Westminster Hall

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 10 November 2026

[Dawn Butler in the Chair]

Antisocial Behaviour

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Westminster Hall

00:00

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of anti-social behaviour.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank colleagues from across the House who have helped to make this debate possible, especially the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on antisocial behaviour. I thank colleagues at Resolve, who work with victims, housing providers, councils and the police to help to address this issue. I also thank the French students from OMNES who have attended this debate to see how democracy works.

I was driven to secure this debate primarily by the people I represent—the residents of Birmingham Perry Barr—who are all proud to call our area home. However, for all its charms, the area also suffers from issues that successive Governments have failed to address. Among the worst of those issues is antisocial behaviour such as street drinking, begging, threatening behaviour, fly-tipping, criminal damage, noise nuisance and vandalism. For many, those are part of everyday life. Only a small minority of people commit such acts, but everyone feels their effects.

The facts back that up. Resolve estimates that more than 5 million incidents of antisocial behaviour occur in this country every year. Even worse, that figure is only an estimate, as the overwhelming majority of people who experience an incident do not even report it. According to Home Office statistics, up to 93% of incidents go unreported.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the reason incidents go unreported is that the public do not have faith that they will be dealt with?

[Ayoub Khan]

I will come on to the hon. Member’s point, but that is part and parcel of exactly why the problem occurs. People feel desensitised towards reporting matters, because little is ever done.

The problem is only getting worse. In a survey conducted by Resolve this year, 63% of respondents who had encountered antisocial behaviour in the previous three years had never reported it to anybody. Last year, that figure stood at 56%. Even worse, of those who experienced the behaviour at first hand, 28% said that it made them feel unsafe locally, 15% had considered moving because of it and 6% actually had moved.

Antisocial behaviour is happening in broad daylight, and too many people have so little confidence in the system that they no longer see the point in asking for help. Some would rather move out and start afresh than rely on local authorities and agencies helping them out. That is where we are failing. Victims are being asked to place their faith in a broken system where agencies dodge responsibility, access to justice is slow and the quality of support for victims is, unfortunately, a postcode lottery.

I welcome the introduction of stronger powers to tackle persistent offending. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduced respect orders, tougher penalties for breaches of certain notices and wider powers to tackle reoccurring disorder. However, new powers on paper do not make our streets safer; local agencies need the resources to enforce them and to give victims confidence that reporting will lead to action. Luckily, solutions exist, and frontline professionals across the country are already delivering results in challenging circumstances—for example, Resolve, which comprises many such expert voices, has made six recommendations, which this Government must take seriously.

We must start by putting victims at the heart of our response. They deserve consistent support and reassurance that somebody is taking responsibility for their case. Too often, police forces, councils and housing providers hold different pieces of information about the same individual or incident, but struggle to co-ordinate their responses. A single national agreement would enable those agencies to work together more effectively, identify patterns of behaviour and intervene earlier. We must also address the unacceptable delays in our civil justice system. The victims of persistent nuisance and intimidation are often left waiting months, sometimes years, for civil proceedings to conclude. The creation of a dedicated housing court would streamline such cases, reduce delays and ensure that justice is delivered before further harm is done.

However, none of those measures will succeed unless we make it easier for people to report what they see on their streets. That means creating a simple, standardised reporting system, and allowing victims to report anonymously and access help with cases. Also, we cannot afford to simply wait for disruptive behaviour to emerge before taking action. That is why we need greater investment in early-intervention measures aimed at supporting vulnerable individuals, engaging young people and addressing the underlying causes of antisocial behaviour. We need to direct sustained funding to community safety partnerships. Those organisations understand the challenges facing their neighbourhoods, and bring together the agencies best placed to resolve them, but they cannot deliver long-term solutions without proper support.

Those practical reforms would make an enormous difference, but alongside them we must look at the bigger picture and put an end to the austerity that causes people to lose pride in the places that they call home. Youth clubs, sports facilities, community spaces and mental health services must be protected and seen as the essential services that they are, rather than as optional extras.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that, as well as shrinkage in youth facilities and clubs, the absence of police officers on the beat in our communities means that antisocial behaviour has increased, particularly with vehicles—loud music, speeding—including the e-scooters and bikes being ridden around our towns, on our pavements and perhaps even up one-way streets? That has never been addressed because there have been no officers on the streets.

[Ayoub Khan]

We certainly need extra policing in the west midlands region and the city of Birmingham—I will come to that. In my constituency, ever since Labour brought our city into bankruptcy, the absence of those services has been felt every day. We must work to restore what has been lost.

As I said, our police forces have also been deprived of the resources to tackle the issue. For that, the Government must take their share of the blame. West Midlands police have 540 fewer police officers and 500 fewer police community support officers than in 2010. Accounting for population growth, however, we are 1,200 police officers short of the number projected 20 years ago. Unfortunately, at a time when the need for safer streets is only rising, Labour has left our police force £43 million short every year.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman has proposed a lot of positive solutions, and he rightly raises the issue of police funding. Dorset police is one of the worst funded police forces in the UK, and certainly the worst funded for PCSOs. Dorset police are trying to police 1,000 square miles. Does he agree that, until we address the central Government funding formula and give local forces the funds they need to provide the services that local communities require, we will never have an effective deterrent against antisocial behaviour?

[Ayoub Khan]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member. By way of example, 70% of the police forces up and down this country are operating with numbers equivalent to what they were in 2010. Some areas, such as the west midlands and his constituency, are not getting their fair share. We need to bring those numbers up enough to make a tangible impact. Labour has left the West Midlands police force short by £43 million every year, meaning that we could now lose another 80 officers unless we reverse that trend. Our police forces will be forced to prioritise more serious crime, leaving antisocial behaviour as an afterthought.

Causes of antisocial behaviour that are unique to each area also need rooting out. In Birmingham, one such cause is obvious: supported exempt accommodation. Birmingham houses 33,000 vulnerable people from across the country, with a fifth of the city’s units situated in my constituency. Although we must not stigmatise those who need care—we must offer them a place to rebuild their lives—residents in my constituency have repeatedly raised concerns about antisocial behaviour associated with poorly managed exempt accommodation, including even violence and property damage. When providers fail to properly support and supervise their residents, the problems play out in surrounding streets and leave neighbourhoods to suffer the consequences. The character of our streets is being actively degraded by poorly run exempt accommodation, yet the Government have done nothing to tackle the root cause. Labour councillors can blame the city council all they like, but they did nothing when they were in charge six months ago, because they know it is on the Government to end the crisis. The Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 promised us the powers to finally control the numbers of exempt properties in our city, but for over two years this Labour Government have done nothing but delay them, and now they are saying that we will not even get the powers until autumn next year.

We also need the resources to crack down on rogue providers and to support tenants. That is why we had the SEA pilot scheme, a unit that recovered millions in overpaid housing benefit and completed thousands of antisocial behaviour investigations. The scheme made a real, tangible difference, and yet the Government cut off its funding six months ago. Without urgent assistance, supported exempt accommodation will continue to drive antisocial behaviour in our streets. The Government know that, yet they continue to turn a blind eye—it is absurd. Instead of supporting the SEA pilot scheme, I understand that the Government are seeking a public inquiry into supported accommodation, which is likely to cost millions of pounds. It is absurd because everyone knows what the problem is. We do not need a public inquiry to understand the issue; we need the Government to implement the legislation that has already been passed. However, we all know what will happen: they will to use the inquiry as an excuse to delay when they already know what the solution is.

With colleagues, I will launch today a petition for the residents of Birmingham demanding that this Government implement the legislation rather than leaving it on a shelf to gather dust. I hope the Minister might be able to tell us today that that petition will not be necessary.

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

It is indeed an absurdity that we know what is happening in towns in my constituency, such as Holbeach, Long Sutton and Sutton Bridge, but the police are often tied down by bureaucracy in dealing with it. They need to be able to act quickly and decisively. Thugs and yobs are terrorising the community and what is seen as low-level crime can cause unbelievable distress to law-abiding people, so let us inject some common sense into the system, act quickly and decisively, and punish the guilty.

[Ayoub Khan]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. He is eloquent and persuasive, as always, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. The police are forced to prioritise more serious crime because of the lack of resources. Ultimately, if we do not resource the agencies properly with a proper strategic plan, matters will get worse.

I hope the Minister can tell us today that the petition will not be necessary, that the legislation that has already been passed will be enacted, and that city councils up and down this country will be given the powers they need, but I fear that that is unlikely.

To conclude, perhaps most of all we need to change the way we treat antisocial behaviour, and appreciate that it is not low-level crime. It is destructive not in the same way as a violent or serious crime, but in the way it makes people and places feel unsafe. In many cases, it does not count as a criminal offence, but let there be no doubt: these are crimes against the community that drain the morale of our residents. I sincerely ask the Minister to commit to delivering Resolve’s six recommendations, and perhaps to meeting Resolve and me so that we can discuss how to properly address the scourge of antisocial behaviour once and for all and ensure that victims’ voices can be heard. People deserve the right to feel safe in the places they call home. It is the Government’s responsibility to make that happen.

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

Given the number of Members who wish to speak, I will impose a two-minute time limit. I call Brian Leishman.

11:44

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this debate. Across Alloa and Grangemouth, there is an understandable frustration with antisocial behaviour that negatively impacts communal spaces, neighbourhood communities and public transport. Many of my constituents rightly feel a sense of injustice about the fact that the perpetrators have been allowed to act in the manner they have with few to no consequences.

My constituents have been let down, but let me be clear: the fault does not lie with our overstretched police officers. Police Scotland has been savagely cut following years of sustained SNP Government underfunding, which naturally leads to increases in issues like antisocial behaviour. Giving evidence to Holyrood’s Criminal Justice Committee, the Scottish Police Authority admitted that policing is “under severe strain” and that public trust and confidence in the service is “decreasing”. The authority said it would continue to make the case to the SNP Government for “strategic investment” and to aim to show the

“devastating consequences of flat cash.”

Let us be under no illusion: if the force’s settlement remains unchanged in cash terms, jobs will be lost.

Even though the SNP promised that officer figures would remain above 17,234, the quarterly figures show that there were 16,322 full-time equivalent officers on 30 June 2026. Officer numbers in Scotland are at their lowest level since June 2024. These SNP cuts are hollowing out Police Scotland, drastically reducing community policing across the country. Visible local police are essential in stopping crime, reducing antisocial behaviour and improving overall community safety. In two decades in government, the SNP has relentlessly cut vital public services, whether it be healthcare, education, local councils, our fire service or Police Scotland, leaving our communities far, far from safety.

11:47

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve with you and under you, Ms Butler; I welcome you to your role. As we have only two minutes, I will make one point: antisocial behaviour is arguably the most serious crime the public see. Most of the time, they do not see all the details of murders and things like that because those are not on their streets. The thing that is on their streets is the behaviour of others that wrecks their quality of life.

Shoplifting, for example, has to be taken far more seriously by police because it disrupts and destroys the lives of pretty much all those who want to go on to the streets. It destroys the likelihood of us keeping high streets and being able to give a proper service to the public. We had a problem with shoplifting in Chingford and Woodford Green, but there are things that can be done. We all blame the police for not being there, the troubles they have and the bigger policies, but I want to centre on what happens locally. In my constituency, we focused on the main high street, Station Road, which has been torn apart by shoplifters. These individuals are not turning up ad hoc because they are short of a bit of cash; many of these incidents are gang related—they are organised crime. Boots, for example, gets raided endlessly because shoplifters can get thousands of pounds-worth of goods off the shelves and walk out with nobody interrupting them.

We called together all the bigger stores that bring people on to the high street and discovered that they were not reporting the crime to the police, who said they did not know it was going on, so we forced the stores to do just that. We then said that the deal was that the police must be on the street and arrest people immediately they commit this crime. Crime began to fall on the high street because we played a part by getting cameras up and doing facial recognition. I say to all Members here today that there is more we can do to put pressure on the police, the shops and others to do more about antisocial behaviour. It is a terrible crime that destroys lives and people’s hopes. We must put pressure on Government to rectify that.

11:49

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this debate. Since being elected to represent Ealing Southall, I have spent much of my time campaigning for two things: more police on our streets and more powers for those police to take action against antisocial behaviour. I am delighted that the Government are investing in neighbourhood policing, with an additional £262 million for London.

There is no point, however, in having more police on the streets if they do not have the powers they need to act. In Ealing Southall, we have seen officers arrest people who are then out again the next day. All too often, the police are just moving people from west Ealing to Southall. That is why I have long championed Labour’s new respect orders, which give the police the power to take action against persistent offenders, with those who breach an order facing up to two years in prison or unlimited fines. It is a significant change; instead of moving persistent offenders from one end of the town centre to the other, the police can take action against them. I was delighted to welcome the Minister to Southall just a few weeks ago to launch those new powers, and I will be checking with the police over the next few weeks who they have put on a respect order.

However, there is more to do. I am campaigning for a dedicated town centre policing team for Southall; other town centres have one, but we do not because of an anomaly in how crime and antisocial behaviour data are dealt with, so I have asked the Met police to look at that issue again. I am also campaigning to get the shutters pulled up on Southall police station; they have been pulled down for 10 years, which does not send the right message locally. Finally, we need to look again at how we support recovering drug users. We put them on the methadone programme, but that means they have to come in and out of town centres almost every day to collect prescriptions, do urine tests and go to pharmacies. There is a new drug called Buvidal, and although it costs more money, we should look at its impact on town centres, as people will not need to go in and out as often.

Tackling antisocial behaviour is not just about moving people from one end of the town centre to the other. We need to bring in the new respect orders that the Government have championed. That is what people in Ealing Southall deserve, and that is what I will continue campaigning for.

11:51

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. In his closing remarks, the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) said that antisocial behaviour is not low-level crime, as it makes people feel unsafe and drains confidence from the community. That is certainly true in Mid Sussex, where we have our issues with car cruising and with e-bikes and e-scooters right across the constituency.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

On car cruising, which is being fuelled by TikTok and other social media platforms, we have cars running fast up and down main roads in my constituency, creating noise nuisance and huge danger for residents. The police are on to this issue, but they say they need preventive measures. I have asked Kent county council whether it will introduce speed cameras, but it has said no. Does the hon. Lady agree that councils need to step up?

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions need to be short and snappy.

[Alison Bennett]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

I want to focus my remarks on town centres, and the need to have civic pride and facilities that people want to visit and enjoy being in. The story of the Martlets shopping centre redevelopment in Burgess Hill is too long to cover in the next minute and a half. However, despite the best endeavours of successive councils over many years, there are derelict buildings there. On Saturday afternoon, when I walked across the town centre with one of my children, she pointed out that there were smashed windows. Then, when we walked back, she told me that one of the smashed windows was open. We looked up and could see masked youths in the shuttered building, which used to contain a little supermarket. That level of neglect for facilities is bad for communities, and it is bad for the people of Burgess Hill.

Burgess Hill has done everything it can to try to get its town centre redeveloped. However, the levelling-up bids failed under the last Government, and the town is not eligible for Pride in Place funding, as far as we can tell, so that money has not been forthcoming. We are hopeful that a joint venture bringing together public and private sector money may actually get the town centre redevelopment off the ground but, as it stands, the morale of people who live in Burgess Hill is low.

The town council has done what it can by bringing the Park Centre back into use, providing youth facilities. The Burgess Hill Creative Community has taken up an empty unit in the Martlets shopping centre, where people can come together and do a variety of good, creative projects. People want the town centre to be one that works. Obviously, the policing presence is really important, but if we do not get the skeleton right—the civic pride and buildings that work and that people love and want to go to—we will attract the wrong kind of people: a handful of people who want to make life a misery for the vast majority of law-abiding citizens, who are there for their town and to support their community.

11:55

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for bringing forward this important debate.

I begin by commending the work of Action on ASB!, a community campaign set up in Brixton to push for action on crime and antisocial behaviour, and made up of residents who simply want their neighbourhood to feel safer. As with other Members, antisocial behaviour—on high streets and tubes and at train stations right across our neighbourhood—keeps coming up in my casework and correspondence. Residents on Nursery Road describe public urination, defecation and aggression. On Bernay’s Grove, people have found human waste on their doorsteps. On Electric Avenue, constituents tell me about drug use and soliciting at the Brixon high street end. On St Rule Street, residents report parties, drug taking and intimidating behaviour. On the Roupell Park estate, people tell me about bullying and disrespect towards older residents.

Antisocial behaviour is also a huge hindrance to businesses and those who work really hard to keep them going. My constituents raise these issues year after year, but they have given up on reporting, because the process is too long and feels like it does not yield results.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

Just this morning, one of my Horsham constituents contacted me about the risk of a “Why bother?” attitude—why bother to report anything if nothing ever gets done? But in Kilnwood Vale, residents and local councillors Hannah Butler and Sam Raby refused to accept that reckless street racing is just something to put up with, and we now have a CCTV camera. Does the hon. Member agree that we have to prove to local residents that we are listening and that it is worth bothering?

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

Why have you got an intervention written down?

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He is absolutely right: we do have to show them that these interventions are working, not least because it adds to the data on how much policing is needed in the area. If people do not report these things, and do not feel like there are results, nothing can really move forward.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to neighbourhood policing. The Government say they met their first target in January this year, but my constituents are not seeing or feeling that police presence on their streets in a meaningful way. For example, when the corner shop next door to my constituency office was robbed at knifepoint, our officers were probably being deployed to arrest pensioners holding up signs in central London. I would like my constituents to feel the effect of the proper community policing pledged by this Government, with the delivery of real neighbourhood policing officers sped up in places like Brixton, where the problems are long standing and well documented.

I would also like to see my local council, Lambeth, properly funded to tackle the addiction and homelessness crisis we face. We must get the root of the matter. We need to see a holistic approach to antisocial behaviour, because we simply cannot police our way out of this problem. I also truly believe that a difference can be made with a standing multi-agency group that brings together the police, the council, health services, housing and outreach teams, so that people are talking to each other and not working in silos—an issue I see time and again, with different bodies trying to tackle this problem, but no one talking to each other. That is not working, and is only exacerbating my constituents’ concerns about not being properly listened to and being made to feel that they are going round the same roundabouts.

Clapham and Brixton Hill should be a place where everyone feels safe. My constituents are asking to be listened to and to see change and, as someone who has called the area my home for my entire life, so am I.

11:58

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

My inbox is flooded with correspondence from concerned constituents about a string of issues related to antisocial behaviour across Keighley and Ilkley: masked people in balaclavas riding e-bikes on pavements; quad bikes doing doughnuts in public spaces; deliberately loud cars racing through the centre of Keighley and along the bypass; a group of teenagers that has made Keighley bus station somewhere people now want to avoid; laughing gas cannisters, nitrous oxide, being used illegally by those driving under its influence and then thrown out of the window. People are seeing this every single day, and it is having a negative consequence on our area. It should not continue.

In areas like Dalton Mills, justice is not prevailing. In 2022, 100 firefighters attended an arson attack. Some £50 million of damage was caused, with £130,000 of impact to local businesses and lives put at risk, yet the perpetrator got a suspended prison sentence—a slap on the wrist. That only gives the green light for further attacks to take place; there is no deterrent at all. One of my constituents said to me:

“I rarely, if ever, see any…form of authority addressing these issues.”

That brings me to the Government’s narrative of increasing neighbourhood police numbers to 13,000. Police officers have put to me that new recruits are not coming into their force; there is simply a reshuffling of the deckchairs, where officers who are already doing a good job elsewhere within their local force are reallocated to neighbourhood police work.

Can the Minister tell me how many additional new recruits have joined our neighbourhood police teams, and specifically how many have been added in West Yorkshire? Where police officers have been reallocated from their teams, what analysis are the Government doing of whether there has been a negative impact elsewhere?

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. Antisocial behaviour is a recurring concern for residents in my constituency. I raised this issue in June last year and since then, I have continued to hear from constituents about the effect it is having in our town centres and public places.

A crime that is not reported, investigated or followed up can quickly become a crime that is repeated. The response to antisocial behaviour should be measured not just by the number incidents recorded, but by whether people feel confident in reporting it and whether they see action.

Two young men from Hednesford spoke to me about groups gathering in town centres and parks and how intimidating that can feel. When I welcomed pupils from Kingsmead school to Parliament, they raised concerns about phone thefts involving e-scooters. Cannock Chase district council has used public spaces protection orders to address persistent problems, including the rising antisocial use of vehicles and e-scooters, as well as street drinking.

The Linkway retail park in Cannock offers a positive example. Staffordshire police identified it as a hotspot for car meets, racing and excessive noise. Officers issued warning letters to drivers identified through CCTV and held targeted patrols at peak times. Police community support officers also removed stickers that were advertising the meets. That led to a significant reduction in complaints. However, there had to be a nuanced response because for years before those issues arose, there had been respectful and well-managed car meets—a reminder that, as we target antisocial behaviour, appropriate use of public spaces should be supported.

Partnership working does not remove the need for visible neighbourhood policing. I welcome Staffordshire police’s announcement of 53 additional officers, but the force also change PCSO shift patterns in June so half of them now finish at 7 pm and half of them at 9 pm. That has led to concerns among my constituents over whether PCSOs will be available when antisocial behaviour is happening. The neighbourhood policing guarantee should be judged not only by the number of officers recruited, but by whether communities see a consistent and effective police presence.

I hope the Minister can speak about whether the Home Office will look at the impact of changing shift patterns on neighbourhood policing, particularly how we can ensure that the guarantee delivers visible, accessible policing in town centres and residential areas during the hours when antisocial behaviour is most likely to occur.

12:02

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

It is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this debate, and I thank his students for coming to witness it. I suspect that if they come back in 10 years’ time, we will still be debating antisocial behaviour because nothing ever gets done in this place.

Antisocial behaviour destroys families, communities and, ultimately, the country. About four years ago, I went to Singapore with the Home Affairs Committee—I am sure the Minister was on a similar flight. I noticed that there was no graffiti, antisocial behaviour or crime. I also did not see a police car or officer all week. Does anybody know why? It is because the consequences of antisocial behaviour in Singapore are a little bit more severe than in this country.

My town centre, Sutton-in-Ashfield, is full of yobs, drunkards and people on drugs. The police do turn up, but they do absolutely nothing because they think it is a waste of time. They move the people on, and then they come back the following day. One of my solutions for the Minister is this: if those yobs who keep returning are living on state benefits, we should stop the benefits. It is the same with social housing. People in some of my council estates are creating all sorts of problems for their neighbours. If they are living in social housing and living a life on benefits, and causing problems in my community, why do we not just kick them out of their social housing, stop the benefits and create some real repercussions? A lot of my residents think it is a waste of time to report antisocial behaviour to the police and the council, especially when my Ashfield district council—people have probably seen it in the news recently—is being run by criminals like Councillor Tom Hollis, who has a string of convictions, including lots of antisocial behaviour, under his belt.

The solutions are simple. Stop the benefits for these people who are causing problems in our town centre. If they live in social housing, kick them out of the houses. Minister, this is really simple stuff—simple.

12:04

[Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this important debate.

One difficulty we face when discussing antisocial behaviour is that too often we underestimate how serious it is. A group of young people gathering outside a shop, shouting in the street late at night or repeatedly causing disturbances in a neighbourhood might seem like a minor incident and perhaps be dismissed as young people simply being young people. But in my constituency we have seen how serious these situations can become. The former Moreton Hall prep school in Bury St Edmunds, which has stood empty since 2020, is the site of vandalism and fires. Last July, an arson attack on that building resulted in about 100 people being evacuated from neighbouring houses. What might begin as young people gathering around an abandoned building can become something far more dangerous, for those involved and for the wider community. For residents living nearby, that is not a minor matter.

Persistent antisocial behaviour erodes the very sense of security that makes a community feel like home. I serve on the Home Affairs Committee and have seen just how important the renewed focus on neighbourhood policing is. This is a real opportunity to change how we approach antisocial behaviour. Neighbourhood policing is about rebuilding relationships between the police and the communities that they serve. It is about having officers who know their neighbourhoods, recognise the warning signs and intervene before relatively minor incidents become something far more serious. That gives residents confidence that when they report antisocial behaviour, somebody listens.

Let us move away from the idea that antisocial behaviour is somehow inevitable. It is not inevitable and certainly is not something that communities should simply have to put up with. I am sure that, with effective neighbourhood policing and a willingness to take this concern seriously, we can make a real difference.

12:07

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. A big thank you to the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for coming forward with this debate.

The police record more than 1 million incidents of antisocial behaviour every year across the United Kingdom. Antisocial behaviour plagues many of our communities. The consequences are not just financial, although costly damage is caused to both public and private property. This behaviour is also causing people to feel intimidated and unable to enjoy their own neighbourhoods.

To be fair to the Minister and the Labour Government, they are doing some good things. They have renewed their commitment to tackling antisocial behaviour by introducing tougher restrictions and dedicated operations to target town centres, for example.

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

People in my constituency are concerned about town-centre antisocial behaviour and rightly expect action. To give credit where it is due, Devon and Cornwall police saw a 10% reduction in antisocial behaviour in the year to May, helped by targeted Home Office-funded hotspot patrols. Does the hon. Member agree that although there is more to do, that represents welcome progress?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do. Street drinking and e-scooter misuse are also being addressed. The newly introduced respect orders provide further powers for both police and local councils to take action against persistent offenders. I encourage and welcome that.

Enforcement is essential, but we must also work to understand what causes antisocial behaviour, because that is the real issue. For adults involved in antisocial behaviour, mental health problems and drug misuse are cited as the key drivers. In relation to children and young people, who tend to be the main source of antisocial behaviour, it has been found that unstable home environments, lack of education and peer pressure are significant contributors. Uniquely, in Northern Ireland we must recognise that there remains a continuing threat posed by paramilitary groups, which can exploit vulnerable young people and accelerate antisocial behaviours. We must do more to support parents in their responsibilities, ensuring that they know where their children are, particularly during the evenings, and are able to encourage their children to take responsibility for their actions.

I commend the churches in Strangford for what they do. They have youth groups and clubs and encourage young people to come in. They try to keep them off the streets if at all possible. May I also make a plea on behalf of street pastors? They are very active right through my constituency. They do great work to reach out and help young people, and no one can ignore their impact.

Newtownards in my constituency experienced antisocial behaviour over the summer. These incidents have a lasting impact on the wider community. Residents report feeling less confident about going out, fearing intimidation or harassment. Parents with young children are increasingly reluctant to use local parks, while others avoid walking in the evening because they do not feel safe.

The public should not have to live in fear because of the behaviour of a minority. When it comes to increasing enforcement powers, given the success of some of the powers in England in Wales, I ask the Minister—who is always responsive, and I thank her for that—to engage with the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Minister for Policing and Justice and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. We can defeat antisocial behaviour if we do it together.

12:10

[Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. Antisocial behaviour is not a minor nuisance; left unchecked, it frays the fabric of our communities and leaves people feeling unsafe in the places that they live. In my constituency it covers a lot of ground, but for the purpose of today’s debate, I want to focus on e-scooters and e-bikes being used in a harmful way. The bikes I am talking about are not the legal e-bikes most people might picture; many have been modified well beyond that. Some are capable of doing more than 70 mph, and they are being ridden along pavements and in and out of people who are doing their shopping.

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

At a recent roundtable I held with police, they talked about how illegal e-scooters and e-bikes were facilitating crime and antisocial behaviour. When I was canvassing in my constituency, the issue of young people in balaclavas zooming around on e-scooters and intimidating families and children also came up. Does the hon. Member agree that the Department for Transport’s current consultation on the hired e-bike scheme should be extended to include all illegal e-scooters and e-bikes, to address their role in antisocial behaviour?

[Naushabah Khan]

I do agree. The law is fairly clear: a private e-scooter or an overpowered e-bike cannot be ridden on a public road. The difficulty is how easily they can be bought. Couple that with the reality of an individual riding at speed, a police officer on foot and the risk to the rider themselves in a high-speed pursuit, the challenge in tackling this issue becomes glaringly obvious.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is touching on the issue of illegal e-bikes. Members will be aware that I presented a ten-minute rule Bill earlier this year that would have brought in a ban on their sale. Does she agree that the single biggest thing we could do to help our police is to ensure that these bikes never touch our streets in the first place, by restricting their sale?

[Naushabah Khan]

I agree that we need to look at the sale of these bikes much more closely. Conversion kits that can turn an ordinary peddle bike into something more powerful can be ordered online for less than £300. Complete machines are sold on the basis that they are for use on private land, when everyone knows where they actually end up. Young people are able to buy them with little standing in their way.

I welcome the steps that the Government have already taken to strengthen legislation in this area; however, I ask the Minister to consider two things. The former Department for Business and Trade committed to responding to its product safety consultation within 12 weeks of it closing in June. That deadline has now passed by some two months. Will the Minister press colleagues to publish the response without further delay and make the case from the Home Office that restricting the sale of conversion kits would ease the burden on our police?

The second thing is enforcement. At the moment, there is no consistent national approach, and results vary a great deal from one force to the next. Where an approach has worked, it has been well planned and properly resourced. In London, the Met has targeted hotspots using intelligence, tested bikes at the roadside with rolling roads and put officers on e-bikes of their own. It has seized more than 2,500 illegal bikes this year, and phone theft in the west end has nearly halved. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether the Government will look at a national framework for enforcement, based on best practice evidence, and push for it to be properly funded, so that my Gillingham and Rainham constituents can see the same results on their high streets.

12:14

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler.

Tackling antisocial behaviour is vital to restoring pride in our communities, but for too many people in Scarborough, pride in where they live has been replaced by anxiety, frustration and fear. Increasingly, antisocial behaviour is concentrated around a small number of premises in the town centre that provide emergency temporary accommodation.

The impact on nearby residents and businesses has been profound. One constituent, Brian Witty, told me,

“It’s making my life a complete misery—my cameras are going off all night with people mooching about drinking, taking drugs, alcohol and fighting…I can’t have my grandchildren over because of the foul language and cannabis use.”

Another constituent, Rachel, said:

“Incidents are taking place every single day on the streets surrounding these properties, not just sporadically. We can’t use our garden anymore. We can’t even leave our windows open on hot days because of the noise and the smell.”

Guests of another accommodation provider requested refunds after experiencing sustained disruption during their stay.

Since raising those concerns with site operators, including a company called Homemore, I am pleased to say that meaningful improvements, such as 24-hour on-site security, have been made. Although the challenges remain, those measures have begun to make a positive difference.

To be clear, I do not oppose emergency accommodation being located in Scarborough, but we are seeing an over-concentration in one town out of a large county: 103 people were recently placed in emergency accommodation across North Yorkshire, and 58 were in Scarborough. We do not mind taking our share, but does the Minister agree that, although vulnerable people deserve safe accommodation, the communities that host them deserve fairness too?

12:16

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

For years, the story of bonfire night in Niddrie and Craigmillar has been one of disorder. In 2023, 62 officers were injured when fireworks were fired at the police. Heartbreakingly, fireworks also caused the death from stress of a baby red panda at Edinburgh zoo.

After that, local people and the police decided that families should not have to be afraid on 5 November, and they launched an incredible operation. Thankfully, last Thursday, Niddrie was quiet. First and foremost, I thank the police—local PS Graeme Carolan and the local team, and the police officers who came up from England to help on patrol. That shows the value of cross-UK solidarity for our communities. I also want to thank Jeannie Robertson-Frazier and Donna Ruth from Sandy’s community centre, Kirsty Haigh from Edinburgh Food Social, and Cheryl Neill and Suzanne Douglas from Places for People’s Hays community hub.

The good news in Niddrie is remarkable, because it is unusual. Policing in Musselburgh is a disgrace. I get almost daily emails from constituents reporting intimidation, harassment, supermarket theft and smashed-up restaurants. I have launched petitions, hosted coffee mornings, worked with the police and written countless letters to Scottish Ministers, yet precious little has been done. Our police do amazing work, but they are let down by the SNP. Although Edinburgh is Scotland’s capital, the E division that covers it has only 20 officers per 10,000 people—a third below the Scottish average.

The SNP loves to make comparisons to England and Wales when it suits it, but the English average is 24 officers per 10,000 people; in Musselburgh it is only 16. It is inexplicable to me that the Scottish Government have had an extra £18 billion from this Labour Government, yet none of it has made its way to frontline policing. My constituents are paying the price. Solving antisocial behaviour is not rocket science: we just need more police.

12:18

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Butler.

There were 3,707 reported cases of antisocial behaviour in York over the last year, out of 14,500 reported offences—shoplifting comes in at about 1,700. It is a serious issue in my constituency, as my community organising over the summer has shown. It includes young people using e-bikes, shoplifting, and groups of young people just gathering with nothing to do.

We need to talk about not just addressing the issue but preventing it. That is where I want to focus Ministers’ attention. Our youth services were decimated in 2011, and we are paying a heavy price for that. Cash-strapped local authorities struggle to meet their statutory responsibilities, let alone provide those essential services on top.

If we invest early, we can see incredible results. York youth partnership is working in a multi-agency way to address the issues that young people face. We are getting youth hubs from the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Government are putting money into bringing people into a different space after offending, but I want prevention to be at the heart of our approach. When I talk to the police, they say it is a job for the local authority; when I talk to people in the local authority, they say it is somebody else’s work. We need to put the investment in. I want to see our local authority working with the police on reformulating all these services.

Whether they are covered by the DWP, falling out of education or causing antisocial behaviour on our streets, these young people are the same young people. We need a formulation that will bring all of them into a productive space, giving them opportunities for the future.

12:20

[Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this debate.

Antisocial behaviour is one of the most significant issues in my inbox. One of the areas impacted in my constituency is Spon End, Sherbourne. That is truly heartbreaking, because there is so much to look forward to in Sherbourne. The area is going through significant regeneration: the City Centre South development, which has regenerated 250 affordable homes; Naul’s Mill underpark; and the opening up of the River Sherbourne, which showcases the heritage and beauty of the area. It is also home to Langar Aid, a charity that, last year, provided more than 1 million meals to the most vulnerable people across our country.

Sadly, all that is overshadowed by antisocial behaviour. Recently, I held a coffee afternoon with residents in the area, and I visited one of the local schools. What I heard was truly shocking: drug dealers targeting vulnerable people near schools, people passing out and defecating on the streets, and e-scooters and e-bikes being driven recklessly. There was one incident where a man under the influence walked into a local primary school during pick-up time, and all the kids could see it. Following that incident, I held a roundtable with Langar Aid, Change Grow Live, Coventry city council, West Midlands police and Coventry and Warwickshire integrated care board to address it. I understand that two arrests have been made by the police, but there is so much left for us to do.

I want to ask the Minister three clear questions. First, what support is being provided to schools to ensure that they have an allocated police contact for incidents like this? Secondly, is the Minister considering expanding respect orders outside of high streets and city centres to more hidden areas such as Spon End in my constituency? Finally, when will my constituents start to feel the impact of investment in local policing on their streets?

12:22

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

When I was elected, it was on the back of three pledges, one of which was to work to revitalise our towns. A key aspect of that is tackling antisocial behaviour in St Austell. Although Cornwall has a lower crime rate than the national average, around 405 incidents of ASB have been recorded in St Austell in the last year, which makes it the second most common category of recorded crime, underlying why tackling it remains such a priority for residents. St Austell ranks fifth among the nine towns in the area for recorded crime, but the town centre faces a challenge of the perception, as well as the reality, of those ASB incidents, which so often relate to drugs and alcohol.

I commend the work of Safer Cornwall, Cornwall council’s ASB and rough sleeping teams, and St Austell police. The summer blitz that took place last year delivered 1,500 hours of police foot patrols across the focus areas, including St Austell, with 590 arrests for retail crime and 79 for street crime. In August, police and partners also served full closure orders on two addresses in the area. But there is much more to do: throughout my community conversations in the last few months, it was clear that we need to tackle the upstream causes of antisocial behaviour.

On youth services, enforcement alone cannot give young people something to do and somewhere to go. The Government have published the first national youth strategy in more than a decade, backed by more than £500 million of investment. Cornwall has secured £1.5 million for two Young Futures hubs. Ramping up funding to tackle drug and alcohol abuse is vital; it was slashed under previous Governments by more than half in real terms.

I want to be candid: although we need to take a humanitarian approach, we must also take a firm approach. That is why we must be sensible and strategic about the provision of supported accommodation, and have tough conversations with Cornwall council. I was pleased that it has been reviewing its approach in recent years. Will the Minister come back to St Austell in her current role, bringing to bear the full might of Government behind my pledge for St Austell?

12:24

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I hear regularly about antisocial behaviour from my residents across Portsmouth North. For many, it seriously affects their quality of life and their ability to feel safe in their own home. I will give one example.

Residents on one road contacted me after enduring months and months of appalling behaviour: motorbikes racing up and down, car wing mirrors being smashed, doorbells being rung late at night, properties being damaged, shouting in the street and, unbelievably, human faeces being dumped on the road—just imagine being woken in the middle of night, wondering what damage you might find in the morning and feeling anxious about simply opening your door. Those residents simply wanted to live peacefully in their own homes. They were angry and exhausted, and above all, they felt that no one was listening. No one should have to live like that.

What made matters worse was that, initially, no one seemed to take responsibility. Residents were passed from one service to another, including by our elected councillors—it was someone else’s problem. They and I found that incredibly frustrating. People should not have to navigate a maze of agencies just to feel safe.

[Lee Anderson]

Does the hon. Member agree that one reason we have seen an increase in antisocial behaviour in our country is the amount of illegal migrants who are being dumped in hotels and HMOs?

[Amanda Martin]

No.

I brought the residents, the council, the police and other services together in a meeting at my office. We agreed a plan of action. The perpetrators were dealt with and, importantly, the problem has not returned—but why did it take so much effort? Why should residents have to reach the end of their tether before agencies sit down together and sort things out?

This is not an isolated problem. Across Portsmouth, concerns are growing about the antisocial use of electric bikes and e-scooters, as others have noted. Residents are worried about vehicles being ridden, the speeds they are ridden at and their use in criminality, putting pedestrians and other road users at risk. I warmly welcome the Government’s action on named neighbourhood police officers and on strengthening powers to seize and crush, without a warning first, such vehicles being used antisocially. We need those powers to be used consistently, however, and we need a public campaign on the legal and illegal use of e-bikes and scooters, and to stop their purchase in the first place.

That brings me to respect orders. I welcome their introduction. They give the police, councils and social landlords additional tools to tackle persistent local offenders, including restricting access to particular areas and being able to require individuals to change their behaviour, but such powers are useful only if they are used. The Minister previously told the House that police in Hemel Hempstead had identified 30 potential cases ready for the introduction of respect orders, and we have now seen the first orders granted in Gloucestershire. That is action—but can the Minister tell me how many applications have been made by the Hampshire and Isle of Wight constabulary, and how many of those have been granted? What practical support is being given to ensure that our local police and councils make full use of their powers?

Ultimately, this is about people being able to sleep peacefully, feel safe when walking down the street and have confidence that when they report antisocial behaviour, someone will do something about it. It should not be the case that our residents have to shout louder than the perpetrators before someone listens. New powers must mean action—and safer streets and communities—not simply strong words.

12:27

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this debate.

Recently, I held one of my regular coffee mornings in Silkmore in Stafford, and residents raised a wide range of issues, but a common theme emerged from the discussion: people want to see more visible policing in their communities. They want to know that their concerns will be taken seriously, and that officers understand the area that they serve.

The same theme came out during the independent business roundtable in Stafford town centre. Business owners spoke passionately about the contribution they make to the high street, but they also talked about the negative effect that antisocial behaviour is having in our town centre. Favourites such as Webb, Lucas & Stubbs optometrists now have an automatic lock fitted on the door to ensure that staff are safe, and Salter Street Toys and Models is reconsidering how to run its business, telling me that the thing that often makes the most difference is a visible police presence, with PCSOs around regularly.

Neighbourhood policing has faced considerable cuts over many years. Communities have felt the loss of that local presence, and that is why I welcome the renewed focus on neighbourhood policing under this Labour Government. One thing that struck me from my conversation with residents, however, is that they are not simply asking for more police or tougher enforcement; they want us to address the underlying causes of the problems.

This summer in Stafford, we sadly had an issue of antisocial behaviour involving young people in the town centre. I am a former youth worker, so I am aware that people often reach for young people when it is ASB, and I do not like the two always being conflated—but with this issue, that was true. In Stafford, we had the third worst cuts to youth services in the country. Those were decisions made by Conservative Administrations prior to our involvement. My residents know that to turn things around in the long term we must consider how we create opportunities and strengthen the communities that young people are growing up in. That is why I am campaigning for a youth centre in Stafford like the one that my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) has coming to his constituency.

12:30

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler.

I will start by reflecting on the comments of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), who suggested that we should make more people homeless in order to tackle antisocial behaviour. I suggest to him that homeless people may be more likely to engage in antisocial behaviour and annoy his constituents.

[Lee Anderson]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Max Wilkinson]

I will at the end of this point.

[Lee Anderson]

No you won’t.

[Max Wilkinson]

I will. The hon. Member also expressed his admiration for Singapore, where smoking in public is regarded as antisocial behaviour—I wonder whether his party leader might have views on that. Given the hon. Member’s own past conduct in Parliament—the behaviour that he engaged in with House of Commons staff—he might reflect that he might be out of pocket to the tune of several thousands of pounds if Singapore-style laws were introduced in the UK. I will now give way.

[Lee Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I am not worried about losing my job here; I have a GB News job that pays very handsomely. On his point about me trying to make people homeless, if there is a feral family living next door to me, my friends, my relatives or my constituents, I have absolutely no problem at all with kicking them out and letting other residents have a peaceful life.

[Max Wilkinson]

It is instructive that the hon. Member is boasting about his second job in this debate.

As Sir Mark Rowley told us last week, we have fewer police officers per head than France, Germany, Italy or Spain—in fact, fewer than most of Europe. In that context it is little wonder that people the length and breadth of the country repeatedly tell us their concerns about antisocial behaviour. Higher police visibility, facilitated by higher numbers, will clearly help us to fight antisocial behaviour.

The Office for National Statistics tells us that an estimated 41% of people experienced or witnessed antisocial behaviour in the year ending June 2026, up from 36% the previous year. All too often antisocial behaviour sucks the life out of our towns and city centres. In residential areas, too, it makes going about daily life a misery.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

In Torbay the town centres tend to be a focus for antisocial behaviour, often involving the drugs and alcohol challenges of street-attached people. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to take a strong enforcement approach and, equally, to ensure that there is wraparound support for those who want to exit that world?

[Max Wilkinson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The answer is, of course, more community policing. After years of Conservative-led cuts to police numbers, people want visible, trusted local police officers who know their area and have the time and presence to prevent crime, not just to respond to it. For that to be effective, the police must be visible in the communities they serve.

Thanks to the decimation of proper community policing, we have seen a drastic decline in frontline police counters. In Bedfordshire the number of counters has reduced by 78%, in Surrey by 60%, in the west midlands by 58%, in West Yorkshire by 53% and in Greater London by 52%. That decline must be reversed by the installation of a police counter in every community across the country, as the Liberal Democrats have called for. They could be in community hubs such as libraries, shopping centres and town halls—convenient, accessible locations. That is how we will start to rebuild trust and improve police visibility in response to crime.

[Monica Harding]

I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend that we need more community policing and more visible policing. I have already made the point in the House that we need warranted officers on streets rather than at their desks or in call centres. Does he agree that the more the public report incidents of antisocial behaviour that they do not report at the moment, the more action we will get on it? Perhaps the Minister might think about how we can encourage the public to report the incidents they see.

[Max Wilkinson]

I commend my hon. Friend’s comments to the Minister.

Confusing legal frameworks make many instances of antisocial behaviour difficult to police. E-bikes, which have already been mentioned, are a common complaint in towns and city centres up and down the country, including in my constituency. Public concern is growing over the dangerous misuse of illegally modified high-speed e-bikes on pavements and in pedestrianised areas such as the High Street and the Promenade in Cheltenham. This is a particular concern to older people and parents with young children, but it can certainly alarm anyone—I speak from personal experience. It is antisocial behaviour in itself, but the suspicion is that these e-bikes are regularly used by drugs gangs and in county lines.

The legal framework for e-bikes is confusing, outdated and rarely enforced. As the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan) mentioned, high-power conversion kits and illegal bikes are readily available online with almost no regulatory oversight. That would be a good starting point for Ministers wanting to introduce measures to tackle antisocial behaviour. We must tackle illegal e-bikes, including by giving police forces updated training to spot, intercept and confiscate them. Will Ministers look at how these proposals might tackle antisocial behaviour?

We must also recognise that a huge quantity of serious crime has moved online, as Sir Mark warned last week. The latest strategic assessment from the National Crime Agency warned that rapid technological change is the primary driver in serious organised crime, with the threat set to increase. That change is diverting resources away from frontline policing, producing poorer outcomes for victims of other crimes, including antisocial behaviour. A dedicated online crime agency would ensure that online crime was treated with the seriousness that it merits and would free up officers’ time to focus on neighbourhood crime, including antisocial behaviour.

That online crime agency would be funded by a new online crime levy on the big tech and artificial intelligence companies whose platforms enable the most serious crimes that Sir Mark warned about last week: child sexual abuse, fraud and money laundering. It would stop neighbourhood police being dragged off their streets to deal with those forms of online crime, which in many cases they are not trained to deal with. Just last week, Sir Mark warned that the police risk heading for failure if reforms do not empower officers to keep up with modern criminals operating online. Will Ministers consider that proposal, which the Lib Dems have set out before, to establish an online crime agency in order to improve community response on our streets?

The Government have made positive steps on some of these issues through their neighbourhood policing guarantee, but the proof will be in its delivery, especially given the upcoming police reform legislation. They must get those reforms right, with a proper focus on community policing, or they risk placing communities at greater risk and harming public confidence in the system. If the merging of forces means that officers become more distant from the communities they serve and less able to respond to local crimes, the Government will be making a serious mistake. Worryingly, the agenda being set by the Home Office seems to run counter to the devolution direction being set by the Prime Minister, particularly in respect of the number of boundaries that will be set and accountability to regional mayors. When will we find out how police reform fits in with the Prime Minister’s flagship agenda?

12:37

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) on securing this important debate, and I thank all 17 right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the United Kingdom who have taken part in it.

We all recognise the descriptions and anecdotes we have heard today. Antisocial behaviour is a widespread issue that we all face: the noise from fireworks, the glance over the shoulder on the walk home, the quiet bus journey spent trying not to attract attention—for victims and witnesses alike, it inspires nothing but stress and fear. It stops pensioners walking to the shops, bus drivers feeling safe in their cabs and families feeling secure in their own homes. As the dark nights creep in, it erodes people’s confidence in their communities and in this Government’s ability to protect them.

The latest crime survey for England and Wales estimates that 41.4% of people experienced or witnessed antisocial behaviour last year, up from 36.7% the year before. Behind those figures are real people who need to see real change, not simply another promise. I am sure that the Government will point to the Crime and Policing Act, much of which we supported, and to the respect orders introduced last month—a number of Members have mentioned those—but legislation is only the starting point. The test is whether people will notice any reduction in the chaos on their streets. I am not confident that that change will be felt.

We all want reassurances that the Government have this problem in hand, but reported cases of antisocial behaviour continue to rise, and with police officer numbers falling, people rightly question how the Government will use the Act’s new antisocial behaviour data powers to help forces target their already stretched resources more effectively. How will the Government effect change without the officers to enforce it?

Police numbers have been in decline since the Government took office. At the same time, the Government have facilitated the early release of prisoners. The Conservative party has committed to providing 10,000 more police officers and 200,000 additional hotspot patrols, because we recognise that respect orders alone can mean something only if there are officers trained and ready to use them.

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend is making a strong point about police resources and how they are allocated to trouble spots. There is also the issue of police morale. When the police are burdened by bureaucracy and cannot act decisively and quickly, they feel inhibited in taking the action the public expect them to. Does he agree that we need to look at a new protocol for this kind of policing, driven by Government and implemented locally, that would mean that criminals are caught and punished and that the public feel safer?

[John Lamont]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I think the police do an amazing job—certainly in my constituency, they work as hard as they possibly can to keep communities and residents as safe as they possibly can—but, as he highlights, morale is a big concern. The police are far too stretched. They are dealing with very stressful situations and worry about doing the best they can. In rural communities like mine and his, they cover a huge area, which compounds the stress. We need universality of standards and support to ensure that police officers are able to do the job we expect. We need new officers, because without them, antisocial behaviour will continue to escalate.

One form of antisocial behaviour that we have not heard much about today but concerns many people is cannabis smoking. In England and Wales, drug use and dealing are among the most commonly experienced or witnessed forms of antisocial behaviour. It is often shrugged off as harmless, yet a King’s College London review of 63 studies involving more than 265,000 people found that cannabis users were more likely both to commit violence and to fall victim to it. Users were around twice as likely to have committed a violent act. That is why the Conservative party has called for police intervention—a formal caution or immediate justice intervention for a first offence, and prosecution before a magistrate for a second offence—when someone is seen smoking cannabis in public. Public drug use cannot be tolerated.

[Jim Shannon]

Some of the figures in the press in the last week or 10 days indicate that there has been a massive rise in the number of over-50s taking cannabis and cocaine; it is not always young people. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that those in that age group are participating more than ever and that there has to be a focus on them, too?

[John Lamont]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point: it is much more prevalent. I am certainly much more aware of it when I walk down the street, and I am getting more and more complaints from constituents who are experiencing it in the home setting because they are smelling it from neighbouring flats or houses. I will come to that.

We have heard from a number of fellow Scots about the problems that we are facing in Scotland, but it is disappointing that there are no SNP MPs in the Chamber to talk about the antisocial behaviour that I am sure many of their constituents are experiencing. Policing and prosecution are devolved, but my constituents in the Scottish Borders feel the problem of antisocial behaviour, too.

A 2024 World Health Organisation study of 44 countries found that the rate of cannabis use among 15-year-old boys was highest in Scotland. That should shame us all. Since 2016, police in Scotland have been able to issue a recorded police warning for cannabis possession instead of reporting it to the procurator fiscal. In 2021, that was extended to all drugs, including those in class A.

The Crown insists that that is not decriminalisation, but that is not how it smells to any of my constituents sitting in their living rooms or playing with their children in their gardens. Hardly a week goes by without residents—families with young children, older people, those recovering from illness at home—contacting me about their neighbours’ cannabis smoke filling their homes. They report to it the police and the housing association, but they have come to expect that nothing will be done, because they know that the Crown Office is unlikely to prosecute. Whatever the legal technicalities, for those residents, that feels like effective decriminalisation. A law not enforced is not a law at all. People are losing faith that anyone will stand up for them.

With a new Lord Advocate in post since June, now is the time to review that approach so that police and housing associations have the backing they need to act. Yet as we heard from the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), under the SNP, Police Scotland now has fewer officers than when it was created in 2013. In a rural area such as mine, officers are often expected to travel miles to deal with incidents. Will the Minister join me and the other Scottish Members who have spoken in pressing the Scottish Government to take a stronger approach to drug use in residential areas and ensure that rural communities have the police officers they need?

Antisocial behaviour in train and bus stations was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). This week, Borders Buses wrote to me about antisocial behaviour in the Galashiels transport interchange, which is the gateway to the Borders railway. It gives a very useful worked example of what is happening in many bus and train stations across the country. Border Buses operates across all of Scotland, including in Glasgow, yet some of the worst antisocial behaviour it faces is in the Scottish Borders. Timetable leaflets have been set on fire, the customer service hub has had to be closed, and the customer service adviser had to be moved to another floor of the building for their own safety.

As the nights draw in, Border Buses is asking for a visible security presence and warns that, if things do not improve, they may have to consider withdrawing from the transport interchange altogether. For the many people in the Borders who do not drive, that would be a devastating loss. That is the true cost of antisocial behaviour: it robs communities of the services that people depend on. Border Buses staff at the interchange are crucial to local transport links, yet the Scottish Government’s new measures to tackle antisocial behaviour on buses do not include incidents at the train station itself.

It is also important to recognise that many of the incidents of antisocial behaviour involve older people with mental health difficulties who have fallen through the gaps in social care, rather than young people, which is a point that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made. Will the Minister join me in thanking Border Buses’ drivers and staff for their dedication and support, as well as in asking for stronger support and protection for those working in bus and train stations, such as those working in the Galashiels transport interchange?

There is no simple solution to antisocial behaviour, but without enforcement, we risk it simply becoming accepted. Our constituents are not asking for much. They want to feel safe in their homes and on their streets. They want to know that when they report an incident, something will happen. The Government are not delivering that yet and it is our job to make sure that they do.

12:48

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this debate. The number of Members who are here reflects how important this issue is to all of our constituents.

In an ever more dangerous world, with many things for our constituents to worry about, antisocial behaviour sits at the core of what makes them feel unsafe; it therefore has to be at the core of any Government’s response. I was the shadow Policing Minister when we were in opposition. I embarked on an antisocial behaviour tour to understand why the then Government called it low-level when its effects were so pernicious across so many of our neighbourhoods.

We committed to act in opposition, and we have done so in government. I am proud of the changes that we have introduced. Like everyone else here, I have constituents who will say that we have not gone far enough—that we have not seen the results and need to go further, faster and do more. I wholeheartedly agree, but we have introduced some good changes that are starting to bear fruit.

First, we have the deliberate policy to shift police from behind desks into neighbourhoods. We think that more police should be on our streets, so as well as providing funding for new officers to fill neighbourhood roles, we are encouraging the 12,000 officers who currently sit behind desks to think about whether they can be deployed in more front-facing roles. We believe it is right to do that, and we have changed the funding structures so that police chiefs can make those decisions. It will take time, but that policy is starting to bear fruit, with nearly 4,000 more police in our neighbourhoods. In 2010, when the previous Labour Government left office—before the coalition Government came in, introduced austerity and made policing cuts—the public were more satisfied with policing than they had ever been. In large part, that was due to people seeing neighbourhood policing.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Robbie Moore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Jones]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister is giving comprehensive answers on the Labour Government’s plans. I suggested that we recognise, as I know the Minister will, the good work done by street pastors and churches, through the youth clubs and groups that they organise, across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Could the Government do more to engage with the street pastors, churches and faith groups that have a plan to help our young people?

[Sarah Jones]

I will come on to talk about prevention, in which our faith leaders absolutely have a powerful role.

Many Members talked about respect orders. Those came into force on 26 October, and I am delighted that some are already in place—that is good to hear. Although I do not have all the numbers for all the forces, the first respect orders have been issued. For Members who are not aware, respect orders can be put on anybody, anywhere, not just in our town centres. They apply to persistent antisocial behaviour offenders. A previous conviction is not required for someone to be a persistent offender. Housing associations, councils, transport companies and the police can apply for an order.

The order can put on an individual whatever conditions are considered appropriate, such as requiring that they do not come on to a certain street. They may require a person to have treatment for drug or alcohol addiction, as well as other more positive interventions. If those conditions are breached, that is a criminal offence.

[Sir John Hayes]

As the Minister has heard from Members across the Chamber, social media often plays a part in this problem. I mentioned Holbeach in my constituency, which has suffered from antisocial behaviour. Sometimes, the offenders are very young people indeed, who are communicating on the internet and boasting about what they are doing. Can she apply what she just described to that social media activity, so that the authorities can take action early, before the community suffers the consequences of what is being boasted about?

[Sarah Jones]

The online space is a work in progress. Criminality online goes across all kinds of different crimes. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that some young people talk about what they are going to do before putting it into practice, and of course, we have to change our processes to make sure that the police can see that and intervene.

Respect orders are beginning to be used. Other changes were also introduced under the Crime and Policing Act 2026; for example, in areas subject to a public spaces protection order, fines can now be £500 instead of £100. Those changes may appear small, but they are significant and will make a difference. Every area has to have an antisocial behaviour lead. On the need for agencies to work together, which was talked about, every area also has to have an antisocial behaviour strategy that has been made in collaboration with the different agencies. We have extended the dispersal period for which someone can be directed to leave an area from 48 hours to 72 hours.

[Amanda Martin]

Of the changes that the Minister has listed, one that has worked brilliantly in my city is the removal of face coverings at protests. Would she encourage other forces to do the same? Everyone should have a fair right to protest, but they should not come with a balaclava and bring thuggish behaviour to other people’s cities.

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend will know that Lord Ken Macdonald has done a review for the Home Secretary on protests more widely. The issue of intimidation at protests is very pertinent to that review, and we will soon publish our response. It is also the case that some police forces have PSPOs that ban face coverings and balaclavas in an area. That is another approach that some areas are taking, and it is one that I welcome.

I will not list them all, but we have introduced a raft of other changes through the 2026 Act that are explicitly designed to target antisocial behaviour. We will also gather more data, because one of the issues with antisocial behaviour is that we do not quite understand the data. Some of it is reported to local authorities and some to the police, so we do not quite understand the nature of the problems. We are gathering that data together.

Lots of Members talked about the trouble we are having across so many communities with e-bikes and e-scooters, which is a debate that we have had numerous times. We have changed the law so that the police can seize them without having to give notice, which is important, but we are looking at what else we can do with this problem—and I recognise that it is a problem. I am going to have a series of roundtables, and I am talking to MPs about both the challenges and the solutions. Some solutions will sit within other Departments—whether that is what was formerly called the Department for Business and Trade, or the Department for Transport—and some will sit within the Home Office, so we are looking at how we can have a collective approach to that challenge.

Some Members talked about persistent shoplifting offenders. It is the case that about 8% of the offenders are responsible for about 50% of the crime, and we will soon be able to announce some work on those prolific offenders in particular. Many Members talked about the underlying problems associated with some of this antisocial behaviour. When we look at prolific offenders, we often find drug addiction, homelessness and other challenges that we need to face collectively. We are considering how we target and support that cohort in a similar way to our rough sleeping cohort that the Prime Minister is so keen to champion. We need to think not just about housing but about the other support that those people need, and we are also trying to take that approach here.

Prevention was mentioned by many people, and I think it is really important. It plays a part in our respect orders and in our prolific offenders work, as well as the wider Government action on youth work and other support, including mental health support. All of these are core things. A lot of antisocial behaviour comes from people who are not getting the support that they might have received 10 or 15 years ago, so it is incredibly important that we look at that side of things.

[Monica Harding]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Jones]

I do not think I should, because I need to give the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr the opportunity to respond.

I will conclude by saying that antisocial behaviour is not a low-level problem. It is awful. I see it in my community, and we are absolutely committed to tackling it. We have introduced a raft of measures, but we need to go further and I will carry on this conversation to see what else we can do. All Members present today know that it is a top priority for our constituents, and we should act appropriately.

12:58

[Ayoub Khan]

I thank every right hon. and hon. Member who contributed to this important debate. The theme seems to be that antisocial behaviour is not a low-level crime, and that it comes in many different forms—from e-scooters to intoxication, abandoned buildings on the high street and the like. It is also obvious that police presence is an important factor, and people recognise the importance of deterrence. Having the right police numbers will certainly assist with deterrence, so the Government need to look at how they can improve our police numbers. That work must also go with the early intervention programme. We have to take a holistic approach, as these silo-type approaches do not really offer benefit. I hope the Minister will meet me to discuss and resolve some of these matters.

I finish with the comment made by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) when he addressed the students here. I promise them that they will see a difference in 10 years, because the vast majority of Members believe in hope over division. I am confident that, working together, we will be able to resolve many of the challenges that we face.

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

National Highways: M5 Traffic Management

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Westminster Hall

13:01

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

I will call Sir Ashley Fox to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered National Highways’ traffic management policies on the M5 in Somerset.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that sits at the heart of daily life for my constituents in Bridgwater and communities across Somerset.

The M5 is Somerset’s principal north-south highway. It connects communities, supports local businesses, facilitates tourism and enables the flow of goods throughout the south-west. It is indispensable. Although the M5 operates smoothly most of the time, it is suffering increased disruption. It is now closed more frequently, and those closures are for greater lengths of time. In the two and a half years in which I have represented Bridgwater, the repeated closures of the M5 have become one of the most common issues that constituents raise with me.

Somerset has a unique geography that presents challenges not found in many other places. The Somerset levels contain a network of rivers and watercourses that constrain opportunities for new strategic road infrastructure. Unlike other motorway corridors, the M5 has few realistic alternatives when it becomes blocked. A closure that might be manageable somewhere else can have profound consequences. That is particularly evident between junctions 22 and 24, where, if the M5 is closed, north-south traffic is diverted to the A38, which goes from Highbridge in the north through Bridgwater to North Petherton in the south of my constituency. The A38 was never designed to accommodate motorway volumes of traffic. What begins as an instance affecting one stretch of motorway rapidly escalates into a problem affecting entire towns and villages. Traffic backs up every minor road, causing gridlock. Residents of Highbridge, Bridgwater, North Petherton and the surrounding villages know only too well what that looks like.

Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that this is a recurring and worsening problem. Analysis of motorway performance shows that the northbound section of the M5 between junctions 23 and 24 recorded at least one hour of traffic moving at below 30 mph on 42 days in 2023. That rose to 45 days in 2024 and 47 days in 2025. That means that, by 2025, serious congestion was occurring on one day in every eight.

Equally concerning is the frequency of the closures. Data from January 2025 to August 2026 records 24 full closures of the M5 between junctions 20 and 25. In June this year alone, there were four such closures. A road of such strategic importance simply cannot sustain repeated disruption on that scale without significant economic and social consequences.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward the debate. He is right to refer to the strategic importance of the M5 in Somerset. My Strangford constituents and I have similar issues with the Ballynahinch bypass. Does he feel that it is time for the Minister and the Government to look at these strategic issues by constituency? That would enable him to take forward his project and solve the problems that he clearly has in his constituency.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point. Later in my speech, I will come on to the point about taking a more nuanced approach across the network.

Delays and diversions affect workers attempting to reach their employment, parents collecting children, businesses dependent on deliveries, patients travelling to urgent medical appointments and emergency services attempting to move across the county. I want to share a letter from my constituent Ms Halliday, who has given me permission to share her personal and distressing experience of these delays. She writes:

“The last time the motorway was shut, I was stuck for 3 hours in the car. This may sound trivial but I am disabled & have health issues, including having to be close by toilets. I also have a disabled son, who is non-verbal autistic & who cannot comprehend why we are stuck in the car for long periods, and a few times he has wet himself. My daughter has also had countless late days at college over the last year or so, which is very stressful. Altogether, this has had a major effect on my stress levels & mental health over the last 2 years.

As I write this email, once again the M5 is shut, causing horrendous traffic through town. My son rides the special education bus from school, and the driver has just phoned to say she has no idea when she will make it to school to collect my son. He is now stuck in school for the time being, as it would be pointless to go and collect him as I would be stuck in the same traffic & wouldn’t make it any sooner.

Update, my son returned home over 2 hours late tonight.”

It is because of emails such as these that I asked for this debate. Is the Minister confident that National Highways is doing everything possible to minimise disruption on the M5? Are scheduled closures being planned in the best way? Are policies in place to minimise the number of accidents? Have the Government considered variable speed limits, such as those on the M5 around Bristol? Many of my constituents have commented on the poor driving skills of some motorway users. Has the Minister any plans to monitor and improve the situation?

When an accident does occur, we need to consider the harm caused to the communities affected by motorway closures. Over recent years, central reservations on many motorways have been replaced with continuous concrete safety barriers. The barriers have important safety benefits, and I am not advocating reversing that decision. However, those barriers have reduced the flexibility available to operators responding to major incidents. Traditional contraflow arrangements are often more difficult to implement than they once were. Will the Minister consider whether a more locally tailored approach is required for Somerset?

One option that my constituents have asked be considered is the installation of strategically located crossover points within central reservations, with gates that can be opened by the emergency services as routine maintenance and upgrade programmes are undertaken. These crossing points would allow controlled contraflow operations during major incidents, enabling traffic to bypass closures and remain on the strategic road network rather than being diverted on to local roads. I am not pretending that such a proposal would eliminate the effects of serious incidents, nor would it remove the need to prioritise personal safety, but it would provide the highway authorities and emergency services with an additional operating tool, helping to maintain traffic flow while reducing the pressure on communities such as those in Bridgwater and North Petherton.

More broadly, I urge the Government to examine whether the current traffic management policies adequately reflect local circumstances. I underline that neither I nor my constituents underestimate the challenges facing the emergency services, National Highways or those responsible for managing serious incidents. Public safety must always come first. Where collisions occur, where lives are at risk or where vulnerable individuals require assistance, every appropriate resource should be deployed. Those who work to ensure the safety of all who use our infrastructure should be commended for their work, but recognising those realities does not prevent us from asking whether the current system is striking the right balance between safety and the interests of communities that depend on the motorway.

When the effects of motorway closure are so keenly felt by the community at large, there needs to be a more proportionate approach to managing people in crisis. Emergency services should balance their duties to those in crisis and to those who suffer when the motorway is closed, and their primary duty should be to reopen the motorway as soon as possible. To facilitate that, a wider review of guidance and protocol as to how the emergency services conduct intervention is necessary.

My constituents are suffering gridlock caused by the increasing number of closures of the M5. I ask the Minister, on behalf of my constituents, to look carefully at the problems that we face in Somerset. Will he work with National Highways and the emergency services to minimise motorway closures and the harm that they cause to our community?

13:12

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Butler.

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) on securing this debate on a topic that, as he clearly explained, is a matter of particular interest to his constituents. Of course, motorway closures are a concern across the country, because we all hate it when our journeys on the motorway network are disrupted for whatever reason it might be. For most motorway users, there is nothing worse than an unexpected closure or long delays resulting from roadworks. In my constituency, I can tell within 30 seconds of leaving the house whether the motorway has been closed, or whether there has been an accident, just by the volume of traffic on our local network.

Whether they are caused by an accident or roadworks, delays cause frustration and inconvenience. Whether it is speed restrictions that need to be in place for safety reasons or road closures that mean lengthy diversions, any unplanned incident can cause major delays and disruption on the network. I therefore have every sympathy with regular users of the M5 in Somerset, and indeed with those in the surrounding area, who have also been inconvenienced by a series of planned roadworks and the serious incidents to which the hon. Member referred. The experience of his constituent, Ms Halliday, brings out the human consequences of these delays. I have sympathy with her and everyone who has been affected.

However, as the hon. Member said, there is a trade-off here. As our motorway network starts to show signs of age—as we all do—more work is required to make sure it remains in a good and, importantly, safe condition. That is why the road investment strategy, published in March, included an unprecedented £8.4 billion of investment in renewing many of the assets on our motorways and trunk roads over the next five years. Those assets include many bridges and tunnels, some of which are approaching the end of their design life, and features such as drainage systems and safety barriers, which play an important role in keeping the network as safe as possible.

Our investment also sees a huge amount of resurfacing for smoother and safer journeys on the network, including by replacing large stretches of concrete road surfaces. That work needs to be done to ensure that we have a network fit for the future. The challenge, of course, as the hon. Member articulated, is to do it in a way that causes the least disruption for road users. He asked whether we are doing everything we can to ensure that disruption to his constituents, and indeed to all road users, is minimised. He will be interested to know that we have set targets for National Highways in the road investment strategy to reduce delays on the network, including from roadworks, and to produce an action plan setting out the steps it will take to deliver improvements.

The key target we have set is for National Highways to demonstrate that it has done all it reasonably can to reduce delays on the strategic road network, as we would all hope it is doing. We would also hope that average delay performance is no worse at the end of the five-year period than it is at the start. Although that might not seem particularly ambitious, it is quite a stretching target in the context of the resurfacing and renewal projects being delivered over the next five years.

We have also set a target to ensure that 97.5% of the network is free from traffic restrictions owing to roadworks, and that at least 88% of motorway incidents are cleared within one hour. We have also instructed National Highways to publish a customer and delay action plan and to deliver the actions it sets out, and to report on progress annually. We expect that to be published before the end of March next year. The Office of Rail and Road, the regulator, will hold National Highways to account for its performance in meeting those targets.

In the hon. Member’s constituency, a programme of work has been under way for some time to upgrade the drainage systems and replace the safety barriers in the central reservations between junctions 22 and 24 of the M5. He mentioned the question of more flexibility on the barriers, on which I will write to him, if that is okay. I understand the point he makes, but there are other safety considerations that we have to take into account. However, I will endeavour to get him a proper response.

National Highways has attempted to reduce the disruption caused by this particular programme of work by using overnight closures and lane restrictions, for example, rather than full-day motorway closures, which, as the hon. Member explained, would cause huge disruption to his constituents. There is a need for proper engagement with local stakeholders when roadworks will lead to delays and diversions. My ministerial colleagues and I have regularly raised this topic with National Highways in recent months.

National Highways has learned lessons from its handling of the major Lune Gorge renewal scheme in Cumbria, where some local stakeholders feel that not enough was done to involve them in discussions about the likely impacts on them and the options to mitigate those impacts. I am determined to ensure that when National Highways undertakes major renewal programmes in future, it works with local stakeholders and agrees a plan of action. It must do all it can to ensure that the most affected have a clear understanding of when closures or restrictions will be in place. We cannot remove disruption and delay entirely, but we all want to be clear and confident that National Highways has done absolutely everything it can to minimise that.

In respect of the M5, I understand that National Highways has regular dialogue with those likely to be affected by the planned roadworks. I know the hon. Member has met National Highways, which has discussed with Somerset council how best to ensure that diversions, including on the A38, are carefully planned and well signposted.

There will also be works in the not-too-distant future on junction 22A, where a new gigafactory will be put in place. The hon. Member will be acutely aware that introducing a new junction to the road network at junction 22A will be quite a disruption. Work has not yet started on the new access road, but I will ask National Highways to ensure that any further disruption to users of the M5 is minimised. I am sure the hon. Member will welcome that investment in his constituency and the long-term benefits that will arise from the new junction.

Decisions on when to close and safely reopen a motorway following an incident—such as attempts to take one’s own life, which I understand have been among the incidents affecting the M5—are for the emergency services to determine. That is usually the police, although it can occasionally be the fire and rescue service. The hon. Member asked whether anything can be done in terms of the protocol for those decisions. Clearly, that is outside my Department’s remit, but I commit to writing to ask the Home Office to talk to the relevant services about whether there is anything different they can do. It is important to say that when someone has been killed or seriously injured, or when responding to someone in crisis, it is really important that the police take the lead on making decisions about reopening the network.

As the hon. Member would expect, when such incidents arise, National Highways works closely with the police, identifies any damage to assets and ensures that trained personnel, equipment and materials are available to undertake repairs as soon as the scene is released. National Highways regularly meets the senior roads policing officers from Avon and Somerset police to review incidents and adjust its operational approach. I understand that more meetings are planned between the police and National Highways to look at whether more can be done to reduce the impact of closures.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate. I agree that roadworks and other activities and incidents on our motorways and trunk roads need to be managed in a way that causes as little disruption as possible to road users. I encourage the hon. Member to continue to engage with National Highways on the local impacts of the closure of the M5 in Somerset. Officials from National Highways will have heard his comments today. I will reflect on what he has said this afternoon and endeavour to come back to him on some of the points he raised.

Question put and agreed to.

13:19

Sitting suspended.

Fishing and Seafood Sector Strategy

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

16:30

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Before I call Daniel Zeichner to move the motion, it may be convenient for everybody to know that we appear to have, in addition to the mover, seven Back-Bench contributors and a couple of Members who I know wish to intervene. I am not going to impose a time limit at this stage. It rather depends on how long Mr Zeichner chooses to speak for, but I think we are probably looking at around a maximum of seven minutes per person. On that basis, we ought to be able to get everybody in. If that changes, I will let Members know.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a fishing and seafood sector strategy.

It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. It is also a pleasure to lead a debate on this important question.

Before I begin, I should declare that I served as the independent chair of the process that produced “An Action Plan for a Thriving and Sustainable UK Fishing Industry”, a weighty tome recently published by the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries, which is the stimulus for this debate. I pay tribute to the group’s co-chairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), for their leadership on that piece of work. I also thank the many fishermen and women and other stakeholders from across the UK who gave evidence to the all-party group’s process. I also pay particular tribute to Mike Cohen and the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations for having pursued me on this policy idea for many years, and to Lia ní Aodha and her team, who did so much of the basic research, organising and drafting.

I note that it is almost exactly five years ago to the day—somewhat to my overnight surprise—that I found myself in this very Chamber as the shadow Fisheries Minister speaking for the Opposition, a job I hugely enjoyed both in opposition and as a Minister, not least because I met and got to know so many very special people and enjoyed many debates with many familiar friends who are in this Chamber today. I am delighted to see the very wide range of geographical and political representation in the Chamber today.

As an island nation, no part of the United Kingdom is more than 70 miles from the sea, yet we sometimes display a rather curious lack of awareness of the sea and, at times, a tendency to undervalue the waters around us and the people and communities who depend upon them. Fishing and seafood are a case in point. They are a comparatively modest line in the national accounts, it is true, but it is a sector whose value is woven into the identity of places such as Brixham, Grimsby, Kilkeel, Milford Haven, Peterhead and Shetland, and whose true value must be measured in the good jobs and vibrant communities it sustains around our coasts and islands, the regional economies that it supports, the nutritious, low-carbon food it puts on plates at home and around the world, and its contribution to national resilience—something we have heard much about in recent times.

Since leaving the common fisheries policy, the UK has built an impressive domestic management framework centred on the Fisheries Act 2020, the joint fisheries statement and a suite of fisheries management plans. As an independent coastal state, we have regulatory autonomy and the resources for a thriving industry, including fishing knowledge, productive waters off our coast and a still vibrant and diverse fishing sector. However, during my time as Minister, I was struck by the fact that we do not have a strategy that brings those together and connects fisheries management with the wider decisions on energy, marine space, skills, trade and food that will shape the sector’s future. That gap is felt by those who fish every day as they face rising operating and fuel costs, stocks shifting under climate change, growing competition for space at sea from offshore energy development, the expansion of marine protected areas, and difficulties in recruiting and retaining skilled crews. Many of those pressures are also felt downstream by processes around our coasts.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Following the closure of the Grangemouth refinery in Scotland, most fishing vessels on the east coast— right the length of Scotland—are having to go to Immingham, which is much further south. I believe that will have a knock-on effect on the costs to fisheries and indeed on those communities. I do not ask for an instant solution to that, but does the hon. Member agree that it could be a problem and that we should probably look at it?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, not least because it raises the question of fuel, which is a serious issue for the industry at the moment, although today’s debate is about longer-term issues. He also makes an important point about the knock-on effects of something that is possibly the responsibility of other Government Departments. It will be part of my case that we need to see those issues as a whole.

During the all-party group’s inquiry, we heard all the pressures I have just described reflected back to us by industries in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Some call it death by a thousand cuts. The consequence of a fragmented policy landscape and the absence of a strategic view for the sector—those challenges will be familiar to anyone who has spoken to people on the ground in coastal and island communities. I am convinced that, as the all-party group concluded, addressing those challenges requires a coherent, joined-up response from the Government. That is why the action plan centres on a foundational recommendation that asks the Government to set out a long-term strategy for UK fishing and the wider seafood sector within the next 12 months, as part of the sustainable ocean plan that they have committed to delivering next year.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

As co-author of the report, the fact that I agree with the hon. Member might possibly qualify as the least surprising news of today—the need for that strategy is becoming more urgent. However, there are other things that could be done much more quickly though. One is to include food and drink in the industrial strategy, which of course is not the Minister’s responsibility—it relates to another Department. If food and drink had been in that industrial strategy, the energy spike that is currently hitting processors would be dealt with by assistance from the Government. Does he agree that a lot of the answers lie with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but not all of them?

[Daniel Zeichner]

As ever, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and always asks insightful questions. I can assure him there was quite a debate about whether to include food in the industrial strategy. Of course, there are wider consequences and costs to including it. I am no longer in a position to comment on the Government’s perspective, but I am sure the Minister has heard the right hon. Gentleman’s point.

To shape the strategy, the report proposes four pillars: sustainable management and access to space and quota; fleet modernisation, infrastructure and technology; workforce and labour; and supply chains and domestic consumption, underpinned by measures relating to governance, science, funding and the sector’s social licence. The strategy is set out across 38 separate recommendations. You will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to go through them, Sir Roger, but I will make some brief observations on the merits of that strategy through the lens of food.

As we are all repeating these days, food security is national security, and on an island that surely must be as true at sea as it is on land. After all, fishing is fundamentally about food production. I will take three aspects of this in turn: food security, health and climate. First, on food security, I do not represent a fishing constituency, but like all constituents, mine eat fish—although probably not as much as they should. What struck me throughout the process, and during my time as Minister and shadow Minister, was how disconnected the fish on our plates has become from the boats that catch it. According to the most recent figures, 461,000 tonnes of fish and shellfish were landed into UK ports in 2025. At the same time, we imported more than 1.1 million tonnes of seafood, while UK consumers purchased more than 411,000 tonnes of seafood in retail outlets.

It is true that we export much of what we catch and import much of what we eat. There is nothing inherently wrong with that; it is part of the reality of a rather remarkable food system. We heard in our inquiry that both are key to the UK’s diverse seafood economy, and in normal times that serves us well. From the pandemic to the war in Ukraine and instability in the middle east, we have recently learned just how fragile supply chains can be. We also know that supply chains will be strained further by climate change and biodiversity loss.

In those moments, a diverse domestic fleet and onshore processing capacity are strategic assets—a source of food that can be redirected to our own tables when supply chains are under pressure. However, in the UK, fishing and seafood all too often remain on the periphery of how we think about food security and resilience. Too often, they are absent from the discussion. We have no headline measure of how self-sufficient we are in seafood, and we continue to fail to connect the role of sustainable fisheries to our resilience planning. It is so frustrating to see an indigenous food-producing industry remain on the edges of those conversations.

That is why the action plan recommends that seafood should be fully represented in food security assessments, so that we understand how domestic fisheries can help the food system absorb shocks now and in the future. Alongside that, it recommends measurable targets for seafood supply, consumption and the sector’s contribution to food security. I am very grateful to Dr Sarah Coulthard from Newcastle University for her work on small-scale fisheries, the inshore fleet and their contribution to our food security.

Secondly, on health—for food is also about health—sustainable seafood has a lot to offer towards a healthier nation. The NHS recommends at least two portions of fish a week, one of them oily. However, the average person in the UK eats around half that. The gap is widest among children and lower-income households—the very people who stand to benefit most from seafood nutrition. A strategy for fishing and seafood should set out practical steps to address that, including a sustained two-a-week campaign run with the NHS, better food environments and public procurement—a lever that the Government control directly. After all, a healthier population is ultimately a lower burden on the health service.

Thirdly, on climate, well-managed, wild-caught seafood offers a relatively low-carbon form of animal protein. It needs no feed, no fertiliser and no land. Emissions from fuel use across the entire UK fishing fleet account for around 0.12% of the UK’s territorial emissions, and about 1.1% of those from agriculture. If fishing is to play its full part in climate action, however, we have to be honest about the current state of play.

Parts of the fleet are ageing; some boats are around 60 years old. Many want to modernise, but few can afford to. Vessel construction and operating costs have risen sharply, and smaller operators struggle to access affordable finance. There are no off-the-shelf net zero solutions for fishing vessels. That is why the action plan calls for a programme of demonstrator vessels and research into alternative fuels to build evidence and de-risk investment, and for a national assessment of harbour and shoreside infrastructure needs, including readiness for decarbonisation.

The industry is working hard to meet its sustainability obligations, but if we expect it to succeed, including on decarbonisation, we must help it to meet the costs of getting there. Investment via the fishing and coastal growth fund is welcome, and the strategy could help to guide where that money goes so that it can effectively support the industry and the wider sector.

As I have already suggested, none of this sits neatly in one Department. Food security sits with DEFRA; health with the Department of Health and Social Care; energy and net zero with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero; procurement right across Government; crew visas with the Home Office; trade with the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade; and fisheries management itself spans three devolved Governments, and so on.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned the devolved Governments. Does he recognise the potential role that the single foundation strategic authority of Cornwall can play, together with our local Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation, in deploying that funding in a much more targeted and localised way?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The work of the CFPO is truly inspirational for much of the sector. My hon. Friend’s point about the possibilities of devolving decision making feeds into the wider discussion around devolution at the moment. I think we may need to revisit regional levels of intervention, because that might be the right level at which to do it.

To go back to the Government Departments—I wish the Minister luck with this—each decision made across those spaces may be sensible on its own terms, but when they fail to join up, the sector feels the consequences cumulatively, however unintentional they may be. That is precisely why the sector needs a strategy.

There is more to be said, but I suspect that many hon. Members will raise the issues facing their own constituencies. I hope that the Minister will take from my contribution a sense of the value of fishing and seafood to the nation, and of the need for a strategic view to secure the sector’s national benefit. I was very grateful that he attended the launch of the action plan a few weeks ago and engaged and responded with such grace. I know full well the constraints that he faces, but I will ask him for some assurances.

First, will the Government commit to publishing a long-term strategy for fishing in the wider seafood sector when resources and time allow? Secondly, will that strategy form part of the sustainable ocean plan that the Government have committed to developing next year? Thirdly, how will the Government work with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the strategy is backed across all four nations and delivered on the ground? Fourthly, will the Minister provide a written response to the APPG’s 38 recommendations and meet the APPG to discuss them in depth?

In conclusion, I thank everyone involved in the production of the report, and am grateful for the good will shown by people across the industry and beyond. On a personal note, I thank the brilliant officials I had the good fortune of working with at DEFRA, particularly the highly knowledgeable Anne Freeman. I also thank my friend Terri Portmann from Plymouth, who has helped me throughout these five fascinating years. This industry inspires great passion and commitment, and rightly so. It deserves the strategy that it seeks.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. Before we proceed, I should say that Mr Shannon has courteously informed me that, owing to a change in business in the House, he is required in a Committee elsewhere and is double-booked, as is so often the case. I am going to call Mr Shannon and then allow him to leave, on the strict understanding that he returns as swiftly as possible and, in any event, is back for the winding-up speeches.

16:46

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

You are most kind, Sir Roger—thank you very much. It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for raising this vital issue.

The Northern Ireland fisheries industry, which is critical to the wellbeing of our coastal communities, contributed to the groundbreaking road map that the hon. Member for Cambridge referred to, and it welcomed the opportunity to do so. The hon. Gentleman had the good fortune to come to my Strangford constituency and visit Portavogie, where he was well received. How good was his visit? Well, the people of the fishing sector in Portavogie still say what a pleasure it was to have him there. They often reminisce and tell me how good it was to see him. I am sure that when the Minister comes over, he will be more than welcome, and maybe he will get the same accolades after his visit.

I have said on several occasions that the Northern Ireland fishing sector has been facing a perfect storm of crewing issues, fuel prices, spatial squeeze and restrictions on access to Isle of Man waters, to name a few of the major and existential challenges they face. It is a real pleasure to see the Minister in his place, and I wish him well in his role. I have also highlighted, on behalf of the sector, the fragmented governance and a legislative framework that—I say this with great respect—is increasingly out of step with the operational reality of fishing businesses, creating further challenges.

The action plan recognises the issues and refers to fleet modernisation, to infrastructure and technology, to workforce and labour, and to supply chains and domestic consumption, as the hon. Gentleman clearly laid out. It has been a huge task to set out a road map that addresses the complexity of UK fisheries while navigating the realities of a devolved fisheries landscape. It is crucial for the survival of the industry that the action plan is turned into meaningful delivery.

Of particular interest to the Northern Irish industry are a number of recommendations that speak to the multiple threats it currently faces. The hon. Gentleman referred recommendation 12 of the report, on sustainable management and access to space, which goes to the heart of the issues in respect of marine spatial squeeze. The report calls for the value of food production from fishing to be weighed equally against other uses of marine space, with cumulative displacement effects assessed properly and a formal statutory route established for the industry.

I often say—and I stand by this—that fishermen are the original stakeholders in our seas. They feel increasingly that their rights are being ignored and eroded, so we are here to speak up for our fishing sector. As well as Portavogie in my constituency, I speak for Ardglass and for Kilkeel—the hon. Member for that constituency does not come here to speak for them, so I am happy to speak up for them in his absence.

On fleet modernisation, recommendation 16 calls for a

“more enabling, outcome-focused approach to gear trials”.

Where have we been in Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland industry has been leading the way on gear trials over many years, and needs support to turn innovation into reality. The Minister will find a sector in Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel in Northern Ireland very willing to work alongside him to do so.

Recommendation 17 calls for a

“dedicated, purpose-built immigration route”.

This is my big ask, and I know it is an ask of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) as well. The recommendation demands that a “short-term bridging solution” be implemented before the current skilled worker visa eligibility for fishing roles disappears at the end of 2026. Time is of the essence; we put that on the record, ask for the Minister’s intervention and hope for his support. The immigration salary list, the mechanism that currently keeps fishing crew roles accessible under the skilled worker route, is due to be abolished. As the report says, the deadline is not abstract: the fishing industry is facing an imminent recruitment cliff edge. That is my biggest ask of all the recommendations.

[Mr Carmichael]

We all know that the use of migrant labour should be a short to medium-term measure until we are able to grow the workforce in our own ports. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that truth reinforces the importance of the strategy that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) has spoken about, because in order to grow that workforce, signals have to be sent to the industry that the Government have a clear vision of what is expected of them? Unless and until we do that, we will not persuade the next generation to go to sea.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the knowledge he brings to the debate. The Minister is listening intently, and hopefully he will respond to that in a positive way.

The Minister should be aware, if he is not already, that we are looking for visas for seasonal workers for nine months. In other words, the people who get them go back home again—they are not staying here. The Department has in place a system, through the seasonal worker programme, for other sectors; that is an issue we could probably look into.

The funding and investment section of the road map calls on the Government to treat the current acute cost pressures facing the sector as a matter of immediate urgency. It calls on them to allow the industry to access the same energy cost support that is already available to other sectors of the economy. Northern Ireland fishing boats are being forced to tie up due to the ongoing high costs of fuel, which have persisted since March 2026. What annoys us is that Republic of Ireland and EU companies are already getting fuel support from their countries, creating an unfair competitive advantage over those in other jurisdictions.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) hinted that fuel is not really something that matters in the longer term, as though it is a short-term problem that will be fixed, but if it is not fixed in the short term, the fishing industry has no long term. Boats are tied up right now. They are losing money now. In my area, Dumfries and Galloway, fishing is largely off-quota or non-quota fishing, and the No. 1 problem right now is the astronomical cost of fuel.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Member; I am conscious of the time, so I will bring my comments to a conclusion.

The fishing sector has long called for a national fishing strategy and is ready to work with the Government to achieve this, as it has demonstrated through the development of the action plan, which is a good blueprint for the way forward. Nothing in the plan requires new powers or legislation, but it needs support from across Westminster—a range of Government Departments have a stake in fishing, including the Home Office in respect of crewing, which we are very interested in, and the Department for Transport in respect of safety—and the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as industry across the UK.

If we work together, the action plan could create the opportunity that secures the future of UK fishing. I will be backing our fishing industry in Northern Ireland and throughout the UK by supporting the plan and calling for the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland fishing and seafood strategy to be a key part of that.

16:51

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Sir Roger.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for securing the debate. As a former Fisheries Minister and independent chair of the APPG, he knows that a fishing and seafood strategy is much needed given the critical state of the UK’s fish stock. If fish stocks deplete further, the implications for small, sustainable UK fisheries, and for our supply chains, will be significant. These are concerns that the APPG for the ocean, which I chair, has heard for years.

I want to highlight two themes. First—this might seem like an obvious point, but it is often missing from the discussion—we cannot have a thriving fishing industry without abundant fish stocks. There have been many debates in this place that frame the UK’s food security as a purely terrestrial issue, but in an uncertain global context marked by supply chain disruption, rising food prices and geopolitical instability, strengthening our domestic food security will be essential to the UK’s long-term resilience. As an island nation, that needs to include fisheries.

We face fish shortages that are a huge threat to the security of our fishing industry. A recent Blue Marine Foundation report found that 62% of the 55 fish stocks assessed declined between 2016 and 2025, with 38% falling below the minimum level required by law. Some declines have been extraordinary: Celtic sea cod declined by 98%, while Irish sea plaice declined by 88%.

The Government have repeatedly missed deadlines to achieve good environmental status in our seas. Only two of 15 key indicators of healthy seas have been met in UK waters, and over half of assessed fish stocks are not meeting their current recovery targets. Oceana UK found that 25% of UK commercial fishing populations are being over-exploited. Fewer fish will ultimately mean fewer opportunities for our fishers, less resilient coastal economies and a less secure domestic food supply.

I welcome the Government’s announcement yesterday that remote electronic monitoring will be legally required on all large pelagic fishing vessels, as the APPG for the ocean called for. That will give us a better idea of what fishing activity is happening, but it will not prevent fishing from exceeding the advice provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Its scientific recommendations should be treated as a ceiling, not a target, with additional safeguards for depleted stocks.

Fish stock recovery must be at the heart of our approach to food security and fisheries policy. If we want the fishing sector to endure for future generations, we must ensure that there are fish left to catch and follow the science to make that happen. The Government are currently negotiating with the EU, Norway and other coastal states to determine jointly managed fish stocks for 2027. Yet in 2026, 58% of assessed UK catch limits were set above scientific advice. The UK must enter negotiations with a clear commitment to science-based limits. Alongside 44 other parliamentarians, I have written to the Minister to express that position, and I look forward to receiving his response.

Secondly, a fisheries and seafood sector strategy is just one piece of the puzzle in the more joined-up approach that we need to see for ocean governance. The restoration of fish stocks cannot be achieved through fisheries policy alone; it requires a systematic approach to how we manage our seas. The most recent report of the APPG for the ocean called for a cross-departmental ocean strategy to address the fragmentation of ocean governance. Currently, the responsibility for our seas sits among multiple Ministers and Departments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge highlighted. We have heard the Government say that the UK is back in the oceans business. I sincerely welcome that, but it needs to be backed up by a clear ocean strategy that incorporates expertise from coastal communities, academia, the environmental sector and, of course, the fishing and seafood sectors.

I will conclude with an observation. It sometimes feels as though fisheries and ocean conservation are pitted against each other, as if we might choose between protecting our marine environment and supporting the UK’s sustainable fisheries industry. That is not true, and we must move beyond that false dichotomy.

Earlier this year, the APPG for the ocean heard from Clive Mills, a local Sussex fisherman, and his daughter, who came to Westminster to warn that there may be less than 10 years left in the profession because there are simply not enough fish. His warnings are for all the families who have fished in those waters for generations, and who may no longer be able to pass on their livelihoods to the next generation.

I urge the Minister to go and see the truly inspirational work being done. Fish populations can recover if the Government support the conditions that give them the opportunity. In the North sea, haddock, whiting and plaice stocks are now more than twice the minimum level required to support sustainable fisheries, demonstrating that when well-managed stocks have the chance, they will rebound.

There are clear steps that the Government can take now to support a fair transition towards sustainable and low-impact fishing, including the transparent allocation of fishing opportunities that rewards vessels that deliver environmental, social and local economic benefits, and the tackling of destructive practices such as bottom trawling. It has been over a year since the closure of the consultation on banning bottom trawling in marine protected areas, so I am keen to hear from the Minister when we will get the Government’s response.

Our oceans and all who depend on them are running out of time. We cannot afford to be delaying the important decisions if we want healthy seas and to leave a sustainable fishing industry for the next generation.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Carmichael, I understand the pressures on time, but you are the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. If you wish to speak briefly and then leave, I am quite willing to accommodate you.

17:01

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Thank you for the unexpected pleasure and opportunity, Sir Roger. I will say just a few words on the subject, because there are a number of matters that concern me.

I want to pick up on a few of the points made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). She spoke about the quality of scientific advice, and ICES is the absolute benchmark in these matters. However, she may wish to consider the fact that, last year, the mackerel stock recommendation was for a total closure—in fact, from memory, I think we agreed a 40% cut. This year, on the basis of new advice, it is apparent that the mackerel stock is back at a safe biological level, so there are these occasions when it becomes apparent that the fisheries advice from ICES has to be put into its proper context.

On the many occasions when I am told that it is necessary to have a total allowable catch of zero, it is often in answer to the question: what will it take to restore the stock to a safe level within 12 months? The only answer to that question can be a zero TAC, but that then begs another question that nobody ever asks: if we have a zero TAC, will it restore the stock to that safe level? The answer is no, because it will take several years before stocks of white fish, such as cod—we all know the pressures on North sea cod at the moment—can recover.

The hon. Member for Rotherham also referenced the healthy level of haddock stock at the moment. For those who are responsible for fisheries management, that highlights the difficulty and complexity of this issue. To put it in its crudest form, haddock swim with cod. If we set a zero or very low TAC for cod, as has been suggested for the northern shelf this year—notwithstanding the fact that we think that there are at least three subspecies of cod in the North sea—there is a danger that it will serve only to present cod as a choke species. That then prevents the white fish industry from targeting the haddock that, as we know, is in a healthy state.

I say to the House, and to all those who follow our proceedings, that in this industry there is an infinitely complex scenario, and it really is necessary for everybody to approach this issue with a measure of humility. We must understand that for those communities where fishing matters—the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) referred to them in his speech—it matters a great deal. I am concerned when I see the plethora of environmental non-governmental organisations that now enter this debate with a very simplistic analysis. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would deny commercial fishing opportunities to those communities that rely on them most. That is why the hon. Member’s work and that of the APPG, of which I have been a member for 25 years, to bring people together to achieve an in-depth understanding of what is involved for the different stocks and the different communities, is absolutely critical.

It feels like there is always some species under pressure in some part of our waters, and I fear that that will always be the case. A few years ago, the different pelagic species were under serious pressure. We understand that pelagic species, such as mackerel and herring, will migrate through British waters into Faroese waters and up into Icelandic waters. That is why the idea that somehow or another one country can take responsibility for fisheries management is simply for the birds—biology defies that sort of simplistic approach.

At the end of the day, the people who have the biggest stake in ensuring that there are healthy fish stocks are the people who work in the industry and who will want some day to pass the businesses that they have built up over several generations on to the next generation. These are the people and these are the communities who suffer most when we get it wrong here.

[Sarah Champion]

I am listening intently to everything that the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I completely agree that it is UK communities that are suffering the most at the expense of the internationals. Does he agree that we need to listen to those people and include them at the heart of any fishing decisions we make? At the moment, they do not have a seat at the table on every occasion.

[Mr Carmichael]

I have preached that sermon in this House for the last 25 years. We should also remember that the ICES advice we spoke about earlier is two years out of date—the data is two years from the acquisition to the implementation. Hearing from fishermen and understanding the expertise they employ when they take their nets out to sea must be at the heart of this debate. Respect for people who have, for generations, made a living from this industry—from the seas—must be the starting point. Stick to that and everything else will surely fall into place.

I am very grateful to you, Sir Roger, for allowing me the opportunity to speak.

17:07

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for securing this debate and bringing this action plan to our attention. I only regret that we are not having these exchanges in the main Chamber, which would give fishing and fishing communities their proper place in our national life.

I cannot begin my remarks today without expressing the continuing sorrow in my Na h-Eileanan an Iar constituency over the loss of the Kilda fishing boat and all three souls aboard it off the coast of Lewis on 13 October. Only one body has been recovered, which is that of Douglas Craigie. The other men—Norman Murray, or Tam as he was known, and Murdo Morrison, the 23-year-old mate—remain unaccounted for. It is a testament to the power of the ocean that a life raft from the Kilda was found on Shetland’s shorelines last week, although coastal searches there have been in vain. We all know, of course, that the bounty and the sorrow of the sea are intertwined with my constituency and with all other coastal communities across Britain, and our condolences go to the families affected.

The fishing industry in the Western Isles has shrunken considerably since its 19th-century heyday as one of the biggest herring ports in Europe. However, it still makes a major contribution to the local economy, despite attempts by the previous SNP-Green Government in Scotland effectively to shut down the Western Isles fishing fleet with the imposition of the hated highly protected marine areas. Stark opposition from island fishing communities and other communities around the coast have won that battle for now.

As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has pointed out, the crisis of conservation is very real and must be tackled. However, the experience of the HPMA debacle has left a scar on the fishing fleet and on the conservation agenda. The consequential danger of imposing this top-down approach is that no environmental measure is now acceptable to fishing communities, unless they are taken along, listened to and involved. That includes the draconian new restrictions that the Scottish Government are seeking to impose—HPMA2, as they are dubbed—which are currently being consulted on. I am glad that the action plan brought forward has involved fishing and fishing communities, as all movements on the fishing industry should.

There is powerful evidence from my constituency that self-imposed controls introduced by the Western Isles fishermen have proved effective, while increasing the value of the landings. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, those fishers are committed to sustainability, because where they fish is where they are from. They want to pass this on to the next generation and to maintain their communities in that industry.

That is happening in the Western Isles. Data for 2024 shows that the value of landings increased on the previous year by 4% to £16 million, because of restrictions fishermen took in themselves. The only species that decreased in price is brown crab, which has been in decline for the last 20 years, mainly because of the increased effort from nomadic fishing fleets that come and scour them out. Those statistics demonstrate that a top-down approach to conservation, when conservation efforts of the fishermen’s own making are paying dividends, simply will not work.

Island fishers still face massive challenges with crewing, fuel prices—as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, pointed out—and the escalating cost of going to sea and of going to market. That is why it is good news that the Prime Minister intends to secure a new deal with the EU to simplify our food exports. That would be welcomed in the Western Isles.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his speech. Might he allow me to put on record my thanks for the important work of the Troon lifeboat crew, whom I met on Remembrance Sunday? Seafood is an important sector to the Ayrshire economy. It is exported at the port of Troon in my constituency and at Prestwick airport, which, in the first six months of this year, exported 1,780 tonnes—1.78 million kg—of salmon. Does my hon. Friend agree that any seafood sector strategy must look at growing sustainable exporting of that brilliant Scottish product?

[Torcuil Crichton]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend says. It is only by sustaining the industry and communities that we will keep fishing going. The £360 million fisheries and coastal growth fund announced by the UK Government should be distributed fairly by sector, by sustainability and by geography to constituencies such as his. When the Government announced the fund in 2025, it was to be allocated according to the Barnett formula. That means that Scotland receives 8%— £28 million—of the fund, despite having more than half of the UK’s entire catch of fish.

It is a matter of considerable regret that the Scottish Government demanded their share of the coastal and fishing fund without agreeing a mechanism outside the Barnett formula that would see a fair share coming to Scotland. I hope that there will be a rebalancing of the fund over its decade-long existence, and that the Minister listens to representations. It is essential that the fund is used to expand and revive coastal communities with a long association of sustainable fishing, which have, over decades, been fished out by nomad fleets and supertrawlers from other areas.

We should tackle ownership of the seas and of the quotas. I am disappointed with the way that the action plan approached—or rather, did not approach—quota. The APPG report noted that

“debate continues over the extent to which the benefits derived from UK quota are distributed across coastal communities and the inshore fleet.”

Well, that is an understatement, certainly when it comes to Scotland. In Scotland, ownership of fishing quota is concentrated in the hands of just five families who feature in The Sunday Times rich list, who control more than a third of the Scottish quota and whose shares and companies wholly or partly own half of all the Scottish quota.

England fares no better. Almost half of the fishing quota in England is owned by Dutch, Icelandic and Spanish companies, and more than half of England’s fishing quota is in the hands of just three companies. Those statistics themselves make the argument that the fishing quota needs to be urgently reviewed.

We need a system that is fair, and that considers the economic linkage between quotas and the coastal communities that are adjacent to quotas. I am glad that the action plan referred to the community quota being tried in Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. Ownership and support concentrated in the hands of a few will not give new opportunities to our coastal communities. The system has to be rethought with guaranteed access for inshore fleets, and, as I said, it should be linked and distributed to local authorities on the model we have seen in my area and other areas.

These are bold and ambitious demands, but from small beginnings come a new and revived pelagic fleet, new processing, as has been mentioned, and a new and promising future. A fishing strategy worthy of its name has to tackle the elephant in the room—there are perhaps two elephants: one of conservation and one of control of quota. It also must recognise that, if fishing has a sustainable future, it has to be in the hands of fishers themselves, who have a practical and sustainable view of what is to come.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. We are looking at five minutes a head now, please.

17:16

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I say a special thanks to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for securing this debate. His excellent speech reflects the contribution he made as a Minister and in leading, with others, the development of the action plan.

As a vice-chair of the APPG on fisheries, I welcome this debate. I support the proposed action plan, while acknowledging that many of these matters are largely devolved to the Scottish Government. That said, it is incumbent on me to highlight once again the importance of the Scottish fishing industry in the context of the UK. Scottish fisheries represent 60% of the UK fishing industry, contribute 60% of the UK’s seafood exports and land 75% of all quota species. That may not be big in UK terms, but it is certainly big in Scottish terms, and it is very big in my constituency, as the Minister knows, with ports such as Buckie, Fraserburgh and Peterhead.

The Minister has previously signalled his willingness—nay, desire—to work in partnership with the Scottish Government on a strategy that involves all four nations. I encourage him in that regard. Might he be willing to revisit the UK Government approach to the fishing and coastal growth fund, as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) mentioned? The fund was brought in to ameliorate the damaging outcome of EU negotiations under a former Prime Minister, and the unprecedented 12-year access to our waters.

On the upside, the Scottish Government have dedicated £16.6 million in their marine fund Scotland, recognising the importance of the sector to our economy and our coastal communities. Since 2021, it has awarded £86 million to support 499 projects. This year’s funding allocation is revealing: £14.5 million, topped up with only £2.1 million from the fishing and coastal growth fund. Our freedom of information requests have shown that it was indeed a political decision to Barnettise the devolved fund. Scottish fisheries deserve far better than being used to score political points in this way.

In the notes the House of Commons Library provided for this debate, it is highlighted how a report from the Cambridge Industrial Innovation Policy group showed that sector strategies that support economic growth do best if policies are tailored to the needs of different industries, based on detailed evidence, and developed in consultation with the industry.

That brings me to the matter of skills shortages, which has already been referred to. The processing sector has made great strides forward in encouraging a domestic workforce with work incentives, but gaps in the labour market remain, and those gaps are holding back production and economic growth. That is where a bespoke Scottish visa for international workers would make such a difference to companies in the north-east that can neither grow nor innovate with the staff they have in place. It has been done before, in 2003, under none other than Jack McConnell, the former Scottish Labour leader and the last Labour First Minister of Scotland—or, as he is known these days, Baron McConnell of Glenscorrodale.

[Alan Gemmell]

I am pleased to say I was a civil servant who partly made the Fresh Talent: Working in Scotland scheme. I am pleased that we were able to do that, but what more have the Scottish Government done to attract migrants and to skill people in Scotland for those jobs, rather than relying on an old scheme?

[Seamus Logan]

I am glad the hon. Member asked that question. The problem does not lie in Scotland; it lies here in Westminster. That is what I have been trying to highlight.

On the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, it is no secret that I and my party think that Brexit was a catastrophic disaster. The cold hard estimate for the seafood industry revealed that Brexit led to a 30% increase in the cost of transporting products and a 50%9 increase in the cost of packaging.

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

Can the hon. Member confirm that the SNP’s policy would be to take us back into Europe, almost like the Labour party, and back into the dreaded common fisheries policy?

[Seamus Logan]

I thank the hon. Member for intervening on that point because I am very happy to put on record that, despite what he says, neither I nor my party wish to go back into the common fisheries policy. I remind the hon. Member that it was his Prime Minister and the previous Government who negotiated the Brexit deal that led us to this position.

[Torcuil Crichton]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Seamus Logan]

No, I have taken enough interventions; I am running out of time.

As we head towards the UK-EU summit on 20 November, I understand that the Scottish White Fish Producers Association is concerned that the worst elements of the common fisheries policy could reappear when the SPS is agreed. I hope that the SPS agreement will instead deliver faster, more streamlined export processes, because without that, the benefits will not be felt by fishermen, processors or coastal communities that rely on trade with the European Union.

Scotland needs a seat at the negotiating and decision-making table to ensure that the voice of our fishing and coastal communities is represented, heard and taken on board. Otherwise, a strategy made in Westminster, far from the reality of my constituency in the north-east, will be in danger of failing in its core mission, as the Minister knows.

17:21

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for calling this debate and the Minister for his prioritisation of a visit to Newlyn in Cornwall so early in his tenure, where I am sure he gained a strong sense of our priorities. Fishing remains central to communities like mine in mid-Cornwall. As we have heard from colleagues on all sides of the Chamber, it is vital that we continue to put our fishermen and women at the heart of shaping and delivering the future of the sector.

More topically, I welcome the continued freeze on red diesel duties announced in the Budget, but we must recognise that EU vessels continue to benefit from access to the crisis mechanisms of the European maritime, fisheries and aquaculture fund and the middle east crisis temporary state aid framework. That is putting our fleets at a significant competitive disadvantage and all too often rendering it uneconomical to leave port. Will the Minister consider how the Government can address that competitive disadvantage?

Turning to the bigger picture, the fleets in our sector, sector 7, remain under significant pressure, including from foreign vessels, which account for approximately two thirds of landings. Although quota distribution has increased marginally in favour of UK vessels in recent years, not all fisheries are quota-bound and, broadly speaking, catch ratios in the sector continue to reflect historically established entitlements, with the highest concentration of effort per job in the sector remaining among the industrial-scale foreign vessels we have heard quite a bit about today.

[Torcuil Crichton]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that one of the only opportunities of Brexit was the opportunity to look at the UK quota again and redistribute it to communities and inshore fleets such as his?

[Noah Law]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the need for a democratisation of many of the quotas. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

As we all know, not all fishing effort has an equivalent ecological impact. Larger, industrialised and—in my sector, at least—foreign vessels are likely to have a disproportionate impact on stocks, while the smaller vessels of our domestic, largely inshore fleets tend to employ more selective, low-impact fishing methods. Ultimately, the smaller vessels that make up our fleet in Cornwall and across the wider sector act as the bedrock of both employment and environmental stewardship. Those twin priorities should be core Labour priorities. Fishermen tell us about the pressures, which really are mounting in the six to 12 nautical mile zone. Will the Minister consider the efficacy in our sector of potential measures in the six to 12 nautical mile zone, and whether a 221 kW engine-size restriction could meet the employment and environmental challenges? Similar measures have been employed effectively and selectively on a sectoral basis, as in the case of fly seining and beam trawling recently in area 7 and coastal waters, respectively, as well as longer-dated precedent in continental waters, with measures for the North sea plaice box.

Finally, in the light of forthcoming responses to our fisheries management plan consultations, I would welcome the introduction not just of some of the proposed technical measures on engine size, but of an integrated approach to biodiversity targets, a climate-sensitive approach to stock rebuilding—that has been alluded to but not spelled out explicitly—that recognises the reality of mixed fisheries, and recognition of the spatial challenges that we have heard about and the need for integrated marine spatial planning, as so masterfully highlighted in the action plan of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Finally and briefly from the Back Benches, I call Mr Myer.

17:26

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate and on his report.

In my region, our identity is shaped by our coastline. From the old fishing villages of Staithes and Skinningrove through to the port at the Tees, the sea has shaped our economy, our identity and the character of our communities, so I welcome this debate and the call for a national fishing and seafood strategy. I will illustrate some of the points made in the debate by adding two experiences from my constituency.

The first concerns a fishermen from Easington, who came to see me at my surgery earlier this year. He operates commercially out of Whitby, and for three years he had been trying unsuccessfully to obtain a licence to catch bluefin tuna. I have to confess that before coming to this place, I did not think a great deal about the geographical distribution of licences for bluefin tuna fishing, but I soon discovered that it was a source of considerable frustration for fishermen in the north-east, who felt that opportunities were disproportionately concentrated on the south coast. Here was a hard-working local businessman who wanted to diversify his trade and invest in his future, but who had spent three years trying to secure the necessary permission.

I wrote to DEFRA and to the Northumberland Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority, to express this man’s concerns. In July, I was pleased to hear from him that he had finally secured his licence, which he understood to be the only one awarded locally that year. That was a good outcome, but it left me wondering why it took three years, the intervention of an MP and correspondence with different public authorities just for a fisherman to get the opportunity to do what he does best. I hope that any national strategy will look seriously at such barriers, so that we can encourage small fishing businesses to diversify and grow, and not make their lives unnecessarily difficult.

[Torcuil Crichton]

I sympathise with the plight of my hon. Friend’s constituent, because one of my constituents faced the same problem with planning for a tuna fishery, having a licence granted one year, but not getting it granted another.

[Luke Myer]

I will discuss my second issue briefly. It was a national story. For those unfamiliar with what happened, in 2021 an enormous number of dead crustaceans were washed up on our beaches, followed by a collapse in catches of as much as 80%, by some fishermen’s estimates.. That was devastating for the local industry; boats were sold and businesses closed. The most troubling thing is that, five years later, we still do not have a definitive explanation of what happened. That battle for truth has been documented in a new film, “All Rivers Spill Their Stories to the Sea”, and we will hold a screening of it in Parliament for parliamentarians shortly. I encourage all Members to attend.

I pay tribute to the local authorities who came together to establish a working group to look into the issue. I pay particular tribute to Councillor Philip Thomson and former Councillor Rachel Creevy for working across parties to drive forward that agenda. Will the Minister look into the findings published by that working group to see whether lessons can be learned by Government? I echo the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge for science funding to be a pillar of the strategy. Ultimately, if we want to restore confidence among those in the industry, we must demonstrate that our fishermen’s knowledge is valued, and that when issues arise, they will be thoroughly investigated and those directly affected can shape and direct what happens next.

Our fishing communities do not lack ambition; what they need is a Government who are prepared to work alongside them to remove unnecessary obstacles and safeguard their environment, and to give them a greater say in the decisions that shape their future. I hope that that is the ambition that guides this strategy, which we hope to see in the near future.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. Mr MacDonald, you have about eight minutes.

17:30

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

Thank you, Sir Roger—I will take about half of that, I hope. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing the debate. I also welcome the early visits the Minister made to Scotland and his willingness to engage with the industry, which is so important to my part of Britain.

The first point I want to make is that the UK Government are leading the negotiations on fishing opportunities with the EU, and the decisions made over the coming weeks and months will be extremely significant for all our constituents. The economic viability of many remote west highland communities depends on the fishing industry, and particularly fish farming—an issue that has not been discussed so far. The industry supports employment, businesses and entire communities along our coastline. In many of the more remote parts of my constituency, fishing and seafood processing are among the few industries capable of providing skilled, well-paid and relatively secure, all-year-round employment.

The fish farming industry is incredibly important to the west highlands and islands. It employs about 2,500 people in a sparsely populated area, with a substantial number more in related services such as processing and transport. The industry is well aware of the need to constantly improve its environmental credentials, and it must. However, the bottom line is that there are fewer and fewer wild fish, so the need for a sustainable fish farming industry will only grow in importance. Should the hugely well-funded, mainly American, anti-fish farming pressure groups succeed in their aim of closing down fish farming, they will also succeed in sounding the death knell of our already struggling coastal communities.

That matters enormously when we consider the demographic challenges facing the highlands and islands. We have a serious problem with depopulation, with young people leaving because they cannot find the employment or opportunities they need to build a future in their own communities. We cannot expect those communities to survive if we allow the industries that sustain them to disappear. The fishing industry is therefore not simply an economic asset for the highlands; it is essential to the long-term viability of our coastal communities. It is also worth noting that if the Scottish fish farming industry has its legs taken away from underneath it, that will boost the fish farming industries in Norway, the Faroes, Canada, Chile and so on, which would be only too happy to step in.

The second point I want to make is that we face a significant challenge as fish stocks move northwards into cooler waters. For the first nine months of this year, the value of the catch in Scotland was 17% down on the same period last year. That is having a continued impact on our fishing communities and the opportunities available to the fleet. Crab, langoustine and lobster fishing is important in my constituency but, with far reduced catches, it offers a hard and much less lucrative livelihood than a decade ago.

One of my many sons is a recreational diver, and he tells me of the destruction caused to the seabed by scallop dredging. Those who hand dive for scallops in our community have the support of the more environmentally aware locals. Will the Minister please update us on his view on the sustainability and environmental impact of scallop dredging?

Only 54% of the food we eat is produced in the UK. We can and must do better. Our fishing industry has an important role to play in feeding the nation, but we must maintain high environmental standards and protect our fish stocks. As we have heard, Scotland accounts for 60% to 70% of the UK’s fishing industry, and we have a substantial processing sector and a network of businesses around the coast. However, none of that can survive without a viable fleet bringing fish ashore and securing the best possible opportunities for 2027, particularly for key stocks such as cod. A collapse in remote Scotland’s school rolls and visa restrictions threaten the future workforce that we need so badly. I hope that the Minister will take a pragmatic approach to both.

We have good fisheries management in Scotland, but we must strike a balance between protecting the marine environment and sustaining the very fragile coastal communities that depend on it. The fishing industry is vital to the future of the highlands and to the food security and economic prosperity not just of the highlands and Scotland but of the whole of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government will recognise that and ensure that our fishing communities have the opportunities and support that they need to thrive.

17:35

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this important debate.

For centuries, fishing has fed this island nation. It has built our harbour towns and sent generation after generation to sea in all waters. In Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, almost three in every 100 jobs still depend on the seafood industry. That is exactly why—not just in Cornwall but across the country—the official Opposition support the creation of the UK’s first comprehensive cross-Government departmental national fishing strategy. I thank all Members who were involved in “An Action Plan for a Thriving and Sustainable UK Fishing Industry” and the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries for the work that it did to pull together that comprehensive piece of work.

However, let us be honest about where the industry stands today. Full-time jobs are down by about 15% since 2024, and landings fell by 10% by weight in a single year between 2024 and 2025. The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), has said previously in this House that DEFRA is

“held in exceptionally poor regard”

by fishers. A strategy is welcome, but it will mean something only if the Government are prepared to change course, as has been said.

The Government constantly give out the right narrative that food security is national security, but in the Budget a fortnight ago, neither food nor fishing were mentioned. The APPG’s fisheries action plan makes 38 recommendations, and the industry has been clear about which recommendations matter the most. Fishing and seafood must be fully represented in the UK’s food security planning. Fishing grounds must be recognised in marine planning as what they are: vital places that provide food.

The Government must give full effect to the Fisheries Act 2020, which was passed by the previous Conservative Government and balances the social, economic and environmental sides of fishing instead of just putting an emphasis on one of them. Will the Minister commit to a cross-Government departmental national fishing strategy that gives reassurance to the fishing sector, and will he lay out a timetable for it? Will fishing and seafood be fully represented in the UK’s food security assessments?

My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) rightly outlined that we must focus on dealing with the short-term issues and pressures that face our fishing sector. Since the Iran war began, fuel costs for fishermen have roughly doubled. Successful businesses have exhausted their reserves and are going bust. Fishermen are leaving the industry. After months of campaigning, Ministers can still point only to diesel relief, marine voyage relief and the growth fund, all of which existed before the crisis began. The Budget offered some help for electricity-intensive businesses, but nothing for fuel-intensive ones such as fishing.

[Douglas Lumsden]

My hon. Friend mentioned the energy-intensive industry scheme. In the summer, I met Jimmy Buchan, the CEO of the Scottish Seafood Association. His biggest ask was for fish processors to be included in that scheme. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should consider including fish processors in that scheme?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree. The Government must look beyond fishermen and at the wider sector, including the food processing sector. That is a key ask as part of this debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that in his wind-up speech.

The challenge on fuel means that countries on the continent—France, Italy, Spain, Germany and Ireland—have spent tens of millions supporting their fishermen, so much so that in some of our waters the only boats that can afford to fish are the European ones. That is frankly absurd and prompts the question: what are the Government doing about it? Does the Minister think it fair that British fishermen are competing in their own British waters with a European fleet propped up by their Governments? Will the Minister bring forward a tailored plan to provide fuel support to fishermen, as the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has requested?

One aim of Brexit was to put British fishermen first in British waters. The previous Conservative Government took the UK out of the common fisheries policy and negotiated 750,000 tonnes of fishing opportunities for 2024. What was that for? That opportunity was squandered by the Labour Government when they handed EU vessels full access to our waters until 2038—12 years of fishing rights signed away at a cost that the NFFO estimates reaches £6 billion easily.

What did our fishermen get in return? Absolutely nothing. Under the deal the Conservative Government negotiated, access would have been agreed year-by-year, giving us the same leverage that Norway uses to secure a fair deal. That leverage has now gone, thanks to the complete disregard of the Labour Government for the livelihoods of fishermen up and down the country. For this Government, fishermen are just another pawn they can sacrifice for a closer relationship with the EU, whatever the cost.

[Noah Law]

If that is so, why did the hon. Gentleman’s Government not negotiate one-year rolling access rather than a longer period?

[Robbie Moore]

The one-year rolling access was in the pipeline to continue, as it was with the negotiations with Europe. It was this Labour Government that signed away our fishing rights for 12 years.

I must turn to the hon. Member for Cambridge, for whom I have a great deal of respect. When the deal was signed in May last year, he was the Minister responsible for fisheries at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He did not oppose it; he defended it. In a written answer he said:

“That deal secures a continuation of the current access arrangements.”

That is 12 more years of the status quo for a fleet that was promised so much more. That was the deal that he stood behind. I welcome his support today for the fishing strategy, but fishermen in every harbour town will be entitled to ask why he did not fight for them when he was in a position to act.

We have a new Prime Minister who talks a great deal about supporting our food sector and our fishermen. We are about to enter an EU summit on 20 November and the widely circulated joint draft statement says that the Prime Minister welcomes

“decisions on full reciprocal access to waters to fish, until 30 June 2038…and the extension of energy co-operation on a continuing basis.”

There we have it. Our fishermen have been sold down the line yet again by this Labour Government. I will give the Minister the opportunity to intervene if he is able to say why this is such a good deal for our fishermen. He does not wish to intervene. Will he confirm that nothing in the SPS agreement will affect UK fisheries management? Will he instruct negotiators not to concede technical measures or any other backdoor measures to the EU in the forthcoming negotiations?

There is also the challenge of spatial squeeze at sea, which was picked up by many Members. Fishermen are being squeezed out of their own waters. Offshore wind takes their grounds, with compulsory marine protected areas taking yet more in a double displacement. The NFFO warns that the third round of marine conservation zones could, in effect, ban fishing in an area the size of Wales, limiting the scope of fishing in this country and once again damaging the livelihoods of our fishermen. On that point, will the Government review the compensatory marine protected areas for offshore wind? What are the Government doing to make the case for fishing to the Crown Estate?

That brings me to the fishing and coastal growth fund. The industry welcomed the fund, but let me be clear about its scale: £360 million over 12 years is around £30 million a year. However, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations estimates that the EU access deal will cost the sector £6 billion. What side of the sector are this Government on? Energy upgrades funded through the fund will take months to deliver, and any fuel savings will be eclipsed by today’s diesel prices. When the EFRA Committee asked the Government to frontload the fund, Ministers said no. Without help, investment and skills are already leaving right now. There may therefore not be much of the sector left for the fund to support. With landings down 10% by weight in a single year, does the Minister seriously believe that £360 million spread over 12 years is enough? I put the question again: will he look to frontload the fund to support our sector now?

To conclude, the fishing industry’s asks are clear and reasonable: tailored fuel support and an SPS deal that protects our hard-won controls in our waters, rather than negotiating them away, as this Government have with the 12 years they signed away and are due to put in concrete, so to speak, at the EU summit on 20 November. Negotiations that concede nothing through the back door are an absolute request of the fishing sector, as are an end to double displacement and the first ever UK fishing strategy. Our fishermen feel forgotten. They deserve a Government who are truly on their side. Over the past two years, this Labour Government have shown a blatant disregard for fishermen’s way of life and for the importance of their work to UK food security. This debate is a chance for the Minister to show that he gets it and that he cares. I look forward to his response to the specific questions that have been asked.

17:46

[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 Roger.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for securing this debate on issues of which he, as my ministerial predecessor, has huge knowledge and expertise. Coming from a coastal community and living in a city that looks to the sea for its livelihood, I am proud to represent the hard-working coastal communities that contribute so much to our nation’s prosperity.

Since my appointment, I have met many representatives of the fishing and seafood industry, from whom I have learned a huge amount. In Newlyn, Weymouth, Grimsby, Peterhead, Fraserburgh and Selsey, I have seen their pride and skill and heard about their work to put our wonderful seafood on our plates. From them I heard loud and clear that fishing is so much more than just another industry. We are an island nation and fishing has shaped the rhythms, ways of life and character of our coastal communities for generations. Traditions, knowledge and skills have been handed down through families. The best tribute I can pay to fishing’s rich heritage is to do my best to secure its future.

While I talk of fishing’s rich heritage, I must, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge eloquently did, convey the deep gratitude and respect I have for all those who work or have worked as fishermen. That includes the many who have sadly lost their lives bringing back our harvest of seafood. My sympathies also go to the families of the crew of the Kilda, who were rightly mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton).

The fishing community contends with tough and dangerous working conditions. I commend all efforts by the industry to improve safety, including by working with Seafish and with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, among other organisations. Last week, I visited the RNLI lifeboat station in Selsey and met the Fishermen’s Mission to hear about their work to save lives and to support the welfare of fishermen. I was struck by the deep connections between the fishing industry and both those organisations. That includes volunteer lifeboat crew, who are drawn from the community and are often fishermen themselves. I place on record my gratitude to all those who devote themselves to improving safety and to saving lives at sea.

I know my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge has taken a leading role in the development of the APPG on fisheries action plan for a thriving and sustainable UK fishing industry. As I said at the action plan’s recent launch, I very much welcome its publication and I have heard its call for a stronger strategic view of the fishing and seafood sector. I will soon be meeting representatives of the APPG, including my hon. Friend, to discuss its recommendations in greater detail.

Any future work to develop a strategy would, of course, need to recognise devolution, the diversity of the sector and the strong frameworks that are already in place. I will also be considering our long-term vision for the fishing and seafood industry further with the sector. As I said at the launch event, many of the APPG’s objectives align very closely with my own. Like the APPG, I want to see a thriving fishing industry that delivers thriving coastal communities, good jobs and better job security. To achieve that, we need environmentally sustainable stocks, a modern fleet, infrastructure and supply chains and above all, a motivated, skilled workforce.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his helpful and positive responses to the questions we have asked. I am sure he will come on to this, but I gently remind him that, in Northern Ireland and Scotland, one of the problems for many of us is the crews and the workforce, as we raised in submissions to the former Minister. Can the Minister give me some assurance in relation to that?

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue. I look forward to seeing him next week to discuss the issues facing colleagues in Northern Ireland, alongside the processing organisation. Perhaps we could pick up that conversation then.

Taking action to deliver for the fishing and seafood industry is a priority for this Government. It involves acting to deliver and consider a number of action plan recommendations. To highlight just a few, they include delivering multi-annual funding. We are already doing that through the fisheries and seafood scheme, which also supports training towards accredited qualifications. We are also considering how the action plan’s four pillars can help us to guide policy, recognising that fishing is a vital food-producing sector that aligns well with existing work in DEFRA to build national food security. We could consider how to address capacity gaps in inshore fisheries management as well.

I can also point to a number of other achievements, including significant progress on the fisheries management plans and the recovery of bluefin tuna and bass. The benefits that those successes bring are evident to coastal communities and demonstrate that good fisheries management works. We have allocated unused authorisations with a focus on supporting young and new fishermen entering the industry, and we have produced our UK seafood careers road map. Since we opened the fisheries and seafood scheme, we have received over 600 applications worth £25 million. Some of that is being specifically targeted at small-scale coastal fleets, and we have made funding available for new engines and gearboxes, which will help improve fuel efficiency. Meanwhile, the £1.5 million annual seafood export package is helping seafood businesses reach new markets.

As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), said, our current focus is on this autumn’s negotiations for fishing opportunities for 2027, from which I will do my best to secure the best deal possible for UK fishermen. Many of those negotiations are challenging and full of trade-offs that need to be made.

[Douglas Lumsden]

In just 10 days’ time, the UK-EU summit is happening in Brussels. Can the Minister assure us that our fishing industry will not be sold down the river in those talks?

[Stephen Morgan]

I am coming on to the points that the hon. Member made, but my interest in the negotiations and the summit is to protect UK interests. That is the absolute priority of this Government.

I have spoken to the fishing industry to hear its priorities, and I have taken them into account when setting out our approach to the negotiations. From previous exchanges in the House and with Members, I am aware of concerns about the level of fishing in UK waters by Norwegian trawlers. That is reciprocal, and I know there are UK vessels that appreciate the arrangement’s flexibility. I heard about that when I met the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation in Fraserburgh in August, and stakeholders raised it again ahead of the negotiations with Norway. The negotiations began in October, and I will seek to get the best possible deal. There are also difficult discussions and decisions on balancing the long-term sustainability of northern shelf cod with providing for the needs of our coastal communities in 2027. Addressing that is a priority of mine in trilateral negotiations with the EU and Norway, and I have spoken about it with UK stakeholders in recent weeks. We will continue to engage closely with the fishing industry to identify the best ways forward.

Of course, to support healthy fish stocks, we must prioritise a healthy and productive marine environment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) rightly raised, and I am working to balance the decisions on that with ensuring that the fishing industry remains sustainable. That includes marine protection, and I am mindful of the commitment to put in place stage 3 byelaws before the end of this year. Those byelaws would be substantial and could close 13% of English waters to bottom trawling. I do not want to place any unnecessary restrictions on industry, so given the potential impacts for the fishing industry, it is important that we take time to get this right.

We are also working at pace to finalise arrangements for a new SPS deal, which will make it easier and cheaper to export seafood to the EU. More details on that will follow shortly, as part of the EU-UK summit later this month. Work is continuing to deliver funding. Currently, that is through the fisheries and seafood scheme, but we are also shaping, with the industry and others, the longer-term delivery of the fishing and coastal growth fund.

On cost pressures and similar issues raised by Members, I recognise the genuine hardship that high, volatile fuel prices are causing, as well as the concerns about competition from EU vessels that may have benefited from temporary fuel-related support. There is support via the existing tax system, and we have recently announced funding for new, more efficient engines and gearboxes. I am listening to fishing communities to understand the pressures that they face, and I am looking at all options.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) made a number of helpful points. I recognise that access to the UK’s six to 12 nautical mile zone is an important issue for the inshore fleet, particularly where there are concerns about pressure from larger vessels due to EU activity. I heard that message loud and clear during my time in Penzance and Newlyn. My hon. Friend is right to raise those concerns, and I assure him that I will continue to have those discussions. Any new management measures would need to respect the UK’s international obligations and be evidence-based. I am very happy to meet him on those points.

[Luke Myer]

Will the Minister write to me with the Government’s reflections on the mass crustacean die-off that affected Teesside, following the publication of the report of the working group formed by local authorities in my region?

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work on these important matters. I can go one better: I am very happy to meet him to discuss the issues in further detail.

On labour and workforce challenges, Members will recognise that immigration policy is for the Home Office to comment on. However, I can assure them that my Department and I are in regular conversation with our Home Office counterparts about the concerns of industry, and I will continue to raise those matters across Government.

On engaging with the fishing and seafood industry, my officials and I already engage extensively through hugely varied forums. We have a strong framework of engagement, as I set out in July in the Government’s response to the EFRA Committee’s April report. We can always do more, so I look forward to continuing to improve how the Department engages with stakeholders, including the fishing and seafood industry. I am currently looking to build on the visits I have undertaken in my first few months in post, to listen more to what fishermen have to say. I have a date in the diary to visit Shetland, and I am considering a number of other invitations to ports around the country.

I have heard the calls for a stronger strategic view of the fishing and seafood sector, and I will consider the case for a national strategy. I welcome the APPG’s action plan and its recommendations, some of which are already being delivered. I will also consider its wider findings and recommendations. In the meantime, my focus is on delivery for the fishing and seafood industry. I want the industry to thrive and to turn delivery into thriving communities, good jobs, better food security and a healthier marine environment. As I said at the start, the best tribute I can pay to the sector’s rich heritage is to do my very best to secure its future. I thank all Members for their contributions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge for securing the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a fishing and seafood sector strategy.

School Buildings: Rushcliffe

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Westminster Hall

18:00

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the condition of school buildings in Rushcliffe constituency.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the Minister for hot-footing it down from the main Chamber in just five or 10 minutes— I congratulate him on that. I also apologise to him for securing today’s debate; we recently bumped into each other in a non-educational context, and he specifically thanked me for not mentioning a Rushcliffe school to him at that moment. I therefore suspect that he was neither surprised nor particularly pleased to see that I had secured a whole debate on the subject, but hopefully it also means that he is ahead of the game and in a position to give me some of the answers that I am looking for today.

There has been some genuine progress in education settings in Rushcliffe over the past two years, so I want to start by recognising that: more than £120 million of new education investment has either been spent or is now planned for this Parliament. That includes £3.8 million for Nottingham college—including the campus in Ruddington—to modernise facilities, and £1.2 million for the centre for sustainable construction technology to tackle regional skills shortages. More than £30 million of basic need funding has been used for a 450-place block at Rushcliffe Spencer academy in West Bridgford. Almost £40 million of works are under way at South Wolds academy in Keyworth to replace a single-storey classroom building with a new three-storey block.

Some £8 million has been spent on a state-of-the-art primary school in Sutton Bonington, and £1.2 million has been allocated for building upgrades at Willow Brook primary school in Keyworth. We have seen the completion of cladding, insulation, safety and lighting works at Keyworth primary and nursery school. Some £230,000 has been allocated for building upgrades at Willoughby primary school in Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, and £200,000 has been spent on energy infrastructure at Pierrepont Gamston primary school. A new heating system has been installed at Langar Church of England primary school to reduce running costs. And, of course, £35.8 million of Nottinghamshire county council’s special educational needs and disabilities deficit has been offset and absorbed by this Government.

Improvements are taking place in our schools across Rushcliffe, and I wholeheartedly welcome that level of investment, but my local schools are also facing some significant challenges. Today, I want to highlight six issues that I believe illustrate wider problems in the way we plan, fund and maintain our school estate.

First, St Peter’s C of E junior school in Ruddington unexpectedly became one of the flagship issues in my constituency last Christmas. St Peter’s was built in 1956 using the Derwent system. Last December, surveyors discovered severe structural deterioration, including decay in the timber columns supporting the floors and roof. On 9 December, the building was closed and around 360 children suddenly found themselves without a school building, just three weeks before Christmas.

The response from the community was extraordinary: staff, governors, parents, neighbouring schools and academy trusts pulled together to keep teaching going. A temporary learning village was subsequently constructed by Nottinghamshire county council, at considerable cost, and is now in use. I put on record my sincere thanks to everyone involved. I also thank the Minister for his personal intervention, which helped secure St Peter’s place on the school rebuilding programme earlier this year.

That was such a positive outcome for Ruddington. The challenge now is delivery. Understandably, residents want to know when St Peter’s children will have a permanent school again. The county council would like reassurances about the financial implications of the project, including the cost of the temporary village. St Peter’s itself needs clarity about the proposed design, especially for SEND provision. Its existing provision includes dedicated spaces for therapy, nurture, one-to-one support and targeted interventions. However, the initial plans for the replacement building appear to reduce that provision significantly. I welcome the Department’s recent indication that additional SEND space will be considered through the business case process.

I would welcome three reassurances from the Minister today. First, when can the community expect a clear timetable for the rebuild? Secondly, will the Department ensure that the new school retains the specialist places needed to deliver its existing SEND provision? Thirdly, will the Department work with Nottinghamshire county council to provide clarity about the costs and funding responsibilities, so that financial uncertainty does not delay progress? We have secured the right decision in principle for the parents, pupils and staff of St Peter’s. We now need to get the delivery right and move at pace.

Secondly, St Peter’s points to a much wider issue facing my home county of Nottinghamshire, which has an unusually high concentration of buildings built in the CLASP—consortium of local authorities special programme—and Derwent styles. The county council tells me that more than 750 of the approximately 3,500 CLASP buildings across the UK are in Nottinghamshire—more than one fifth of the national total. These buildings were constructed in the mid-to-late 20th century, using systems that offered quick and economical solutions to the demands of their time. Many are now well beyond their intended working lives. They present significant challenges involving structural deterioration, asbestos, accessibility, insulation, heating and maintenance. This is not only an education issue. I have also campaigned extensively about the condition of East Leake health centre, where the legacy of an ageing CLASP building has become a major obstacle to local healthcare provision. There is therefore a broader question about the concentration of ageing public infrastructure in Nottinghamshire, and whether national capital programmes sufficiently recognise that particular legacy.

When St Peter’s was condemned, Nottinghamshire county council wrote to the Department requesting emergency capital funding and a wider investment plan. Specifically, it wants all two-storey CLASP and Derwent school buildings included in the school rebuilding programme, and existing projects accelerated. I would welcome the Minister’s response to this request. I am concerned that without a specific approach, we could face a major problem in the coming years, like at St Peter’s, potentially comparable in scale to the crisis of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. We should not wait for buildings to fail before acting. Will the Department undertake a strategic assessment of the risks associated with these particular construction types, and work with Nottinghamshire to develop a properly prioritised programme of intervention?

Thirdly, I want to address the growing problem of temporary school accommodation effectively becoming permanent. Two particularly troubling examples in my constituency are Edwalton primary school and Lady Bay primary school. At Edwalton, approximately 120 children are taught in temporary modular classrooms that are more than 20 years old and more than five years beyond their intended lifespan. The headteacher has shown me evidence of a roof with a hole the size of a football, water dripping down walls and timber deteriorating. The school has already spent hundreds of thousands of pounds patching up the buildings over recent years, and they will soon need replacing entirely. That is a classic example of good money chasing bad.

I was grateful to meet the Minister about Edwalton. I warmly welcome the Government’s renewal and retrofit programme worth more than £700 million, which will increase the focus on life-expired temporary buildings. Edwalton’s overall condition rating often combines the permanent building with severely deteriorated temporary classrooms. The danger is obvious. The best buildings on a site could conceal the very worst. Will the Minister confirm that individual temporary buildings can be assessed separately, that local evidence will be considered, and that schools such as Edwalton will have a meaningful route to make their case? When in 2027 should schools expect the renewal and retrofit programme to open, and when are decisions and investment likely to be made? The five classrooms at Edwalton need patching up today, but the headteacher would understandably prefer to reserve funds for a genuinely long-term solution.

Lady Bay primary school has similar problems, with a double mobile classroom first installed in 2007 to accommodate extra children. Those classrooms are still being used today. The school has been waiting for investment to address both accommodation pressures and buildings reaching the end of their useful life. Yet the investment was postponed earlier this year by Nottinghamshire county council due to funding constraints. I raised that with the Department over the summer and was told that funding has been allocated to meet forecast demand for places across the wider planning area. However, as the Minister knows, that has been contested by Nottinghamshire county council, which has pointed to a wider gap between the cost of school places and the funding available. Parents and schools should not have to navigate competing explanations for delay from different public bodies. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s help today in establishing precisely where responsibility lies in ensuring that projects like the one at Lady Bay primary school do not remain in limbo indefinitely.

Fourthly, there is a related problem in Rushcliffe of schools expanding their pupil numbers without receiving the infrastructure investment that they were promised. Rushcliffe is a fantastic place to live and work, and our schools are understandably popular. That popularity creates pressure, particularly where schools have agreed to accommodate additional pupils. At West Bridgford school the published admission number is 222, but the school has been admitting approximately 270 pupils annually. The county council had planned building works to support a permanent increase to 270. Those works have now been postponed, despite the school having accommodated higher numbers for several years.

In another case in south Rushcliffe, East Leake academy has been pursuing an expansion of its dining facilities because the existing space is too small for its population. I welcome the more positive recent engagement with the county council, which has indicated that the project can progress following the end of the current private finance initiative contract in July 2027. But in both cases, investment did not happen when it was promised. These cases are causing genuine frustration among parents, pupils and teachers. Will the Minister explain what safeguards exist to ensure that the promised capacity-related investment is delivered? How does the Department hold local authorities to account on these commitments? Can the Department intervene when agreed projects are subsequently postponed?

Fifthly, I want to briefly raise the future of Ash Lea special school in Cotgrave. Ash Lea serves children with some of the most complex needs in my constituency and beyond. In line with what I described earlier about class buildings across Nottinghamshire, the condition of its building is poor, and the county council, school and academy trust agree that a replacement is needed. I believe an application for the school rebuilding programme was submitted earlier this year, but there are concerns that local government reorganisation could complicate decisions about potential investment and/or finding alternative sites.

I hope the Minister agrees that the future of a special school should not be held hostage to uncertainty about local authority boundaries. Can he confirm the status of Ash Lea’s application, say when a decision can be expected and set out how the Department is working with Nottinghamshire county council to secure a viable long-term solution? Children with complex needs, their families and their teachers deserve certainty, and I hope we can provide it soon.

Sixthly and finally, I want to raise the future of small rural primary schools. Nationally, birth rates have fallen to an all-time low, and many rural schools face the prospect of declining pupil numbers. For small schools, even relatively modest changes in admissions can have a disproportionate effect on staffing budgets and long-term viability. Normanton-on-Soar primary school illustrates that. I am never 100% sure which data to refer to, but I believe that the total school capacity is 83 and the expected number on roll for this year is only 59. Parents, understandably, have raised questions about subsequent staffing reductions, the availability of teaching assistant support and the implications for children with SEND. The parish council has also written to Equals Trust, emphasising the school’s importance to village identity, stability and community cohesion. Indeed, we must recognise that rural schools are not simply units of educational provision; they are vital community institutions.

As chair of the Labour Rural Research Group, I have been arguing for a more sophisticated approach to rural education funding, including proper recognition of sparsity, small school costs and the opportunities created by surplus space. Specific recommendations from the LRRG include, first, using surplus rural school capacity to boost SEND provision by starting new SEND expansion in these areas and, secondly, amending funding formulas for rural schools and rural SEND provision to reflect the impending crisis. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on these points. More fundamentally, what work is the Department undertaking to understand the cumulative impact of declining birth rates on small rural schools, and when can rural communities expect a clearer national strategy for the future of their schools?

I have raised six issues today, but they share a common theme. Whether it is a structurally failing building, a temporary classroom that has outlived its usefulness, a promised extension that has not materialised or a village school facing falling numbers, the underlying problem is uncertainty: uncertainty about funding, about responsibility, about priorities and about timescales.

I am grateful to the Minister for the leadership that he has already shown, particularly at St Peter’s. That experience shows me that rapid progress is possible when local concerns receive proper attention. I hope that today’s debate can secure the same clarity and the same momentum for the other schools that I have mentioned. As the Minister knows, children only get one chance at their education, so they—and we—cannot afford to have their education compromised by inadequate buildings or a lack of local or national willingness to address these long-standing problems. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

18:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this debate and on his formidable advocacy for schools across his constituency.

As a former teacher who has spent years standing in front of young people in classrooms in Oldham and Stockport, I know at first hand that although the space around learning is not the entire story, it can make a difference to the whole learning process. Now, as a Minister in the Department for Education, I am proud that we have set out a 10-year plan to renew our schools and colleges so that children and staff have the high-quality classrooms that they deserve.

This Government are doing things differently to fix the failures of the past. Across Government, we are maintaining public investment at the highest sustained level in four decades, supported by an increase in capital spending over this Parliament of more than £120 billion on previous plans. We are increasing and prioritising investment where it is needed most, through maintenance, renewal and rebuilding programmes. For that reason, we are providing unprecedented long-term funding and have increased overall capital investment in education to about £38 billion through to 2029-30—the highest amount since 2010.

With over 22,000 schools and colleges in England, the education estate supports the outcomes, health and wellbeing of 10 million children and young people. The benefits are clear, but the challenges are real. For too long, schools have had to patch and mend buildings that have already deteriorated, instead of getting the rebuilds they need and arguably should have had a long time ago.

We are already turning the page on years of decline in the school estates. Our education estates strategy set out a 10-year plan to deliver a decade of renewal in the estate, backed by unprecedented long-term funding. We are investing almost £3 billion per year by 2034-35 in capital maintenance to improve the condition of the estate and are investing almost £20 billion through to 2034-35 in the school rebuilding programme. There are more than 500 schools already in the SRP, with over 80% in delivery already; 68 schools have been rebuilt, with 56 completed under this Government.

There are two schools in the programme in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Rushcliffe. The rebuild of Sutton Bonington primary school was completed last year. Earlier this year, I was delighted to confirm that St Peter’s junior school is joining the school rebuilding programme, following my hon. Friend’s representations about the conditions at the school; it was his leadership that made the difference in getting that school rebuild confirmed. The Department is working closely with Nottinghamshire county council to rebuild the school, with high-quality buildings for pupils and staff ensuring that the new space supports inclusion now and into the future. The delivery timeline is shaped by the feasibility and design work for the rebuild; this is being developed at the moment in discussions with Nottinghamshire county council and the school.

We will select a further 250 schools to join the school rebuilding programme by early 2027. Places will be prioritised for schools in the worst condition and in the local areas where places are needed now. Earlier this year, responsible bodies were asked to nominate schools using published guidance and criteria. I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s support for Ash Lea academy, which is nominated for the school rebuilding programme. The Department is carefully assessing all the nominations. There is not much more that I can say at this stage, given that it is an ongoing process.

I was grateful to meet my hon. Friend in September to discuss Edwalton primary school. Flying High Trust has a school condition allocation of £1.6 million for 2026-27 to decide how to invest in its schools, including Edwalton. Nottinghamshire county council also has a school condition allocation of almost £5.9 million for this financial year to invest across its maintained schools, including Lady Bay primary school. Those are the main ways in which we allocate resources in the system to ensure maintenance.

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

Like Rushcliffe, my area has received some condition improvement funding for a few schools: Hayfield secondary, South Axholme secondary and two primary schools, Green Top and Auckley. I have visited nearly all the schools in my constituency. How can they make representations, through me and the Minister, to get some funding for their own improvements?

[Josh MacAlister]

I would be very happy to exchange letters or discussions with my hon. Friend to help to resolve any issues. We have a specific route for funding very small multi-academy or single-academy trust schools through the funding formula, where they are not in larger responsible body groups. That is why some schools get funding through the condition improvement fund and others get it through the wider allocation process.

In addition to maintenance funding and the school rebuilding programme, my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe mentioned that we have launched the renewal and retrofit programme. The programme is backed by more than £700 million to improve the condition of schools and colleges and increase their resilience to, among other things, the changing climate. It started this year in three regions: Yorkshire and the Humber, the east midlands and the south-east. The current phase is targeting the worst 50 schools—in the sense that their condition is the worst, not their performance; many of them are fantastic schools—with potential projects identified for 2026-27 based on the condition of individual temporary buildings.

The temporary buildings at Edwalton primary school have not been shortlisted for phase 1 based on the available condition data, but following my hon. Friend’s representations I have asked my officials to visit the school and see the building at first hand. From next year, the renewal and retrofit programme is being expanded to all regions in England. Detailed delivery plans, including how schools and colleges will be selected, will be confirmed in due course. I will be happy to keep my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) updated on that expansion.

High-quality school and college buildings are essential to delivering-world class education and creating the conditions for all children and young people to achieve and thrive. Children, families and communities are at the heart of the 10-year plan for a decade of renewal in our school and college buildings. This is about more than just buildings. It is about showing children that their education matters, that their futures matter and that the Government are determined to give them the best possible start in life.

Question put and agreed to.

18:25

Sitting suspended.

Submarine Service 125th Anniversary

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Westminster Hall

18:30

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the 125th anniversary of the submarine service.

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

Where were we on 12 April this year? It was a Sunday, so perhaps we were spending time with our families, out in the open air or at church. It was a long time ago—seven months. Remarkably, there are around 140 people aboard HMS Vengeance, one of our Vanguard-class SSBN nuclear missile submarines, who know exactly where they were on that date. They were leaving Faslane on the Clyde for who knows where and, incredibly, they are still out there somewhere, setting the record for the longest patrol ever undertaken by a Royal Navy submarine. They are the silent service: the men and, increasingly, women who wear the dolphins of the submarine branch of the Royal Navy. They are a breed apart, affectionately known as the “Fish Heads”, for it takes something special to live and be ready to fight in a tiny metal tube deep beneath the waves.

I have a particular admiration for them as, despite my father enjoying a long and illustrious career in the deep sea as a marine engineer, I get seasick in a bath. Lacking a keel, submarines—boats, as the Navy infuriatingly insists on calling them—are not the best on the surface in choppy waters, and I have gone green just watching them rolling like pigs, coming and going from Faslane on a blowy day in the Clyde. It came as a delight the day that I went aboard HMS Vengeance at HM Naval Base Clyde to find that the boat was out of the water and up on bricks, so to speak, for maintenance.

It is 125 years since the Navy operated HMS Holland 1, our first submarine, which was named for builder John Philip Holland and was laid down, as our submarines are today, in Barrow-in-Furness. So much has changed in that time. Our modern boats are nuclear-powered and, in the case of the Vanguard class that provides today’s continuous at-sea deterrent, nuclear-armed. It was the 26th President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, who advocated speaking softly while carrying a big stick. Truly, Trident is our big stick—a missile with a range in excess of 2,000 miles when nothing on the planet is more than 2,000 miles from the sea.

In many ways, however, little has changed. Submarine design is such that the ship’s complement must fit in around her essential machinery. There is little enough room for basics and none for luxury. When it comes to attack submarines, nothing has changed: 125 years ago, we had just one submarine, and how many do we have today? Well, just the one Astute class at sea: HMS Agamemnon. She is on the Clyde for sea trial, still months off being ready to patrol, while the remainder of the class is tied up alongside for reasons unknown. Perhaps the Minister, mindful as ever of national security, might be able to shed some light on why that is.

Talking of light, we must remember that the submariners’ world is a windowless, skyless one, where time and date mean little. The menu is on a strict daily rotation. That is the only means by which the sailors can tell what day it is. A roast means it is Sunday, curry means Wednesday, Friday is fish and Saturday is steak. Food is of huge importance not just for sustenance but for morale. Indeed, given that the boats make their own oxygen and fresh water, and have effectively a limitless nuclear fuel supply, food storage is the limit on patrol duration. That means that the boat’s freezers must be packed with exquisite care. Woe betide anyone who buries the entire supply of “snorkers”, or sausages, behind all the “babies’ heads”, as steak and kidney pudding is known—the shiny pastry is said to resemble a newborn’s pate. “Nutty”—chocolate and sweets in the parlance—is pivotal too, and it is said that aboard interminable Vanguard patrols it is all that keeps body and soul together.

Contact with the outside world is, unsurprisingly, limited, and only two people aboard—the commander and the navigator—will know where the boat actually is. Modern insulation design means that the old trick of holding a hand against the pressure hull—warm meant you were in the Med, cold in the Arctic—is now an old wives’ tale.

Let us think about that massive patrol for a second: months under fake light, breathing artificial air, drinking tea made with ersatz Millac milk and water distilled from seawater. In these days of a hyperconnected youth well used to the internet, submariners get a 120-word-maximum message via the Familygram system once a week: word comes in and nothing goes out, and family are warned not to send bad news. They deal with all that while sitting still somewhere in the depths of the ocean as the Russians listen out for them, and while being at readiness to fire. How long it takes to come to readiness is classified, but we know that a boat will be asked multiple times on patrol to come to readiness to unleash Armageddon.

We ask a great deal of our submariners now, and we have always done. We should take a moment to reflect on all those still on eternal patrol in the ocean’s depths, for submariner casualties are grim. In the second world war alone, we lost more than 3,160 submariners aboard 74 boats.

I will highlight just one: Lieutenant Commander Malcolm Wanklyn, one of our most successful submariners, who had strong connections with the exquisite Knockinaam Lodge hotel outside Portpatrick in my Dumfries and Galloway constituency. He and his crew aboard HMS Upholder sank 16 enemy vessels, taking 128,350 tonnes of enemy shipping to the bottom. Highly unusually, they sank three Italian submarines. But it was in action off Sicily in 1941 that he made his name. With its Asdic system—the world’s first working sonar—inoperable, Upholder slipped through heavy rings of Regia Marina defences to torpedo the transatlantic cruise liner Conte Rosso, which was ironically Clyde-built but used as an axis troop ship. It earned Wanklyn the Victoria Cross, our highest gallantry award. However, the following year, Upholder and its 30-year-old skipper went missing somewhere off Tripoli. The wreck has never been found; her fate is still shrouded in mystery.

My constituency defers to no one in terms of how many German U-boats we sank. Operation Deadlight in 1945 saw many of the 156 surrendered U-boats towed from Loch Ryan, off my home town of Stranraer, and scuttled or sunk in gunnery training in the North channel. We are also the final resting place of UB-85, a German submarine of the great war, sunk as it sat on the surface off Galloway in 1918. The captured skipper later said that he could not submerge because of damage inflicted by a strange sea creature that had attacked and was driven off only by small arms fire. Fact or fiction, it is a stark reminder that worse things do happen at sea, and that those who today willingly put themselves in harm’s way in the depths of the ocean are worthy of our gratitude and respect.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentioned HMS Vengeance. I am sure that, like all of us, he has seen the report in The Sun newspaper of two days ago that says that HMS Vengeance has now been at sea for 210 days, which marks the longest deterrent patrol in western naval history. Does he agree that that is a supremely impressive feat of naval achievement, in that those people have been at sea for so long to keep this nation safe?

[John Cooper]

My right hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. It is quite incredible—absolutely jaw-dropping—that those people are out there in incredibly difficult circumstances for so long, beyond what could reasonably be expected. Again, I hope that the Minister can touch on this: it seems that something has gone wrong. The length of patrols is increasing, and this one has reached a record level. It is remarkable.

I mentioned the sea creature, but today’s oceanic terrors are slightly different: ultra-quiet Russian submarines, autonomous uncrewed robot submersibles, and mines triggered by nothing more than the unique sound signature of our boats. Whether operating under the Arctic ice, in the shallow waters of the Med, east of Suez, in the old battlegrounds of the western approaches, in the bitter waters off the Kola peninsula or in the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap, today’s submariners still play high-stakes cat and mouse with Crazy Ivan, a worthy opponent. Are we supporting them fully when the infamously aggressive all-or-nothing Perisher course for submarine commanders, run in the narrow waters of the Kilbrannan sound in Scotland, has ground to a standstill for a lack of Astute boats? A century and a quarter of silent service must not be torpedoed by defence spending cutbacks. The men and women who earned their dolphins fear no enemy bar the accountants of Whitehall.

18:39

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

It is always an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank, in all sincerity, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing this really important debate. It is a pleasure and an honour to speak in it and to celebrate with everyone here the 125th anniversary of our submarine service.

I will let you into a secret, Sir Roger. When I was at school, we were tasked in our French lessons to say what we wanted to be when we were older. I remember exactly what I said but I cannot promise that the French is correct. I said: “Je voudrais être un capitaine de sous-marin.” I hope that there is nobody here who actually speaks French, because they will probably tell me that is completely incorrect. Then I looked more into what being the captain of a submarine would entail and I had second thoughts. I genuinely want to echo some of what was said earlier about the huge sacrifice and commitment that our submariners make to keep this country safe. I will add that I, too, get seasick.

Many hon. and right hon. Members will be asking what the Harlow connection is to our submarine service. I am honoured that the UK headquarters of Raytheon and its technology centre of excellence are in my constituency. Many hon. Members will be aware that Raytheon is involved in the development and production of both weapons systems and navigation systems for our submarine fleet. It is also responsible for the Barracuda mine-neutralisation system—and development of the software behind it—which helps to keep UK and allied waters safe. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those who work in that vital area and keep us safe.

If you will allow me, Sir Roger, I also want to pay tribute to Harlow Sea Cadets. I was incredibly proud to see them alongside our Air Cadets and Army Cadets at our remembrance service on Sunday. They are a credit to our town, and I thank the volunteers who give up their time to ensure that that vital cadet service runs.

I wanted to find a story about a submarine from our past, because I think that telling stories about the brave endeavours of our submariners is important in a debate such as this. I looked through a few examples, and I came across that of HMS Triumph, which Members may be aware struck a mine on Boxing day in 1939. The explosion was so powerful that it temporarily blinded the men who were on the bridge of the submarine. The mine caused catastrophic damage: an 18-foot section of the submarine’s bow was blown off and a 12-foot split was opened in the hull.

HMS Triumph was in German-patrolled waters and was so badly damaged that it could no longer dive. It was leaking heavily, with its pumps working continuously to keep it afloat. The commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander John Wentworth McCoy, decided to bring the submarine home and embarked on a 300-mile journey back to the Firth of Forth in Scotland. On occasions, the submarine travelled at speeds as low as 2.5 knots, making it vulnerable to German attack throughout the journey.

As the submarine approached the Scottish coast, a German bomber spotted it and prepared to attack. Fortunately, before the bomber could strike, British fighter aircraft intervened and it was driven away. Thanks to the incredible leadership of Lieutenant Commander John Wentworth McCoy and his incredibly brave crew, HMS Triumph made it safely back to port despite being close to breaking apart. I think we can recognise the heroic nature of that crew, who faced several additional dangers: a crumpled bulkhead, a damaged torpedo, and steering gear that was severely damaged and barely functioning.

Of course, we are talking about the 125 years of our submarine service, and there will be many stories of incredible bravery and commitment, but I wanted to take the opportunity today to share just one of them. I put on record my thanks to all our submariners, past and present, for everything they do to keep our country safe.

18:44

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It was an inspired idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) to mark the 125th anniversary of the founding of the submarine service today, the eve of the anniversary of Armistice Day. In preparation I spent time happily reminiscing about my schooldays in the 1960s, when I devoured a large range of books about the history of the Royal Navy in general and of submarines in particular. In those days there were still people alive who had participated in the battles of the first and the second world wars, and many of them were writing books. I will begin with a quotation from one of those books:

“When submarines first became units of the fighting fleets of the world in the early years of the twentieth century, they were unimpressive, unseaworthy craft equipped with an unreliable, low performance weapon. Those who manned them were, like the early aviators, looked on as harmless cranks. When the First World War broke out, they had not entirely lived down this reputation. Sea-power was still believed by the orthodox sailor to lie with the squadrons of stately battleships.

But before that war was over Britain, at that time the world’s greatest naval power, had been brought to within sight of total defeat by the submarine in the hands of her enemies. At the same time British submarines, with fewer opportunities to show their potentialities, had dominated the Baltic Sea and held German sea-power at bay on behalf of Britain’s Russian ally.

Submariners had thus joined the front rank of fighting seamen, though they still formed a group apart. In doing so they had revolutionized naval warfare.”

The author of that preface to his book “Fighting Under the Sea” was Captain Donald Macintyre DSO and two bars, DSC. Together with Captain Johnnie Walker, he was one of the two most successful U-boat hunters of the second world war. In the 1960s, such people were writing up the lessons they had learned. It was a great opportunity for those of us studying such subjects to be in touch with them. Indeed, I have a letter from Captain Macintyre regretting the fact that I had been unable to obtain a copy of his first book “U-Boat Killer”, which describes his role in the battle of the Atlantic, and that he was unable to supply me with a copy because he himself had managed to pick up one only when the Boots library sold off stock. Today, with the computer revolution, a copy of “U-Boat Killer” can be obtained with a few taps of the keyboard. I commend it to those who are interested in the story of the other side of the submarine equation.

The other matter to which I would like to draw attention in the limited time available is the question of submarine escape. Hazardous as the profession was, a great deal of inventiveness and ingenuity was put into the idea of how it might be possible to survive if something went terribly wrong. Captain W. O. Shelford was the Navy specialist in submarine escape during the second world war and the 1950s. He wrote a book called “Subsunk” that I also commend because it tells of the tragedies and the successes in trying to save life when something goes wrong.

Let us remember that something terrible did go wrong shortly before the second world war. In 1939 in Liverpool bay the submarine HMS Thetis, on its maiden voyage with 103 people onboard because many of the people from the builders were taking part in what was supposed to be the first of its sea trials, sank due to a concatenation of circumstances that are almost unbelievable until read in the account of the disaster given in “The Admiralty Regrets” by Jim Warren and James Benson. Both those people, like Captain Macintyre, knew that of which they spoke. One had been a human charioteer in the second world war; the other had served in midget submarines. In that case, 103 people were trapped in a submarine. They managed to raise its stern above the surface of the water, yet only four people were able to escape. Subsequently, the submarine was raised and recommissioned as HMS Thunderbolt. It had a distinguished wartime career until, sadly, it was lost with all hands in the Mediterranean.

On the credit side, in terms of looking at the price that had to be paid, were some of the achievements that the submarine service wrote into history. One of the most famous was the midget submarine attack on the German battleship Tirpitz in the Norwegian fjord, where it was hiding in 1943. On that occasion, three midget submarines penetrated and at least two of them managed to lay their charges beneath the hull of the battleship. When they were captured—some of the crew survived; some sadly did not—and taken aboard, they said nothing about the mighty explosion they knew was about to happen underneath them. That explosion disabled the battleship for a considerable length of time.

One has to remember that they were very young men, but some of them went on to have distinguished careers. Two of the midget submarine commanders, Godfrey Place and Donald Cameron, were awarded the Victoria Cross. The third, Lieutenant Henty-Creer, was sadly not awarded the VC because his submarine was destroyed and it is not known whether they successfully laid their charges and were on the way out, or whether they were still trying to get in to lay them. I always feel there is an unfairness that the crew of the X5 did not get the same recognition as the commanders of the X6 and X7, who were awarded VCs. As I think Churchill once said, every medal “casts a shadow”. Lieutenant Godfrey Place went on to become a rear-admiral in charge of reserves. I am not allowed to display accessories while making a speech, but if anyone wants to see it, I still have the autograph of Rear-Admiral Place, as he then was, from when he visited Swansea to meet the reserves back in the 1960s.

I hope hon. Members can see from my enthusiasm, if not the rather unstructured way in which I have made my remarks, that 60 years later, some of us are still inspired by the memory of what it was like to read about the extreme peril that very young men put themselves into—usually, if not always, as volunteers. So many of them did not live to tell the tale, but my goodness, what a glorious page in British naval history they wrote.

18:53

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing this debate celebrating an institute so deeply connected to my city of Portsmouth.

Portsmouth has a proud history with the Royal Navy submarine service. Just across the water, HMS Dolphin served as its home and headquarters from 1904 to 1999, training generations of submariners. I encourage all Members to visit the Royal Navy Submarine Museum in Gosport, where they can see Holland 1, the Navy’s first submarine, and walk through HMS Alliance to experience the extraordinary conditions in which submariners served during the second world war. The real gem is the moving and brilliant 15 oral life histories from submariners and their families, including words from Victor Crosby, a Pompey submariner who survived the sinking of HMS Saracen off of Corsica in August 1943. Sadly, Victor was captured by the Italians, but he escaped during the chaos following Italy’s surrender. He was hiding out with an Italian family, hoping to reached allied lines, but was tragically betrayed and shot by German military police. His grave remained unnamed for 75 years until historians established his identity. It is a remarkable story of sacrifice and a Portsmouth family loss.

The submarine service is not simply a part of history; it remains vital to our security today. For 125 years, the men and women of the silent service have protected our nation, often unseen, unrecognised and unthanked. From disrupting enemy shipping in two world wars and gathering intelligence in the cold war to delivering our continuous at-sea deterrent today, submariners have played an extraordinary role in keeping Britain safe. Every day beneath the waves they undertake demanding and often dangerous missions, spending long periods away from their families and children—some of whom I have taught in my city of Portsmouth—while knowing that much of their service will never be publicly recognised.

We should also recognise the fantastic work of charities and organisations such as the Submarine Family and We Remember Submariners, alongside wider Navy charity networks such as Aggie Weston’s and the Naval Children’s Charity. They provide vital practical, emotional and financial support to serving and former submariners and their families, including those facing hardship, bereavement and mental health challenges. Our responsibility to submariners does not end when they leave the submarine or hang up their uniform; we must stand by them and their families throughout their lives. I look forward to Portsmouth’s Op Valour centre playing its part in continuing that support. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.

The service’s contribution extends far beyond those at sea. Submarine construction and maintenance supports thousands of highly skilled jobs, sustains communities and protects vital sovereign industrial capabilities. I particularly welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to a new apprenticeship scheme for the Dreadnought programme. It is an important investment in Britain’s future skills and defence industry, but we should remember that Portsmouth was once a proud centre of submarine construction. A generation of skilled workers helped to build the fleet that protected our nation. That shipbuilding capability was lost, and Portsmouth’s historic role in naval shipbuilding was further diminished under the Conservative Government. For a city whose identity is so closely bound to the Royal Navy, that loss is still felt very deeply. As we invest in the next generation of submariners, I want to see Portsmouth’s naval heritage recognised and opportunities created for our city to play a greater role in Britain’s future defence industry.

Behind every submarine’s capability is people. We must ensure that this country looks after those who put their lives on the line to protect it. I welcome the Government’s over 14% pay raise for the armed forces, and I welcome investment in service accommodation and practical improvements to service life. However, there is more to do. The Minister will know that I have long campaigned for better paternity leave for our serving fathers. I want to see longer, better paid leave, alongside reform of how parental and compassionate leave are administered.

I have heard from service fathers that access to leave can vary considerably, with some reluctant to ask for support that they are entitled to because decisions rest with their commanding officer and they fear the consequences for their career. Operational requirements must of course come first, but I believe that an independent human resources body could help to make these decisions more consistently and fairly while protecting our operational effectiveness. I am pleased that the Minister for Veterans and People has agreed to meet me to discuss these issues, and I look forward to working with him to make progress.

As we mark 125 years of the Royal Navy submarine service, we should celebrate not just the vessels, the technology and the operations, but above all the people: the submariners, past and present, and the families who support them. The silent service may operate beneath the waves and away from public view, but its contribution to our country speaks volumes. For more than a century, submariners have served in the shadows so that the rest of us can live in safety and freedom. To every submariner, past and present, I offer my deepest gratitude, and to those currently out on deployment, I say, “Fair winds and following seas.”

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Mr Shannon, you have not a second more than five minutes.

18:59

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for setting the scene incredibly well, to mark a truly monumental milestone in our nation’s history: the 125th anniversary of the Royal Navy submarine service.

The silent service has been the invisible shield safeguarding the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. From the gruelling unsung deployments of the cold war right through to today’s continuous at-sea deterrent, our submariners have stood fast in the deep. They have operated in the most hostile, claustrophobic and demanding environments known to mankind. Winston Churchill said of them:

“Of all the branches of men in the forces there is none which shows more devotion and faces grimmer perils than the submariner.”

I want to use my time today to put on record the immense, proud and historic contribution that Northern Ireland has made to the 125-year legacy. Our province’s history is inextricably linked to the survival and success of the submarine fleet. During the battle of the Atlantic it was the port of Londonderry’s HMS Ferret that served as the UK’s most westerly naval base. It was from our waters that the horrendous fight against enemy U-boats was co-ordinated, keeping our nation’s vital supply lines alive. It was also on the shores of Lisahally in Northern Ireland in May 1945 that the mass surrender of the German U-boat fleet took place—a moment of triumph etched forever into our local history.

Furthermore, during the darkest days of the troubles, our maritime borders were kept safe by the brave deployments of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. We remember operations such as Op Granada where vessels such as HMS Cachalot—a traditional diesel-electric patrol submarine—carried out elite Special Boat Service kayak insertions along the rugged coast from Torr Head to Garron to intercept the IRA’s illegal arms smuggling and protect innocent lives on land.

Northern Ireland’s connection to the silent service is not just a relic of the past; it is an active and living relationship. Right now, Northern Ireland businesses and engineering firms are the ones providing the high-tech muscle and keeping our modern fleet moving. Just recently, Magherafelt-based construction firm Henry Brothers secured millions of pounds in infrastructure contracts at HMNB Clyde, delivering the critical facility upgrades to sustain the current Vanguard class and pave the way for next-generation Dreadnought nuclear deterrent submarines. Our local workers are literally building the secure facilities that allow our submariners to deploy. Let us also not forget the engineering heritage of Harland and Wolff, whose Belfast workforce has historically stood ready to repair and refit the vessels that keep our seas secure.

When a submarine slips under the waves, it disappears from public view, but it never disappears from our minds. The isolation and sacrifice of missing births, deaths and family milestones along with the heavy burden of absolute secrecy is a weight carried not just by the crew but also by the families waiting anxiously back home in Strangford and across the UK. As we mark 125 years, we remember the nearly 6,000 submariners who have gone on eternal patrol and never returned home. We owe them a debt that we can never fully repay.

What has never changed is the courage of the people. The courage, technical excellence and sheer grit of the British submariner remains exactly the same. Northern Ireland is very proud of its role in this history, proud of its industry supporting the fleet today and proud to stand with the silent service for the next 125 years.

19:02

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on securing this debate.

The first debate I led in Westminster Hall on 15 January 2025 was also on the UK submarine service. It is an important issue which we should always keep coming back to periodically—perhaps some of our colleagues from other parts of the United Kingdom will take turns next time round.

I want to talk about the naval base and dockyard at Rosyth in my constituency. Just last week I had a ten-minute rule Bill on submarine recycling—a programme which I will come back to later. Rosyth was a critical part of the submarine service during world war one, from where squadrons of submarines left for the battle of Jutland. In the second world war it was particularly a base for Polish submarines. If anyone has the time, including perhaps the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who is sitting opposite, to read up on the history of the Polish submarine Orzeł, they will find that it is a fantastic story about not only the boat itself while it was based at Rosyth, but the antics—shall we say—of some of the crew, which are famous around Fife. I am delighted that there is a memorial to the crew of the Orzeł and other Polish members of the community who served with the Royal Navy in world war two being constructed very close to Rosyth. It is a reminder that when the UK fights wars, we tend to fight them with our allies and that we will continue to do so in the future.

Rosyth is also a very key part of current submarine activity. We currently have missile tubes for Dreadnought-class submarines being constructed at Rosyth with fantastic hard work and high-end manufacturing being done there. Indeed, the manufacturing standards are so high that they are also building the same equipment for the US Columbia-class submarines. Anyone who has dealt with anything about defence will know that for the Americans to give up that level of investment in one of their key pieces of technology shows exactly how important that workforce is. Indeed, they are also building parts of the next Virginia-class submarines as well. Again, that is a testament to the fantastic workforce at Rosyth.

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

Just across the river from South East Cornwall is HMNB Devonport, which has been at the heart of our naval history for more than 300 years. As my hon. Friend makes clear, the interoperability and the support of the defence supply chain across the country, from Cornwall to Scotland, are crucial. Just yesterday, I had the absolute privilege of visiting the naval base and HMS Anson to see at first hand how the base and the incredible servicemen and women are on the frontline of our defence. We are talking about 300 years of history and a huge future for our Navy. Does he agree that the UK Government are demonstrating our commitment by investing more than £7 billion in Devonport’s facilities and that that will be a great opportunity for the servicemen and women I met yesterday going forward?

[Graeme Downie]

I agree entirely. I was about to move on to talk about submarine recycling, something that is of course shared between Devonport and Rosyth. I have never been on a submarine while it has been in service, as my hon. Friend has. However, I was privileged to go on to HMS Swiftsure, which is currently being recycled at Rosyth dockyard. More than 60% has already been completed—more than 90% of it will be recycled and reused in other submarines and for other defence uses, including in Dreadnought, guaranteeing jobs across the UK as a vital part of the submarine supply chain.

Something that I will repeat in this House over and over again is the need to take advantage of the highly skilled workforce we have at Rosyth, who are currently undertaking submarine recycling. Swiftsure having almost been finished, there are six further submarines currently sitting at Rosyth: Resolution, Churchill, Revenge, Renown, Repulse and HMS Dreadnought. It is quite something to think that we are about to have going into service a new HMS Dreadnought when the previous HMS Dreadnought is still sitting in Rosyth, waiting for something to be done to it. The skilled workforce there are ready to do that. If my hon. Friend the Minister is able to give me any update—I always ask for an update on the next stages of the submarine recycling programme— I would be very grateful, because there is a huge opportunity not only for UK submarines, but for that facility to become a centre of excellence for the world. This is something that has never been done before, but is now being done by the incredibly skilled team at Rosyth.

I will finish by echoing the words of colleagues from across the House and saying that we must always remember the critical and unique role that submariners play in our defence. That has been echoed by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway and others. They have spoken about the silent service and the pressures of not being in contact that both submariners and their families must endure. We should always be grateful not only to the submariners themselves, but to their families for allowing them to protect our country.

19:07

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for initiating this debate on the 125th anniversary of the submarine service.

The Liberal Democrats pay tribute to the courage and discipline of all those Royal Navy submariners who serve far beneath the waves. The UK has a proud maritime heritage, and for more than a century our subsea fleet has given our island home a critical strategic advantage. Royal Navy submarine crews operate undetected for months at a time, in cramped conditions, at a classified depth, hundreds of metres below sea level. At that depth, the water pressure is five times the fatal limit for a human being. Every person who serves in our armed forces deserves our respect, but we should acknowledge that this kind of service takes a special kind of bravery.

In the first few decades after 1901, early submarines were both experimental and dangerous. In my constituency of North Devon, a memorial in the coastal town of Ilfracombe bears the names of two local men: Leading Seaman George David Cook and Engine Room Artificer David Bennington. Sadly, both were killed in the sinking of HMS Affray in the channel in 1951. That was the last Royal Navy submarine to be lost at sea. They were just two of the brave souls who served somewhere most of us cannot imagine going.

Thankfully, modern submarines are much safer and more advanced, but looking back, we can see that the submarine service and the advent of the submarine era “torpedoed” all the accepted wisdom of naval strategy. At the time, Admiral Sir Arthur Wilson famously condemned early submarines as

“underhanded, unfair, and damned un-English”.

He is often said to have described submariners as little better than pirates, even as the Royal Navy began exploring the technology’s true potential. It is just as well that we learnt quickly.

In the past 125 years, the UK has twice seen off the terrible danger of the U-boat threat, during two world wars, while our subsea fleet has become one of the most lethal capabilities of the Royal Navy, first with conventional and now with nuclear-powered submarines, providing everything from cruise missile launch to covert naval deployment of special forces and the UK’s round-the-clock nuclear deterrent. NATO now maintains the submarine rescue system—the NSRS—which is led by the UK, France and Norway.

However, despite all the advances of the last 125 years, we know that rescuing a stranded submarine crew is difficult, and that the duty that crews volunteer for is unique. Far beneath the waves, the submarine service developed its own culture and identity—its own slang and traditions. Having served in the armed forces myself, I know just how much comes back to personnel, grit and character. Faced with isolation, stressful deployments and patrols of six months or longer at sea, it is training and teamwork that sets a submarine crew apart. That would have been just as familiar to Drake or Nelson as it is to the Royal Navy today. Last November, the Defence Committee had the chance to visit Faslane to see the work and dedication of those personnel for ourselves.

Senior figures in the Navy have expressed concerns about the difficulty of recruiting and retraining personnel for this highly specialised service several times. Changing that means making it clear that we hold the submarine service in great admiration. The silent service are a breed apart. They are usually unseen, but their duties are immense, and on this anniversary, we pay tribute to their heroism.

19:11

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on securing this important debate on the 125th anniversary of the Royal Navy’s submarine service, and for introducing it so ably.

I declare two interests: first, my late father, Stoker First Class Reginald Francois, served in the Royal Navy during the second world war, although he was a minesweeper man, not a submariner; and secondly, I am, by virtue of my father’s service, a long-standing honorary member of the Rayleigh branch of the Royal Naval Association. Members of the Rayleigh RNA were out in force on Remembrance Sunday, led by their chairman Mike Sandbrook, who is a former submariner. I am wearing my RNA tie this evening.

Despite Admiral Wilson’s strictures, which we heard about from the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), the Royal Navy’s first operational submarine, the Holland 1, entered service in 1901. It was built in Barrow-in Furness, which is where BAE Systems builds our nuclear submarines today. The submarine service began the first world war with some 60 submarines. Those gave good service to the King, as evidenced by the fact that five of the 14 Victoria Crosses awarded to the Royal Navy during the great war went to submariners. The Royal Navy began world war two with a similar number of submarines, although by 1945, that number had more than trebled. RN submarines operated in the Atlantic and Pacific, but perhaps most famously in the Mediterranean—my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway has already mentioned the exploits of HMS Upholder.

During the cold war, the Royal Navy transitioned to primarily nuclear propulsion, and our first nuclear attack submarine, HMS Dreadnought, was commissioned in 1960. RN submarines played an important role in the Falklands war of 1982. That includes the HMS Conqueror famously torpedoing the Argentinian cruiser, the General Belgrano, and returning to port flying a Jolly Roger. Later classes of attack submarine—the Swiftsures and Trafalgars—continued the noble tradition of protecting the seas, as is now performed by the latest Astute class.

In 1968, the Royal Navy assumed the role of providing our nuclear deterrent from the Royal Air Force, and the Resolution class of ballistic missile submarines entered service. From then onwards, at least one Royal Navy nuclear deterrent submarine has always remained at sea, in the ocean depths, providing the ultimate guarantee of our national security. That mission, known as the continuous at-sea deterrent, or Op Relentless, has been successfully performed for more than 57 years. That is an amazing tribute to the professionalism and endurance of Royal Navy submariners.

The Royal Navy also has an extremely proud tradition of utilising its nuclear attack submarines to monitor potential adversaries, particularly the Russian navy as it seeks to operate in the High North and the north Atlantic. Nevertheless, as we have already heard, there are also concerns about the availability of our attack submarine fleet.

It is an oft-forgotten fact that Vladimir Putin’s father was a submariner and Putin has continued to invest heavily in his submarine fleet and increase the monitoring by Russian submarines of undersea cables around the British Isles that are absolutely fundamental to our commercial life.

In the light of that, it is deeply worrying that, for a period of several months earlier this year, not a single one of our attack submarines was at sea, as is well known to the Chinese and the Russians. Perhaps when the Minister responds to this debate, he can explain why that was the case and, even more importantly, what is being done to fix that situation. It is simply unacceptable that the Astutes, which cost £1.5 billion each, are tied up alongside for long periods when the Russians are roving at will in the north Atlantic. The wall of silence about the chronic unavailability of the Astute class cannot go on; I would like the Minister to address that issue when he responds.

In summary, the Royal Navy’s silent service, whose motto is “We Come Unseen”, has an extremely proud tradition of service to this nation. It takes a quite extraordinary individual to be prepared to serve at sea, often for months at a time, especially on deterrent patrols that take them away from friends and family, and without access to so much as a mobile phone. The nation rightly remains proud of those who wear dolphins and will no doubt continue to give valiant and resolute service to the people of these islands, just as successfully as they have done for the past 125 years.

19:16

[The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)]

It is a pleasure, Sir Roger, to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in my role.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on securing this debate and giving us this opportunity to recognise 125 years of the Royal Navy submarine service. This anniversary is an opportunity to reflect on the service’s extraordinary history, to recognise generations of submariners and the families who supported them, and to remember those who gave their lives serving our country. The work of submariners often depends on remaining unseen, but today we can ensure that their contribution is properly recognised.

On 2 October 1901, the launch of Holland 1 marked the beginning of the Royal Navy’s submarine story, as we have already heard. During both world wars, submariners distinguished themselves in conditions that demanded exceptional courage, skill and endurance, engaging in everything from reconnaissance to disrupting enemy supply lines.

The introduction of nuclear propulsion brought another profound change. In 1963, HMS Dreadnought entered service as Britain’s first nuclear-powered submarine. Six years later, the Resolution class of submarines began our continuous at-sea deterrent. Successive generations of submariners have maintained that deterrent without interruption. That unbroken mission depends on a crew at sea, on those preparing to take their place and on everyone ashore whose work makes each patrol possible.

Alongside providing deterrence, our submariners gather intelligence, hunt hostile submarines, protect maritime forces and offer the ability to strike targets at sea and on land. Their ability to operate undetected gives the UK options that few other capabilities can provide, and much of their work cannot be discussed publicly. Operational security rightly limits what we can say about individual deployments and the readiness or availability of particular submarines.

[Mr Francois]

Before the Minister chides me for discussing submarine movements in Parliament, I am not doing so; I am discussing the absence of submarine movements. So, either now or before he ends his speech, will he tell the House why not a single one of our nuclear attack class submarines—the Astute class—was at sea for months?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford for setting himself up, because I will take great pleasure in explaining to him why we are in that position.

However, I will first explain that a central part of democracy is the ability to report responsibly on submarine operations. Crews cannot reply to speculation, and their families cannot be told where their loved ones are. Unfounded guesses about the activities of a boat, particularly a submarine on a deterrent patrol, leave a husband, a mother or a child at home worrying about when they will next see the brave sailors who crew our submarines. For that reason, I urge responsibility in discussions about these matters.

The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway asked me to shed light on why we are here. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford has so passionately set himself up to hear why. It is quite clear that the cuts made in the 2010 strategic defence and security review did the damage that we are trying to recover from now. Let us be clear: it was the Opposition who deferred the replacement of Vanguard by four years, and it was the Opposition who slowed the Astute build.

[Mr Francois]

On that point—

[Mr Bailey]

It was the 8% cut in real terms that they delivered—

[Mr Francois]

That is not correct.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. If the Minister wishes to give way, he will. He does not have to.

[Mr Bailey]

Thank you, Sir Roger. It was an 8% cut in real terms that did lasting damage, taking us from 2.6% of GDP down to 2.1%. This Government have taken us from 2.3% when we entered office to 2.7%, and we will go on towards 3% in 2030. We have had to put £26 billion into our bases to recover from the damage that the Opposition did—£15.1 billion in Clyde, including the purchase of three new floating docks and shoreside maintenance facilities to fix the underinvestment, and, as we have heard, an investment of £7.1 billion at Devonport.

I urge some humility at a moment when we are trying to talk about the submarine service. Scrutiny strengthens our armed forces, but careless disclosure and discussion—and using our service people as a political football—do not support our armed forces; they damage the people and families who are out there serving and putting their lives at risk for us.

[Chris Vince]

I want to make this point because I heard other hon. Members mention it, and I know my wife would not forgive me if I did not. We have spoken very passionately about submariners and the sacrifice that they make, but the Minister is absolutely right to identify the huge sacrifice that their families make, particularly in relation to the nuclear deterrent. Those families cannot know where their loved ones are—that is a huge sacrifice. Does he agree?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, who spoke so passionately about the contribution of Raytheon, about and the wonderful Sea Cadets in his constituency and about HMS Triumph. He has just made the point that I was trying to make earlier: we need to be responsible in our reporting and discussions. We need discussions that challenge but are respectful of those who cannot respond when they are used as a political football.

I wear this tie of the submarine service today because, from 2017 to 2020, I worked in the Ministry of Defence alongside some incredible submariners. Every Monday, I had to go up to see some of the colleagues I now work opposite and explain to them why our systems and services were in such a mess. Every Monday, we had to explain the damage that had been done to the submarine service and to the Royal Air Force.

I welcome the comments from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who gave an excellent account of the U-boats. I have a reading list from him about the U-boat killers and the importance of the aircraft that support our submarines. Again, I point to the aircraft that were deleted in the 2010 SDSR. We should all remember the loss of the XV230, the Nimrod from 120 Squadron under the captainship of Flight Lieutenant Squires, which was lost 20 years ago this year, and the 14-person crew—12 RAF, one Royal Marine and one Parachute Regiment—who lost their lives. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for recognising the contribution of those airmen as part of the undersea mission. I also felt great pride during his discussion of “Subsunk”. I was held at readiness to deliver that mission.

I want to acknowledge those who support the service ashore: our engineers, dockyard workers, designers, civil servants and industrial partners who build and sustain the submarines on which it depends.

[Graeme Downie]

I thank the Minister for setting out how the Government are putting in place the infrastructure necessary for the future of the submarine service. On a very specific point, will he raise with his officials the need to upgrade the contingent docking facility at Rosyth? That would allow it to host HMS Dreadnought as part of ensuring the continuous at-sea deterrent for decades to come.

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend is a doughty champion not only for our servicepeople and the submarine service, but for his constituency. In response to his question about Rosyth, HMS Swiftsure is a demonstrator of the necessary recycling capabilities. Again, I have to point to the fact that although an abundance of submarines and boats in my hon. Friend’s constituency require fixing, the party of the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford chose not to address that. I welcome my hon. Friend’s championing of that point; I was pleased to see his appointment to the Select Committee on Defence.

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution, I referred to the critical role that Northern Ireland played during the second world war. I also paid tribute to what the submariners and the Royal Marines did in the conflict in Northern Ireland by stopping illegal weapons coming from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree—I know he will—that we are not often told about that critical role for our security?

[Mr Bailey]

I agree with the hon. Member about the centrality of Northern Ireland, which I think is symbolically represented in the capturing of the German U-boat fleet during the second world war. That is why, very early on in my role, I made two visits to Northern Ireland to recognise its contribution to our services and defence industry.

This anniversary is also a moment for us to remember and honour—we are on the eve of Armistice Day, so this is particularly fitting—those submariners who did not return and the families whose lives were changed forever by their loss. We remember the nearly 6,000 submariners and 150-plus submarines that never returned. Behind those figures are lives, friendships and families. They must never become simply numbers on a page or used as political footballs. The submarine community speaks of them as being on eternal patrol—an expression of remembrance and of a bond that does not end with death.

Doing justice to that history also means looking ahead. The Dreadnought programme will provide the next generation of CASD. Advanced attack submarines from AUKUS will carry forward the service’s tradition of technological innovation. But our gratitude must be more than that.

I will stray from my script. As I was sitting next to two incredible submarine captains in the Ministry of Defence, they encouraged me to wear the tie of their service today. I will never walk past the dolphins— I understand their importance. I hope that everything I do is reflective of their service.

19:29

[John Cooper]

I will be as brief as I can. As a former journalist, I have to say that it is right that we scrutinise the military; it is not a political football. We have not really heard what is wrong with Astute-class submarines. To paraphrase Admiral Beatty at the battle of Jutland, something appears to be wrong with our bloody ships.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. It has been a tremendous opportunity to pay tribute to the stoicism and bravery of submariners throughout the ages, which has sadly and too often been tinged with tragedy, as we have heard. We can all go home tonight and sleep safely in our beds knowing that they are out there somewhere, watching over us.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the 125th anniversary of the submarine service.

19:30

Sitting adjourned.