. Too many constituents still contact me with concerns about the quality of housing. Fourthly, homes must be eco-friendly. Goldsmith Street proves that warm, low-energy homes with bills tenants can afford are not a luxury; they are what council housing should be. Every new council home we build, should be built to the same ambition.

Fifthly, community is important. Mile Cross worked a century ago because it was never just about housing; it was also a community. Its centenary in 2023 was beautifully celebrated by The Common Lot. A home is only as good as what surrounds it: the bus that turns up, the GP we can book, the school within walking distance, the park, and the shop on the corner. When we build homes, we must build that community, too. The Norwich Labour party still believes that, and I know Labour in government believes that, so we must keep building to deliver the council homes that so many people still desperately need.

15:14

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for securing this debate and for presenting a very persuasive argument.

One of the biggest casework inquiries that I get in my constituency concerns the shortage of housing. Birmingham, which has the largest council in Europe, has an enormous housing issue—just look at the stats. In the west midlands region, we have 7,500 homeless families living in temporary accommodation, including 15,000 children. That has an impact on families and the children, who often live many miles from their school, with parents struggling to maintain their jobs because they have to escort their children to school. It will have a dramatic effect on our future generations. Birmingham has the youngest community, and I fear the impact that a lack of affordable homes will have on our next generation.

There are 65,000 families on the social housing waiting list. I am sure the Minister will say that the West Midlands combined authority has received somewhere in the region of £400 million to develop and build 3,000 additional homes, which of course is welcome, but when we contrast the numbers with the requirements, it really is a drop in the ocean. There will also be private developers, but one of the biggest issues that I see and that my constituents feel is that it is not just about building homes anywhere just to meet the quota, but about building communities and ensuring we have the right infrastructure: GP surgeries, medical care facilities and local shopping centres. A whole infrastructure needs to be thought of.

Planning is another big issue. The Labour Government often say they champion devolution and localisation and want local people involved in decision making. However, Birmingham is being asked to be anti-devolution, because planning powers could be given to the regional mayor. If that happens, it will take away that community on the ground who want homes where they fulfil all the criteria.

May I quickly ask the Minister a question? I know we have limited time. The Perry Barr Village was developed at a cost to taxpayers of £700 million. It was sold to Legal and General at a loss to the taxpayer of £350 million. Will the Minister inquire into what happened with that loss of £350 million to Birmingham taxpayers?

15:18

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for securing this debate.

I want to speak up for Portsmouth today, a city that at its peak had 27,000 council homes and now has fewer than 16,000. Our city is in the grip of a housing crisis, with too many people struggling to find a secure and affordable home. We have a waiting list of almost 3,000 households, with almost 50% of those being exceptional or urgent priority. Yet in 2024-25 Portsmouth built just 40 new homes—not 40 social homes, but 40 new homes in total. In the same period, only 15 units for social rent were added to the council stock, with just six more being started. Behind those figures are families waiting for a home, young people struggling to find somewhere they can afford, and residents facing the insecurity of unaffordable rent or moving from temporary accommodation to temporary accommodation.

I know personally what a council home means. I grew up in one and many of my aunties and uncles, and my own parents were born and lived in council housing. For my family it meant stability, security and the opportunity to build a future. Council housing is more than bricks and mortar. It gives people a foundation in life, a community and a place to call home, and every family deserves one. That is why I am proud that this Labour Government have committed to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. We are invigorating council house building and taking action to protect existing social housing, but that national ambition must translate into homes on the ground in Portsmouth. More families need the security I experienced growing up in a safe, affordable home, and the chance to build a better future.

Cannock Chase and historical Norwich city council have shown what can be achieved when a council creates opportunity, and I commend their vision. Portsmouth should look at what works elsewhere and how we can translate that to my city. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what practical support the Government can provide to help Portsmouth city council overcome barriers to planning, building, developing derelict sites, regenerating empty homes and unlocking investment to deliver the council houses and social rented homes my residents desperately need?

Portsmouth city council must act; my residents cannot afford to wait any longer to have a secure place to call home.

15:20

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

I want to offer a Scottish perspective on the subject. In May 2024, the Scottish Parliament declared a national housing emergency. That was a significant admission, but declaring an emergency is not the same as resolving one. More than two years later, the figures make uncomfortable reading.

Across Scotland, more than 10,000 children are living in temporary accommodation. That is the highest number on record. There are almost 35,000 open homelessness cases, which is also a record high. Last year, there were more than 21,000 recorded instances in which local authorities failed to offer temporary accommodation to households entitled to it, an increase of almost a third.

Those figures come from the Scottish Government’s own statistics, a couple more of which came out just this morning. The “Housing Statistics for Scotland” report found that house building has fallen by 8% in the last year and we have more than 10,000 council houses sitting vacant, often as a result of lack of funds or people to bring them back into use.

Housing is a constant feature of my constituency casework. We hear from families in overcrowded homes and people living in unsuitable accommodation. Most express a lack of confidence that they will ever find somewhere appropriate to live. As a former council leader, I know that providing good council housing takes more than ambition; it takes resources and power, something that this Labour Government are looking to devolve to local communities in England. However, in Scotland, the SNP is centralising rather than devolving powers.

I have seen what can be achieved when these things come together because Stirling has been ranked first in the UK for roof-top solar installations relative to households. Our long-running programme of installing solar panels on council houses contributed significantly to that achievement. Successive council administrations invested in improving housing stock, helping tenants with energy costs and delivering environmental benefits.

I also want to highlight the importance of housing to rural economies. Stirling council has recently allocated UK Government funding to new houses in Tyndrum at the northern end of my constituency. Local tourism businesses tell me they struggle to recruit staff because prospective employees cannot find affordable accommodation. If a hotel or restaurant cannot recruit because workers have nowhere to live, housing becomes an economic as well as a social issue. In small rural communities, even a handful of new, affordable homes can make an enormous difference, but much more needs to be done.

I welcome the UK Government’s commitment to increasing council and social house building in England. We must share lessons from across the United Kingdom because devolution should never mean that we stop learning from one another. Ultimately, the test of housing policy is not how many targets we announce, strategies we publish or emergencies we declare, but how many families finally receive the keys to a safe, secure and affordable home. For far too many of my constituents, that day still feels too distant.

To conclude with a bit of history, it pains me to admit that Scotland’s first pioneering council housing development was in Dundee, rather than in my constituency of Stirling and Strathallan, but I was fascinated to discover that, even before the Stirling houses were occupied in May 1920, the Commons was debating their affordability. In April 1920, Labour MP Alexander Wilkie questioned the Secretary of State for Scotland about rents that threatened to price out the very working people the homes were intended to help. More than a century later, we are still grappling with that same fundamental challenge of providing good homes that people can afford.

15:23

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Council housing saved my family’s life. Council housing gave me a life. Council housing meant that a once homeless lad got to be here to fight for everybody, to ensure that there is no homelessness in this country ever again.

When we talk about council housing delivery, most people think about building from scratch, but there are other options. Buying and refurbing existing long-term empty houses and buildings means we can increase the housing stock at a lower cost and, crucially, we can do it faster.

When we talk about housing, it is easy to think primarily about the housing market, the economic impacts, the cost of mortgages or rents, or the cost of living, but we are also talking about whether people have a permanent home or not.

When we talk about homelessness, we often think first about rough sleeping. Yet homelessness takes many forms, and family homelessness cannot be overlooked. That is often not on the streets; it is whole families with children living on one mattress at a friend or relative’s house, as I did at 15 years old, or moving between a series of bed and breakfasts and other emergency—supposedly temporary—accommodation, which can last for years. Because it is not visible, and because we do not see the impact, we often do not treat it with the urgency it deserves.

At the end of March this year, there were 177,530 children living in temporary accommodation in England. In Doncaster in 2025, we had more than 200 children living without a permanent roof over their heads. Perhaps even more concerning is that more than 22,000 families with children have been living in temporary accommodation for between two and five years. For some children, that could be the majority of their lives.

There are 7,800 active households on the register in Doncaster right now. That insecurity of not having a place that is permanent can be devastating. It affects children’s education, their physical and mental health, their relationships and their opportunities later in life. A permanent home is about so much more than having somewhere to sleep; it is about having somewhere you belong. I can absolutely vouch for that, having had lived experience of it.

There are more than 300,000 long-term empty homes across England. Acquiring long-term empty houses for social housing could deliver more than 8,000 additional social rented homes by June 2029, requiring 38% less Government grant per property than new build alternatives. That means more homes for the same level of investment, and families in them much more quickly. When we have families spending years in temporary accommodation, we cannot afford to overlook opportunities to deliver permanent homes much more quickly. It also makes sense financially: councils are spending billions each year on temporary accommodation, but investing in permanent housing can reduce our reliance on those arrangements.

Ultimately, the success of our housing programmes must be measured not just by the number of homes delivered, but by the number of families who are able to leave homelessness behind and build secure, stable lives in the future. We need to deliver those homes, and we need to deliver them as fast as we possibly can.

15:27

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

Sir Jeremy, it is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship.

Across the span of one of England’s largest constituencies, housing, or the lack of it, is one of the main drivers of people coming to my constituency surgeries. It is one of the main drivers of people in desperate need of a place to call home, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) has just movingly set out. It is an issue that needs to be taken far more seriously, not just in this place but across the country. The particular lack of access to affordable and social housing in some of our most rural communities is something that has escaped much of the national debate in recent years.

Unfortunately, I must say that the Morpeth Conservatives, who run Northumberland county council, are currently engaged in what I can only describe as an ongoing misinformation exercise about the impact of trying to provide more housing. It is very clear to me that what is needed across Northumberland is appropriate development of the homes that are needed to allow people to build lives and communities, and to keep those communities together and functioning, but also to provide long-term stability to young people growing up in those communities, so that they know they will be able to have a life where they have grown up, should they wish to, rather than growing up with their noses pressed against the windows of communities that they will never be able to be part of because they cannot get a home there.

I will not keep colleagues’ attention for too long, but the crucial thing, from where I stand, is delivering those homes in areas where people can have access to them, where they can be rented at a reasonable rate, and, crucially, ensuring that they are not removed from circulation but are accessible to local people, so that those people can work in the pubs, shops and businesses that keep the lifeblood of our communities moving.

Without that, we will continue to see younger people forced out of rural communities, forced to leave their families and unable to care for their elderly relatives. That is something that comes up far too often—time and again—in my regular constituency surgeries.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I thank the Back-Bench speakers for their co-operation and discipline. We now come to the Front-Bench speeches, beginning with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

15:29

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Thank you, Sir Jeremy. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) not only on securing the debate but on the powerful and thoughtful way in which he commenced it, as usual. I also congratulate the other 15 hon. Members who contributed. I cannot disagree with any of the points made powerfully by them, and I hope that the Minister is listening.

I declare an interest as a member of the Cornwall Rural Housing Association and as a past chief executive, now volunteer board member, of the Cornwall Community Land Trust, which is a registered provider of affordable homes across Cornwall and on the Isles of Scilly. I noticed that we were not only debating the issue of council housing but straying into questions about the integrity of the planning and development system. That system is of course critical to delivering the big house building programme that the Government have promised. It is clear that in many parts of the country house building, particularly of social and affordable homes, has stalled.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

An issue we have seen in my constituency is developers citing viability assessments to try to renege on the commitments that they originally outlined to deliver social and affordable homes. They would rather pay something called a commuted sum—in effect a fine—that does not actually help to deliver social homes at scale. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister should look at the way the commuted sum is assessed so that we do not lose the opportunity for social homes to be delivered?

[Andrew George]

Indeed. There are many ways in which Ministers need to look at our whole housing planning system. It operates almost as if local needs were an inconvenient afterthought. Despite tinkering at the edges of the planning system, successive Governments have left it so that it still rewards land value speculators more than council or charitable housing providers; puts developer profit—which can be set at a level of 20% when valuation of developments is undertaken—before affordable homes; and turns a blind eye to the transfer of thousands of homes intended for permanent occupancy into property investment portfolios as second homes for recreational and holiday use. I want to reflect on the speeches of my two constituency neighbours, the hon. Members for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon). I put on record my strong support for the case they made for investment in Cornwall’s desperately needed social and affordable housing stock.

This week’s announcement of further investment in social and affordable homes—I am sure the Minister will repeat it—is of course welcome. It is on top of the £39 billion in the social and affordable homes programme that was announced last year. However, those investments are dwarfed by the billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money gifted through various tax reliefs and loopholes, and by private capital that, in my part of the world, drives investment into holiday lets created when local tenants are evicted to make way for that investment. It is bad enough that such tax subsidies are granted at all, but not all those subsidies—which local authorities are obliged to grant—are compensated for by the Treasury. That contributes to a growing black hole in local government finances and leads to cuts in essential local services.

I am bound to take this opportunity to draw attention to the fact that I was fortunate in the private Member’s Bill ballot. My Homes and Planning Bill will come before Parliament again on Friday 13 November. I hope that all those who spoke in this debate and their colleagues will come along to support the Bill, as it stands a good chance of being enacted. It provides the tools with which the Government and local communities can deliver the kind of affordable homes that we have been talking about, which are desperately needed. Our housing system is a shameful display of just how wide the growing inequality is in this country.

We need to understand better why the planning and housing policies of successive Governments have failed. As the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire articulately put it, planning policies are based on house building targets, but they have not delivered. Policy designers seem to have overlooked the fact that house building targets are merely a means to an end—the end being, of course, to meet housing need.

My own area of Cornwall is a classic example of an area where planning policy has failed. It is one of the fastest growing places in the United Kingdom; indeed, in the last 60 years, it has almost trebled its housing stock. And yet over that same period the housing problems of local people have got worse, as we have already heard from my constituency neighbours, the hon. Members for Truro and Falmouth, and for Camborne and Redruth. So we know that simply having house building—particularly if it is building the wrong type of housing, which is simply for wealthy people or for investment purposes—does not actually help to meet housing needs.

The housing policy of this Government—like, to be fair, the housing policies of successive Governments—is based on a delusion that private developers are prepared to collude with Government to drive down the price of their finished product. Local authorities should be given the option to set targets to meet local need, rather than simply being told to go out and build homes, and to allow those homes to be built.

Indeed, what the Government have done has made matters worse, although I am sure that it was done with the best intentions. As the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire implied, perhaps Ministers became so sidetracked or distracted by, or even obsessed with, facing down anti-development nimbys—rightly; of course they should do that—that they did not consider that imposing unachievable house building targets overnight on local authorities might become counterproductive, because 18 months ago local authorities suddenly found themselves unable to demonstrate that they had carefully identified and consulted on a sufficient five-year land supply. As a result of that, development opportunities on the edges of our communities, instead of being delivered under a rural exceptions policy for affordable homes, are now being granted by planning inspectors, because there is not a five-year land supply for unaffordable homes. So, we have lost that opportunity and the policy has been totally counterproductive.

The purpose of my private Member’s Bill is to give communities the right to buy, so that a community asset becomes land or buildings that could help a community to deliver affordable homes. This is community-led housing of the type that my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), for example, has talked about.

Also, there should be new planning limits on second homes and holiday homes, so that someone would have to apply for planning permission to convert a property from a permanent home to a holiday home or second home. I hope that Government Members will come along on 13 November to support my private Member’s Bill, because the Minister for Housing and Planning, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook)—he is obviously not here in Westminster Hall today because he is engaged with the Social Housing Bill, which is very relevant to our debate today—has indicated that he is unable to support my Bill. Consequently, we have a debate on our hands.

The Liberal Democrats would increase the building of new and affordable and social homes, and we would make sure, on a number of fronts, to make homes warmer and cheaper and easier to heat, with a 10-year emergency upgrade programme to ensure that all new homes are zero carbon, as well as giving control of right to buy to local authorities, which will be enabled to vary discounts based on local need, or—as a last resort—to suspend the right to buy all together.

In view of the short time I have left, I will not list all the policies that would deliver the utopia that a Liberal Democrat Government would undoubtedly deliver as far as housing is concerned. However, I will urge the Minister, particularly as we have the vehicle of the Social Housing Bill in Committee at the moment, to take heed of what his colleagues have said to him this afternoon and to accept amendments to improve that Bill.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

In the interests of order, I should probably make it clear that other private Members’ Bills are available.

15:38

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and to take part in this debate about the delivery of council housing. It is a debate on a very important topic and I thank the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for securing it.

Building more homes is a critical mission for anyone governing England and Wales today, in order to make the dream of home ownership a reality for even more hard-working families. With a record number of people homeless, and with 177,530 children and 49,120 adult households in temporary accommodation, clearly the priority must be to build more council homes. That is what the Opposition want to happen, but that is what the Government are currently failing to do.

Let us take a look at the Government’s own data. Just 208,600 net additional dwellings were added in England in Labour’s first year of power. That was a 6% drop from 2023-24, which was the last Conservative Government’s final year in office. Of these, 190,600 were new homes, a fall of 8,000, around 4%, on 2023-24. Taken together, the Government are on track to build around 400,000 fewer homes than they promised at the election, meaning yet another broken promise made to the British people. The Government know that—the Minister’s boss, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), admitted this on national media.

That poor showing on homes directly impacts the pressing issue we are debating today, which is the delivery of council housing. We heard the Prime Minister proudly making his summer promise of the comeback of the council house, but what little details we do know on that policy show that the money he has earmarked would equal just 15,494 homes a year, barely 5% of the Government’s annual housing target. That is in exchange for another £79 billion added to the housing subsidy bill, despite the fact that the UK already spends the most on housing allowances as a percentage of GDP of any OECD country.

One might have been forgiven for thinking that the aptly-titled Social Housing Bill introduced earlier this year might have been the answer to get local authorities, the Government, industry, and the nation building again. However, as is becoming a theme in this Government, we are left severely disappointed by the reality. The Government have presented a Bill to the House that fails to build a single new council house. Instead of making social and affordable housing sites viable and pushing developments through the pipeline at pace—the Government love to use that phrase—to get people off the street and help children into permanent homes, they have chosen to use up parliamentary, Government and civil service time on an ideological assault on right-to-buy. It is a shameful course of action, and far from what the 1.34 million people on the social housing wait list need.

Even worse is that the Government know this Social Housing Bill will not deliver new homes. According tousb data from the Minister’s own impact assessment, in 2026-27 the pre-November 2024 baseline was 8,050 right-to-buy sales, leading to 5,450 replacement homes. The document goes on to show that if this Bill were to pass and the legacy impacts were to wind down in the period of 2031-35, annual right-to-buy sales would fall to around 1,100 a year, with around 1,450 replacement homes. That means that by their own analysis and admission, the Government will be overseeing a housing system in which there would be 4,000 fewer new social homes funded every year. Moreover, research conducted by the House of Lords Library shows that only a net 3% of social homes become available each year to new tenancies. That means that around 90 additional homes will be available for a new tenant each year instead of 5,000.

The Bill would not only mean no new homes built, but would actively prevent them from being delivered. The Government really must refocus their efforts on building more council housing, and that requires serious reforms to the viability of sites for social and affordable homes. We are halfway through a Parliament in which we have spent much time debating the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, various updates to the national planning policy framework and the aforementioned Bill, yet after all of that we are still left without a clear route to building more homes. Projections from the Government show they will have managed to build just 26% of their target in 50% of the time.

[Alice Macdonald]

Obviously we are in government now, but will the hon. Lady reflect on her party’s policies in terms of not letting councils keep right-to-buy receipts or the fact that nearly 200,000 homes were lost in one decade under the Conservatives?

[Sarah Bool]

Of course, it is always important to reflect on any of the legacies but we have to talk about the here and now. It has rightly been said that this Government are in control; the Social Housing Bill is supposed to unlock the system and yet it will not do that. Our questions should be directly to the Minister about how the Government will unlock the potential that everyone in this room wants to see. That is why the Conservative party proposes taking £50,000 off the cost of building a new home in England and Wales by cutting back on regulations and taxes; backing a genuinely brownfield-first approach to see new homes built on the existing 1.41 million sites viable for development; building, not blocking; a genuine council house comeback; and supporting aspiration.

[Joe Morris]

On that point, will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Bool]

I am just concluding. I call on the Minister to commit to changing the Social Housing Bill, to back the delivery of council housing and to help bring the shocking number of people in temporary accommodation down. That is the only way to see more council houses built, to see more people into safe and affordable accommodation and to get Britain building.

15:45

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on securing this important debate on the delivery of council housing. I appreciate his passion for the subject following the debate that he brought forward last September on the provision of council housing. I also thank all Members for their rich contributions. They really reflect the challenges that exist across the country.

Nearly 180,000 children are in temporary accommodation in this country, and over 1.3 million households are on local authority housing registers. Members across the House will agree that we cannot allow that to continue, because behind every one of those statistics is a person, a family and a child. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Housing Minister and the whole Government are clear on our resolve and intention to tackle the issue. We are also clear that councils have a leading role to play.

Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, the Government are committed to delivering the biggest council house building programme since the post-war period. That level of ambition is necessary because of the scale of the challenge that we are facing. This Government are removing barriers and backing councils to use all the levers at their disposal to deliver safe and decent homes at a scale not seen for decades.

We have taken decisive steps to improve councils’ financial resources, capacity and capability to invest in new and existing homes, and the social and affordable homes programme funding is putting councils at the heart of that delivery. It is the biggest long-term investment in social and affordable homes in recent memory. Initial allocations under the programme were announced in August and, for the first time, three councils outside of London—Newcastle, Eastleigh and Cambridge—were awarded strategic partnership status. The Greater London Authority has also offered allocations of at least £6 billion to providers of social and affordable housing, with 60% going to local councils.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Leeds is one of the biggest local authorities in England. We have 27,000 households on the waiting list for council housing, 5,000 of which are in priority need. So many constituents come to me saying that they just cannot afford private rented homes. The main issue is that there is just not enough council housing. I welcome the Government saying that they are building more houses, but there needs to be specific help for Leeds, including both more funding for land remediation and the purchasing of city centre developments that are unoccupied or under-occupied. What additional support can the Government provide for that type of housing?

[Jim McMahon]

Leeds city council is ambitious for its city and is a key member of the West Yorkshire combined authority. It is doing a lot of work, not just on housing but on bringing forward brownfield sites through growth and infrastructure funding to make sure that, as many Members have said, housing goes alongside that wider community infrastructure.

In addition to the funding that I have just mentioned, over £21 billion is still to allocate, which will be prioritised for social homes, particularly council homes. That reflects our commitment to increasing council house delivery. To further improve financial capacity, deliver new supply and invest in existing homes, we have committed to a 10-year social housing rent policy with a convergence mechanism. That gives councils much needed certainty on their income to enable them to increase and manage their housing portfolios efficiently and effectively.

[Jim Shannon]

We also need to remember that the Government are committed to building a million-plus social homes over the next period of time. Over the last 12 months, house prices in Northern Ireland have consistently risen by a greater rate than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Housing rents are also going up. Will the Minister share the Government’s strategy to address the social housing need with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that we can learn something from the process that the Government are putting forward?

[Jim McMahon]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about the different approaches across the UK and how we can all learn from each other on what works, as well as learn from the areas where it perhaps did not go quite as planned. I will make sure that I pass his comments on to the Housing Minister to have conversations across Governments. 

We have also provided greater certainty on future costs associated with the decent homes standard and the minimum energy efficiency standards. We have allocated more than £1 billion through the warm homes social housing fund to improve the energy efficiency of social homes. Quality matters, as rightly outlined by my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) and for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury).

In addition to revenue, we know how important borrowing and the capacity to borrow are for councils’ delivery plans. Since 2023, a preferential borrowing rate has been available from the Public Works Loan Board for council house building. This rate will be extended and we will be announcing more details in due course.

We continue to work closely with councils and the wider sector to understand the remaining barriers to council house building and investment, including the impact of the housing revenue account debt and borrowing rates. We have also increased the threshold at which councils must open a housing revenue account from 200 homes to 1,000 homes. That is enabling small councils to deliver more homes without incurring additional operating costs.

We have also heard from councils that workforce shortages, skills gaps and capacity pressures will constrain their abilities to build. That is why we are investing a further £46 million over the next three years through capacity to build funding, on top of the £17 million already invested since 2025. That will help councils develop an ambitious pipeline, strengthen specialist housing capacity and make the most of the Government’s wider investment in council house building. These gaps have been identified by Members in the debate today, including the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Joe Morris), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham).

Finally, we are taking decisive action to reform the right-to-buy scheme, which has acted as a break on council confidence to invest in new social housing for too long. We are reforming the scheme to ensure that more homes are built than lost, while maintaining an important route for social housing tenants to own their own homes, which was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth).

My right hon. Friend the Housing Minister is at this very moment in the Bill Committee, debating the detail of our reforms. The Social Housing Bill builds on the reforms to cash discounts that we implemented in 2024 to ensure that more social homes are protected, while removing powerful disincentives to build. Notably, we are tightening the eligibility requirements and exempting newly built social housing from the scheme for 35 years to ensure that homes are not sold before councils have recovered their investment.

[Ayoub Khan]

The Minister will have heard me talk about the £400 million being invested through the regional authority for 3,000 homes. I contrast that with the more than £700 million invested of taxpayer money in the Perry Barr athletes’ village, which was then sold at a loss to the taxpayer of £350 million. Can the Minister assure me that that matter will be investigated?

[Jim McMahon]

Today is not about getting into the rights and wrongs of individual programmes at local authority level. The hon. Member and I have had many conversations about Birmingham city council in the past and I am sure that will continue. The matter here today is how central Government ensure that we have the framework, the incentives and the funding to get councils building council homes and social homes in their area.

In addition, we have enabled councils to retain 100% of receipts from right-to-buy sales and provided greater flexibility on how those receipts can be used. That includes permitting councils to combine receipts with grant funding to unlock capacity for house building.

These measures are already bearing fruit. Councils delivered around 10,600 homes in 2024-25, which is the highest level since current records began in 1991-92. Our package of right-to-buy reforms is estimated to deliver a net gain of around 18,000 social homes over the next 10 years, compared with a pre-reform baseline of a loss of 26,000 homes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) mentioned empty homes. We are strengthening powers to bring empty homes back into use by reforming empty dwelling management orders. We are reducing the period for which a property must be empty before it becomes eligible from two years to six months under that programme.

We know that we must go further and faster to deliver the good-quality, affordable homes that people need. We also know that councils share that ambition. The Government are committed to backing councils to build at a scale not seen for decades, and to build the right homes in the right places. We will continue to work with all levels of local and regional government to turn that ambition into homes and better outcomes for local people, so that everyone across the country has access to a home that is decent, secure and affordable.

15:54

[Chris Hinchliff]

I thank all hon. Members for contributing to a wide-ranging and passionate debate.

I note that the Minister did not quite answer the one question I left him with, which was about the number of council houses that the Government are projecting to achieve. A quick search on my phone during the debate suggested that 47,000 council houses were built in 1979, which I suspect is when most of us would suggest the post-war period came to an end. I am genuinely interested to know whether the Government are aiming for something like that figure per year.

More generally, I would like the Minister to take away two key points from the debate. First, we must move away from a failed housing delivery model in this country. It seems we have accepted for a long time that we can afford to build only unaffordable homes. It is a ludicrous failure and we must put an end to it. Secondly, we heard so many times about the 1.3 million people in this country on waiting lists and the nearly 180,000 children in temporary accommodation. It must be one of the most important yardsticks by which the Government measure themselves that, by the time we come to the next general election, those figures are no longer rising but have substantially fallen.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the delivery of council housing.

15:56

Sitting suspended.

Domestic Farming and Food Supply

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Westminster Hall

15:59

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Carla Lockhart will move the motion, and the Minister will respond. I remind all other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention in shorter debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered domestic farming and food supply.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Tomorrow the Chancellor of the Exchequer will stand at the Dispatch Box and tell us what this Government intend to do for the economy. Before those decisions are finalised, I want to make the case for the people who put food on our tables, because whatever Ministers say about supporting working people, farming families have every reason to feel that they have been singled out.

I know personally how hard farmers work. I know the hours, the worry and the sacrifices needed to keep a farm functioning. There is precious little spare money on many farms and certainly no shortage of bills, yet this Government seem to look at a farm valuation and see a pot of money waiting to be taxed. They show very little understanding of how farming actually works. Agriculture is devolved. I get that; I recognise it, and I have plenty to say about the decisions being taken at Stormont. But inheritance tax, trade policy and Treasury decisions are matters for this Government and their consequences are felt on farms throughout our United Kingdom.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend my hon. Friend for bringing this debate forward. The Ulster Farmers’ Union is represented here, and I declare an interest as one of those. Our national food security relies inherently on the economic viability of our local family farms. For the agrifood capital that is Strangford—my constituency—domestic farming is not just an industry. Does my hon. Friend agree with me and share my concerns that the family farm inheritance tax could well be the death knell for family farms in Northern Ireland?

[Carla Lockhart]

Absolutely, and that is the focus of my speech today.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I regularly meet South Shropshire farmers, who work night and day to put food on the table, and hear about the challenges that they face. Does the hon. Member agree that everything should be done to unlock all the red tape that the farmers have to deal with to produce food? Food production should be considered part of national security and resilience, because we need to ensure that we are self-sufficient.

[Carla Lockhart]

I agree fully. Labour often says that that is part of national security, but actions speak louder than words in many ways.

Northern Ireland punches well above its weight. We have less than 3% of the UK’s population, but produce more than 10% of its food output by value. We supply about one fifth of UK egg production and approximately one sixth of its dairy, beef and poultry output. Those figures should leave Ministers in no doubt about Northern Ireland’s importance to feeding this nation. In Upper Bann, farming keeps a whole network of businesses going. The feed merchant, the machinery dealer, the haulier, the veterinary practices and the processors all depend on a viable industry. When money stops being spent on farms, those businesses feel it too.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing this debate to the House. Will she also acknowledge that the Ulster Farmers’ Union pre-Budget membership survey showed that 84% of its membership have postponed, cancelled or reduced investment in at least one of the seven areas on which they were surveyed, and that has a knock-on effect on supply chains across the country?

[Carla Lockhart]

Absolutely. That was my next point: 84% of respondents to this survey have reduced, postponed or cancelled investment. That is really stark. More than half identified inheritance tax policy as a barrier to investment. Farmers are holding back on replacing machinery, improving livestock housing and carrying out drainage work. Ministers keep telling farmers to become more productive. How are they supposed to do that if the money needed to invest is being held back to prepare for a future tax bill? I welcome the increase in the combined agricultural and business property relief allowance from the original proposal of £1 million to £2.5 million per person, but I have never accepted that that resolves the problem.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving leadership on this issue, and so many others. Does she agree that in Northern Ireland and across the UK, domestic farming must be viable, and that, to achieve that, the Government must provide support to help farmers manage rising costs and ensure that producers receive a fair return?

[Carla Lockhart]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member’s assessment. I cannot be clearer: the family farm tax should be scrapped, and if Labour does not scrap it tomorrow, the party—and particularly its rural MPs—will not be forgiven at the ballot box. The land, sheds and machinery are needed to earn a living, and their value cannot simply be withdrawn from a bank account. If land has to be sold, the farm loses some of its ability to produce food and generate an income. For a business already operating on tight margins, that can make all the difference. It is not unreasonable for a farmer who has worked all their life to want their children to carry on that work. These are families who have gone without, borrowed, reinvested and spent years building something they hoped would outlast them.

More than a third of respondents to the UFU survey anticipated an inheritance tax bill of at least £100,000, and more than seven in 10 are less confident about passing on a financially viable business. Almost nine in 10 reported increased family stress or worry because of the changes. I ask the Minister to think about the conversations behind those figures—a father wondering what will happen when he is gone; a mother worried about the burden being left to her children; a young person who wants to farm but cannot see how the figures will stack up. There is enough worry in farming without the Government adding to it. Tomorrow, the Chancellor can lift some of that uncertainty, and I urge the Minister to make the case for restoring the historical reliefs and allowing working family farms to be passed on.

There are also decisions closer to home that are holding the industry back. In Northern Ireland, farmers are told to improve their buildings, reduce emissions and invest in better slurry management but when they try to do those things, they can find themselves caught in planning delays and environmental assessments with no clear way forward. In some cases, they cannot even get betterment through the planning system. A farmer may want to replace an old shed with a modern building, improve animal welfare and reduce emissions yet still struggle to secure approval. How does leaving the old building in place help anyone? I accept that applications must be properly assessed, but there must be a workable route for proposals that demonstrably improve the existing position.

Farmers are spending money on advice, reports and revised applications while the costs of proposed work continue to rise. Ministers at Stormont need to get to grips with this. Farmers cannot be expected to modernise if the system prevents them from doing so. The situation is exactly the same here in GB, and farmers are fed up with being made the fall guy in the pursuit of net zero. They are expected to produce affordable food, look after the countryside and pay for the changes demanded of them, often without any realistic explanation of how their business is supposed to bear the cost. Some of those making the demands would do well to spend a week on a working farm.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech and raises many points that go far beyond Northern Ireland. She is talking about the need to improve farms and combat climate change, but how are farmers supposed to engage seriously in this process? My farmers in West Dorset are unable to apply for the sustainable farming incentive because the window is closing so quickly and it is not properly funded. That is leaving them drastically under-budget for the financial year ahead and wondering why they are continuing to meet all the demands being made by the Government when they are not getting a fair settlement.

[Carla Lockhart]

The hon. Member’s farmers will have heard his point very clearly. He is a real advocate for the farming community in his constituency, and he is absolutely right. Driving production overseas will not remove the need for food. It will leave us buying more of it from elsewhere, with less control over how it is produced and with further distances to transport it.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is being incredibly generous with her time, as ever. She will recall that the Defence Secretary told families last weekend to be ready for potential shocks that might come our way. Does she agree that, given what she was just saying, the UK as a whole needs to be far more ready to become food secure? Only 60% of the food that we eat here is produced across our four nations. Is it not the job of all four Governments in this country—the three devolved ones and the UK Government—to ensure that we have farm payment schemes that encourage the production of food, so that we can become food secure?

[Carla Lockhart]

Absolutely. Farm payments are critical to ensuring just that. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member, who is another real advocate for our farming and rural communities.

Our farmers will make improvements where there are practical, affordable ways to do so, but they should not have their livelihoods put at risk by targets pursued with little regard for the consequences. The same applies to imports. Earlier this year, I raised concerns about imported eggs and egg products, including reports that imports had increased by 60% since 2021. Our producers have spent considerable sums meeting the standards required of them. They are rightly angry at the prospect of being undercut by egg producers under systems that would not be permitted here. Government cannot impose those costs on our farmers and then shrug their shoulders when cheaper products arrive from elsewhere.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

On imports, the hon. Lady might be touching on one of the really important topics for the farming community, which is the huge power of the supermarket chains in setting prices. Farm-gate prices are clearly making it very difficult for farmers to earn the decent living that they so deserve. Does she agree that the Government should absolutely take on board some of the comments by Baroness Batters on that, and do everything they can to ensure that farmers get a fair price and that competition works not just in the interests of the supermarkets, but in those of our farmers?

[Carla Lockhart]

Again, I agree; it is a point well made. Another area in which the Government can help our farmers is public procurement, and they should be doing far more. I have challenged the sourcing of food for Northern Ireland schools. Information provided to me showed that approximately 80% of the Education Authority’s beef came from the Republic of Ireland, with around 20% from Northern Ireland. Given the quality of beef produced on our doorstep, I believe that is wrong.

I have also raised the use of halal-certified chicken. The Education Authority has said that it could not meet demand if halal chicken were excluded from its supply. Again, when we look at Northern Ireland and the number of chicken producers there, that should not be the case. We should be able to supply our own markets. Parents are entitled to know what their children are being served and to have clear information about the choices, and they want home-grown food. I want the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland, and indeed the Treasury here, to use public money wisely and to support our local markets.

I also want to return to an issue that I have raised repeatedly with this Government: illegal meat imports. Our farmers can do everything asked of them on biosecurity and still have their livelihoods put at risk by failures at the border. In January last year, around 600 kg of non-compliant meat was stopped at Larne after travelling through Great Britain. I commend the officials who intercepted it, but it should concern every Minister responsible that it had travelled so far without being detected.

At Dover, almost 99 tonnes were seized during 2024, in 868 separate seizures. In December that year, more than six tonnes were intercepted within just 14 hours, including pork reported to have come from areas of Romania affected by African swine fever. In the first three months of 2025 alone, 58 tonnes were seized. I have raised this issue in writing and directly with Ministers. Last year, the Government outlined joint working between agencies, funding offered to Dover Port Health Authority and plans to tackle vehicles used by smugglers. I want the Minister to tell us today what has changed as a result: how much additional inspection capacity is now operating, what prosecutions have followed, whether our enforcement agencies are getting the resources they need, and whether the Government have properly addressed the weaknesses raised about the border target operating model.

Farmers remember foot and mouth. They remember the destruction, the restrictions and the heartbreak. We cannot allow those lessons to be forgotten. The cost of effective enforcement must be weighed against the devastation that a serious disease outbreak could cause. Those involved in this trade need to face consequences that make them think twice. Seize the products, disrupt the operation and pursue prosecutions wherever the evidence allows.

Northern Ireland’s farmers also face additional friction within the UK market created by the Windsor framework. A great deal has been made about how the EU reset will benefit them. We are apparently supposed to welcome the rest of the United Kingdom being brought under SPS rules that it does not make and cannot change.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

There is a certain irony in the title of this debate: domestic farming. In one part of the United Kingdom, we are governed not by domestic laws but by foreign EU laws. Does the hon. Member agree about the folly of a reset that would subject the whole United Kingdom to that same disenfranchisement of being governed by laws we do not make and cannot change? Does she note that the Government are yet to tell us how much the reset on farming would cost in the EU’s demands for contributions to its budget?

[Carla Lockhart]

I absolutely agree. Maybe the Minister can elaborate on that. I have never been convinced that the answer to the disenfranchisement of Northern Ireland is the disenfranchisement of Great Britain. How can laws made elsewhere, without the United Kingdom having a vote on them, be the right basis for governing our farming industry?

Some changes applying to Northern Ireland barely attract scrutiny. The Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant Health) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 changed requirements in Great Britain to match those already applying in Northern Ireland. Parliament was considering legislation for GB, while the corresponding requirements in Northern Ireland were already a fact of life. That is no way to treat part of our own country.

We should also remember the freedoms denied to Northern Ireland farmers. England has legislation to allow precision breeding. Work is progressing on cattle TB vaccinations in Great Britain, while Northern Ireland remains subject to the EU prohibition. Since 1 January, retailers in Great Britain have been unable to supply veterinary medicines directly to Northern Ireland. Other supply arrangements remain, but farmers have lost an established route for obtaining medicines from the rest of their own country.

There are also differences in the rules governing mycotoxins in cereals and additional requirements on organic production. Those are practical matters affecting what farmers can use and produce and the cost. I want Ministers to look again at properly enforced trusted traders schemes for goods crossing the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, protecting the EU market through targeted controls on goods entering it and allowing trade within the United Kingdom without these barriers.

Extending rule taking to Great Britain does not restore Northern Ireland’s voice. We should be protecting the freedoms secured through Brexit and ensuring that Northern Ireland’s farmers can benefit from them, too. At the end of the day, this debate is about domestic farming and food supply, yet in Northern Ireland so many of the laws governing our agrifood industry are made by the European Union, with no vote for those we elect and no ability to change the laws.

How can Ministers talk about securing our domestic food supply while accepting that part of our country must take its agriculture rules from elsewhere? Northern Ireland’s farmers help to feed the United Kingdom and deserve the same democratic voice in the decisions affecting their livelihoods as farmers elsewhere. All these pressures fall on the same businesses: rising costs, disease, planning difficulties, barriers to trade and uncertainty over whether the next generation will face a tax bill it cannot afford. Ministers may deal with those issues separately; the farmer has to deal with them all at once.

That is why tomorrow’s Budget matters so much. The Chancellor has an opportunity to restore confidence, release investment and give farming families some certainty about the future. I will continue to speak up for the farmers of Upper Bann, Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom. They have worked hard and kept producing through some exceptionally difficult years. They have been patient and made their case and they deserve to be heard.

Once a family farm is broken up, it is not easily put back together. Once a young person walks away from farming, we may never get them back. We cannot keep weakening the industry, assuming there will always be someone else to carry it on. Scrap the family farm tax, let farmers invest, give the next generation a reason to stay: no farmers, no food, no future.

16:19

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I want to start by thanking the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for securing this debate. She knows agriculture is a devolved issue. We are committed to working closely with the devolved Governments as we work to support UK farmers and boost the nation’s food security. I welcome her focus on UK matters today, alongside the various insights she has brought from Northern Ireland.

Before I respond to the debate, Chair, allow me to begin by stating that farmers are the backbone of our food system, rural economy and national resilience. Yet I recognise that many are working under extraordinary pressure, with volatile markets, extreme weather, animal disease, and rising input and energy costs.

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

The Minister has outlined accurately that although matters are devolved, there are issues that fall to the Treasury and to his own responsibility. He has heard the concerns, which I am sure he has heard many times before. Can he outline the representations that I am sure he has made to the Treasury on behalf of the farming community ahead of tomorrow’s Budget?

[Stephen Morgan]

Matters of taxation are for the Chancellor. More will be known in the Budget tomorrow, but I can certainly share that I work closely with my colleagues in Northern Ireland. Under my previous ministerial responsibility, I was delighted to visit Northern Ireland, and hope to do so in future on the important issues being discussed today.

The importance of the pressures that I have mentioned cannot be overstated. Agriculture alone contributes £14.5 billion to the economy, and the wider food and drink sector contributed £153 billion in 2023. The agrifood sector employed 4.1 million people in 2025. Food security is about national security.

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

After months of drought, 175 wildfires and 369 cases of bluetongue this summer alone, Cornish farmers have had an exceptionally hard year. Rising fertiliser costs, driven by disruption from a completely avoidable conflict with Iran, have placed a particular burden on British farmers. Can the Minister comment further on media reports that the Government are going to support the cost of fertiliser in tomorrow’s Budget? If that is the case, that will be very good news indeed.

[Stephen Morgan]

The hon. Member is a real champion on farming issues, as was very evident from my time in Cornwall over the summer with the Prime Minister. I know that he is a real champion on those issues. I obviously cannot comment on speculation. There is an indication that there might be announcements tomorrow that will be supportive of our farming community, but I ask him for a little more patience ahead of the Chancellor’s statement tomorrow.

I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann for identifying specific issues. Trade is a very important matter that of course affects Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. To address the pressures that were raised by farmers in Northern Ireland and across the country, markets must work fairly. UK farmers should not be undercut by imports produced to lower standards. We will maintain our food and animal welfare standards. We will use quotas, exclusions and safeguards where necessary, and open new export opportunities for high-quality UK produce.

The last four deals we concluded, with Switzerland, India, the Gulf Co-operation Council and South Korea, created new opportunities for Northern Irish exports, while protecting sensitive sectors such as pork, poultry and eggs. Tariffs on Northern Irish beef, lamb and dairy exports will be removed in the Gulf and reduced further in Switzerland. Tariffs on whisky exports to India have been halved and will continue to go down over the next 10 years.

We also have a global network of 16 agrifood and drink attachés who create new opportunities for export and help businesses to access markets around the globe. So far this year they have removed 26 barriers, worth nearly £90 million annually. The proposed SPS agreement with the European Union is intended to remove the routine border checks and costly paperwork, reducing friction for exporters and supporting the UK’s food supply and security. The agreement will remove almost all SPS checks and certificates between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That will reduce costs for a whole range of businesses and increase choice for consumers. I know Northern Irish farmers welcome the deal. They see the benefit in removing checks on used agricultural machinery such as tractors, which are often bought from Great Britain. As another example, seed potatoes will be easier to bring in, and Northern Irish farmers will be operating under the same rules, for example on pesticides, as the rest of the UK.

We are also supporting farmers across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland, through our programme of fair dealing reforms. On 2 October, the first case of highly pathogenic avian influenza of this season was confirmed in Scotland, and we have now had our first case in England. Stringent biosecurity remains the best defence for protecting the health and welfare of birds, and reducing the risk of avian influenza entering kept bird populations. On bovine tuberculosis, it is worth stating that the Government are developing a cattle vaccine and a DIVA—detect infected among vaccinated animals—skin test, widening sensitive testing, expanding badger vaccination and working towards TB-free status for England by 2038.

The reason I stress those points is that the hon. Member for Upper Bann made a number of points about enforcement at our borders and illegal meat. I can confirm that the Government continue to work across Departments to develop a new framework, in partnership with the Home Office, Border Force, the Food Standards Authority and others. More details will be published in due course.

With regard to tax matters that have been raised in the debate, I recognise that when the Government initially announced reform to the agricultural property relief and business property relief in 2024, there was significant concern in the industry about the impact. The Government listened to those concerns and acted, going further to protect more farms and businesses. Up to £5 million can still be passed on free of inheritance tax, depending on people’s individual circumstances. Farming families will be able to pass the family farm down to their children, just as previous generations have done.

Let me turn to the points raised about the certainty to invest and planning issues. The farming roadmap was published earlier this year. We recognise that those in the sector need confidence to invest to grow their businesses, plan for the future and secure farms for the next generation. These are important for profitable food production and resilience to global shocks. In England, through our farming roadmap, we have set a new long-term direction for the sector—one that is more profitable, productive, sustainable and resilient, and that will be better able to withstand climate, market and geopolitical shocks. Through the roadmap, we have committed to maintaining domestic food production at least at current levels, and our commitment to farmers is backed by a record £11.8 billion for sustainable farming and food production over this Parliament. This year, £788 million in new funding has been committed to boost productivity, develop new technologies and maintain a healthy natural environment. Support includes £225 million for capital grants, £173 million for productivity and innovation, and £15 million for on-farm reservoirs to strengthen drought resilience.

On red tape and bureaucracy, I recognise farmers’ frustration with ever-increasing bureaucracy. Regulation is necessary to address risks, but compliance requirements can be a burden and slow growth. We are delivering actions through the Government’s regulation action plan to reduce these burdens on farmers and will take further action.

The pressures facing UK farming are real, and no responsible Government should dismiss them. I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann for her insight into the issues raised in today’s debate. Our task is to stand alongside farmers, strengthen profitability and resilience, and to ensure that UK farming can continue to produce the food on which we all depend.

Question put and agreed to.

Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report: Government Response

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stuart in the Chair]

16:30

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Government response to the Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report.

It is refreshing to see the Public Health Minister in this debate. If anybody will be empathetic on this topic it must be the right hon. Lady, as she has campaigned fearlessly on behalf of another group of victims: the victims of contaminated blood scandals. Although I do not want to overdo the comparison between the victims of contaminated blood and victims of vaccine damage, the responses of successive Governments to those tragedies have had a similar pattern: total denial of responsibility to start with, then recognition that people have suffered but not because of anything for which the Government were responsible, and then eventually conceding the cause and effect of the damage but still stalling on providing any effective redress.

It is that stalling on which I wish to concentrate. The Hallett inquiry made clear recommendations in April this year. Recommendation 5 stated:

“The UK government must reform the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme as soon as possible. The reform should include as a minimum: increasing the £120,000 payment, at least in line with inflation to date; subsequently applying annual increases in line with inflation; introducing multiple levels of payment, commensurate with the degree of injury suffered; and any transitional arrangements necessary to provide for fairness between applicants to the existing scheme and applicants to the revised scheme.”

The Government’s response, published earlier this month, is inadequate. That may be because the Minister has been in post for only three months; it may be because Government officials have not done the review work that for the last several years they have assured me and others that they were doing. We will hear from the Minister in due course. I hope she will be able to say that the Government agree to increase the £120,000 payment, that they will apply annual increases in line with inflation, that they will introduce multiple levels of payment, commensurate with the degree of injury, and so on.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for being stalwart in his campaign on this issue; it has been very well done. For too long a small minority of families who suffered severe adverse outcomes have been left stranded by administrative failures and the lack of fair support. Does the hon. Member agree that the promised reforms must be designed in direct collaboration with the vaccine-injured and their families, to ensure that they are treated with the dignity, speed and fairness that they deserve?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. It is fair to remind everybody that he participated in the first debate I had on this subject, on Friday 10 September 2021. That was the occasion on which I moved the Second Reading of a private Member’s Bill and, in so doing, drew attention to what were then 1,632 yellow card reports of deaths having taken place shortly after vaccination.

I also drew attention then to the public petition that had been put to Parliament, and the Government’s response. The petition called for improved support for those injured or bereaved through covid-19 vaccines. The Government response stated:

“Once more is known about the possible links between the vaccine and potential side effects, it will be considered whether a wider review of the VDPS is needed.”

Well, that was more than five years ago. We have now had that review, had the public inquiry and had the outcome, yet we have not had the Government’s acceptance of the clear recommendations to which I have already referred.

Back in September 2021, I requested that the then Secretary of State establish an independent review of disablement caused by covid-19 vaccines and the adequacy of the compensation awarded. I was not requesting a mammoth public inquiry, but only a short, judge-led inquiry into how we should most fairly compensate those who suffered adverse consequences. I also contrasted the Government’s pessimistic view with the World Health Organisation’s COVAX scheme, which, as the Minister will know, indemnifies claims for vaccine damage in third-world countries. We, the British taxpayers, pay for that, but we do not have an equivalent scheme in our own jurisdiction.

On 2 March 2022, I raised the specific subject of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 in an Adjournment debate. In that debate, I referred to Kate Scott, whose husband, a fit 44-year-old software engineer, spent 124 days in hospital following a severe brain injury caused by the vaccine. Boris Johnson, the then Prime Minister, had written to Kate Scott and her family back in August 2021, stating:

“You’re not a statistic, and must not be ignored.”

He said that the Government would—I use the word again—consider Kate’s suggestions for reform of the scheme.

In concluding my speech on that occasion, I referred to what David Ennals, Labour’s Secretary of State for Social Services, had said back on 5 February 1979, when introducing the legislation. He said:

“For most people, vaccination is a beneficial procedure, and it is right for the community to give financial aid and support to those who suffer as the result of vaccinations given as part of the public policy programme.”—[Official Report, 5 February 1979; Vol. 962, c. 32.]

That was the rationale for the vaccine damage payment scheme, a scheme introduced by the then Labour Government in their dying days. I will not criticise them for having made that a priority at the end of their term of office.

In responding to my Adjournment debate in March 2022, the then Minister, Maria Caulfield, refused even to accept any causality. She said that there had been 920 claims by then, but:

“The work currently going on is establishing whether there is a causal link between the vaccine and the adverse events that people have been suffering.”—[Official Report, 2 March 2022; Vol. 709, c. 1151.]

Fast forward to today, and we see that we have the findings, to which I have already referred, and then the Government response:

“The government…accepts that there is a need for reform of the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, and is committed to reviewing the scheme to ensure it is fit for purpose and delivered effectively.”

That implied that it was a review that would start after the inquiry had reported; however, when I and other people campaigning on behalf of the victims met the then Public Health Minister, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), probably about a year ago, she told us that the Government were already reviewing the scheme. We asked her in what respect they were reviewing the scheme, but she said she could not say, although she conceded that they were reviewing it. It now seems as though the Government are starting afresh, saying they are

“committed to reviewing the scheme…we will work closely with the vaccine injured and their families as we consider how the scheme could be strengthened in the future.”

That is a long way from the specific, clear and strong recommendations made by Baroness Hallett. Let us think about what the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, said to Kate Scott in in August 2021: he said he would review it. Has the review not already taken place? I assume it must have.

There is another issue here. We now know that, as of 30 June, 264 claims had been successful and 582 claims under the scheme had been rejected where causation had been established but the claimant did not meet the 60% disability threshold. On my calculation, that means that about £32 million has been paid out in compensation, yet in answer to a question I asked, which was answered on 3 September, I found out that over four years the costs of the staffing, the non-staffing, the medical assessment and payments to health care bodies is no less than £82 million. All that public money was spent on bureaucracy to try to block people who have suffered damage—in some cases, bereavement—as a result of doing the right thing and taking the vaccines. That is just unacceptable.

I hope that the Minister will include within her response an explanation of what the Government are going to do to simplify the scheme, stop blocking legitimate claims through technical measures, and ensure that instead of spending another £82 million over the next four years on bureaucracy, we actually use some of that money to compensate the people who have suffered as a result of the vaccine programme.

I can help the Minister because I anticipated this debate, in a sense, when we had the private Members’ Bill ballot. I put in a number of presentation Bills, one of which is the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (UK Covid-19 Inquiry) Bill. That is set for Second Reading on 15 January 2027, so it is ideally timed to be able to incorporate any recommendations that the Minister comes forward with in this debate. The long title of the Bill is:

“A Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for the implementation of Recommendation 5 of Module 4 of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, relating to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme; and for connected purposes.”

The Bill represents a legislative opportunity for the Government, and I hope that they will take advantage of it.

In the meantime, during this Session, the Government have been blocking my Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Payments Bill. It has already been published, and the explanatory notes to the Bill set out a number of suggested reforms, including looking at the benefits of having a system that does not cost the Government anything but would ensure that people got recompense. That would be done by introducing a scheme similar to that which covers motor insurance, for example—the Motor Insurers’ Bureau scheme or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme—where the industry pays for the costs of the compensation arising from problems with the way in which those schemes have operated. What could be more equitable than that?

Instead of doing that, both the previous Government and the current Government are indemnifying big pharma against any costs associated with vaccines that do not work properly, which is intolerable. My Bill has a number of recommendations and suggestions. I hope that the Minister will be able to engage with me on them, if not in this debate then privately afterwards.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. I will begin calling the Front Benchers at 5.08 pm, so if everybody is reasonably disciplined, each Back-Bench speaker can have four minutes.

16:45

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for securing this important debate. He focused on one particular aspect of module 4 on vaccines and therapeutics: the recompense scheme. I would like to broaden the conversation slightly.

Alongside the learnings, the module contains a lot of positive narrative. As a public health consultant who worked during the pandemic, both here and with public health partners in other countries, I want to recognise the huge public value of the UK’s sustained investment in our NHS, public health and scientific research. Thanks to that investment, capabilities were in place prior to the pandemic that meant the UK was in a position to authorise and begin delivering effective covid-19 vaccines within a year of the first identified UK case. By September 2022, more than 150 million doses of the three principal vaccines had been administered in the UK, including the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, which was developed here in the UK thanks to years of scientific research. That research capacity is part of a wider global partnership that allows us to ensure that vaccine development can be undertaken swiftly and accurately, both during a pandemic and for other essential vaccinations, such as our flu response.

I want to mention the Centre for Epidemic Response and Innovation in South Africa. It is a key partner, which identified the omicron variant during the pandemic, and it is now critical in identifying influenza strains for the development of our influenza vaccination programme every year. It would be good to hear from the Minister a little more about how we are continuing to build the international scientific partnership for vaccine development and pandemic preparedness, particularly in respect of the 100-day mission, where we aim to work with global partners to make safe, effective and affordable diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines available within just 100 days of identifying a future pandemic threat.

As well as the importance of ensuring that we have the capacity to develop vaccines swiftly and efficiently as part of a global response, the module highlighted the issue of equitable access to vaccines, and the role that existing health inequalities played in UK vaccination coverage. The inquiry identified familiar themes regarding the reasons for lower uptake of the vaccine in some communities and groups of people. As the inquiry rightly highlighted, vaccine inequality is not simply an issue of individual behaviour; it is also a reflection of how services are designed, how communities experience public institutions and whether the health system can meet people where they are in their daily lives. There is also the issue of public trust in the system that is administering the vaccines. It should be noted that that cannot simply be manufactured through a national communication campaign at the moment of crisis; it must be earned over time through reliable services, honest information and meaningful relationships with communities.

There is a useful distinction to be made between legitimate questions about vaccine safety and deliberate misinformation. We need to engage with this area proactively and positively, allow people to have their voices heard and ensure that all available facts and evidence are clearly communicated. Will the Minister please update us on how lessons learned from vaccine hesitancy and the health inequality patterns that were observed during the pandemic are now being used to inform our UK vaccination strategy, particularly in the light of worrying recent patterns in childhood vaccination for diseases such as measles and the dropping of the explicit World Health Organisation target of 95% coverage that was put in place to ensure population herd immunity?

Finally, I want to acknowledge my public health, clinical and care colleagues who contributed so much to the pandemic response, some of whom tragically gave their lives in order to care for other people. Directors of public health, local authorities, primary care and community organisations should remain a central part of the solution to ensuring vaccine equity. We must ensure that the lessons learned from the inquiry allow us to support their essential work, so that we can respond swiftly to the next pandemic.

16:49

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, not least because, in generously taking over from me, you allowed me to participate in the debate.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), not just for his skill in securing the debate but for his long campaigning on behalf of those who have been injured by covid vaccinations. Between he and I, we must have met and discussed the issue with almost every holder of the Minister’s job and the Secretary of State’s job over the past few years.

On reform of the vaccine damage payment scheme, the argument that I want to concentrate on is not about the wisdom or otherwise of mass vaccination. Quite remarkably in my judgment, many of those who were injured or lost loved ones in the mass vaccination process during the covid pandemic support the idea of mass vaccination, but they take the view, which we should all support, that it is only right that those who were doing what their Government asked them to do are properly compensated for any loss or damage that they have incurred.

People such as my constituent Kate Scott, whom my hon. Friend mentioned and the Minister has met, have maintained throughout that what is wrong with the vaccine damage payment scheme essentially comes down to two things: first, the amount of money available and the fact that it is an all-or-nothing amount; and secondly, the requirement for someone to have 60% disablement in order to take advantage of the scheme. It is fair to point out that when the scheme was developed, nobody ever claimed that it was designed to be the only compensation available, but, as I know the Minister appreciates, the reality is that it is extremely difficult to obtain compensation by any other route, including through the courts.

It therefore seems that vaccine damage payment scheme reform is about two things: fairness to the individuals affected and the effectiveness of Government policy. I know this will concern the Minister, as I hope it does the rest of the Government. It would be brave of any of us to claim that this sort of widespread pandemic event will never happen again. If it does, we will once again rely on the confidence of the British public to literally roll up their sleeves and assist in the process of combating whatever disease we face next. Their confidence in a mass vaccination programme will depend on whether they think people who have been injured in that process have been fairly treated. Thus far, they have not been, so if the Government want to be confident of the effectiveness of a future pandemic response, they need to deal effectively with the fall-out of the previous pandemic response.

Finally, let me simply make the point that my hon. Friend made: there is urgency to this. People who have been injured or bereaved do not just expect a fair response from the Government; they expect it soon. There is a mismatch between the urgency described in the report of Baroness Hallett and the approach that the Government have taken in their response. For example, with regard to the 60% threshold, Baroness Hallett said:

“This part of the scheme should be reformed as a matter of urgency”.

Let us compare and contrast that with the wording of the Government’s response. They accept that there is a “need for reform” of the scheme, which I welcome, and say that they are

“committed to reviewing the scheme to ensure it is fit for purpose”.

However, they then say that they

“will provide further details in due course”.

Those of us who have served in government know that that does not mean an urgent response. I know the Minister will recognise that this situation deserves just that.

16:53

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) on securing this debate.

One of the surprising things, given how many people died during the covid epidemic, as well as the cost of approximately £400 billion and the cost of the inquiry heading northwards to £1 billion, is how little debate there has been in Westminster Hall and on the Floor of the House. I want to use the opportunity of this debate on the fourth part of the inquiry not just to point out the lack of debate so far, but to use recommendation 1 to highlight a number of things.

Recommendation 1 and the Government’s response both draw attention to how the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies behaved during covid. The response says uncritically that it gave

“co-ordinated scientific and technical advice”.

Well, yes—to a point. But on 11 February 2020, SAGE had before it a report from Imperial College, based on Chinese statistics, showing a very strong relationship between age and mortality among people who caught covid. Basically, children were not at risk and people over 70 were at serious risk. SAGE did not discuss that at that meeting, even though the paper was there. Had it done so, it might well have come forward with different policies to keep children in school and to protect the most vulnerable people, rather than having a blanket policy that said, “Protect the NHS.” It is not our job to protect the NHS; it is the NHS’s job to protect us. Actually, I always read protecting the NHS as protecting the Government, because they were frightened of having people on trolleys in corridors. I think that was a mistake. The information was there and could have been used.

The heroine of this episode, mentioned in the report, is Kate Bingham, who ran the vaccine taskforce. Because of her expertise in both science and funding, she was primarily responsible for getting the vaccine out more quickly than anywhere else. Given that she was so successful in doing that, we should have listened to what she said when she spoke to the Science and Technology Committee, the Health Committee and the inquiry. She was excoriating about the Government’s response. She talked about institutional blockages and “warfare” between the Business Department and the Health Department. She did not recommend what the report proposes—a pharmaceutical expert advisory panel, which does not seem to have very many powers. She wanted to protect and develop our vaccine manufacturing ability and our science ability. What did we get? The sale of the Vaccines Manufacturing and Innovation Centre, and nothing else.

16:57

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Restore Britain)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.

The covid lockdowns were the darkest period in recent British history, bar none. Our freedoms were stripped away in ways most of us never imagined possible. Alongside all that came extraordinary pressure on millions of people to take the covid vaccine. There was pressure from politicians, employers, media institutions—everything, everywhere. For some, refusing meant losing their livelihood. They did it anyway.

We were told to trust the science, but science is not a commandment; it is a process of questioning, testing and challenging evidence. When a Government ask millions of healthy people to undergo an unproven medical intervention with unwanted consequences, scrutiny should increase.

Covid posed very different risks to different people. A vulnerable elderly person faced a very different calculation from a healthy 25-year-old. In fact, they could not have been more different. The 25-year-old was at no risk whatever—they were more likely to drown to death than have serious issues with covid—yet so much of the messaging treated vaccination as though it were the same decision for everyone. Why? Why were people asking questions treated with such hostility, and why were people who refused a medical intervention made to feel like social pariahs?

I am particularly concerned about children. For the overwhelming majority, the risk of severe covid illness was non-existent. It was a cold; there was no threat at all. Let us remember that the roll-out to teenagers was forced through against the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which originally declined to recommend a mass roll-out for younger teens.

The facts are quite clear. We do know that cases of myocarditis and pericarditis occurred following covid vaccinations, particularly among adolescent and young adult males. Millions of healthy young men and women should never have been forced to take that vaccination, and those responsible for that decision must be held accountable. Informed consent is the only way.

Then there was Nadhim Zahawi, the Conservative Government’s Vaccines Minister at the time, who now speaks for Reform UK. He stated that children aged 12 to 15 could receive the covid vaccine even where their parents objected. A 12-year-old could take the vaccination against their parents’ wishes. Think about that—12 years old.

Then came vaccine passports, also forced through by Reform UK’s Zahawi. I found the entire concept morally repugnant. The state making access to ordinary parts of life dependent on someone disclosing their medical status was criminal. That is not how a free country should operate. I did not take the covid vaccine. I did not want it, need it or take it. That decision cost me money and affected my travel, and I lost some friends. It made my life considerably more difficult, but I do not regret it for one moment.

This debate cannot end with another speech about how badly things were handled. We all know that. There must be accountability. By law, the inquiry cannot decide whether anyone is liable for what went wrong. That responsibility now rests with Government, regulators and, where necessary, the courts. The inquiry itself recognised the heavy cost of lockdowns, even if it criticised how decisions were made. That is exactly why there must be a full, honest reckoning of their true costs and benefits, as well as of the treatment of care home residents.

Questions about pandemic censorship and conflicts of interest demand answers too. Who decided which questions the public were allowed to ask and who profited from the answers? Those are questions that any healthy democracy should ask. The Government have accepted that the reform is needed, but they have offered no timetable and no detail. Those who have been injured by those vaccines cannot be left waiting any longer. The scheme needs an overhaul. Nobody can be above the law.

17:01

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Some here will be aware of the tragic case in Bromsgrove of NHS pharmacist John Cross, who developed paralysing complications after receiving a covid injection. The effects began two weeks after the vaccine and John was then hospitalised for seven months. He worked hard on his recovery through private physio and, under medical advice, applied to the vaccine damage payment scheme, where he was deemed to be 55% disabled, therefore falling short of the 60% requirement for qualification. A few months later, John tragically took his own life.

Ater a gruelling five-year legal challenge by his family during a time when they should have been grieving the loss of their husband, father and grandfather, the decision was finally overturned. The Cross family is clear: the current vaccine compensation scheme is failing victims. The Government have repeatedly stated that they are evaluating options to reform the VDPS, yet no official timescale has been set for making a decision on any alterations or recommendations for a change. That is unacceptable. It leaves victims and their families trapped in a state of anxiety and uncertainty.

Will the Government publish a timescale for conducting their review of the vaccine damage payment scheme, and the changes that they intend to implement to ensure certainty for victims? Having received fewer than 800 applications in the decade before covid-19, it is clear that the VDPS needs to adapt to respond to the significant increase in applications from those affected by covid-19 vaccines. Since the covid-19 pandemic began, the number of claims made has risen significantly, with more than 24,000 claims relating to covid-19 alone, yet despite that stark rise, just over 1% have received the tax-free payment. John Cross was part of the forgotten 99% until his family fought for justice.

Do the Government believe that the 60% threshold is still appropriate, and is the binary yes or no process that awards a flat-rate payment for successful claims still fit for purpose? Has any consideration been given to the introduction of a tiered compensation framework that implements varying thresholds for payment amounts based on case-specific circumstances, such as the severity of the damage and long-term care requirements?

The Cross family is one tragic story among many. I stress that I am pro-vaccine, as are the Cross family, but there must be clear accountability for severe side effects that people have suffered. Those impacted must receive the help that they are owed, particularly after they followed Government advice. The Cross family have always been unequivocal that their fight has never been about money. No amount will bring John back. To them, it has always been about accountability, the ability to give others in similar situations hope, and the need to change a system that effectively told a man that he was not disabled enough. I am proud to support the Cross family, and I will continue to do that until they receive the justice that they deserve.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Last but not least, Esther McVey, who I will have to limit to three minutes.

17:04

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. In a democratic society, we should be able to rely on an inquiry to establish accurately what happened, what should happen, and how things should happen better in the future. I am incredibly concerned that this inquiry is failing to do that with sweeping assumptions that from the start the vaccines were to be used—the phrase used was “safe and effective”. The module 4 report states that

“It is neither proportionate nor practicable for the Inquiry to reach a view on the safety of particular vaccines”

but then goes on to declare, with the utmost assurance, that

“the steps taken by the UK government and regulatory bodies did not compromise the UK’s rigorous safety standards.”

How can they be sure when they have not reached a view on the safety of the vaccines?

Time is limited, so I would like to go to an issue that happened to a woman, a mother, in my constituency, who was given the Moderna covid-19 booster vaccine in a care home. Her family recently succeeded in their claim to the vaccine damages payment scheme. Their case described mass, serious adverse events among the other residents of their mother’s care home, and the death of a second resident also attributed to the side effects. The family have spent years painstakingly collating evidence and research that shows that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency not only failed in its statutory duties by not properly investigating the clear safety signal of multiple care home residents suffering a series of fatal reactions, but failed to be honest about the wholesale lack of safety evidence for using Moderna in the frail, elderly, care home cohort, either as a main dose or as a booster.

Some 70% of the elderly in our care homes have dementia and over half of residents are frail, yet,

“Frail subjects with unstable health conditions and co-morbidities…including chronic neurological disease”

were identified as “missing information” in Moderna’s own risk management plan. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on pandemic response and recovery, I have written to the MHRA twice, but have not yet heard from the agency. Will the Minister take the time to meet me and the family to discuss why we have not had a response?

17:07

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart, and I thank the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for securing this debate.

Today we must remember all the loved ones who were taken from us by covid, and all those who suffered so terribly during the pandemic and the lockdowns. It is for that reason that during the pandemic I proposed a covid memorial wood in my Wokingham constituency, where people could go to remember their loved ones. I am delighted that a wood of nearly 8,000 trees has been planted.

Those who suffered deserve not only our sympathy but our determination to learn every lesson from this tragic chapter in our country’s history. Time and again, the inquiry has confirmed the failure of the last Conservative Government. The Conservatives left our country vulnerable and unprepared. The British public will never forgive them for partying while communities were engulfed by grief, fear and isolation. Never can such a tragedy be repeated. We must learn the lessons from the inquiry and ensure we never return to a politics that ignores expertise and evidence. We cannot afford political leaders like those in Reform who would cut back vaccines, trash medical science and spread disinformation. Every party leader should commit to implementing the inquiry’s recommendations and to supporting the vaccines that helped to end lockdowns and save lives.

While today’s debate concerns module 4 on vaccines and therapeutics, I want to briefly touch on module 6, which examined the pandemic’s impact on adult social care. That report confirmed what bereaved families have long known: the last Conservative Government failed to prepare the county, and its failures on social care and years of neglect left the sector exposed, creating the conditions that allowed this horror to unfold. That is why the Liberal Democrats supported the bereaved families’ call for the former Health Secretary Matt Hancock to be stripped of his place on the Privy Council.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. Could we concentrate on the covid-19 inquiry module 4 report?

[Clive Jones]

Returning to module 4, the inquiry highlighted one of the genuine successes of the pandemic response: the vaccine roll-out. The roll-out was, in the inquiry’s words, “an extraordinary feat”. The success belongs to our scientists, NHS staff, community pharmacists and volunteers who delivered around 132 million jabs in 2021 alone and created the largest vaccine programme in British history. The vaccine saved almost 475,000 lives in England and Scotland. We should never forget that and we must never allow anyone to rewrite history.

Yet the inquiry was equally clear that trust in vaccines must be rebuilt. Childhood vaccination rates have been falling for years, leaving more people vulnerable to preventable disease and increasing pressure on our health service. We must listen to our scientists, not to conspiracy theorists. Nigel Farage and Reform are amplifying the dangerous anti-vaccine rhetoric associated with Donald Trump.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. Could you please refer to Members of Parliament by their seat? You have been here quite some time, so you should probably know that.

[Clive Jones]

Apologies, Mr Stuart. We cannot allow Trump’s America to become Farage’s Britain. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a strategy to combat anti-vaccine and medical disinformation, alongside a new drive to deliver record vaccination rates. Vaccines should be brought closer to communities through trusted local venues, including church halls and community centres.

The best way to honour the people we lost is to learn the lessons from the inquiry, defend science, rebuild trust in vaccinations and ensure that when the next crisis comes, Britain is not so unprepared.

17:11

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) on securing this debate. He has pressed this issue for many years under Conservative and Labour Governments and he deserves credit for his persistence.

I want to begin where the inquiry did: with success. Baroness Hallett described the UK’s vaccine development as one of the success stories of the pandemic, and I am proud of the leading role that the Conservative Government played in that. They backed vaccines early and, at risk, set up the vaccine taskforce under Kate Bingham. On 2 December 2020, the UK became the first country in the world to approve the Pfizer vaccine. In 2021, some 132 million doses were given—the largest vaccination programme in our history. The credit belongs to the scientists, the NHS workers, the pharmacists, the 360,000 volunteers who signed up for trials and the public.

The inquiry’s report is not only a story of success, though. Its five recommendations set out what must be done better, and the Government’s response, published on 16 October, needs scrutiny. The Government agreed with recommendation 4, which is about having faster access to health data so that the MHRA can monitor vaccine safety, but say they will need “significant investment over time”. There is no timeline or funding promise.

Reports to the yellow card scheme rose by 75% between 2020 and 2022, which shows that people are willing to report. The system must be able to act on what they tell it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, recommendation 5 is where the response is weakest. The inquiry said the Government

“must reform the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme as soon as possible.”

It set out a minimum of four reforms: raise the £120,000 payment, at least in line with inflation, and uprate it annually; introduce multiple levels of payment, according to the degree of injury; and provide fair transitional arrangements.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) said, the Government’s response gives no date, no figure and no commitment to any of those recommendations. Meanwhile the cost of administering the scheme rose from £8.9 million in 2022-23 to £29.2 million in 2025-26. It cost around £83 million across four years. By my reckoning, awards over the same period came to about £31 million. A scheme that spends more than twice as much on administration as on compensation is not working for taxpayers or the claimants.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) ordered a review of the scheme before the last election, and I wish it had concluded sooner. But this Government have now had more than two years. I concede that on this occasion, the Government kept their word and responded within six months, but a response delivered on time is not the same as a response that commits to anything and, as I say, there is still no timetable. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) so eloquently put it, vaccine confidence matters. The best way to protect it is to show that when something goes wrong, the state stands behind the person. The vaccine programme was a success. Let us make sure that the system built around it is worthy of that success.

I have a number of questions to ask the Minister. First, will the Government set out a timetable for their review of the vaccine damage payment scheme and the reforms they intend to make? Secondly, which of the inquiry’s four minimum reforms will the Government commit to? Thirdly, will they look again at the 60% threshold, set performance targets for processing claims and bring administration costs under control? Fourthly, will they strengthen the yellow card scheme with funding commitments and a date for the health data framework? Fifthly, will the Minister meet with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), who has been seeking a meeting for a long time? Finally, will the Minister bring forward proposals before Second Reading of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, which, as he mentioned, is scheduled on 15 January? My hon. Friend and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

17:16

[The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Stuart, as you are my constituency neighbour in East Yorkshire. I thank the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for securing this debate, and I pay tribute to him for his work on the APPG on pandemic response and recovery and all his campaigning work over so many years. It was interesting that he referenced his first speech on this topic in 2021—persistence is certainly one of his qualities. I am always willing to meet hon. and right hon. Members.

This has been a very good debate on an important topic. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), who speaks with great authority as a public health consultant, set out some of the good work that happened during the pandemic as well as the international perspective that we need to be mindful of. The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) is a doughty campaigner on behalf of his constituent Kate Scott. He made an eloquent speech—as he always does—and I agree with him about the issue of timeliness.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) took us back to some of the key decisions that were made during the pandemic. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who delivered a speech that I sadly felt was anti-vaccination, did not recognise the public health benefits of vaccinations. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) spoke very movingly about John Cross and his family, as well as the fight that they had and the need for reform of the vaccine damage payment scheme. I will meet the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) as soon as possible, as well as the family she spoke of.

During the pandemic, Members on my side of the House did our best to offer constructive opposition to the previous Government, and this Government are committed to learning every lesson from the covid inquiry. We are extremely grateful to the noble Baroness Hallett and her team for the thoughtful and thorough advice they have offered us so far. At the end of next week, we will mark 80 years since the National Health Service Act 1946, which paved the way for the introduction of the NHS two years later, became law. That will be a chance for us to remember and pay tribute to all those who served the public with such courage and professionalism during the pandemic, not least our social care workers, whose contribution has been overlooked for too long.

Turning to module 4, we are also grateful to the small army of researchers, clinicians and regulators who worked around the clock to ensure that vaccines were deployed at speed, having gone through the rigorous safeguards of a clinical trial. But while it recognised the success of the vaccine programme, the module 4 report also sets out a series of recommendations and areas for improvement. For example, future vaccination and therapeutics programmes must—of course—have people’s trust, be guided by the best available evidence and remain available to all who need them. The inquiry also notes that safety monitoring must continue to evolve, with improvements to health data infrastructure. The Government published our response to those recommendations earlier this month.

We are taking action across the board to improve vaccination uptake, pandemic preparedness and the strength of UK life sciences, especially through our pandemic preparedness strategy. If the last pandemic taught us anything, it was that UK life sciences not only are vital for UK growth but play a central and strategic role in how we respond to health threats. We propose to establish an advisory group with our partners in industry, building resilience across our supply chains.

Vaccination uptake is not where it needs to be, especially for children. That is why we need stronger engagement with communities, particularly those communities where uptake is lower than average. As the Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety, I am especially concerned by the re-emergence of measles and other diseases that we thought had been banished when I was a girl. I want to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West on targets. We still have the World Health Organisation target of 95% coverage.

I am determined to ensure that the protection that vaccines afford remains available to the many, not the few. I have also been clear that there must be strong collaboration across our United Kingdom, because diseases do not stop at Offa’s Dyke or Hadrian’s Wall. We are strengthening the way we monitor outbreaks, while improving access to linked healthcare data across all four nations.

I now turn specifically to recommendation 5 of module 4 and the vaccine damage payment scheme. This is an important financial support for anyone who has become severely disabled following a vaccination. Fifty-three million people followed the example of Her late Majesty the Queen and took the jab to protect themselves, their loved ones and their communities. This country has a global reputation for an uncompromising approach to safety, and vaccines are authorised only once they have met robust standards of effectiveness, safety and quality. However, in rare and devastating circumstances, some people have gone through the nightmare of losing a loved one or suffered severe adverse outcomes following vaccination. Those people did as they were asked, in good faith, and through no fault of their own they have become disabled or worse. We can never turn a blind eye to the tragic instances in which things go wrong, and we must continue to be honest with the wider public that no vaccine is completely free of risk.

This afternoon, I have listened very carefully to the concerns raised about the current scheme, the support available to those affected, the experiences of those who have made claims and the time that it has taken to respond to these concerns. People who experience severe outcomes deserve appropriate support. This is not just about the welfare of those families, important though that is. As the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam said, it is about public trust in our wider vaccine programme, because people must be confident, when stepping into the clinic, that the state will be there for them if things go wrong.

The hon. Member for Christchurch asked me when we started to review the VDPS. I want to be very clear on this, because I know that previous Ministers have stood up and given answers on it. The Department has been considering options for reform and will now initiate a period of open engagement with those affected. We are going beyond the case for reform and turning now to the detail that must underpin any reforms.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and a number of other Members have asked me whether the Government accept that the 60% disability threshold is too high and whether we will consider changing it. The Government understand the concerns raised about the 60% disability threshold by the inquiry. The inquiry’s recommendations will be central to our ongoing work as the Government consider a range of options for potential reform, including introducing multiple levels of payment. Last week, I met injured people and bereaved families. I understand their frustrations about how long this is taking when successive Governments have kicked the can down the road.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

On the Minister’s point about whether graded payments might be available under the scheme, will she be clear that she is considering linking that to the disablement requirement? Of course, an outcome we would not want is a simple reduction of the £120,000 for those who are 60% disabled or more. We are interested in perhaps giving some money to those who are below the 60% threshold; will she confirm that is what she is thinking about?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Yes, I am happy to say that that is what I am thinking about because of the unfairness of that 60% barrier. I am certainly looking at that. It will be considered. I am not saying exactly what will be decided, but that is certainly an option that I have asked officials to look at.

I note that the scheme has not been reformed since I was a member of the Labour Government in 2007. Of course the scheme must be made fit for the future; I think we can all agree on that. That is why Ministers will again meet with families of the injured and bereaved families before the end of the year. In the coming weeks, before Christmas, my officials will meet with advisers put forward by the families of the injured and bereaved families to listen to their views on possible options for reform of the vaccine damage payment scheme. From now until spring, officials will meet and engage with our key partners, including those injured and bereaved, to discuss the reforms. I look forward to updating colleagues in the spring.

[Esther McVey]

My specific concern is about the MHRA, which is meant to highlight and give out warnings on what is going on. The MHRA has failed throughout this situation; when we meet, can we also discuss its failings?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Yes, I am happy to meet with the right hon. Lady and to discuss all the points that she wishes to raise.

Nearly everyone in our country remembers when they walked into their local clinic or pharmacy, or even into their church hall, school sports hall or village hall, to get their jab. We remember with pride how a country rallied together as part of a national effort to save lives. For most of us the vaccine was a welcome relief, offering additional freedoms and safety, but for some families it brought devastating loss and hardship. As the new Minister responsible for this policy I am committed to working closely with those families, who I met just last week, and I want progress made quickly. We will report any interim progress through the UK covid-19 inquiry implementation updates.

The public have a right to know that we are learning from past mistakes and as the Minister for Public Health I will never take the public’s trust for granted. The Government’s response to module 4 will not be some exercise in box-ticking or window-dressing because we know that, when it comes to preparing for future public health emergencies, readiness is all and we need the trust of our communities.

17:28

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response and grateful to everybody who has participated in the debate. Nobody can doubt the sincerity of what the Minister said. I hope that she will talk not just to the families but to parliamentarians because this issue affects lots of our constituents. A headline in The Daily Telegraph states: “Paralysed vaccine victim ‘not ill enough for payout’”. That is an example of the issues. That particular victim worked for the NHS as a nurse.

We need action. The tone of what the Minister said seems more like a placebo. Placebos have their place in healthcare but we need to go further. She talks about the spring; we are still in the autumn. Why can we not get some action now? All the time the Government knew what was going on at the inquiry. The victims gave evidence to the inquiry. The inquiry made its recommendations. Why can the Government not accept the four parts of recommendation 5? I do not understand that, and I am not satisfied in that respect. I shall continue to campaign on this issue—I hope not for another five years.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Government response to the Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.