Westminster Hall
Tuesday 27th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 1 week, 4 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:30
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Order. Order will. Honourable members rise in their places repeatedly if they wished to catch my eye. Jacob Collier to move the motion. Thank you, Sir Desmond. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I refer the House to my register of interest, and I would like to thank my colleague, the honourable member for Derby South for originally securing this debate. He has now gone to the dizzy heights of being a government. PPS so it was unable to open this debate, but I believe it started as an idea in the Brunswick Inn in Derby, which I have frequented and is an excellent pub, combining my interest of railways and beer.
So thank you to him and also thank you to honourable members that supported the application and also to Brad Evans and Johnny Garrett for their tireless work through the Keep Cask Alive campaign. I think first, it's worth reminding ourselves what cask ale or real ale actually is. It is ale that, once brewed, is put straight into the barrel. This distinguishes it from most other beers, which tend to be filtered, pasteurised, or carbonated before being put in the barrel. The shape of the cask barrel is different to the kegs, which other beers are put into to allow a natural secondary fermentation process to occur within the barrel, allowing more flavour to develop after the barrel has left the brewery.
So cask ale is itself a living product, a live beer which is drawn out of the barrel using the hand pump, which is always a very popular photo op for politicians. Cask ale is uniquely British, indeed uniquely English. The cask method started here, and until the arrival of lager in the 20th century, it was cask ale that was the main choice of drink for people across Britain. Cask is part of who we are, our heritage and British culture.
So thank you to him and also thank you to honourable members that supported the application and also to Brad Evans and Johnny Garrett for their tireless work through the Keep Cask Alive campaign. I think first, it's worth reminding ourselves what cask ale or real ale actually is. It is ale that, once brewed, is put straight into the barrel. This distinguishes it from most other beers, which tend to be filtered, pasteurised, or carbonated before being put in the barrel. The shape of the cask barrel is different to the kegs, which other beers are put into to allow a natural secondary fermentation process to occur within the barrel, allowing more flavour to develop after the barrel has left the brewery.
So cask ale is itself a living product, a live beer which is drawn out of the barrel using the hand pump, which is always a very popular photo op for politicians. Cask ale is uniquely British, indeed uniquely English. The cask method started here, and until the arrival of lager in the 20th century, it was cask ale that was the main choice of drink for people across Britain. Cask is part of who we are, our heritage and British culture.
09:32
09:32
09:32
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. My constituency of Wolverhampton West was the proud home of Banks's Brewery for more than 150 years, until its closure last year saw production of its signature cask ales either moved elsewhere or discontinued altogether. These beers were part of our local cultural and historic identity, reflecting generations of skill and pride in our brewing heritage. So does my honourable friend agree that this heritage does deserve protection, and will also join me in supporting the work of organisations such as Camra, the campaign for Real Ale to preserve this heritage for future generations.
09:33
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, of course I will support him in that. And we've had conversations following the decision by Carlsberg to close Burton's Brewery, the Molson Brewery, because, of course, his ales are brewed there. So that's something that we will work very closely on to protect that heritage that is so important to his constituents and to the rest of our country. For my home town of Burton upon Trent, where I now have the immense privilege to serve as its Member of Parliament. We would not be who we are without cask ale. Our waters are rich in minerals, which made them perfect for the brewing of cask ale from our town.
A brewing empire was born exporting beer across the world. Names like bass, Allsopp's, Marsden's Salt and Co and Iron Coupe enjoyed spectacular success from the 19th century onwards, and at one point over half of the population of Burton upon Trent was employed by the breweries. Indeed, my own predecessors in this house include bass, Ratcliff, Gretton and Evershed, before some were elevated to the other place. And I can assure the House that if I'm not elected at the next general election, I am not in line for a peerage. Burton's waters were so good that others copied them through a process called potentisation.
But of course, the original is always the best. I will do.
A brewing empire was born exporting beer across the world. Names like bass, Allsopp's, Marsden's Salt and Co and Iron Coupe enjoyed spectacular success from the 19th century onwards, and at one point over half of the population of Burton upon Trent was employed by the breweries. Indeed, my own predecessors in this house include bass, Ratcliff, Gretton and Evershed, before some were elevated to the other place. And I can assure the House that if I'm not elected at the next general election, I am not in line for a peerage. Burton's waters were so good that others copied them through a process called potentisation.
But of course, the original is always the best. I will do.
09:34
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you very much. He he he I. The titans of the brewing industry that was mentioned in his constituency have agreed to hear, and I have enjoyed a few pints from his constituency over my life, but in my constituency of Stirling and South Island, traditional brewing skills are being kept alive by small, independent businesses, often driven as much by love of the product as by commercial considerations. Brewers such as the Allanwater Brewhouse and Bridge of Allan , Sheep in Wolf's clothing in Dunblane and brewing at Fintry in all bringing their own character and creativity to our local brewing tradition.
And of course, I must mention what went on at Alloa in my neighbouring constituency over many, many years. Does my hon. Friend agree that preserving the cultural heritage is about protecting not just traditional skills, but the diversity, innovation and passion that smaller producers bring to the industry?
And of course, I must mention what went on at Alloa in my neighbouring constituency over many, many years. Does my hon. Friend agree that preserving the cultural heritage is about protecting not just traditional skills, but the diversity, innovation and passion that smaller producers bring to the industry?
09:35
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, he's absolutely right. And the the independent brewery sector has seen a real pride and love for what they do. And I think that that is certainly a place that we're moving to where perhaps larger brewers are falling out of love with cask ale. It's actually smaller independent brewers that he has spoken about that have that real love for the craft and pride in what they do. If you look around Burton today, Sir Desmond, you will find our brewing past and present everywhere. Our football team are nicknamed the Brewers. The smell of hops permeates in the air, and our pubs tell the stories of days gone by.
As a burtonian, it fills me with immense pride to see the words Burton ales on the side of a pub, or the number one trademark of the red bass triangle , in a place that you aren't looking for it. Many of my constituents worked for the breweries or their ancestors did, and so feel a really strong connection to it. Which is why the news from Carlsberg about the Marston's Brewery closing was such a hammer blow for Our Town. Burton's brewing heritage might not matter to some, but it matters to us and it really matters to me.
Heritage is our link to the past. It gives us pride in place and a sense of identity. If places like Burton lose their distinct heritage, they lose a sense of identity, and everywhere else starts to feel the same. In an increasingly globalised world, place matters now more than ever. Burton is just one example of the heritage value of cask ale. More broadly, we must recognise how British agriculture and farming has been shaped by cask ale. The pub itself is historically there because of cask ale. They are cask ales. Umbilical cord from farmer to brewer to publican to pint in the pub, that process is a piece of living British history.
Cask ale is an essential fabric within the tapestry of British heritage and identity, and this debate is about the specific status of intangible cultural heritage, of which there has been a campaign to get cask ale recognised by Unesco. This status was created by the Unesco convention in 2003, and in 2024, the UK signed up to this convention . Since 2024, DCMs and Unesco in the UK have begun to collect an inventory of living heritage in the UK, and cask ale should be included in that inventory.
As a burtonian, it fills me with immense pride to see the words Burton ales on the side of a pub, or the number one trademark of the red bass triangle , in a place that you aren't looking for it. Many of my constituents worked for the breweries or their ancestors did, and so feel a really strong connection to it. Which is why the news from Carlsberg about the Marston's Brewery closing was such a hammer blow for Our Town. Burton's brewing heritage might not matter to some, but it matters to us and it really matters to me.
Heritage is our link to the past. It gives us pride in place and a sense of identity. If places like Burton lose their distinct heritage, they lose a sense of identity, and everywhere else starts to feel the same. In an increasingly globalised world, place matters now more than ever. Burton is just one example of the heritage value of cask ale. More broadly, we must recognise how British agriculture and farming has been shaped by cask ale. The pub itself is historically there because of cask ale. They are cask ales. Umbilical cord from farmer to brewer to publican to pint in the pub, that process is a piece of living British history.
Cask ale is an essential fabric within the tapestry of British heritage and identity, and this debate is about the specific status of intangible cultural heritage, of which there has been a campaign to get cask ale recognised by Unesco. This status was created by the Unesco convention in 2003, and in 2024, the UK signed up to this convention . Since 2024, DCMs and Unesco in the UK have begun to collect an inventory of living heritage in the UK, and cask ale should be included in that inventory.
09:37
09:37
09:37
09:47
09:47
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
You've cast as being vital to their to their pub and cast that links cask ale to community pubs. Three quarters of British Institute of Drinkers spend twice as much on average as other adult drinkers, while typically choosing the venue for mixed groups, and it is a genuine heritage product, it should be recognised as such. Secondly, cask underpins the social service that pubs informally provide in tackling loneliness and bolstering wellbeing. Professor Robin Dunbar's Oxford University study for Camra Trends on Tap proved that regulars at local pub have more close friends, higher life satisfaction and greater community trust .
Socialising in conversation sized groups of 3 to 4. Unlike large city venues where bigger groups fragment conversation and encourage heavier drinking. Thirdly, at typically between three and a half and 4.8% cask ale served in pubs is tailor made for responsible consumption. And fourthly, brewed with domestic Maris otter, barley and British hops in casks that are reused thousands of times, it is a near zero waste, low food mile product that sustains a British hop industry that dates back to the 14th century. But to protect this important heritage asset, the government must act on three core lessons that we drew that we found in economics.
Firstly, must reform taxes on widen that draught duty relief. The Treasury takes about a third of every pub pint and pubs massively overpaid business rates compared to other businesses with similar profit profiles. Brewers like black sheep. I see about 60% of their turnover taken in taxes, lowering business rates and building on a reduced duty for draught beer is vital to shifting sales from supermarkets back to cask ale in our local pubs. So widening the draught beer duty differential that was introduced by the last government should be a no brainer for the Chancellor tomorrow. Secondly, needs to back British agriculture following New Zealand's $8 million hop sector investment.
We need targeted support for British hop growers and maltsters that are so important to British cask ale. And thirdly, we do need that fair market access and to to champion and celebrate British Cask Ale as a heritage product. With multinationals closing, independent cask brewers need fair access to pub sellers. Alongside this, cask ale deserves that official heritage designation, celebrating it as uniquely British just as champagne is French, Chianti is Italian and port is Portuguese. Cask ale is the lifeblood of our brewing heritage, so important to the local identity and so many of our communities. And it is the anchor of our community pubs.
So I urge I very briefly, I am coming to close.
Socialising in conversation sized groups of 3 to 4. Unlike large city venues where bigger groups fragment conversation and encourage heavier drinking. Thirdly, at typically between three and a half and 4.8% cask ale served in pubs is tailor made for responsible consumption. And fourthly, brewed with domestic Maris otter, barley and British hops in casks that are reused thousands of times, it is a near zero waste, low food mile product that sustains a British hop industry that dates back to the 14th century. But to protect this important heritage asset, the government must act on three core lessons that we drew that we found in economics.
Firstly, must reform taxes on widen that draught duty relief. The Treasury takes about a third of every pub pint and pubs massively overpaid business rates compared to other businesses with similar profit profiles. Brewers like black sheep. I see about 60% of their turnover taken in taxes, lowering business rates and building on a reduced duty for draught beer is vital to shifting sales from supermarkets back to cask ale in our local pubs. So widening the draught beer duty differential that was introduced by the last government should be a no brainer for the Chancellor tomorrow. Secondly, needs to back British agriculture following New Zealand's $8 million hop sector investment.
We need targeted support for British hop growers and maltsters that are so important to British cask ale. And thirdly, we do need that fair market access and to to champion and celebrate British Cask Ale as a heritage product. With multinationals closing, independent cask brewers need fair access to pub sellers. Alongside this, cask ale deserves that official heritage designation, celebrating it as uniquely British just as champagne is French, Chianti is Italian and port is Portuguese. Cask ale is the lifeblood of our brewing heritage, so important to the local identity and so many of our communities. And it is the anchor of our community pubs.
So I urge I very briefly, I am coming to close.
09:50
09:50
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I mean, I think the investment that successive governments have given to pub is the hub. It could not be better spent. And so I certainly welcome additional investment that's given. And as she says, John Longden has done a formidable job with pub is the hub. I remember going with him around pubs in Cornwall, where the pub was not only the last standing pub in the village, it was also the job club, it was the post office, it was the village store. In one case it was even the hairdresser. And I think there is a photo of John pretending to cut my hair in the saloon lounge.
But cask ale needs these protections. There is action that the government can take starting tomorrow. And so I urge the minister, and more importantly, the Chancellor, to give our brewers and publicans the fighting chance that they deserve.
But cask ale needs these protections. There is action that the government can take starting tomorrow. And so I urge the minister, and more importantly, the Chancellor, to give our brewers and publicans the fighting chance that they deserve.
09:51
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you, sir. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I thank my honourable friend for Burton and Uttoxeter for stepping up and leading this debate today. Derby knows a thing or two about a proper pint. In fact, we've been described as the best place in the world to drink real ale, and I'm sure everyone in this room agrees with me. Maybe not. And visiting our Heritage Beer Festival, brilliantly organised by Derby Camera and Festival chair Russ Gilbert earlier this month, it's not hard to see why. Hot off the press after winning pub of the year.
I'm chuffed to welcome Alan from the Brunswick to Parliament today and we have so many other publicans to be proud of, whether it's Jim and Steph at the Falstaff in Normanton, Mel and Sue at the Needles in Ulverston. Freedom of the city recipient Steve at the Neptune or the fantastic team behind at Dancing Duck Brewery. Our city's reputation is built on our brilliant pubs, brilliant publicans, breweries and of course our amazing punters. In Derby. We know a pub is far more than just a place to enjoy a pint. Our local pubs officer, who couldn't join us today knows that better than most.
And what's more, we know that a pint of cask ale is about more than just what's in the glass. It's about the brewer who understands the craft and the publican who takes pride in serving it properly, completing the brewing process at the pub. It's proper living heritage. These traditions don't survive by accident. They depend on the people who keep them going and the pubs that give them a home. But the threats to cask ale are alive and well. In 1995, cask represented 50% of beer sales. Today it's less than 8%, and we're seeing practices creep in where fresh ales are masquerading as cask ales, misleading punters whilst companies close breweries and reduce their cask lines.
As we've heard examples of this morning, camera's been leading the charge to tackle this. Their hand pump hijacked campaign and I thank them for their work. Recognising cask as an intangible cultural heritage really matters. It won't solve every problem the sector faces, but it will help to recognise the people, the skills, the communities behind this great British tradition. So let's protect the best of British brewing and make sure there's a great pint waiting for generations to come, and giving cask ale the recognition it deserves.
I'm chuffed to welcome Alan from the Brunswick to Parliament today and we have so many other publicans to be proud of, whether it's Jim and Steph at the Falstaff in Normanton, Mel and Sue at the Needles in Ulverston. Freedom of the city recipient Steve at the Neptune or the fantastic team behind at Dancing Duck Brewery. Our city's reputation is built on our brilliant pubs, brilliant publicans, breweries and of course our amazing punters. In Derby. We know a pub is far more than just a place to enjoy a pint. Our local pubs officer, who couldn't join us today knows that better than most.
And what's more, we know that a pint of cask ale is about more than just what's in the glass. It's about the brewer who understands the craft and the publican who takes pride in serving it properly, completing the brewing process at the pub. It's proper living heritage. These traditions don't survive by accident. They depend on the people who keep them going and the pubs that give them a home. But the threats to cask ale are alive and well. In 1995, cask represented 50% of beer sales. Today it's less than 8%, and we're seeing practices creep in where fresh ales are masquerading as cask ales, misleading punters whilst companies close breweries and reduce their cask lines.
As we've heard examples of this morning, camera's been leading the charge to tackle this. Their hand pump hijacked campaign and I thank them for their work. Recognising cask as an intangible cultural heritage really matters. It won't solve every problem the sector faces, but it will help to recognise the people, the skills, the communities behind this great British tradition. So let's protect the best of British brewing and make sure there's a great pint waiting for generations to come, and giving cask ale the recognition it deserves.
09:54
09:54
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank you, Sir Desmond. I think I remember the first day I tasted a true cask ale on my 18th birthday. I think it was when I first supped a pint of Timothy Taylor's landlord. And it is a truly beautiful pint, and something that I hope many 18 year olds and people of advancing years continue to enjoy. But it is under threat. Sir Desmond and I would like to congratulate the honourable member for Burton for securing this debate, because it is an important debate to have, because actually in Staffordshire and the historic boundaries of Staffordshire, we have been under assault from some of our greatest and best and longest standing breweries, quite simply , being shut.
First there was Park Brewery in Wolverhampton that Carlsberg decided to close and then followed by Marston's Brewery, which Carlsberg decided to close. Frankly, a company that thinks that the brew, called Special Brew, is a good alcoholic beverage, does not have much care or consideration for true quality cask ales. Mr. chairman, we see a real challenge in our brewing industry. If you go into the Swan Inn in Brewed, you will see a bar that is covered with some of the finest cask ales from across the country, a variety of usually six, six, 12 sorry cask ales always on tap.
That is something that you would have seen very regularly across the country, but you see increasingly rarely today. And while the number of small brewers has grown over the last 30 years, and something around 1500 breweries across the country, some of the major breweries, as we've seen with Carlsberg, have been pulling out of it. And the point has already been raised about the fact that major brewers are misleading customers, making them think that they're actually getting a true cask ale because it is on a hand. It is a traditional sort of being served by a traditional hand pull.
But the reality is these are not cask ales. And as companies such as Carlsberg shut historic brewery sites such as the Park Brewery in Wolverhampton, Marston's in Burton, skills and traditions are being lost. Now I would urge, like my honourable friend, has also done. Actually, the Chancellor isn't a passive observer in this. Tomorrow he can do something that is important for the brewing industry and also to all of our communities, and that is making sure that changes in terms of cask ale relief in terms of its duty are made, but also supporting our pubs as well.
Because if we do not have vibrant pubs in our communities, then we do not have a cask ale industry because if they do not have anyone to sell it to, well, quite simply, those breweries will wither and they will die. So yes, it is about duties, but it is also about rates. And so many pubs across my constituency are still feeling the squeeze of a double impact that's been imposed by this government, and not just in terms of rates, but also the cost of employing young people as well. So there is an opportunity for the Chancellor to stand up, have a traditional alcoholic beverage by his side, maybe a I would suggest a nice pint from the limestone brewery in stone and and actually celebrate and toast our brewers by actually not just helping them in terms of the duties that are charged on cask ales, but also helping out every single pub in our constituency by getting rid of the increases in national insurance that were imposed by the previous Chancellor, but also about the duty rates as well.
I very much support the arguments that are being put forward for special heritage status for cask ale industry. I think everything that we can do to promote the industry, make sure that people understand how special the industry is and how much work goes into every single one of those casks is for the best, but I would also be interested to hear from the minister as to whether the Secretary of State has dragged the chief executive of Carlsberg in to the Department to demand to know why he is wrecking our brewing industry, why he is doing so much damage to our brewing industry and demand answers, and a commitment to the investment of these incredibly important historic breweries that are the heart of so many of our communities.
First there was Park Brewery in Wolverhampton that Carlsberg decided to close and then followed by Marston's Brewery, which Carlsberg decided to close. Frankly, a company that thinks that the brew, called Special Brew, is a good alcoholic beverage, does not have much care or consideration for true quality cask ales. Mr. chairman, we see a real challenge in our brewing industry. If you go into the Swan Inn in Brewed, you will see a bar that is covered with some of the finest cask ales from across the country, a variety of usually six, six, 12 sorry cask ales always on tap.
That is something that you would have seen very regularly across the country, but you see increasingly rarely today. And while the number of small brewers has grown over the last 30 years, and something around 1500 breweries across the country, some of the major breweries, as we've seen with Carlsberg, have been pulling out of it. And the point has already been raised about the fact that major brewers are misleading customers, making them think that they're actually getting a true cask ale because it is on a hand. It is a traditional sort of being served by a traditional hand pull.
But the reality is these are not cask ales. And as companies such as Carlsberg shut historic brewery sites such as the Park Brewery in Wolverhampton, Marston's in Burton, skills and traditions are being lost. Now I would urge, like my honourable friend, has also done. Actually, the Chancellor isn't a passive observer in this. Tomorrow he can do something that is important for the brewing industry and also to all of our communities, and that is making sure that changes in terms of cask ale relief in terms of its duty are made, but also supporting our pubs as well.
Because if we do not have vibrant pubs in our communities, then we do not have a cask ale industry because if they do not have anyone to sell it to, well, quite simply, those breweries will wither and they will die. So yes, it is about duties, but it is also about rates. And so many pubs across my constituency are still feeling the squeeze of a double impact that's been imposed by this government, and not just in terms of rates, but also the cost of employing young people as well. So there is an opportunity for the Chancellor to stand up, have a traditional alcoholic beverage by his side, maybe a I would suggest a nice pint from the limestone brewery in stone and and actually celebrate and toast our brewers by actually not just helping them in terms of the duties that are charged on cask ales, but also helping out every single pub in our constituency by getting rid of the increases in national insurance that were imposed by the previous Chancellor, but also about the duty rates as well.
I very much support the arguments that are being put forward for special heritage status for cask ale industry. I think everything that we can do to promote the industry, make sure that people understand how special the industry is and how much work goes into every single one of those casks is for the best, but I would also be interested to hear from the minister as to whether the Secretary of State has dragged the chief executive of Carlsberg in to the Department to demand to know why he is wrecking our brewing industry, why he is doing so much damage to our brewing industry and demand answers, and a commitment to the investment of these incredibly important historic breweries that are the heart of so many of our communities.
10:00
10:00
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you, Sir Desmond, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And can I thank my two honorable friends both for securing and bringing this important debate today and giving us all the opportunity to speak in support of recognising cask ale as an intangible cultural heritage. When I think of cultural heritage, I think of notable historic buildings like Carlisle Castle, Carlisle Cathedral or structures like the Bewcastle Cross and Hadrian's Wall. But heritage is also about the skills and traditions we pass on between generations, and few capture that better than cask ale. A great pint depends on the craftsmanship of the brewer who makes the beer, the cellar person who conditions it, and the publican who serves it.
Each requires knowledge, experience and care. These skills are worth celebrating and preserving. Carlisle has a distinct place in brewing history. In 1916, during the First World War, the government brought the city's pubs and breweries under state control in the state. In the Carlisle State Management Scheme, and members might be interested to know that it remained in place between 1916 and 1973. So indeed, the last pub that the state built and opened was in 1973. Now, I'm not advocating the nationalisation of our brewing sector. However, that remarkable experiment very much shaped, shaped brewing, pub design and licensing policy and left a lasting mark on my city's identity.
And that brewing tradition continues today. Carlisle is fortunate to have four independent breweries Carlisle Brewing Company, West Wall's Brewing Company, the Great Corby Brewhouse and the Old Vicarage Brewery. These small breweries support jobs, attract visitors and help sustain our local culture, and I am very much looking forward to sampling a little bit of their product at this week's Carlisle Beer and Cider Festival later this week. West Wall's Brewing is is a success story. Their taproom opened just two years ago, and it's a particularly good example of how independent brewing can attract new customers and create a vibrant hub of community life in our city centre.
Carlisle's Cask Ale has even found its way into popular fiction. Readers of MW Craven's Washington Post novels will know of the detective's fondness for Carlisle Brewing Company spun gold and his appreciation of a properly kept beer usually poured from the King's Head in Carlisle city centre. But behind that fictional example lies a very serious point. Getting cask ale right is a craft and one that depends on skills we cannot take for granted. However, getting pints of independently brewed cask ale into the hands of consumers is a challenge. Due to the practices of the large brewing companies, and I therefore invite the Minister to set out in her remarks where the government's thinking is on the introduction of a guest beer agreement in England and what discussions have been had with Siba about improving market access for smaller breweries.
As I'm sure a number of members know, Siba has looked at the impact of the Scottish Beer Agreement and what that has done for tied pubs, and 86% of the tenants who have an agreement in place have said that it's improved their trade. I feel it acutely because I represent a borders constituency and I can literally walk a matter of metres to a pub that can enjoy a guest beer agreement, and I urge the government to get on and introduce a guest beer agreement in England. Recognising cask ale as an intangible cultural heritage would celebrate much more than a drink.
It would recognise the people, craftsmanship and community traditions behind it. At a time when pubs face many pressures and independent breweries are working hard to remain competitive, that recognition would send an important message. Traditions matter. Good beer matters. From Carlisle's unique brewing history to the businesses keeping it alive today, our great border city, My great border city, shows why cask ale deserves to be celebrated and passed on to future generations.
Each requires knowledge, experience and care. These skills are worth celebrating and preserving. Carlisle has a distinct place in brewing history. In 1916, during the First World War, the government brought the city's pubs and breweries under state control in the state. In the Carlisle State Management Scheme, and members might be interested to know that it remained in place between 1916 and 1973. So indeed, the last pub that the state built and opened was in 1973. Now, I'm not advocating the nationalisation of our brewing sector. However, that remarkable experiment very much shaped, shaped brewing, pub design and licensing policy and left a lasting mark on my city's identity.
And that brewing tradition continues today. Carlisle is fortunate to have four independent breweries Carlisle Brewing Company, West Wall's Brewing Company, the Great Corby Brewhouse and the Old Vicarage Brewery. These small breweries support jobs, attract visitors and help sustain our local culture, and I am very much looking forward to sampling a little bit of their product at this week's Carlisle Beer and Cider Festival later this week. West Wall's Brewing is is a success story. Their taproom opened just two years ago, and it's a particularly good example of how independent brewing can attract new customers and create a vibrant hub of community life in our city centre.
Carlisle's Cask Ale has even found its way into popular fiction. Readers of MW Craven's Washington Post novels will know of the detective's fondness for Carlisle Brewing Company spun gold and his appreciation of a properly kept beer usually poured from the King's Head in Carlisle city centre. But behind that fictional example lies a very serious point. Getting cask ale right is a craft and one that depends on skills we cannot take for granted. However, getting pints of independently brewed cask ale into the hands of consumers is a challenge. Due to the practices of the large brewing companies, and I therefore invite the Minister to set out in her remarks where the government's thinking is on the introduction of a guest beer agreement in England and what discussions have been had with Siba about improving market access for smaller breweries.
As I'm sure a number of members know, Siba has looked at the impact of the Scottish Beer Agreement and what that has done for tied pubs, and 86% of the tenants who have an agreement in place have said that it's improved their trade. I feel it acutely because I represent a borders constituency and I can literally walk a matter of metres to a pub that can enjoy a guest beer agreement, and I urge the government to get on and introduce a guest beer agreement in England. Recognising cask ale as an intangible cultural heritage would celebrate much more than a drink.
It would recognise the people, craftsmanship and community traditions behind it. At a time when pubs face many pressures and independent breweries are working hard to remain competitive, that recognition would send an important message. Traditions matter. Good beer matters. From Carlisle's unique brewing history to the businesses keeping it alive today, our great border city, My great border city, shows why cask ale deserves to be celebrated and passed on to future generations.
10:04
10:04
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Mr. Chairman, a real pleasure to serve on your chair. And can I first of all commend the honourable member for Burton and Uttoxeter for setting the discussion incredibly well, because directly to the beating heart of our local communities, our economy and our shared cultural identity, it's always a pleasure to see the minister in his place. We always look forward to our sponsors and today will be will not be found wanting today either. I want to speak about the economic boost, about the tourism potential and about the craft of it can, in relation to what the honourable gentleman has said, the seen the potential merits of recognising the production and the serving of cask ale as intangible cultural heritage under the Unesco framework are vast.
Cask ale is not just a commercial liquid in a glass, it's a living, breathing testament to an artisanal craft passed down through generations. It requires a meticulous partnership between the monster, the farmer, the brewer and the publican who specialized expertise. Very happy to give away.
Cask ale is not just a commercial liquid in a glass, it's a living, breathing testament to an artisanal craft passed down through generations. It requires a meticulous partnership between the monster, the farmer, the brewer and the publican who specialized expertise. Very happy to give away.
10:05
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Thank you for giving way. Now, for the record, I do. I do quite like an after work pint and constituents I represent run the fantastic Independent Courier Brewing Company and they make cask ale because they love it. But rising business costs and big international breweries dominate markets and make it harder for them to carry on. A pint of cask ale is a huge part of our heritage, as British as fish and chips. And does he agree that protecting this requires urgent action, such as giving pub tenants the right to request an independent beer on tap, like in Scotland?
Now , this won't solve everything, but it is a start.
Now , this won't solve everything, but it is a start.
10:06
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Yeah, I certainly do. And I thank the honourable lady for for intervention. And I'm sure the Minister has taken note of the honourable Lady's comments. In an age of mass produced globalised conformity, cask ale remains stubbornly, beautifully local. And I want to bring perhaps a Northern Ireland angle to this vital debate. Ever mindful of the of the hospitality industry, our independent producers and the social fabric of our communities, elevating local crafts to the status of intangible cultural heritage would send an unequivocal message to policy makers at every level that our traditional liquid heritage must be actively nurtured, protected and legally accommodated rather than stifled.
The honourable gentleman, I think, set the scene incredibly important for that. He also mentioned British wealth, British prosperity, and we're part of this Great Britain and proud to be British, probably more so maybe some people my where I live, but I certainly am very proud to be. So if we look at how the safeguarding of intangible heritage can transform our region, we need to look at the spectacular arrival revival of the drinks in the spirit sector across Northern Ireland. The liquid arts are part of our DNA in Strangford and indeed across Northern Ireland. And now it's not cask ale, but the distillery again is a very first form distillery at craft spirits, literally from field glass by growing, harvesting and floor malting their own barley on site.
Again, I underlining the issue of the craft of of ale and distilleries as well. Hence it is another example of using triple distilled whiskies that are winning global acclaim, redeeming R estate through the passion of Fiona Boyd Armstrong and her husband David again promote that the craft distilling successfully marrying historic estate heritage with a thoroughly modern sustainable vision powered by their own on site hydro and wind energy minister. When it comes to looking at at cask ale, the craft industry across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does much preservation of the craft, the celebration of lore, local raw materials and an unwavering commitment to quality that cannot be replicated by a mass production line.
So what do these world class cask ales have to do with their preservation of cask ale? Well, it's simply this they prove that liquid heritage is an economic and cultural engine. When you protect and celebrate traditional production methods, you do not just create jobs in the mash House or in the in the bottling hall, you create a tourism boost and boom! You give people a reason to visit Strangford, to stay in the guest houses, to eat in the restaurants, and to sit in our historic pubs. It's worth reminding that that the house that even a giant like Guinness was once a traditional cask product, naturally conditioned in wooden barrels.
However, the commercial shifts of the mid 20th century saw the multinational brewers abandon the system entirely in favour of highly processed pasteurised kegs to maximise global shelf life. That is precisely why this debate is important. That's why we must act now. It's important for independent craft brewers, for our farm distilleries, our local publicans, to step up and to keep these historic skills alive by granting cask ale intangible cultural heritage status, we protect the fragile living traditions that the global corporate models have left behind by seeking Unesco intangible status by the production and serving of cask ale, we are not dwelling in the past.
Instead, Mr. Chairman, we are securing the future. We are protecting the fields of our farmers, the livelihoods of our independent publicans and the heritage of our people. So I urge the Minister to please work closely with the devolved administrations to support our independent producers to back this campaign to ensure our unique hospitality and manufacturing heritage continues to thrive for generations to come. The purpose of this debate for the future. Thank you.
The honourable gentleman, I think, set the scene incredibly important for that. He also mentioned British wealth, British prosperity, and we're part of this Great Britain and proud to be British, probably more so maybe some people my where I live, but I certainly am very proud to be. So if we look at how the safeguarding of intangible heritage can transform our region, we need to look at the spectacular arrival revival of the drinks in the spirit sector across Northern Ireland. The liquid arts are part of our DNA in Strangford and indeed across Northern Ireland. And now it's not cask ale, but the distillery again is a very first form distillery at craft spirits, literally from field glass by growing, harvesting and floor malting their own barley on site.
Again, I underlining the issue of the craft of of ale and distilleries as well. Hence it is another example of using triple distilled whiskies that are winning global acclaim, redeeming R estate through the passion of Fiona Boyd Armstrong and her husband David again promote that the craft distilling successfully marrying historic estate heritage with a thoroughly modern sustainable vision powered by their own on site hydro and wind energy minister. When it comes to looking at at cask ale, the craft industry across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does much preservation of the craft, the celebration of lore, local raw materials and an unwavering commitment to quality that cannot be replicated by a mass production line.
So what do these world class cask ales have to do with their preservation of cask ale? Well, it's simply this they prove that liquid heritage is an economic and cultural engine. When you protect and celebrate traditional production methods, you do not just create jobs in the mash House or in the in the bottling hall, you create a tourism boost and boom! You give people a reason to visit Strangford, to stay in the guest houses, to eat in the restaurants, and to sit in our historic pubs. It's worth reminding that that the house that even a giant like Guinness was once a traditional cask product, naturally conditioned in wooden barrels.
However, the commercial shifts of the mid 20th century saw the multinational brewers abandon the system entirely in favour of highly processed pasteurised kegs to maximise global shelf life. That is precisely why this debate is important. That's why we must act now. It's important for independent craft brewers, for our farm distilleries, our local publicans, to step up and to keep these historic skills alive by granting cask ale intangible cultural heritage status, we protect the fragile living traditions that the global corporate models have left behind by seeking Unesco intangible status by the production and serving of cask ale, we are not dwelling in the past.
Instead, Mr. Chairman, we are securing the future. We are protecting the fields of our farmers, the livelihoods of our independent publicans and the heritage of our people. So I urge the Minister to please work closely with the devolved administrations to support our independent producers to back this campaign to ensure our unique hospitality and manufacturing heritage continues to thrive for generations to come. The purpose of this debate for the future. Thank you.
10:10
10:10
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I thank my honourable friends for for securing the debate on what is undoubtedly a crucial part of our national heritage, especially so in the Midlands. Cask ale has been part of British life for generations. The skills involved in brewing, conditioning, storing and serving it have been passed down over centuries. Recognising these traditions as intangible cultural heritage will be a fitting acknowledgement of their importance. But it's more about just the just the beer itself. Pubs are places central to community life, places where friendships are made and people come together and are therefore significant to the fight to reduce loneliness in today's world.
In many rural communities, the village pub is one of the last remaining places where people of all ages and backgrounds can meet, and nowhere is that more apparent than in our local authority. For Derbyshire Dales, where we have around 132 pubs equivalent to 18.5 pubs per 10,000 residents and excluding some unusually small local authority areas, that's giving us the highest number per capita in the country. Those pubs are enormously important to our visitor economy. They support jobs not just behind the bar but in brewing, farming, food production, distribution and hospitality. They encourage visitors to stay longer and spend more money in our local businesses.
One excellent example is Thornbridge Brewery in Bakewell. Thornbridge produces some outstanding cask ales which are enjoyed locally across the country and internationally. Its Riverside brewery and taproom employs over 100 people, and the taproom is also an important events and live music space. And as a former musician myself, I particularly welcome that pubs and breweries provide opportunities for emerging artists to perform, develop their skills and find an audience. Their contribution to our cultural life goes well beyond what is in the glass, and I welcome the vital steps taken by the government to support pubs and breweries, including reduced duty on qualifying draught beer and improving small producer relief.
However, there is more to do and at the autumn budget in 2024, the government announced that they would consult on improving access to pubs for smaller breweries, including through greater provision for guest beers. I would be grateful for the Minister to update us on the conclusions of that work, when there might be published, and what measures are being considered to improve market access. And as my honourable friend has said, there is a useful example in Scotland where the Scottish Pubs Code provides tied pub tenants with a route to request a guest beer agreement, allowing them to sell at least one beer of their choosing outside the usual supply arrangements.
I encourage the government to consider introducing a similar provision in England. It could give independent breweries greater access to the market, offer publicans more choice and allow customers to enjoy a wider range of locally produced ales. Recognising cask ale is intangible cultural heritage would be a positive step, but recognition should also be accompanied by practical measures to safeguard the breweries, pubs and skilled workers who keep that heritage alive. Our pubs are not simply businesses, they are part of the fabric of our communities, our economy and our national identity. They are worth celebrating and they are worth protecting.
In many rural communities, the village pub is one of the last remaining places where people of all ages and backgrounds can meet, and nowhere is that more apparent than in our local authority. For Derbyshire Dales, where we have around 132 pubs equivalent to 18.5 pubs per 10,000 residents and excluding some unusually small local authority areas, that's giving us the highest number per capita in the country. Those pubs are enormously important to our visitor economy. They support jobs not just behind the bar but in brewing, farming, food production, distribution and hospitality. They encourage visitors to stay longer and spend more money in our local businesses.
One excellent example is Thornbridge Brewery in Bakewell. Thornbridge produces some outstanding cask ales which are enjoyed locally across the country and internationally. Its Riverside brewery and taproom employs over 100 people, and the taproom is also an important events and live music space. And as a former musician myself, I particularly welcome that pubs and breweries provide opportunities for emerging artists to perform, develop their skills and find an audience. Their contribution to our cultural life goes well beyond what is in the glass, and I welcome the vital steps taken by the government to support pubs and breweries, including reduced duty on qualifying draught beer and improving small producer relief.
However, there is more to do and at the autumn budget in 2024, the government announced that they would consult on improving access to pubs for smaller breweries, including through greater provision for guest beers. I would be grateful for the Minister to update us on the conclusions of that work, when there might be published, and what measures are being considered to improve market access. And as my honourable friend has said, there is a useful example in Scotland where the Scottish Pubs Code provides tied pub tenants with a route to request a guest beer agreement, allowing them to sell at least one beer of their choosing outside the usual supply arrangements.
I encourage the government to consider introducing a similar provision in England. It could give independent breweries greater access to the market, offer publicans more choice and allow customers to enjoy a wider range of locally produced ales. Recognising cask ale is intangible cultural heritage would be a positive step, but recognition should also be accompanied by practical measures to safeguard the breweries, pubs and skilled workers who keep that heritage alive. Our pubs are not simply businesses, they are part of the fabric of our communities, our economy and our national identity. They are worth celebrating and they are worth protecting.
10:13
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Yeah. Samantha Niblett, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's an honor to serve under your chairmanship, and I want to thank my honourable friend and nearby neighbours, the member for Burton and Uttoxeter and the member for Derby South for securing this really important debate. Now, full disclosure, back in the early noughties and in my early 20s, I went to work for a company selling wine and spirits, and I did a qualification WST advanced, but not long after. We then merged with the beer cellar at Chesterfield, and I had the great pleasure of learning all about cask ales, and as part of that I would frequently.
As I covered a patch that covered Nottingham City, Derby City, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, I'd frequently work with incredible landlords, winning fantastic pubs on pulling together their beer festivals and it was always a highlight of the year. And whether it was pulling together beer festivals or providing or going to pitch guest ales each month, it was always a joy to see what new beer might be on the tables that month, and so this kind of plays a deep to my core, and I'm really grateful for this debate being secured, because actually, it means a heck of a lot to the people of South Derbyshire as well.
So when I knew this, this, this debate was going to happen, I put a shout out to Facebook because that's where the real communication happens in South Derbyshire, asking people, what's their favorite ale and where's the best place to buy and drink it? And they were not backwards in coming forwards. And I will refer to some of the recommendations that they made and and and in a moment. But I just want to give a particular shout out to Toll-gate Brewery, the current owners of which celebrated having it for ten years. And they've got the milking parlour, which is a a lovely venue that myself and my hon.
Friend the member for North West Leicestershire visited together in the summer because they've got two ales that are well beloved in South Derbyshire, both Ashby Pale Ale and Hackney Blonde, which I think the honourable member for North West Leicestershire and I hope are hoping to get into stranger's bar. But I was also invited over the weekend, having put that post out to the Melbourne Rugby Club's beer festival in Melbourne by local brilliant parish councillor Andy Dawson, who's co-chair of the Melbourne Rugby Club. And there I got to meet the master brewer, whose formal name is Edward Allingham, but he is known colloquially as Mad Ed of Leather Britches, which is based, which is a very small brewery based at The Taphouse in Smisby.
And he was telling me all about the history of leather britches and where the name comes from. So I would encourage everybody to Google Ale Conners to learn about how he used to tax ales back in the day. But when we talk about Melbourne, because this this festival was in Melbourne, it would be remiss of me not to give a huge shout out to the spirit Vaults, which came up time and time again, as they're a pub that brew some of their own beer on premise, and Reverend the Reverend Bitter came out loud and proud as a, as a as a big favorite.
And another small brewer that came out loud and proud was the Three P's Brewery at Woodville, three P's standing for pit pots and pipes, which is. Speaks to our heritage in South Derbyshire and whilst there were. Whilst there were other national brands mentioned like. And places to drink like the pedigree at the Freehold Tavern in Newhall and having a pint of Timothy Taylor's landlord. One of my favourite. Actually the Robin Hood in Overseal, or a pint of Thaxton's at the Wheel Inn in Ticknall. There was one ale in particular that came out time and time again as a favourite, and I don't know whether it's because of our close proximity to Burton, because it's so very special to the people of South Derbyshire, but that is bass, and so the best places to drink bass.
People were not quiet in coming forward in a place to get a pint of bass, whether it's the Miners Arms in Church Gresley, the Swadlincote Constitutional Club, the Thorntree in Newhall or the Crown in Newhall, the Chequers in. In Ticknall Bull's head Rosliston the malt in Aston Harington arms Thorston Coopers Arms in Weston. The green man in Willington, Admiral Rodney in Hartshorn, Brookfield in Barrow. Hawk and Eagle and spread. Eagle. Hawk and buckle and spread. Eagle in Etwall or the Coalville Arms in Lullington. Bass came out overwhelmingly as the people's choice in South Derbyshire, and also what was very obvious to me is it's mainly men that like to drink cask ale, and I think that's mainly because they work some magic because the average bladder can contain 400ml.
But the average pint, of course, is 568ml, so I'm not quite sure where they hide it. But that's the one thing that prevents me drinking pint after pint of cask ale, I have to say. But the important thing about cask ales and the pub that serve them is the sense of community they help bring, and the excitement of guest ales is a joy. But the consistency of knowing you're going to get a good pint of bass is the one thing that seems to bring real joy to people of South Derbyshire.
As I covered a patch that covered Nottingham City, Derby City, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, I'd frequently work with incredible landlords, winning fantastic pubs on pulling together their beer festivals and it was always a highlight of the year. And whether it was pulling together beer festivals or providing or going to pitch guest ales each month, it was always a joy to see what new beer might be on the tables that month, and so this kind of plays a deep to my core, and I'm really grateful for this debate being secured, because actually, it means a heck of a lot to the people of South Derbyshire as well.
So when I knew this, this, this debate was going to happen, I put a shout out to Facebook because that's where the real communication happens in South Derbyshire, asking people, what's their favorite ale and where's the best place to buy and drink it? And they were not backwards in coming forwards. And I will refer to some of the recommendations that they made and and and in a moment. But I just want to give a particular shout out to Toll-gate Brewery, the current owners of which celebrated having it for ten years. And they've got the milking parlour, which is a a lovely venue that myself and my hon.
Friend the member for North West Leicestershire visited together in the summer because they've got two ales that are well beloved in South Derbyshire, both Ashby Pale Ale and Hackney Blonde, which I think the honourable member for North West Leicestershire and I hope are hoping to get into stranger's bar. But I was also invited over the weekend, having put that post out to the Melbourne Rugby Club's beer festival in Melbourne by local brilliant parish councillor Andy Dawson, who's co-chair of the Melbourne Rugby Club. And there I got to meet the master brewer, whose formal name is Edward Allingham, but he is known colloquially as Mad Ed of Leather Britches, which is based, which is a very small brewery based at The Taphouse in Smisby.
And he was telling me all about the history of leather britches and where the name comes from. So I would encourage everybody to Google Ale Conners to learn about how he used to tax ales back in the day. But when we talk about Melbourne, because this this festival was in Melbourne, it would be remiss of me not to give a huge shout out to the spirit Vaults, which came up time and time again, as they're a pub that brew some of their own beer on premise, and Reverend the Reverend Bitter came out loud and proud as a, as a as a big favorite.
And another small brewer that came out loud and proud was the Three P's Brewery at Woodville, three P's standing for pit pots and pipes, which is. Speaks to our heritage in South Derbyshire and whilst there were. Whilst there were other national brands mentioned like. And places to drink like the pedigree at the Freehold Tavern in Newhall and having a pint of Timothy Taylor's landlord. One of my favourite. Actually the Robin Hood in Overseal, or a pint of Thaxton's at the Wheel Inn in Ticknall. There was one ale in particular that came out time and time again as a favourite, and I don't know whether it's because of our close proximity to Burton, because it's so very special to the people of South Derbyshire, but that is bass, and so the best places to drink bass.
People were not quiet in coming forward in a place to get a pint of bass, whether it's the Miners Arms in Church Gresley, the Swadlincote Constitutional Club, the Thorntree in Newhall or the Crown in Newhall, the Chequers in. In Ticknall Bull's head Rosliston the malt in Aston Harington arms Thorston Coopers Arms in Weston. The green man in Willington, Admiral Rodney in Hartshorn, Brookfield in Barrow. Hawk and Eagle and spread. Eagle. Hawk and buckle and spread. Eagle in Etwall or the Coalville Arms in Lullington. Bass came out overwhelmingly as the people's choice in South Derbyshire, and also what was very obvious to me is it's mainly men that like to drink cask ale, and I think that's mainly because they work some magic because the average bladder can contain 400ml.
But the average pint, of course, is 568ml, so I'm not quite sure where they hide it. But that's the one thing that prevents me drinking pint after pint of cask ale, I have to say. But the important thing about cask ales and the pub that serve them is the sense of community they help bring, and the excitement of guest ales is a joy. But the consistency of knowing you're going to get a good pint of bass is the one thing that seems to bring real joy to people of South Derbyshire.
10:18
10:18
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Thank you, Sir Desmond, and it's a pleasure to serve with you as chair. And I'd like to congratulate the member for Burton and Uttoxeter in getting this debate here. And I think it's brilliant that we're sitting here this morning and recognising the production and serving of cask ale as intangible cultural. Cultural heritage. Intangible cultural heritage is about traditions and skills that are passed down through the generations that have shaped our communities, and the UK's cultural heritage is a national treasure. Our creative and tourism industries contribute billions of pounds to the economy, and the latest research from Historic England is very clear.
It shows the heritage sector contributed £15 billion to the economy in 2022. So pubs are at the heart of our communities and they provide much, much more than somewhere to have a pint and in my case, a good old fashioned Somerset ploughman's with a decent chunk of cheddar cheese. I have to say, Sir Desmond, I'm not a drinker, so. But I do appreciate hugely the number of people who are working in this industry in my part of Somerset. And if I may, I'd like to take the opportunity. I'd be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to mention some of those who are cask ale producers in my part of Somerset.
Those include the Buckhorn Brewery. They are actually located a little outside my my constituency, but they have three pubs that are within. There's the Badgworth Brewhouse, the Cross Brewery, which is based at the White Hart Inn in Cross near Axbridge, which I had the pleasure of opening a short number of months ago. Cheddar ales, which is probably known across the nation because it's stopped so frequently in many of our supermarkets, as well as our best pubs, and the Basin Bridge Brewing Company and The Beer Shed. Several of those locations are places where I have run my surgeries in the past, and I thank those publicans for the support that they've offered.
So pubs bring people together and they help tackle isolation, which is particularly key in a rural area, very rural area like mine, and they carry a lot of history and help our culture. So the brewers and pubs are struggling and when a pub closes, the community and community cohesion is weakened significantly. So we need to make sure that we support exactly this tradition. And I'd ask the government to make sure that it does listen to the people and communities, uphold these traditions and ensure they can be supported, and that they can continue and be shared for generations to come.
At a time when cask ale faces challenges, the government should consider how its cultural significance and the skills associated with its production can be supported and recognised. The craft sector alone contributes thousands of jobs every year and over £400 million annually, so Cask Ale is. It represents one of Britain's most distinctive brewing traditions. Unlike filtered or pasteurised beers, it's a living product that continues to mature and develop flavour after it's left the brewery. The brewery. The beer goes undergoes secondary fermentation, the vessel which from which it served, and each brewery's unique yeast, creating natural carbonation, carbonization and complexity cannot be replicated through industrial processes.
Its unique. It involves a high level of skill both in brewing and in the cellar. So I'm aware that the government was asked to recognise the production and serving of cask ale as an intangible cultural heritage under petitions 716686, which closed on the 1st of October 2025 and had a marvelous 441,026 signatures, and that the Department for culture, Media and Sport said it would welcome a submission from the cask ale community to the UK inventory. Cask ale would be included if the submission met the criteria. The United Kingdom ratified the 2003 Unesco convention for the safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage on March 7th, 2024, and we became the 183rd state to join UNESCO's convention, which came into force on the 7th of June 2024.
So Unesco convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage recognises traditional craftsmanship, craftsmanship, oral traditions and expressions, social practices, festive events, knowledge and practices related to nature and the universe. To this end, the UK government launched its public consultation in January 2024 on the creation of a new register onto which communities across the country could nominate their most cherished local traditions. And in 2016, we know that Unesco inscribed beer culture in Belgium on the representative list of intangible cultural heritage of humanity. So we Lib Dems would like some of this. Please Minister, as passionate supporters of craft beer and brewers and the publicans who pull these pints, I'd be delighted if the Minister could actually recognise the passion and the love and the commitment and the contribution to community, that good brewing and good beer which is enjoyed so often.
As I said, with a ploughman's and back this campaign. Thank you, chair.
It shows the heritage sector contributed £15 billion to the economy in 2022. So pubs are at the heart of our communities and they provide much, much more than somewhere to have a pint and in my case, a good old fashioned Somerset ploughman's with a decent chunk of cheddar cheese. I have to say, Sir Desmond, I'm not a drinker, so. But I do appreciate hugely the number of people who are working in this industry in my part of Somerset. And if I may, I'd like to take the opportunity. I'd be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to mention some of those who are cask ale producers in my part of Somerset.
Those include the Buckhorn Brewery. They are actually located a little outside my my constituency, but they have three pubs that are within. There's the Badgworth Brewhouse, the Cross Brewery, which is based at the White Hart Inn in Cross near Axbridge, which I had the pleasure of opening a short number of months ago. Cheddar ales, which is probably known across the nation because it's stopped so frequently in many of our supermarkets, as well as our best pubs, and the Basin Bridge Brewing Company and The Beer Shed. Several of those locations are places where I have run my surgeries in the past, and I thank those publicans for the support that they've offered.
So pubs bring people together and they help tackle isolation, which is particularly key in a rural area, very rural area like mine, and they carry a lot of history and help our culture. So the brewers and pubs are struggling and when a pub closes, the community and community cohesion is weakened significantly. So we need to make sure that we support exactly this tradition. And I'd ask the government to make sure that it does listen to the people and communities, uphold these traditions and ensure they can be supported, and that they can continue and be shared for generations to come.
At a time when cask ale faces challenges, the government should consider how its cultural significance and the skills associated with its production can be supported and recognised. The craft sector alone contributes thousands of jobs every year and over £400 million annually, so Cask Ale is. It represents one of Britain's most distinctive brewing traditions. Unlike filtered or pasteurised beers, it's a living product that continues to mature and develop flavour after it's left the brewery. The brewery. The beer goes undergoes secondary fermentation, the vessel which from which it served, and each brewery's unique yeast, creating natural carbonation, carbonization and complexity cannot be replicated through industrial processes.
Its unique. It involves a high level of skill both in brewing and in the cellar. So I'm aware that the government was asked to recognise the production and serving of cask ale as an intangible cultural heritage under petitions 716686, which closed on the 1st of October 2025 and had a marvelous 441,026 signatures, and that the Department for culture, Media and Sport said it would welcome a submission from the cask ale community to the UK inventory. Cask ale would be included if the submission met the criteria. The United Kingdom ratified the 2003 Unesco convention for the safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage on March 7th, 2024, and we became the 183rd state to join UNESCO's convention, which came into force on the 7th of June 2024.
So Unesco convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage recognises traditional craftsmanship, craftsmanship, oral traditions and expressions, social practices, festive events, knowledge and practices related to nature and the universe. To this end, the UK government launched its public consultation in January 2024 on the creation of a new register onto which communities across the country could nominate their most cherished local traditions. And in 2016, we know that Unesco inscribed beer culture in Belgium on the representative list of intangible cultural heritage of humanity. So we Lib Dems would like some of this. Please Minister, as passionate supporters of craft beer and brewers and the publicans who pull these pints, I'd be delighted if the Minister could actually recognise the passion and the love and the commitment and the contribution to community, that good brewing and good beer which is enjoyed so often.
As I said, with a ploughman's and back this campaign. Thank you, chair.
10:24
10:24
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Very much, Sir Desmond. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I congratulate the honourable member for Burton and Uttoxeter for picking up the mantle and securing this debate, and it gives us an important opportunity to debate the merits of recognising the importance of the production and serving of cask ale as an example of our living cultural heritage. And this debate has been all one way so far, and I won't be changing that. And cask ale is more than a drink. It. It reflects the combination of craftsmanship, knowledge, tradition and community, and . Cask is produced by hundreds of small breweries, often using British hops and malt.
My own County of Norfolk has a fine brewing tradition of real ales, with our first class malted barley, and I should mention the Duration Brewery in West Acre and their grasshopper beer, which I was enjoying last weekend. And as we've just celebrated Trafalgar Day, I'll also mention Woodford's Norfolk, Nelson's Revenge and as Canberra, which does so much to champion real ale, says it is synonymous with our great British pub and its significance lies not only in what is brewed but in the craftsmanship involved, how it is made, how it is served and how it brings people together.
And because the final conditioning happens at the pub, it requires specialist knowledge from both the brewer and the publican. And much of this knowledge is practical and acquired through experience and skills are often passed from generation to generation. It is precisely this kind of living heritage that intangible cultural heritage seeks to recognise and protect, and our brewing traditions reflect our local areas in different places and the local beer styles as well. And by taking this step of recognition, we could safeguard a living tradition that has helped shape the cultural and social life of Britain for generations, and the opportunity to recognise cask ale under the Unesco convention comes from its ratification under the last conservative government.
I was talking to my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, who personally secured this ratification in order to help support awareness and potentially increase demand for sectors and heritage across our country and for cask ale. I think this could help support inward tourism. We've heard about the importance of people attached to experience a pint in a pub across the country, and this would come at a time when the sector is under challenge. As we've heard, Siba has reported a 20% reduction in cost consumption year on year , and that is part of a longer term decline.
But despite that, it is worth noting that smaller independent breweries are finding success in the sector compared to some of the larger breweries which are withdrawing from the market. We heard a passionate speech from my right hon. Friend railing against Carlsberg's recent decision and breweries benefiting from the small brewer relief now account for 58% of the cask market, up from 40% a decade ago, and that success is centred around local pubs, community spaces and increasingly taprooms, offering experiences that people want to go and enjoy. And it's also important to recognise the important role that beer festivals play in supporting cask ale, introducing new people to the delights and the tastes of cask ale.
And this week it is the Norwich Beer Festival, which I heartily recommend to everyone. I'm planning to be there because I'm going to be part of the judging panel for the champion bottled beer of Britain. It's hard work, but someone has to do it. But of course, tomorrow we have the budget and UK beer duty is the second highest in Europe, nearly 12 times more than most of our European counterparts. And the Prime Minister has talked about giving everyone a breathing space, as well as pork scratchings. A practical way to do that would be to increase draught relief, as a number of honourable members have referred to, which was introduced by the last government and along with other members of the All-Party beer Group, I have signed a letter to the Chancellor calling him to do precisely that, to freeze beer duty and to increase draught relief to 30%, which would take £0.10 off a pint.
But we do also need to see action on business rates, employment costs and energy prices as well. Now, Cask Ale Culture has submitted the expression of interest, which is strongly backed by over 40,000 people who signed the petition and by honourable members across the House. The government has said that the panel is reviewing that submission. Can the Minister clarify when she expects a final decision to be taken? Can she also confirm how the government intends to meet the requirements under articles 13 to 15 regarding measures to safeguard that living heritage? Such recognition for cask ale would show cultural heritage is not simply about buildings and monuments, it's about traditions, customs and our communities.
My own County of Norfolk has a fine brewing tradition of real ales, with our first class malted barley, and I should mention the Duration Brewery in West Acre and their grasshopper beer, which I was enjoying last weekend. And as we've just celebrated Trafalgar Day, I'll also mention Woodford's Norfolk, Nelson's Revenge and as Canberra, which does so much to champion real ale, says it is synonymous with our great British pub and its significance lies not only in what is brewed but in the craftsmanship involved, how it is made, how it is served and how it brings people together.
And because the final conditioning happens at the pub, it requires specialist knowledge from both the brewer and the publican. And much of this knowledge is practical and acquired through experience and skills are often passed from generation to generation. It is precisely this kind of living heritage that intangible cultural heritage seeks to recognise and protect, and our brewing traditions reflect our local areas in different places and the local beer styles as well. And by taking this step of recognition, we could safeguard a living tradition that has helped shape the cultural and social life of Britain for generations, and the opportunity to recognise cask ale under the Unesco convention comes from its ratification under the last conservative government.
I was talking to my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, who personally secured this ratification in order to help support awareness and potentially increase demand for sectors and heritage across our country and for cask ale. I think this could help support inward tourism. We've heard about the importance of people attached to experience a pint in a pub across the country, and this would come at a time when the sector is under challenge. As we've heard, Siba has reported a 20% reduction in cost consumption year on year , and that is part of a longer term decline.
But despite that, it is worth noting that smaller independent breweries are finding success in the sector compared to some of the larger breweries which are withdrawing from the market. We heard a passionate speech from my right hon. Friend railing against Carlsberg's recent decision and breweries benefiting from the small brewer relief now account for 58% of the cask market, up from 40% a decade ago, and that success is centred around local pubs, community spaces and increasingly taprooms, offering experiences that people want to go and enjoy. And it's also important to recognise the important role that beer festivals play in supporting cask ale, introducing new people to the delights and the tastes of cask ale.
And this week it is the Norwich Beer Festival, which I heartily recommend to everyone. I'm planning to be there because I'm going to be part of the judging panel for the champion bottled beer of Britain. It's hard work, but someone has to do it. But of course, tomorrow we have the budget and UK beer duty is the second highest in Europe, nearly 12 times more than most of our European counterparts. And the Prime Minister has talked about giving everyone a breathing space, as well as pork scratchings. A practical way to do that would be to increase draught relief, as a number of honourable members have referred to, which was introduced by the last government and along with other members of the All-Party beer Group, I have signed a letter to the Chancellor calling him to do precisely that, to freeze beer duty and to increase draught relief to 30%, which would take £0.10 off a pint.
But we do also need to see action on business rates, employment costs and energy prices as well. Now, Cask Ale Culture has submitted the expression of interest, which is strongly backed by over 40,000 people who signed the petition and by honourable members across the House. The government has said that the panel is reviewing that submission. Can the Minister clarify when she expects a final decision to be taken? Can she also confirm how the government intends to meet the requirements under articles 13 to 15 regarding measures to safeguard that living heritage? Such recognition for cask ale would show cultural heritage is not simply about buildings and monuments, it's about traditions, customs and our communities.
10:29
10:29
10:29
10:29
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
To serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and I'd like to congratulate my hon. Friend the member for Burton and Uttoxeter for securing this debate. He is a strong champion for his constituents, local employers and our brewing traditions. For decades, our heritage policies focused on physical buildings and monuments, and we're expanding that by recognising living heritage, the crafts, skills and community traditions passed down through generations. And this debate is a brilliant way to illustrate this. The honourable member has made a strong case for the heritage and has explained the traditions associated with cask ale brewing, explaining it with colour and with detail.
And indeed, I think the support for this issue is reflected by the attendance from across the House and the contributions from all members here today. And indeed, I recognise the fact that the member for Derby South originally put in and championed this debate. So following the ratification of the 2003 Unesco convention, we launched the nationwide search to document our living history, and the upcoming launch of the domestic inventories will be an important milestone. We have heard a strong argument for the inclusion of cask ale, led by the campaign for Real Ale, the Craft Beer Channel and the grassroots supporters, and amplified today by the honourable member and indeed honourable members across the House.
Cask Ale culture has formally submitted and is currently being assessed by an independent panel alongside living Traditions. DCMs continues to protect physical pub heritage. Over 12,000 listed buildings in England are current or former pubs who are Arts Everywhere fund and are £200 million investment in the heritage to 2030. We are helping communities restore and safeguard historic venues and indeed we heard from a number of members. I won't attempt to list them all here, but we heard from a number of members about their local brewers, whether that be Allanwater Brewhouse and Stirling to the Dancing Duck in Derby.
And indeed we heard from the Derbyshire members about the sheer number. I believe it was 132 pubs, the member quoted to answer one of the questions that the honourable member put to me. Next year, the DCMs will launch a public consultation on safeguarding Living heritage to identify the practical steps needed to keep these traditions alive. I encourage the brewing industry and the pub sector to take part. Cask ale protects skills jobs, strengthens communities and preserves practical crafts. It is a vital living tradition. Now, the honourable member rightly mentioned the proposed closure of Marston's Brewery in Burton on Trent, which I know he raised directly with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time.
This proposal by Carlsberg Britvic is a blow to the workforce, the local community and the identity of Burton upon Trent and the surrounding area. I know how brewing is part of the fabric of his area, and with potentially over 300 job losses where workers face uncertainty, the government will stand ready to support them. Through Jobcentre Plus and the Rapid Response Service. We will ensure tailored support is available to help people find new opportunities and to protect their livelihoods. At Defra, officials remain in close contact with Carlsberg Britvic throughout the consultation process. I will, I will.
Yes indeed.
And indeed, I think the support for this issue is reflected by the attendance from across the House and the contributions from all members here today. And indeed, I recognise the fact that the member for Derby South originally put in and championed this debate. So following the ratification of the 2003 Unesco convention, we launched the nationwide search to document our living history, and the upcoming launch of the domestic inventories will be an important milestone. We have heard a strong argument for the inclusion of cask ale, led by the campaign for Real Ale, the Craft Beer Channel and the grassroots supporters, and amplified today by the honourable member and indeed honourable members across the House.
Cask Ale culture has formally submitted and is currently being assessed by an independent panel alongside living Traditions. DCMs continues to protect physical pub heritage. Over 12,000 listed buildings in England are current or former pubs who are Arts Everywhere fund and are £200 million investment in the heritage to 2030. We are helping communities restore and safeguard historic venues and indeed we heard from a number of members. I won't attempt to list them all here, but we heard from a number of members about their local brewers, whether that be Allanwater Brewhouse and Stirling to the Dancing Duck in Derby.
And indeed we heard from the Derbyshire members about the sheer number. I believe it was 132 pubs, the member quoted to answer one of the questions that the honourable member put to me. Next year, the DCMs will launch a public consultation on safeguarding Living heritage to identify the practical steps needed to keep these traditions alive. I encourage the brewing industry and the pub sector to take part. Cask ale protects skills jobs, strengthens communities and preserves practical crafts. It is a vital living tradition. Now, the honourable member rightly mentioned the proposed closure of Marston's Brewery in Burton on Trent, which I know he raised directly with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time.
This proposal by Carlsberg Britvic is a blow to the workforce, the local community and the identity of Burton upon Trent and the surrounding area. I know how brewing is part of the fabric of his area, and with potentially over 300 job losses where workers face uncertainty, the government will stand ready to support them. Through Jobcentre Plus and the Rapid Response Service. We will ensure tailored support is available to help people find new opportunities and to protect their livelihoods. At Defra, officials remain in close contact with Carlsberg Britvic throughout the consultation process. I will, I will.
Yes indeed.
10:32
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I thank the Honourable Lady for giving way and it's welcome for the work that the government's doing. But has the Secretary of State dragged in the chief executive of Carlsberg? Because this seems to be a pattern of behaviour. It's not just Burton, it's Wolverhampton as well. They seem to be intent on closing down all their cask ale breweries.
10:32
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
I heard the question I was about to come on to, to to answer it, of course, it would be the Secretary of State and I will speak to ministers directly following this debate. I absolutely wanted to recognise, while this debate isn't on this particular issue, it is, of course, integral to the honourable member's area, indeed the surrounding area. So I will speak to Defra ministers directly. I heard the point he made and he rightly pointed out, as did the member for Wolverhampton West Banks's Brewery. And of course, the announcement comes along. Molson Coors is proposing the closure of Sharp's brewery in rock, and both companies did point to the declining cask ale demand.
I totally hear the points that the honourable gentleman made. UK cask ale volumes have halved in less than ten years now. I think we heard a statistic from the honourable gentleman around cask ale sales, reflecting 5% of the market today compared to 50% in the 1990s. So we are seeing a decline, but there are some positive signs. Industry data reveals a 50% increase in young adults 18 to 25 regularly drinking cask ales in pubs. We want to see that renewed interest grow. We've heard a number of examples today about how we can sometimes do that, whether it be the Hemel Real Ale Festival, from the member from Hemel Hempstead or from the member for North West Norfolk.
The opposition spokesperson mentioned his own local festival. I wish him luck in the competition that he will be judging. Pubs and hospitality venues are essential social infrastructure. They combat loneliness, they bring generations together and they provide places to bring people together in our communities. I will give way. Yes.
I totally hear the points that the honourable gentleman made. UK cask ale volumes have halved in less than ten years now. I think we heard a statistic from the honourable gentleman around cask ale sales, reflecting 5% of the market today compared to 50% in the 1990s. So we are seeing a decline, but there are some positive signs. Industry data reveals a 50% increase in young adults 18 to 25 regularly drinking cask ales in pubs. We want to see that renewed interest grow. We've heard a number of examples today about how we can sometimes do that, whether it be the Hemel Real Ale Festival, from the member from Hemel Hempstead or from the member for North West Norfolk.
The opposition spokesperson mentioned his own local festival. I wish him luck in the competition that he will be judging. Pubs and hospitality venues are essential social infrastructure. They combat loneliness, they bring generations together and they provide places to bring people together in our communities. I will give way. Yes.
10:34
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
I thank the Minister for giving way. On the occasion of his visit to my constituency. The Prime Minister, when he was then the mayor of Greater Manchester, was proud and I was proud to host him in Black Edge's Brewery Tap in Westhoughton on Market Street, and recognising the importance that the Prime Minister understands of the value of cask ale and local independent businesses and breweries, would you perhaps persuade his good offices to see what they can do to support the cask ale business and breweries to continue this fine tradition?
10:35
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Well, I'm grateful to the gentleman. He makes a really important point, and he's put it on the record. And as he illustrates there and from the visit that the Prime Minister did when he was then chair, the mayor of Manchester, I'm sure he will be very supportive of the point, but I don't want to speak to him. But I will reflect it to perhaps his PPS. But I was going on to say I've seen the importance of pubs in my own area, my own constituency of Barnsley South, and I'd like to take this opportunity to thank and pay tribute to Dan at the Cross Keys pub in Darfield.
He has made the pub a brilliant community hub and as he moves on I would like to wish him and the team the very best. It's just one of the brilliant pubs that Barnsley has to offer now. I attended the British Beer and Pub Association Dinner and awards evening earlier this month, and I had the privilege of meeting John Longden, the CEO of pub is a hub and I will join members from across the House in paying tribute to him and the work that he has done. As many members will know, pub is the hub is a not for profit that helps rural and remote pubs diversify their businesses to provide essential local community services.
The evening saw brewers, pub operators, suppliers and patrons celebrate the industry with awards presented to extraordinary community and community champions. Now to support pubs and venues directly, the government launched a £10 million hospitality grant. Over 3 million of this funding has been awarded to the pub. Is The Hub helping rural pubs diversify their services and remain resilient community assets. MH CLG announced a £210 million funding package for our high streets, including 125 million for derelict buildings and 65 million for community ownership. The government has previously previously supported pubs through alcohol duty reforms, including introducing and expanding draft relief for products below 8.5 a, b, a b v and cutting duty on qualifying draught drinks in February 2025.
Pubs were. I will give away. Yes.
He has made the pub a brilliant community hub and as he moves on I would like to wish him and the team the very best. It's just one of the brilliant pubs that Barnsley has to offer now. I attended the British Beer and Pub Association Dinner and awards evening earlier this month, and I had the privilege of meeting John Longden, the CEO of pub is a hub and I will join members from across the House in paying tribute to him and the work that he has done. As many members will know, pub is the hub is a not for profit that helps rural and remote pubs diversify their businesses to provide essential local community services.
The evening saw brewers, pub operators, suppliers and patrons celebrate the industry with awards presented to extraordinary community and community champions. Now to support pubs and venues directly, the government launched a £10 million hospitality grant. Over 3 million of this funding has been awarded to the pub. Is The Hub helping rural pubs diversify their services and remain resilient community assets. MH CLG announced a £210 million funding package for our high streets, including 125 million for derelict buildings and 65 million for community ownership. The government has previously previously supported pubs through alcohol duty reforms, including introducing and expanding draft relief for products below 8.5 a, b, a b v and cutting duty on qualifying draught drinks in February 2025.
Pubs were. I will give away. Yes.
10:36
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I thank the Minister very much for a very comprehensive and very helpful response to the questions that we're asking, Minister. It's not just about the craft that that's involved as well, but I mentioned in my contribution about the tourism potential, does government recognise that there is a tourism potential for the economy to grow and create jobs and create prosperity?
10:37
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Well, I'm grateful to the honourable gentleman. He makes a really important point. As the tourism Minister, I absolutely echo and agree with the point that he is making. I was going on just to say that pubs were included in the recent announcement on additional business rate support, which is 15% in the 2627 year, 20% from April. And on average, this will save the average pub £110 a sorry , £1,100 a year. Of course, members wouldn't expect me and would to anticipate the budget tomorrow, and we look forward to hearing the Chancellor in the chamber tomorrow afternoon.
The sector relies on skilled people. We see industry taking the lead with the launch of the British Beer and Pub Association Academy opening its doors to degree apprentices to build the next generation of pub leaders and brewing managers. The government wants to back them, and this government is transforming the apprenticeships levy into a new growth and skills levy in England. We fully. We are fully funding apprenticeships for eligible young people under 25 and offering £2,000 hiring payment to non-levy paying small businesses that recruit young apprentices backed by £1 billion, this investment will support 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships by March 2029, helping to train the next generation of brewers, Coopers and Cellar staff.
Now I would like to thank my hon. Friend the member for Carlisle for raising the rich brewing history in Carlisle. From the historic State Management Scheme to its independent brewers, she and a number of other members. Asked whether the government has considered extending a guest beer arrangement model to England, akin to the guest beer provision within the Scottish Pub Code, ministers are giving their consideration and Defra colleagues regularly discuss market access and competition with industry representation representatives. We will continue to listen to brewers and publicans on how best to sustain consumer choice, but given the interest in those policy areas, I will make sure I speak to the relevant ministers following this debate.
So I'd like to end by thanking my hon. Friend and indeed, all members across the House for bringing this debate to the House, and I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to safeguard the brewing future.
The sector relies on skilled people. We see industry taking the lead with the launch of the British Beer and Pub Association Academy opening its doors to degree apprentices to build the next generation of pub leaders and brewing managers. The government wants to back them, and this government is transforming the apprenticeships levy into a new growth and skills levy in England. We fully. We are fully funding apprenticeships for eligible young people under 25 and offering £2,000 hiring payment to non-levy paying small businesses that recruit young apprentices backed by £1 billion, this investment will support 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships by March 2029, helping to train the next generation of brewers, Coopers and Cellar staff.
Now I would like to thank my hon. Friend the member for Carlisle for raising the rich brewing history in Carlisle. From the historic State Management Scheme to its independent brewers, she and a number of other members. Asked whether the government has considered extending a guest beer arrangement model to England, akin to the guest beer provision within the Scottish Pub Code, ministers are giving their consideration and Defra colleagues regularly discuss market access and competition with industry representation representatives. We will continue to listen to brewers and publicans on how best to sustain consumer choice, but given the interest in those policy areas, I will make sure I speak to the relevant ministers following this debate.
So I'd like to end by thanking my hon. Friend and indeed, all members across the House for bringing this debate to the House, and I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to safeguard the brewing future.
10:39
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Jacob Collier to wind up. Thank you, Sir Desmond, and thank you to the Minister for that response, and also to honourable members and the Right Honourable Member for their support. It's not many issues in this House that do get cross-party support, so we've definitely had that today, and I thank everybody for their contributions, and particularly the honourable member for South Derbyshire, I think, wins the award for the most pubs mentioned today in this debate. And of course, it's no surprise to me that bass is the most popular drink in her constituency and it is my drink of choice at the Devonshire Arms in Burton.
And as we've heard today, cask ale is at risk because of changing attitudes and also market conditions, but also some of the barriers that have been put in place. And I welcome the fact that the government is looking into this. And of course, we all welcome what the Chancellor has to say tomorrow to hopefully give support to this sector and to cask ale and give it that Unesco recognition that it really deserves. Thank you. The question is that this House has considered the potential merits of recognising the production and serving of cask ale as intangible cultural heritage.
As many as are of that opinion will say I. Of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The sitting is suspended until 11:00. Order, order! Order, order! Can I remind honourable members not to rise in their place to seek to catch my eye, unless they have both the permission of Mr. Jermy and the Minister.
Order, order! Terry Jermy to move the motion.
And as we've heard today, cask ale is at risk because of changing attitudes and also market conditions, but also some of the barriers that have been put in place. And I welcome the fact that the government is looking into this. And of course, we all welcome what the Chancellor has to say tomorrow to hopefully give support to this sector and to cask ale and give it that Unesco recognition that it really deserves. Thank you. The question is that this House has considered the potential merits of recognising the production and serving of cask ale as intangible cultural heritage.
As many as are of that opinion will say I. Of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The sitting is suspended until 11:00. Order, order! Order, order! Can I remind honourable members not to rise in their place to seek to catch my eye, unless they have both the permission of Mr. Jermy and the Minister.
Order, order! Terry Jermy to move the motion.
10:59
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Thank you very much. Sir Desmond, it's a pleasure to see you in the chair today, and I am delighted to have secured this debate on Sen provision in rural communities. Discussing this issue in detail will be hard in a 30 minute debate, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the positive engagement on this subject and given time constraints, I'll only be able to accept a few brief interventions from honourable members, particularly those that have indicated in advance. And I'd like to begin by thanking the parents, the carers and the families of the children with special educational needs and disabilities that have contacted my office and shared their experience of the realities of Send provision in rural communities.
Many of those conversations I've had with my constituents in South west Norfolk have been incredibly difficult, and the same themes arise time and again frustration, exhaustion and a profound fear for their child's future. Indeed.
Many of those conversations I've had with my constituents in South west Norfolk have been incredibly difficult, and the same themes arise time and again frustration, exhaustion and a profound fear for their child's future. Indeed.
11:01
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Forward and travelling long distances to attend schools does create the anxiety, the distress and the sensory overload potentially affecting the ability to engage in learning in school. Does the honourable member agree that we must invest in developing Sen provision within mainstream schools, ensuring that children can access appropriate support closer to home, less travelling, less anxiety, less problems for the children?
11:02
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I thank the honourable member for that intervention and I entirely agree, and I'm sure the minister will come on to speak about that in her speech. Prior to serving as a member of Parliament, I spent many years as a county councillor in Norfolk, so I was aware of the system and its difficulties from my councillor casework. But nothing could have prepared me for the avalanche of send related cries for help . Arrived right from a. Arrived from right across the constituency. Since being elected in 2024, more than 250 families have contacted my office experiencing expressing serious concerns about about the way their children's needs are being assessed and met by schools and local authorities.
11:04
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
I thank the honourable member for giving way. Access to assistive technology is another huge issue. Only 18% of young people surveyed by the British Dyslexia Association had access to assistive technology. Does the member agree that, just like with diagnosis and support, assistive technology should not just be available for those lucky enough to be well in well-off urban areas, or those that can afford to pay private providers huge sums.
11:05
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I thank the honourable member for that intervention. And he is right that investment in technology can make a significant difference to children and young people. Many of the conversations I've had with children and their families describe lengthy consultation processes to find a suitable school, daily battles to secure even the most basic provision, and periods of extreme distress as they struggle to navigate a system that often feels stacked against them. And I was keen to secure this debate with this specific title, because it is clear to me that children and young people with send in rural areas face a distinct set of structural challenges that affects access, equity and outcomes.
These challenges arise not necessarily from higher levels of need, but from the complexity and cost of delivering education, health and care services across geographically dispersed communities. Yes.
These challenges arise not necessarily from higher levels of need, but from the complexity and cost of delivering education, health and care services across geographically dispersed communities. Yes.
11:07
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Most informed speech in North Norfolk. I've heard from several families whose children cannot or haven't asked people who have struggled to get access to specialist settings. Children have to travel further from home in rural areas and that is tougher for them, whilst also increasing the transport Bill. Does he agree with me? We need to do much more to ensure that children and families in rural communities can access that specialist support when they need it.
11:07
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I thank the honourable member and my county colleague from Norfolk for raising that point, and I entirely agree, and I wanted today to explain and give information to the minister about the experiences that I've documented in my rural constituency, because I've produced a report, Rural Realities, and I've shared a draft with the minister through in-person group sessions, questionnaires and our detailed casework, we have gathered data about what is happening on the ground at the first send round table in the market town of Downham Market. It was clear that many of the parent carers from the local villages did not know one another.
They arrived individually but soon discovered their experiences were remarkably similar. They spoke of not receiving much support in their child's early years. Health visitors came less frequently, or in many cases, an in-person visit did not happen at all. Warning signs and opportunities for support were ignored at primary school, and then when their child entered high school, often some distance away in a rural setting. The impact of little to no support was further compounded from our own assessments. It is clear that rural areas typically have a limited range of local send provision. Of course, lower population density density restricts the viability of specialist settings.
Of course.
They arrived individually but soon discovered their experiences were remarkably similar. They spoke of not receiving much support in their child's early years. Health visitors came less frequently, or in many cases, an in-person visit did not happen at all. Warning signs and opportunities for support were ignored at primary school, and then when their child entered high school, often some distance away in a rural setting. The impact of little to no support was further compounded from our own assessments. It is clear that rural areas typically have a limited range of local send provision. Of course, lower population density density restricts the viability of specialist settings.
Of course.
11:10
11:11
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Absolutely. And a key theme of my contribution today will be the impact of distance and geography. And so I entirely agree with the honourable member. Lower population density restricts the viability of specialist settings and enhanced mainstream provision, resulting in reduced parental choice and a greater reliance on out-of-area placements. Of course.
11:11
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
I thank the honourable member for giving way in Cornwall. This is a particular problem because we are also on a peninsula, so we had numerous children with no specialist place at all as they got to September because the options simply weren't there. And going out of county is simply just too far for so many people to go.
11:12
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Absolutely. And I can relate to many of the points my hon. Friend just made because to access suitable provision, children and young people were travelling significant distances and that affected their wellbeing, their attendance and their readiness to learn. It is not uncommon for children that my team and I have worked with to travel for an hour and a half in each direction, every single day. At the system level, home to school transport costs are substantially higher, placing sustained pressure on the high needs budgets and limiting the resources available for early intervention and in-school support. Workforce capacity presents a further challenge.
Rural areas experience ongoing difficulties recruiting and retaining specialist staff, including sencos , educational psychologists and therapists. This contributes to delays in assessment, inconsistent access to specialist advice and slower delivery of support. And when I visit schools across south west Norfolk, the variety in approach is stark. The government is right to put additional Send training and capital funding at the forefront of its decision making. Schools can do more to accommodate pupils with additional needs. I have seen this opportunity myself. More must be done to ensure that schools and local authorities embrace this responsibility and are held to account.
Specialist support, however, will always be needed in those areas like mine with historical specialist gaps should not be overlooked. The trends are clear a lack of early intervention, rising travel costs and an increase in the number of children requiring specialist support. It means that for too many families, the Sen system is no longer providing what it should. It is instead becoming a source of additional stress and anxiety. When I became an MP, I was determined to do what I could to help families navigate that system. That's why I became one of only two MPs in the country to have employed a dedicated Send specialist caseworker, and I am incredibly proud of the work my casework team have done to help families secure progress tribunal cases and, most importantly, obtain the support that children need and deserve.
These experiences have shown me that despite the challenges facing Sen provision, positive change is possible, but only when there is. The local need is recognised and acted upon. Earlier this year, I campaigned strongly for a new specialist Sen school in Downham Market and I was delighted when the government approved the project and it committed £20 million towards the new school at Riston End. Once completed, it will transform opportunities for children and young people across a large part of Norfolk, bringing that specialist provision closer to home. However, while I welcome that success, one school alone will not resolve the wider challenges facing Sen provision in rural communities.
There are now 32,000 children and young people identified as having Send in Norfolk, including more than 13,000 with an educational, health and care plan. And since 2016, the number of Ahrc has risen by 217%. Its placing increased pressure on schools, families and local authorities alike because for rural communities, those pressures are often intensified by distance. Evidence shows that pupils attending special schools in rural areas travel on average around ten miles each way, compared with approximately four miles in urban areas. In the most rural parts of England, 1 in 10 pupils travel more than 23 miles each way to their appropriate school.
Families told me repeatedly that they feel like they have less choice, fewer local services and more barriers to accessing support than families in urban areas. Of course.
Rural areas experience ongoing difficulties recruiting and retaining specialist staff, including sencos , educational psychologists and therapists. This contributes to delays in assessment, inconsistent access to specialist advice and slower delivery of support. And when I visit schools across south west Norfolk, the variety in approach is stark. The government is right to put additional Send training and capital funding at the forefront of its decision making. Schools can do more to accommodate pupils with additional needs. I have seen this opportunity myself. More must be done to ensure that schools and local authorities embrace this responsibility and are held to account.
Specialist support, however, will always be needed in those areas like mine with historical specialist gaps should not be overlooked. The trends are clear a lack of early intervention, rising travel costs and an increase in the number of children requiring specialist support. It means that for too many families, the Sen system is no longer providing what it should. It is instead becoming a source of additional stress and anxiety. When I became an MP, I was determined to do what I could to help families navigate that system. That's why I became one of only two MPs in the country to have employed a dedicated Send specialist caseworker, and I am incredibly proud of the work my casework team have done to help families secure progress tribunal cases and, most importantly, obtain the support that children need and deserve.
These experiences have shown me that despite the challenges facing Sen provision, positive change is possible, but only when there is. The local need is recognised and acted upon. Earlier this year, I campaigned strongly for a new specialist Sen school in Downham Market and I was delighted when the government approved the project and it committed £20 million towards the new school at Riston End. Once completed, it will transform opportunities for children and young people across a large part of Norfolk, bringing that specialist provision closer to home. However, while I welcome that success, one school alone will not resolve the wider challenges facing Sen provision in rural communities.
There are now 32,000 children and young people identified as having Send in Norfolk, including more than 13,000 with an educational, health and care plan. And since 2016, the number of Ahrc has risen by 217%. Its placing increased pressure on schools, families and local authorities alike because for rural communities, those pressures are often intensified by distance. Evidence shows that pupils attending special schools in rural areas travel on average around ten miles each way, compared with approximately four miles in urban areas. In the most rural parts of England, 1 in 10 pupils travel more than 23 miles each way to their appropriate school.
Families told me repeatedly that they feel like they have less choice, fewer local services and more barriers to accessing support than families in urban areas. Of course.
11:20
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
The honourable member for giving way. Does the honourable member also find, when he spoke to families in his constituency, what I found talking to people in places like Pike and Warninglid, that actually it also has a wider implication for parents capacity to get in work and stay in work. I've certainly had families where parents have had to step back from the paid workforce.
11:21
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Absolutely. And the honourable member makes a really important point about the impact on the wider family. And if you're a Sen parent with more than one child trying to navigate different schools, different locations, logistically it's incredibly difficult . And we've certainly experienced that. Rurality, of course, also creates additional layers of bureaucracy because parents are often required to navigate multiple agencies spread across large geographical areas, repeatedly explaining their child's needs to different professionals, travelling long distances to appointments and spending months, sometimes years, pursuing assessments, reviews and support. The pressures are being felt not only by families but also by the schools.
Three quarters of the schools that responded to my survey said they did not feel able to provide adequate support for pupils with Send using their current resources. Many also reported receiving insufficient support from the local authority in relation to sending casework. Worst of all, the evidence I gathered showed that 46% of respondents to my survey reported that their child had spent a significant amount of time out of school because their needs were not being met. Some families describe children being out of education for months, sometimes years, always years of disruption. But there was no suitable placement available.
In closing, education is a privilege in this country. Education is not a privilege in this country. It is a right. Yet too many children with send are being denied that right, not because their potential is lacking, but because the system around them is struggling to provide the support they need for children in rural communities. Those challenges are often even greater. That is why I hope the government will fully consider the added impact of Rurality, which I have highlighted through my South West Norfolk Send report. It's got to consider those added pressures as part of its wider reforms to the Sen system, so that families across constituencies like mine, and like other honourable members that have spoken, can finally feel heard, feel supported and confident that their children will receive the education they deserve.
Three quarters of the schools that responded to my survey said they did not feel able to provide adequate support for pupils with Send using their current resources. Many also reported receiving insufficient support from the local authority in relation to sending casework. Worst of all, the evidence I gathered showed that 46% of respondents to my survey reported that their child had spent a significant amount of time out of school because their needs were not being met. Some families describe children being out of education for months, sometimes years, always years of disruption. But there was no suitable placement available.
In closing, education is a privilege in this country. Education is not a privilege in this country. It is a right. Yet too many children with send are being denied that right, not because their potential is lacking, but because the system around them is struggling to provide the support they need for children in rural communities. Those challenges are often even greater. That is why I hope the government will fully consider the added impact of Rurality, which I have highlighted through my South West Norfolk Send report. It's got to consider those added pressures as part of its wider reforms to the Sen system, so that families across constituencies like mine, and like other honourable members that have spoken, can finally feel heard, feel supported and confident that their children will receive the education they deserve.
11:25
11:26
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Thank you, Sir Desmond. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I'd like to to thank my hon. Friend the member for South West Norfolk for his speech and all his work on on this issue. I have his report here with me. And it was a really deep and thoughtful reflection on the challenges in his area. But I think, as we've heard from from other members, some of the the common challenges faced in rural communities. And I understand that he spoke to over 300 parents and the, the, the themes that came through the, the need to battle for support the, the children who were out of education.
The huge stress that this is putting on families are, are themes that I've sadly heard from from many parts of the country. But it's incredibly important that he has brought those voices through to us. And I want to really assure him that the voices of the parents in his constituency, the teachers in his constituency, have been taken really seriously as we as we work through the consultation on the Sen reform plans. And he's also taken the time to to sit down with me to discuss some of these issues in detail, for which I really appreciate.
And he raises some some really critical issues around, you know, we see these common pressures, but in rural communities, some of these are exacerbated because of the difficulties. As he set out of recruitment of distance traveled, of availability of provision in in rural communities. And these are all areas, of course.
The huge stress that this is putting on families are, are themes that I've sadly heard from from many parts of the country. But it's incredibly important that he has brought those voices through to us. And I want to really assure him that the voices of the parents in his constituency, the teachers in his constituency, have been taken really seriously as we as we work through the consultation on the Sen reform plans. And he's also taken the time to to sit down with me to discuss some of these issues in detail, for which I really appreciate.
And he raises some some really critical issues around, you know, we see these common pressures, but in rural communities, some of these are exacerbated because of the difficulties. As he set out of recruitment of distance traveled, of availability of provision in in rural communities. And these are all areas, of course.
11:29
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
I thank the Minister for giving way on that point. And she she recognises the difficulties in rural areas. I really like to to stress that in Cornwall we've seen a 300% increase in the cost of home to school transport in the last seven years alone. And in addition, two thirds two thirds of Cornish families waiting for an HCP have to wait over 20 weeks. So does the Minister agree that send provision is particularly difficult and costly in peninsula remote peninsula communities such as Cornwall and budgets and support need to to recognise these geographical factors.
11:30
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
I would like to thank my hon. Friend for for that intervention and raising these issues, and I absolutely recognise the additional pressures that are that are faced in rural and more remote communities. And so I was going on to to go through some of the things we're doing to address those. And I'll come to home to school transport as part of, of, of that list. So one of the first things I wanted to, to highlight is the new experts at hand service, which is 1.8 billion that's going in nationally to deliver more occupational therapists, educational psychologists and speech and language therapists, but also to , to provide support from special schools and alternative provision into mainstream schools.
And so we are we've just started rolling that out. We're working with local authorities around the country. Every local authority has been asked to deliver a send reform plan, and we're getting quarterly feedback on the data around how that's going, including the experts at hand service. So we will have a much clearer view of the gaps that sit around the country. And as we kind of build out the service, the ability to, to really work with those places that are struggling to recruit and are seeing real gaps to, to try and improve their provision. And we'll be working with MPs to kind of share some of the data that's coming through that, that national picture, which we haven't previously had access to.
The second thing I wanted to flag is access to teacher training. So we're investing £200 million into teacher training. The first set of resources have gone out into the system, and those are resources that can be used by schools within their inset days. And there's a there's a host of different resources coming out across the year. So making it easier for, for schools in more remote locations to be able to, to implement that training. But we're also going to be developing a set of courses that will start from next year, which will be a mix of online and live teaching for teaching assistants, for school leaders and for teachers.
And where it isn't possible for teachers to go in person, it will be possible to do those courses online if that's what those those teachers want. I also wanted to to flag the investment directly into schools through the Inclusion Mainstream fund that has started going into schools to to sit alongside the existing funding in, in the system. But in the as we move forward into said reform and, you know, as we respond to the consultation, one of the one of the the the big areas in that is asking schools to, to come together in clusters and some of the funding, the extra funding that will be going into schools will go go through clusters.
Some will go directly to schools, some through clusters. And one of the things we're really thinking about is how we make sure those clusters work in rural communities, and we want to do a test and learn, which will be with a mix of different contexts. And I'm really keen to to talk to Norfolk MPs about this. And whether that is something that is, is something we can we can work on. Of course.
And so we are we've just started rolling that out. We're working with local authorities around the country. Every local authority has been asked to deliver a send reform plan, and we're getting quarterly feedback on the data around how that's going, including the experts at hand service. So we will have a much clearer view of the gaps that sit around the country. And as we kind of build out the service, the ability to, to really work with those places that are struggling to recruit and are seeing real gaps to, to try and improve their provision. And we'll be working with MPs to kind of share some of the data that's coming through that, that national picture, which we haven't previously had access to.
The second thing I wanted to flag is access to teacher training. So we're investing £200 million into teacher training. The first set of resources have gone out into the system, and those are resources that can be used by schools within their inset days. And there's a there's a host of different resources coming out across the year. So making it easier for, for schools in more remote locations to be able to, to implement that training. But we're also going to be developing a set of courses that will start from next year, which will be a mix of online and live teaching for teaching assistants, for school leaders and for teachers.
And where it isn't possible for teachers to go in person, it will be possible to do those courses online if that's what those those teachers want. I also wanted to to flag the investment directly into schools through the Inclusion Mainstream fund that has started going into schools to to sit alongside the existing funding in, in the system. But in the as we move forward into said reform and, you know, as we respond to the consultation, one of the one of the the the big areas in that is asking schools to, to come together in clusters and some of the funding, the extra funding that will be going into schools will go go through clusters.
Some will go directly to schools, some through clusters. And one of the things we're really thinking about is how we make sure those clusters work in rural communities, and we want to do a test and learn, which will be with a mix of different contexts. And I'm really keen to to talk to Norfolk MPs about this. And whether that is something that is, is something we can we can work on. Of course.
11:36
11:36
11:36
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
Giving way, the Isle of Axholme in my constituency, it's a big rural area. Many children have to travel long distances for ECP assessments, but also for special educational needs. Specialist support in Axholme itself, in Crowle, the Axholme school, we have a higher historically, a higher number of children with Sen than the national average. That, of course concerns me because I want them to make. I want to make sure that there's no postcode lottery when it comes to the reforms that are coming out. I just wonder if the minister will absolutely, categorically give me reassurance that if you live in a rural community, you'll get equitable support, as you do anywhere else in the country.
11:37
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Thank you. Thank you very much. And we will be, as we go through looking at all of the funding into the system, whether that's the NFF or the high needs funding as we move into to this new system. But the the thinking behind the cluster approach is, is we want in the new system for every school to be inclusive, every school to take and support students with, with a range of needs that, you know, that don't need to be in specialist provision, but we want to make sure that, you know, within that some, some schools might, might have higher need.
And the cluster approach is to ensure that, you know, you can move money to, to where the need is, is highest. But we need to ensure that that works in different contexts. And so that's why we're committed to testing and learning within rural contexts. The third thing that I wanted to to flag or the fourth thing is capital investment. My hon. Friend mentioned the new special school, and he said that that alone isn't enough, which I agree with. And we are investing £3.7 billion into capital investment to deliver a range of changes, some to mainstream schools to make them more accessible.
It can be used for new special schools, but we are really clear that it should be driving an expansion of inclusion bases and inclusion bases, I think are really important because they bring send provision to sometimes more remote communities. They they bring provision closer to families. And I've seen many examples where children were out of school, really struggling to get an education, and having that inclusion base on their doorstep has been completely transformative in opening up that that access, reducing the need to, to travel. So the high needs capital funding that's going into Norfolk is £13 million in 2025, 26 and £15.8 million in 2026 to 27.
So significant investment going into to help that that that capital challenge and to deliver inclusion bases, of course.
And the cluster approach is to ensure that, you know, you can move money to, to where the need is, is highest. But we need to ensure that that works in different contexts. And so that's why we're committed to testing and learning within rural contexts. The third thing that I wanted to to flag or the fourth thing is capital investment. My hon. Friend mentioned the new special school, and he said that that alone isn't enough, which I agree with. And we are investing £3.7 billion into capital investment to deliver a range of changes, some to mainstream schools to make them more accessible.
It can be used for new special schools, but we are really clear that it should be driving an expansion of inclusion bases and inclusion bases, I think are really important because they bring send provision to sometimes more remote communities. They they bring provision closer to families. And I've seen many examples where children were out of school, really struggling to get an education, and having that inclusion base on their doorstep has been completely transformative in opening up that that access, reducing the need to, to travel. So the high needs capital funding that's going into Norfolk is £13 million in 2025, 26 and £15.8 million in 2026 to 27.
So significant investment going into to help that that that capital challenge and to deliver inclusion bases, of course.
11:41
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Giving way. The government is currently piloting assistive technology lending libraries. Will the minister update us on that trial and whether it can be expanded to more rural areas like Somerset that do not have mayors? So kids in Somerset do not have to miss out, and schools are not getting ripped off by private companies with assistive technology.
11:42
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Minister thank you. And we absolutely recognise the importance of assistive technology in the system. And I know my hon. Friend has raised this and championed this, which I really appreciate. I will give him a proper update on how it's going and and plans. So I will follow up on , on that. And then the next point I wanted to make was the importance of partnership. So my hon. Friend talked about how parents offering, having to navigate a myriad of different services and, and bouncing between different services. So one of the key things we want to deliver both in the in the immediate term and how we're kind of asking local areas to strengthen their partnership arrangements across health, education, local authorities, but also with parents and young people, but also long term is to have much stronger partnership arrangements in place so that whether whatever, whichever stage a child is at, whether it's the need for early intervention or more specialist support, that that comes in a timely manner and without a fight.
Yes.
Yes.
11:44
11:44
11:44
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Learning paddocks, which is a specialist provision who have been working very hard to get themselves set up facing many boundaries. Barriers to accessing being able to be a specialist provider of care. And when we're working in areas like mine with huge transport problems, how is the government going to work with providers when mainstream isn't the right place to support those like learning paddocks?
11:45
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Thank you. So we we have an expert panel that are developing at the moment, a set of specialist provision packages. And they will set out the, the what we expect from settings to meet a whole range of needs and they'll be consulted on. And those the expectation will be as local authorities will need to commission against all of those specialist provision packages. So the full range of need should be met within a local area. So that will be make it much easier for providers, for local authorities to, to be able to, to really understand what is expected of them and to be able to provide those packages, but also critically, when a child requires that support, that they're not having to wait for it, but it is commissioned and it is available in that area.
And at the moment we see a huge postcode lottery with some support available in some areas and some completely absent. And that's why we see some of those long distances that we've heard about that my hon. Friend want to give away.
And at the moment we see a huge postcode lottery with some support available in some areas and some completely absent. And that's why we see some of those long distances that we've heard about that my hon. Friend want to give away.
11:47
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
I thank you for giving way back to what she was saying about partnership working. She'll have heard my friend the hon. Member for South West Norfolk, talk about the health visitors, talk about rurality schools, transport, the impact on work. That's five departments I know. In a previous life, she and I met and discussed the need to shake things up in Westminster and rewire government. So it works for people and not within silos. Does she agree with me that this is a classic example of how government needs to change the way it works, so that it can serve humans and not processes?
11:48
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
Yeah, I absolutely agree. And in a previous life, I led a council and I used to sit with frustration and say, does anyone in government talk to each other? Because often you saw very siloed decisions coming, coming forward. And I think that, you know, people do not, you know, their life is not split into different government departments. They live in communities. They, they, they, they travel. They need health care. They work. All of those things come together. So I think it's really critical that we are working together and send as an area where there was a promise in the 2014 reforms of that greater integration.
But I think the experience that we've heard is that that promise hasn't been delivered, and we are absolutely determined and working very closely, particularly with with health colleagues across government, to make sure that we are that we are driving that integration and that families are getting a seamless experience. And it's a really important point. And I wanted also to respond to to the points that have been made about distance travelled. I think that there are two really important things to say here. The first is that one of the really important ways to reduce that is to make sure that there is the right provision available in local areas.
So whether that's the greater rollout of inclusion bases or the development of
But I think the experience that we've heard is that that promise hasn't been delivered, and we are absolutely determined and working very closely, particularly with with health colleagues across government, to make sure that we are that we are driving that integration and that families are getting a seamless experience. And it's a really important point. And I wanted also to respond to to the points that have been made about distance travelled. I think that there are two really important things to say here. The first is that one of the really important ways to reduce that is to make sure that there is the right provision available in local areas.
So whether that's the greater rollout of inclusion bases or the development of
11:49
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
In local areas. So whether that's the greater rollout of inclusion bases or the development of specialist provision packages, which make really clear what should be available in local areas, we expect to see a much greater range of provision available in local places, but we also recognise that, you know, the nature of rural communities is that there is sometimes greater distance travelled. And that's why within the changes that have been made to home, to school transport, there is now a separate formula that includes distance travel as one of the key parts of, of that formula. And, and that, you know, I think is a really important part of the system.
So I want to really thank everyone who's contributed to this debate. I know how important these issues are. And when we're talking about our aim that everyone will get early intervention, that there won't be a postcode lottery, that people will get the support they need wherever they live. That requires something, you know, really focused in rural communities, really understanding the challenges, the specific challenges that are faced. And that's why we're really committed to testing and learning, to looking at those specific challenges, to understanding the data and the disparities and working alongside local authorities to, to make sure that that national vision is one that is felt by, by families and communities everywhere.
And I really would welcome the members here to stay involved in that conversation, to keep working with us, to keep sharing feedback as experts at hand rolls out as the inclusion mainstream fund rolls out, as teacher training rolls out, you know, the challenges and different issues you're seeing in your area so we can respond to them.
So I want to really thank everyone who's contributed to this debate. I know how important these issues are. And when we're talking about our aim that everyone will get early intervention, that there won't be a postcode lottery, that people will get the support they need wherever they live. That requires something, you know, really focused in rural communities, really understanding the challenges, the specific challenges that are faced. And that's why we're really committed to testing and learning, to looking at those specific challenges, to understanding the data and the disparities and working alongside local authorities to, to make sure that that national vision is one that is felt by, by families and communities everywhere.
And I really would welcome the members here to stay involved in that conversation, to keep working with us, to keep sharing feedback as experts at hand rolls out as the inclusion mainstream fund rolls out, as teacher training rolls out, you know, the challenges and different issues you're seeing in your area so we can respond to them.
11:49
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
I thank the minister. I wonder whether she's considered the role of parent carers and the need for their care, their needs as parent carers to be assessed. We know that in more rural areas, access to mental health services are worse. Siobhan O'Dwyer said that 41% of parent carers have had suicidal thoughts, and that's going to be more acute in a rural area. Is that a consideration for the government's work?
11:49
11:49
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Absolutely. And it's why, through the best start hubs, we have said that every best start hub needs to have a lead send practitioner and investing 200 million to support the rollout of send support through Best Start Hubs, working really closely with parent carer forums around the support for parents. But. And we are working. We're talking about that kind of integration. One of the other big, big programmes we've been rolling out is Family First Partnerships, which is rebuilding the early help support for parents, and we want to make sure that those family first partnerships are working with experts at hand, are working with schools, so parents and families are getting the support they need at the same time as as young people are.
So I think that is a really important part of bringing all of this together and looking at at all of the investments and making sure that they work on on the ground. So a massive thank you for for the debate. And thank you, Sir Desmond, for for your chat up.
So I think that is a really important part of bringing all of this together and looking at at all of the investments and making sure that they work on on the ground. So a massive thank you for for the debate. And thank you, Sir Desmond, for for your chat up.
11:49
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The question is that this House has considered send provision in rural communities, as many as are of that opinion, say I. Of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Order! Order! The sitting is suspended until 2:30 o'clock. Otezla. Right. Order. Order! Good afternoon. And I call Chris Hinchcliffe to move the motion.
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:30
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
And I must begin by declaring an interest as the chair of the all party parliamentary group for Council and Social Housing, which shelter expertly provide. The secretariat for the Appg is currently undertaking an inquiry into the barriers to council house building and the solutions required. So while I don't want to overly pre-empt our findings today, I do want to take the opportunity to invite the minister to attend the launch of the report from that inquiry, and I invite honourable members across the chamber today to attend the evidence sessions we are currently holding, including that taking place shortly after this debate.
Chair, given the imminent budget, I won't ask the Minister for lots of spending commitments today. Instead, I would be grateful if the minister could answer just one specific question. Will he put a number on what is meant by the biggest council house building programme since the end of the post war period? I think we would all be interested to know what precise target the government is setting itself. Moving on, chair, I'm keen to be optimistic and positive in my contribution today, so I will get the polemical bits out of the way first. There is, I am afraid, a nasty strain of ideology infecting political circles these days that seems to think of our fellow citizens as a lump and mass of incorrigible misanthropes, motivated only by mercenary selfishness and having no care for the good of their wider community when it comes to housing and development.
That is certainly not my experience, and I think it says more about the miserablism of the so-called yimby movement than it does of those they accuse. There is no public support barrier to building high quality homes in the towns and villages in my constituency. Indeed, they are crying out for it. Rather, when the public tell us they do not want this particular rubbish. The problem is the rubbish, not the public, and it speaks gladly.
Give way.
Chair, given the imminent budget, I won't ask the Minister for lots of spending commitments today. Instead, I would be grateful if the minister could answer just one specific question. Will he put a number on what is meant by the biggest council house building programme since the end of the post war period? I think we would all be interested to know what precise target the government is setting itself. Moving on, chair, I'm keen to be optimistic and positive in my contribution today, so I will get the polemical bits out of the way first. There is, I am afraid, a nasty strain of ideology infecting political circles these days that seems to think of our fellow citizens as a lump and mass of incorrigible misanthropes, motivated only by mercenary selfishness and having no care for the good of their wider community when it comes to housing and development.
That is certainly not my experience, and I think it says more about the miserablism of the so-called yimby movement than it does of those they accuse. There is no public support barrier to building high quality homes in the towns and villages in my constituency. Indeed, they are crying out for it. Rather, when the public tell us they do not want this particular rubbish. The problem is the rubbish, not the public, and it speaks gladly.
Give way.
14:32
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Well, congratulations to my honourable friend for securing this vital debate. And he's right. People in Leeds and across the country know there is a council House crisis and they support, I believe, shelter's campaign for the government to make a National council house building mission, because building council houses not only provides homes, it's also a bit like rent controls, an intervention into the private market that can bring rents down because the private sector cannot solve the council house crisis, cannot solve the housing crisis.
My hon. Friend agree.
My hon. Friend agree.
14:32
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
The honourable member for his intervention, I completely agree. I think what we've seen for many years is the market cannot solve this problem, and in fact, it speaks to a rotten lack of ambition that the political response to children living in cramped, damp and overcrowded conditions has so often been to demand that we lower our expectations for the future, promising that the only way to get families out of temporary accommodation is to reduce insulation standards, concrete over the countryside and ignore risks like flooding and the lack of infrastructure. So then it might be more profitable for developers to cast their crumbs down to our communities.
What a tragic irony that we are told the only way to rescue families from low quality emergency housing is by lowering the standards of the permanent homes we build instead. The problem was never that our standards were too high. It was the surrender to neoliberal capitalism and the lack of political will that accompanied its hollowing out of our state's capacity to function. That stopped the building of decent, affordable homes at scale. Secondly, I also think it is worth paraphrasing Kane's early on in this debate by reiterating that claiming it doesn't pay to house the people of this country in affordable, high quality housing is one of the most dismal notions ever advanced by modern economics.
We have the technology and the capacity to house everyone safely, comfortably and in beautiful surroundings. If private capital says it is not profitable enough to do so, the problem is with the economic model, not with the hope for our nation's future. Chair, having dispensed with those points. Before we get to the question of how, I do also want to briefly dwell on the possibilities of a future in which the Labour government achieves its goals on council housing. When we debate this subject, it so often focuses, and rightly so, on the immediate crisis and urgent need that council housing can alleviate.
But the power of council housing to transform the future of our society does not end there. I am sure every. I'll gladly give way.
What a tragic irony that we are told the only way to rescue families from low quality emergency housing is by lowering the standards of the permanent homes we build instead. The problem was never that our standards were too high. It was the surrender to neoliberal capitalism and the lack of political will that accompanied its hollowing out of our state's capacity to function. That stopped the building of decent, affordable homes at scale. Secondly, I also think it is worth paraphrasing Kane's early on in this debate by reiterating that claiming it doesn't pay to house the people of this country in affordable, high quality housing is one of the most dismal notions ever advanced by modern economics.
We have the technology and the capacity to house everyone safely, comfortably and in beautiful surroundings. If private capital says it is not profitable enough to do so, the problem is with the economic model, not with the hope for our nation's future. Chair, having dispensed with those points. Before we get to the question of how, I do also want to briefly dwell on the possibilities of a future in which the Labour government achieves its goals on council housing. When we debate this subject, it so often focuses, and rightly so, on the immediate crisis and urgent need that council housing can alleviate.
But the power of council housing to transform the future of our society does not end there. I am sure every. I'll gladly give way.
14:34
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I'm very grateful to my honourable friend not only for securing this timely and very important debate, but also for an excellent speech that he is making. Whilst I know he briefly touches on the urgent need and moves on to the longer term situation, would he agree with me that in places like Bradford, where we currently have 25,000 people on our waiting lists, often families with young children, often living in poverty, living in those same squalid, damp conditions that he mentions. There is that immediate, urgent need. And therefore, as well as asking the minister how many.
14:35
14:35
14:36
14:36
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Here's my hon. Friend is absolutely right about the immediate need, and I will come back to that later on in my speech. But the point I was going to make was, I'm sure, and it's slightly incongruous, but I'm sure that every member in this room often visits schools in their constituency as I do. And when I see the potential in pupils like those little Hadham primary school where I was last, I can't help but contemplate what future we are building for them. If that future is one in which hundreds of thousands of council homes have been built in every community, and I do mean in our most rural villages as well as our greatest cities.
For people of every background, for doctors and academics, farm workers, bus drivers, bin men and bar staff, then what our country can offer them will be far greater than the prospects adulthood currently holds. I won't give way at this point. I think I better make progress. Chair housing is by far and away the most depressive, anxiety inducing and life stunting part of the cost of living crisis in this country and the price of rent or a mortgage leaves millions struggling to make the bills add up at the end of the month, and millions more only just staying afloat with little left over to experience life's other possibility.
If we build enough council housing, end the years and years wasted on waiting lists, ensuring every child has somewhere safe to learn and play, and also make it a normal part of life again, providing an anchor on housing costs for our whole society, then our economy, society and culture will be very much healthier than they are today. Let us briefly imagine a boy or girl in a primary school classroom today. If when they reach adulthood, they are able to begin an independent life without shelling out upwards of a third or even half of their salary for a roof over their heads, imagine what this would mean for our high streets, coffee shops, pubs, clubs, bars and restaurants in a future with plentiful council housing.
When genuinely affordable housing is recognised as a right of our citizens, not a rare collector's item. No one, no matter how wealthy, will be able to buy up property and charge others extortionate rents for somewhere to live. And with that model of economic vampirism finally laid to rest, billions of pounds currently sucked out of our local economies will begin to flow through our independent shops once again. I suppose that this young man or woman have artistic talents. They want to make their contribution to our society. With our current lack of council housing, how many of us are really have the opportunity to explore talents and abilities that aren't immediately able to help pay rent with plentiful, genuinely affordable homes, so that covering the cost of life's essentials is no longer such an uphill battle.
Who knows how many more McCartney's we might have, or Joan Armatrading's or Michaela Coel's chair delivering council housing is about more than just bricks and mortar. It is about unleashing creativity across Great Britain and re-establishing our place as the world's pre-eminent cultural superpower. I better make progress. I'm sorry. And perhaps most importantly of all, if we succeed in delivering council housing in every community, we will achieve one of the most important steps in fighting the atomisation of our society that brings with it so many social ills. If today's children are able to put down roots wherever they are growing up, should should they want to, with no need to move away in search of prospects in a home of their own, then friendships forged at school no longer need be looked back on with regret as connections that once meant the world but could not survive splintering imposed by a lack of homes for the young.
Similarly, if the next generation is able to grow into adulthood alongside their parents, supporting them through older life will be a natural part of everything we do, not something we struggle to find time for, with the constant sense that we are left snatching for precious moments all too quickly passing by. And if our imaginary hero should fall in love and think about children of their own. If we deliver council houses now, we can hope for a future in which the choice is simply whether a couple wishes to start a family, not whether they can afford one, and parents will be able to take the time out of employment to raise their child and share all their first memories, rather than living on borrowed time as both mount up.
In short, delivering the council homes our country needs to transform our housing market will make possible a society in which all the parts of life that really matter can finally come ahead of the relentless and disproportionate financial costs of housing that we see today. How, then, to realise these hopes? First, building a new generation of council housing is being held back by a pile of largely fictitious debt created by central government. We cannot ask local councils to deliver the homes of tomorrow while burdened by a model that failed yesterday. Armed with even the best intentions, councils remain suffocated by housing revenue, account debt and counselling.
HRA debt could deliver over 280,000 additional social rent homes in the next decade, and to reverse decades of retreat from public house building and restore the public sector as the driving force in our housing market. New funding must come with new powers for local democracy. If we recognise social housing delivers a public good, its provision cannot be put on a playing field on a level playing field, with speculative land promoters looking to make a quick buck, or beholden to the supposed right of wealthy landowners to inflate the value of their land. To extract more from the public purse, councils need to be able to assemble all the land we need for developments large and small, including where it is already optioned, and to acquire land at existing use prices so that the so that council house building is viable in every part of the country.
Above all, we must invest in our councils institutional capacity to deliver the housing we need, even with the fairest possible wind. And even if all the economically destabilizing military conflicts around the world came to a close. The truth is that if the Chancellor showered every local authority with all the funding they could want, that the expertise and institutional knowledge to use it is no longer there to deliver the council housing that every MP I suspect in this room wants to see. We need to attract the best and brightest in the country to working in our local authorities, whether that is as an elected member or as an officer.
We need to restore the standing of our underfunded, undervalued and overworked councils so that the whole country can see that a career in local government is the most tangible route to shaping the future of our nation. From town planning to architecture, design, ecology and construction standards, only the very best is good enough for our constituents and local councils. Must be where you go to excel. And in our determination to remove the institutional barriers holding back council house building, we cannot undervalue solutions to get families out of temporary accommodation and off waiting lists. Now , the Prime Minister was right in his recent conference address to set out plans to take control of empty properties.
We should back councils to acquire neglected and empty properties at scale, and we've seen throughout our modern history, in times of crises, our citizens are conscripted for the common good, where housing lies dormant during an emergency. We must be willing to take the same approach to property. In fact, the truth is, from the standing start we have inherited where local authorities like mine haven't built a single council house in decades. New house, new house building will take years to ramp up. But the housing crisis is a crisis that requires urgent resolution. So we must make acquisition of existing properties to rebuild our council housing stock as important a part of the government's mission as new builds.
With the housing markets in the doldrums, we have a much needed opportunity for councils to purchase and re let at affordable rates. Hundreds of thousands of homes across the country to bring down waiting lists now that are, of course, upfront costs, legislative hurdles, and I expect a mouthful of teething problems. But it's the bitter medicine we must take today to stop the bleeding of public money to those profiting from the broken system, because we must never forget that the government's £39 billion investment in affordable social housing is dwarfed by the £70 billion the government is set to spend over the next five years on housing support to subsidise the gap between the rents private landlords charge and what tenants can afford.
The need for housing is there. We're already paying for it. The only question before us is whether we turn that spending into a lasting public asset, or keep paying over and over again for failure.
For people of every background, for doctors and academics, farm workers, bus drivers, bin men and bar staff, then what our country can offer them will be far greater than the prospects adulthood currently holds. I won't give way at this point. I think I better make progress. Chair housing is by far and away the most depressive, anxiety inducing and life stunting part of the cost of living crisis in this country and the price of rent or a mortgage leaves millions struggling to make the bills add up at the end of the month, and millions more only just staying afloat with little left over to experience life's other possibility.
If we build enough council housing, end the years and years wasted on waiting lists, ensuring every child has somewhere safe to learn and play, and also make it a normal part of life again, providing an anchor on housing costs for our whole society, then our economy, society and culture will be very much healthier than they are today. Let us briefly imagine a boy or girl in a primary school classroom today. If when they reach adulthood, they are able to begin an independent life without shelling out upwards of a third or even half of their salary for a roof over their heads, imagine what this would mean for our high streets, coffee shops, pubs, clubs, bars and restaurants in a future with plentiful council housing.
When genuinely affordable housing is recognised as a right of our citizens, not a rare collector's item. No one, no matter how wealthy, will be able to buy up property and charge others extortionate rents for somewhere to live. And with that model of economic vampirism finally laid to rest, billions of pounds currently sucked out of our local economies will begin to flow through our independent shops once again. I suppose that this young man or woman have artistic talents. They want to make their contribution to our society. With our current lack of council housing, how many of us are really have the opportunity to explore talents and abilities that aren't immediately able to help pay rent with plentiful, genuinely affordable homes, so that covering the cost of life's essentials is no longer such an uphill battle.
Who knows how many more McCartney's we might have, or Joan Armatrading's or Michaela Coel's chair delivering council housing is about more than just bricks and mortar. It is about unleashing creativity across Great Britain and re-establishing our place as the world's pre-eminent cultural superpower. I better make progress. I'm sorry. And perhaps most importantly of all, if we succeed in delivering council housing in every community, we will achieve one of the most important steps in fighting the atomisation of our society that brings with it so many social ills. If today's children are able to put down roots wherever they are growing up, should should they want to, with no need to move away in search of prospects in a home of their own, then friendships forged at school no longer need be looked back on with regret as connections that once meant the world but could not survive splintering imposed by a lack of homes for the young.
Similarly, if the next generation is able to grow into adulthood alongside their parents, supporting them through older life will be a natural part of everything we do, not something we struggle to find time for, with the constant sense that we are left snatching for precious moments all too quickly passing by. And if our imaginary hero should fall in love and think about children of their own. If we deliver council houses now, we can hope for a future in which the choice is simply whether a couple wishes to start a family, not whether they can afford one, and parents will be able to take the time out of employment to raise their child and share all their first memories, rather than living on borrowed time as both mount up.
In short, delivering the council homes our country needs to transform our housing market will make possible a society in which all the parts of life that really matter can finally come ahead of the relentless and disproportionate financial costs of housing that we see today. How, then, to realise these hopes? First, building a new generation of council housing is being held back by a pile of largely fictitious debt created by central government. We cannot ask local councils to deliver the homes of tomorrow while burdened by a model that failed yesterday. Armed with even the best intentions, councils remain suffocated by housing revenue, account debt and counselling.
HRA debt could deliver over 280,000 additional social rent homes in the next decade, and to reverse decades of retreat from public house building and restore the public sector as the driving force in our housing market. New funding must come with new powers for local democracy. If we recognise social housing delivers a public good, its provision cannot be put on a playing field on a level playing field, with speculative land promoters looking to make a quick buck, or beholden to the supposed right of wealthy landowners to inflate the value of their land. To extract more from the public purse, councils need to be able to assemble all the land we need for developments large and small, including where it is already optioned, and to acquire land at existing use prices so that the so that council house building is viable in every part of the country.
Above all, we must invest in our councils institutional capacity to deliver the housing we need, even with the fairest possible wind. And even if all the economically destabilizing military conflicts around the world came to a close. The truth is that if the Chancellor showered every local authority with all the funding they could want, that the expertise and institutional knowledge to use it is no longer there to deliver the council housing that every MP I suspect in this room wants to see. We need to attract the best and brightest in the country to working in our local authorities, whether that is as an elected member or as an officer.
We need to restore the standing of our underfunded, undervalued and overworked councils so that the whole country can see that a career in local government is the most tangible route to shaping the future of our nation. From town planning to architecture, design, ecology and construction standards, only the very best is good enough for our constituents and local councils. Must be where you go to excel. And in our determination to remove the institutional barriers holding back council house building, we cannot undervalue solutions to get families out of temporary accommodation and off waiting lists. Now , the Prime Minister was right in his recent conference address to set out plans to take control of empty properties.
We should back councils to acquire neglected and empty properties at scale, and we've seen throughout our modern history, in times of crises, our citizens are conscripted for the common good, where housing lies dormant during an emergency. We must be willing to take the same approach to property. In fact, the truth is, from the standing start we have inherited where local authorities like mine haven't built a single council house in decades. New house, new house building will take years to ramp up. But the housing crisis is a crisis that requires urgent resolution. So we must make acquisition of existing properties to rebuild our council housing stock as important a part of the government's mission as new builds.
With the housing markets in the doldrums, we have a much needed opportunity for councils to purchase and re let at affordable rates. Hundreds of thousands of homes across the country to bring down waiting lists now that are, of course, upfront costs, legislative hurdles, and I expect a mouthful of teething problems. But it's the bitter medicine we must take today to stop the bleeding of public money to those profiting from the broken system, because we must never forget that the government's £39 billion investment in affordable social housing is dwarfed by the £70 billion the government is set to spend over the next five years on housing support to subsidise the gap between the rents private landlords charge and what tenants can afford.
The need for housing is there. We're already paying for it. The only question before us is whether we turn that spending into a lasting public asset, or keep paying over and over again for failure.
14:44
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
To the honourable gentleman, can I remind all backbench colleagues you should continue to stand up and down so we know you still want to be called. You can see there's a great deal of interest. I'm going to suggest that if we can all keep to around about 2.5 minutes, we will get everybody in. And the question is that this House has considered the delivery of council housing. Jim Shannon.
14:45
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. A real pleasure to serve on your ship. And a big thank you to the honourable member for North East Hertfordshire for raising was an extremely pressing issue. And the fact that so many honourable members are here is an indication of that. Some more than 1.3 million households in England are on the waiting list for social housing. It's been estimated it will take more than a century to clear the waiting list in England alone. If the speed of delivering new social homes is delivered at the rate that it's being delivered currently, for every social home delivered this year, there was an average of 110 households still waiting.
And despite these shocking figures, in 20% of council areas across England, not a single social home has been built in the last two years, and 30% of areas, fewer than ten, have been built. So it's a massive issue. We are seeing the effects of a lack of social housing on private rental properties. As in 2025, rents reached the highest level on record, amounting to a staggering 36.1% of average earnings. Rented accommodation out of the pockets of money . Buying a house. A dream for so many as well. So what? What does this do? It perpetuates a devastating cycle as wages fail to keep pace with rising living costs, including energy bills and food prices, pushing more people into poverty and increasing demand for our very limited social housing.
A quick perspective on Northern Ireland they add to the debate. Mr. Chairman, northern social housing is supplied by the housing sector. They face similar issues as councils in England and as of June this year, there were some 50,000 households on the social housing waiting list, with no existing housing executive tenancy. For those who are already on housing properties, the wait can be long for a transfer when their needs do evolve. In August 2026, it was estimated some almost 800 households had spent over a decade on the waiting list for transfer, so they. If there's a light at the end of the tunnel, it'd be great to have it, but unfortunately we're not seeing that in real consequences .
As much like mine in Strangford, it has been found that the allocations of rural social homes have not kept pace with the rising demand . Demand, which has been particularly acute in rural areas, face hidden housing, need, older homes and increased exposure to fuel poverty. This investment, Mr. Chairman, is urgently needed to end the distress and investment in social housing, recognising that this will indeed deliver long term benefits and this investment is currently needed to end the distress and uncertainty facing families left in limbo waiting for a home.
Thank you.
And despite these shocking figures, in 20% of council areas across England, not a single social home has been built in the last two years, and 30% of areas, fewer than ten, have been built. So it's a massive issue. We are seeing the effects of a lack of social housing on private rental properties. As in 2025, rents reached the highest level on record, amounting to a staggering 36.1% of average earnings. Rented accommodation out of the pockets of money . Buying a house. A dream for so many as well. So what? What does this do? It perpetuates a devastating cycle as wages fail to keep pace with rising living costs, including energy bills and food prices, pushing more people into poverty and increasing demand for our very limited social housing.
A quick perspective on Northern Ireland they add to the debate. Mr. Chairman, northern social housing is supplied by the housing sector. They face similar issues as councils in England and as of June this year, there were some 50,000 households on the social housing waiting list, with no existing housing executive tenancy. For those who are already on housing properties, the wait can be long for a transfer when their needs do evolve. In August 2026, it was estimated some almost 800 households had spent over a decade on the waiting list for transfer, so they. If there's a light at the end of the tunnel, it'd be great to have it, but unfortunately we're not seeing that in real consequences .
As much like mine in Strangford, it has been found that the allocations of rural social homes have not kept pace with the rising demand . Demand, which has been particularly acute in rural areas, face hidden housing, need, older homes and increased exposure to fuel poverty. This investment, Mr. Chairman, is urgently needed to end the distress and investment in social housing, recognising that this will indeed deliver long term benefits and this investment is currently needed to end the distress and uncertainty facing families left in limbo waiting for a home.
Thank you.
14:47
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you, Mr.. Chairman, and I congratulate the honourable, Honourable Member for North East Hertfordshire for securing this important debate. Chair, if you track the history of council housing in Amber Valley, you'll see a story that I fear will sound awful to too familiar for members across this House. It's a story of decline, neglect and short sighted political choices whose consequences are still being felt today. In 1985, there were more than 5000 council houses in Amber Valley. By 2003, there was just one remaining. Why was that, chair, you may ask? Well, during that period, a conservative led borough council sold off virtually the entire stock and chair, make no mistake, this was not because the need for affordable housing had disappeared, nor because it represented some great act of financial prudence.
Because, to add insult to injury, these houses were sold off to private ownership at an estimated one ninth of market value. Now, assets built up for generations, paid for by local people and intended to provide secure and affordable homes were effectively given away. But when Labour took control of the borough council in 2023, councillors inherited not only a shortage of council homes but the legacy of decades of of in which the council's capacity to deliver had been hollowed out. It was not just the housing stock that was gone, but as a result, the first task of facing the Labour led borough Council was to rebuild the council's ability to build homes.
It had to restore confidence, capacity and the mechanisms of delivering before bricks could be laid and properties acquired. Now council officers have reskilled themselves admirably, and since 2023, 32 council houses have been acquired, with plans to deliver a further 33 in the pipeline. Now those numbers sound modest, but they represent the hard work of rebuilding a housing programme from almost nothing. And, more importantly, the council is now in a position to look beyond individual acquisitions towards larger scale regeneration and housebuilding. After years of stagnation, Amber Valley has adopted a local Plan for the first time in two decades, and it includes proposals that could deliver up to 180 new council homes on land around Aldridge Lane, while the council is also working closely with East Midlands Mayor Claire Ward to unlock brownfield sites for future development.
So now there is real momentum. A Labour led council has begun rebuilding the stock it had lost. So with that in mind, can the Minister outline what support the government will provide to councils such as Amber Valley that have demonstrated both the ambition and the capacity to deliver new council housing? And can he outline how the government will help authorities scale up those ambitions so that more families can access the homes that they need? Thank you.
Because, to add insult to injury, these houses were sold off to private ownership at an estimated one ninth of market value. Now, assets built up for generations, paid for by local people and intended to provide secure and affordable homes were effectively given away. But when Labour took control of the borough council in 2023, councillors inherited not only a shortage of council homes but the legacy of decades of of in which the council's capacity to deliver had been hollowed out. It was not just the housing stock that was gone, but as a result, the first task of facing the Labour led borough Council was to rebuild the council's ability to build homes.
It had to restore confidence, capacity and the mechanisms of delivering before bricks could be laid and properties acquired. Now council officers have reskilled themselves admirably, and since 2023, 32 council houses have been acquired, with plans to deliver a further 33 in the pipeline. Now those numbers sound modest, but they represent the hard work of rebuilding a housing programme from almost nothing. And, more importantly, the council is now in a position to look beyond individual acquisitions towards larger scale regeneration and housebuilding. After years of stagnation, Amber Valley has adopted a local Plan for the first time in two decades, and it includes proposals that could deliver up to 180 new council homes on land around Aldridge Lane, while the council is also working closely with East Midlands Mayor Claire Ward to unlock brownfield sites for future development.
So now there is real momentum. A Labour led council has begun rebuilding the stock it had lost. So with that in mind, can the Minister outline what support the government will provide to councils such as Amber Valley that have demonstrated both the ambition and the capacity to deliver new council housing? And can he outline how the government will help authorities scale up those ambitions so that more families can access the homes that they need? Thank you.
14:50
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Britain's housing crisis did not happen by accident. It is the direct result of political choices that placed profit over people, and for decades, governments have chosen to allow the stock of genuine council housing to decline, whilst expecting the private market to pick up the pieces. And it clearly hasn't. Across our region of Manchester and Tameside, 3180 households are in temporary accommodation, including over 5000 children and kids should be thinking about whether they're having their favourite meal for tea, not how they will crowd into accommodation unfit for purpose or facing the prospect of sleeping rough. And to pay for this temporary accommodation.
Councils have spent almost £3 billion in the past year, a staggering increase of 88% in just five years, and that is money that is going straight into the pockets of private landlords, often to banks and big corporations that call property investments assets rather than homes. And I see what this means for people in Gorton, Denton Abbey, hey, Burnage, Longsight, Levenshulme. Every single day, domestic abuse survivors pay an eye watering private rents whilst sat on waiting lists. Despite being assessed as a priority. Hard working young people giving up on the dream of ever owning a home of their own, and elderly people who know that they will simply not be able to afford their rent once they retire and the Green Party is clear, we need a new generation of council housing that matches the scale of the challenge before us, and that starts with putting an end to the loss of housing stock.
Right to buy has removed hundreds of thousands of homes from the social sector, which are often now being rented out by private landlords. And to be clear, I do not blame anyone who has bought their council homes. The problem is with the policy that allowed affordable homes to be sold off without replacing them. But protecting existing stock is only part of the answer. Councils have to be given the tools and resources to build their own homes, and to purchase privately owned ones as well. It means making better use of public land and helping councils acquire the hundreds of thousands of long term empty homes that should be brought back into public use.
The government can continue to kick the can down the road by spending billions to manage the ever worsening consequences of the housing crisis, or they can invest in solving it. My message to the minister is simple stop the loss of social housing. Allow councils to buy homes back into public ownership, build council homes at scale and bring empty homes back into use, introduce rent controls and give councils the powers they need to lead the way. Because every family deserves more than a roof over their head. They deserve a place to belong, and council housing remains one of the most effective ways that government has of making this a reality.
Councils have spent almost £3 billion in the past year, a staggering increase of 88% in just five years, and that is money that is going straight into the pockets of private landlords, often to banks and big corporations that call property investments assets rather than homes. And I see what this means for people in Gorton, Denton Abbey, hey, Burnage, Longsight, Levenshulme. Every single day, domestic abuse survivors pay an eye watering private rents whilst sat on waiting lists. Despite being assessed as a priority. Hard working young people giving up on the dream of ever owning a home of their own, and elderly people who know that they will simply not be able to afford their rent once they retire and the Green Party is clear, we need a new generation of council housing that matches the scale of the challenge before us, and that starts with putting an end to the loss of housing stock.
Right to buy has removed hundreds of thousands of homes from the social sector, which are often now being rented out by private landlords. And to be clear, I do not blame anyone who has bought their council homes. The problem is with the policy that allowed affordable homes to be sold off without replacing them. But protecting existing stock is only part of the answer. Councils have to be given the tools and resources to build their own homes, and to purchase privately owned ones as well. It means making better use of public land and helping councils acquire the hundreds of thousands of long term empty homes that should be brought back into public use.
The government can continue to kick the can down the road by spending billions to manage the ever worsening consequences of the housing crisis, or they can invest in solving it. My message to the minister is simple stop the loss of social housing. Allow councils to buy homes back into public ownership, build council homes at scale and bring empty homes back into use, introduce rent controls and give councils the powers they need to lead the way. Because every family deserves more than a roof over their head. They deserve a place to belong, and council housing remains one of the most effective ways that government has of making this a reality.
14:53
14:53
14:53
14:53
14:53
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Singing the praises of what we've done in my constituency, because I think Labour's record at Cannock Chase District Council shows what can be achieved when a council is ambitious about providing the homes its residents need. After more than 30 years without building new council homes. The last Labour administration, which I was proud to be part of as deputy leader, got building again. It started with the most unglamorous of sites, old garage blocks that were becoming increasingly difficult to rent out, and many had turned into magnets for anti-social behaviour and drug dealing. So we turned them into new homes, filling some of the biggest gaps in our housing stock.
We also partnered with Lovell Homes to redevelop the former Elgar school site in Rugeley, where 50 new homes, 58 new homes have now been delivered, including 29 council houses. The ribbon may have been cut under reform, but the groundwork was done under Labour. And that brings me to the government's plans to help councils do more because in Cannock Chase a lack of ambition was never the problem. Finding affordable finance was. That's why I welcome the extension of preferential public Works loan board rates, which will help make the numbers stack up for councils looking to invest in new homes.
I also welcome the Council House Building Support Fund, because councils need the right people and expertise to develop schemes, build pipelines of projects and put together strong bids for funding, something that my council found that we often missed out, and councils of other similar sizes were getting funding awarded, and I hope that my district council will make full use of that opportunity. I also want to touch on empty homes, something that two constituents have raised with me just last week. One who is concerned about the number of greenbelt sites having to be released, and another who is trying to get on the housing ladder very much welcomed the upcoming your first Home scheme announced by the Prime Minister, but felt that bringing empty homes back into use should also be part of the answer.
So I welcome the government's boost to the powers that councils can use to tackle long term empty properties and encourage cannot chase District Council again to make full use of them, including with two semi-detached homes on Poplar Street in Norton Canes that have stood empty for many, many years. I'd also be interested to hear from the minister whether there's scope to take the number of long term empty homes into greater account when housing targets are calculated. And finally, I welcome the government's plans to tighten Right to buy, because we need to make sure that the council houses we build today remain available to people who need them well into the future.
But as we make it easier for councils to build again, I hope that we can gradually work towards ending the right to buy altogether and protect that housing stock for the long term, because that's ultimately what this debate is all about. Sir Jeremy, making sure people have access to a decent, secure and genuinely affordable home, whether that means building on a neglected garage site, regenerating a former school or bringing empty property back into use. Cannock Chase Labour has shown that councils can deliver, and I hope the government's measures will give more councils the means and confidence to do so in future.
We also partnered with Lovell Homes to redevelop the former Elgar school site in Rugeley, where 50 new homes, 58 new homes have now been delivered, including 29 council houses. The ribbon may have been cut under reform, but the groundwork was done under Labour. And that brings me to the government's plans to help councils do more because in Cannock Chase a lack of ambition was never the problem. Finding affordable finance was. That's why I welcome the extension of preferential public Works loan board rates, which will help make the numbers stack up for councils looking to invest in new homes.
I also welcome the Council House Building Support Fund, because councils need the right people and expertise to develop schemes, build pipelines of projects and put together strong bids for funding, something that my council found that we often missed out, and councils of other similar sizes were getting funding awarded, and I hope that my district council will make full use of that opportunity. I also want to touch on empty homes, something that two constituents have raised with me just last week. One who is concerned about the number of greenbelt sites having to be released, and another who is trying to get on the housing ladder very much welcomed the upcoming your first Home scheme announced by the Prime Minister, but felt that bringing empty homes back into use should also be part of the answer.
So I welcome the government's boost to the powers that councils can use to tackle long term empty properties and encourage cannot chase District Council again to make full use of them, including with two semi-detached homes on Poplar Street in Norton Canes that have stood empty for many, many years. I'd also be interested to hear from the minister whether there's scope to take the number of long term empty homes into greater account when housing targets are calculated. And finally, I welcome the government's plans to tighten Right to buy, because we need to make sure that the council houses we build today remain available to people who need them well into the future.
But as we make it easier for councils to build again, I hope that we can gradually work towards ending the right to buy altogether and protect that housing stock for the long term, because that's ultimately what this debate is all about. Sir Jeremy, making sure people have access to a decent, secure and genuinely affordable home, whether that means building on a neglected garage site, regenerating a former school or bringing empty property back into use. Cannock Chase Labour has shown that councils can deliver, and I hope the government's measures will give more councils the means and confidence to do so in future.
14:56
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you. Whereas, Sir Jeremy, it's an honour to serve under your chairship. May I thank the member for North East Hertfordshire for securing this debate? The single greatest barrier to economic regeneration in Cornwall is housing insecurity and affordability. Employers cannot recruit and retain, young people can't remain in their home communities and families can't put down roots, not unless they have access to a secure, affordable home. And that's before we mention the key workers required to run civic society. Social housing accounts for less than 13% of Cornwall's entire housing stock, compared with 17% nationally. In peak season.
We have 24,000 short term lets across the Duchy, whilst 25,000 Cornish households sit on waiting lists on the housing register. Cornwall Council has, in fairness, delivered 850 homes in the last six years through its Housing Revenue Account and General Fund, but its capacity to go further is deeply constrained. So how do we revitalise social house building in Cornwall? First, ministers must review Cornwall Council's £90 million HRA debt arising from 2012 self-financing settlement. The assumptions underpinning the settlement no longer reflect today's pressures, and servicing that inherited debt diverts money from maintaining existing stock and rebuilding new homes.
Second, councils should receive the same access to low cost development finance as registered providers, refinancing £52 million of planned development. Borrowing at 0.1% could save Cornwall Council £19 million over 14 years, creating up to £1.8 million in annual revenue, headroom and support up to £41 million of additional borrowing for new homes. Thirdly, Cornwall must not be excluded from housing and investment powers because of our national minority status. A strategic partnership with Homes England could provide both the framework and funding needed to deliver social housing at scale. We will never be part of a mayoral combined authority because of our national minority status, and we cannot be discriminated against and locked out of that funding.
I ask their ministers, therefore, to review the HRA debt, extend low cost financing to councils and ensure Cornwall's immediate access to to a strategic place partnership with Homes England.
We have 24,000 short term lets across the Duchy, whilst 25,000 Cornish households sit on waiting lists on the housing register. Cornwall Council has, in fairness, delivered 850 homes in the last six years through its Housing Revenue Account and General Fund, but its capacity to go further is deeply constrained. So how do we revitalise social house building in Cornwall? First, ministers must review Cornwall Council's £90 million HRA debt arising from 2012 self-financing settlement. The assumptions underpinning the settlement no longer reflect today's pressures, and servicing that inherited debt diverts money from maintaining existing stock and rebuilding new homes.
Second, councils should receive the same access to low cost development finance as registered providers, refinancing £52 million of planned development. Borrowing at 0.1% could save Cornwall Council £19 million over 14 years, creating up to £1.8 million in annual revenue, headroom and support up to £41 million of additional borrowing for new homes. Thirdly, Cornwall must not be excluded from housing and investment powers because of our national minority status. A strategic partnership with Homes England could provide both the framework and funding needed to deliver social housing at scale. We will never be part of a mayoral combined authority because of our national minority status, and we cannot be discriminated against and locked out of that funding.
I ask their ministers, therefore, to review the HRA debt, extend low cost financing to councils and ensure Cornwall's immediate access to to a strategic place partnership with Homes England.
14:59
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. It's a pleasure to serve with you in the chair. I congratulate my hon. Friend the member for North East Hertfordshire on securing this important debate. Now, in Poole, we have one of the widest gaps between average wages and private rents in the country, and we suffer from a distinct lack of truly affordable housing for local people. House prices are 16% higher than the national figure and sit alongside rents far higher than other parts of the south west in the period 2024 to 25. My local council built just 89 affordable homes out of a total of 988 new properties.
Yet what we do have is a proliferation of luxury seafront apartments that local people are unable to afford. No wonder, then, that housing is the biggest issue raised by my constituents. Just 1% of properties in Poole are affordable to rent at the local rate of housing benefit. The freeze on local housing allowance is making rents unaffordable and needs to be urgently uprated, and we need to see a system of rent controls as a step towards easing the housing crisis.
Whilst the building begins, I will.
Yet what we do have is a proliferation of luxury seafront apartments that local people are unable to afford. No wonder, then, that housing is the biggest issue raised by my constituents. Just 1% of properties in Poole are affordable to rent at the local rate of housing benefit. The freeze on local housing allowance is making rents unaffordable and needs to be urgently uprated, and we need to see a system of rent controls as a step towards easing the housing crisis.
Whilst the building begins, I will.
15:00
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way, and he's giving an impassioned speech about Poole, which is really resonating with me as the MP for Chichester, because we see large scale developments in my constituency and they are delivering four and five luxury houses that are not affordable for most people. Does he agree with me that it's the middle income earners? A lot of our frontline services workers who can't afford private rents but also earn too much to be eligible for social housing. And that's why we need to see a number that the government is going to deliver of social homes across the whole country, so that developers can't renege on their commitments to actually deliver the homes that we're asking for.
15:01
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Yes, I thank the honourable member for her intervention. I mean, obviously, there's an issue about viability and the way in which developers use that to renege on early commitments that they've made to local authorities. There's also a key point that if we want the public sector and public services of the future, the workers who provide those services need to be able to afford to live in the area. So this is a circular argument that we need to keep making with the government . Building a new generation of council houses is therefore essential, Sir Jeremy, to ending the housing crisis.
Now, the 39 billion social and Affordable homes programme is welcome, but it doesn't go far enough. I think the government needs to be more creative when it comes to longer term financing of the sector. Now currently , £88 billion worth of UK pension funds is invested in fossil fuel companies. What better use could there be than to redirect that money into council housing? So let's be more ambitious in our growth agenda. Let's see the council house building programme as a key part of that ambition. Let's remove the historic debt from council's housing revenue accounts. As other members have mentioned, let's unlock low cost financing for council house building, enable councils to buy land at the right price to build social rent homes and bring empty properties back to life.
Let's give future generations the hope that was there after 1945, with a real housing revolution that offers everyone a place they can call home.
Now, the 39 billion social and Affordable homes programme is welcome, but it doesn't go far enough. I think the government needs to be more creative when it comes to longer term financing of the sector. Now currently , £88 billion worth of UK pension funds is invested in fossil fuel companies. What better use could there be than to redirect that money into council housing? So let's be more ambitious in our growth agenda. Let's see the council house building programme as a key part of that ambition. Let's remove the historic debt from council's housing revenue accounts. As other members have mentioned, let's unlock low cost financing for council house building, enable councils to buy land at the right price to build social rent homes and bring empty properties back to life.
Let's give future generations the hope that was there after 1945, with a real housing revolution that offers everyone a place they can call home.
15:03
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Thank you. It's an honour to serve you in the chair. South Devon is a beautiful part of the world, with its stunning coastline and idyllic rural villages. But scratch the surface and you will find a severe housing crisis, one that is literally eating away at the viability of our rural and coastal communities, threatening the very fabric of village life and turning parts of it into a theme park for the rich. Wages have fallen so far out of step with housing costs that local people are just being priced out of the very communities they grew up in.
I do welcome parts of the social housing bill, but it simply doesn't address the mechanics that are driving this crisis. Housing associations, they exist to provide homes for people who cannot afford to buy or rent on the open market. Yet a growing number of those homes are leaving the sector altogether. Since 2018, 19 English housing associations have sold more than 25,000 social and affordable homes to private buyers, and the pace is quickening. Last year's sales were the highest on record, up 89% in just two years. And in South Devon, towns like Salcombe and Dartmouth are among the most expensive places to live in the country.
Absolutely. They are full of second homes and short term lets, but they are not just holiday destinations. Real people live there, people who grew up there, people who work there, people who keep local essential services running and they are being priced out. One local housing association has sold 49 homes social homes since 2022, with the biggest losses in those high cost areas. In Kingswear, another beautiful village on the sea, more than a third of the social housing stock has vanished in just three years. The primary school has closed down and with so few affordable homes left, there is nothing to draw young families back to the area.
And when challenged, the local housing, the housing association points to replacement homes that it has bought in Sherford, which is a new town on the edge of Plymouth, 30 miles away. That's no comfort to a family forced out of of Kingswear. Now I set that against demand. Across the South Hams and Torbay, 3600 homes have been built in five years. Yet more than 2500 households remain in formal housing need. And that's because most of the new homes are sold at full market price, which is far beyond the reach of those who need them. And when a social rented home does come up, the competition is extreme.
119 bids for one home in Marlborough, 113 in Salcombe and 190 bids for one home in Brixham. Even so, the council has no say when a housing association decides to sell. So the bill introduces a new disposal notification requirements intended to give local authorities a better chance of acquiring homes that would otherwise leave the sector. That's a step in the right direction and I welcome it. But it's not going to work because being told a home is about to be sold is not the same as being able to do anything about it. The bill gives the council no first refusal, no priority and no right to step in ahead of a private buyer.
Now, just to finish briefly, I would like to shout out Clay Park in Dartington, where a community land trust is delivering 39 energy efficient homes, all for social rent for people with local connections. And this is absolutely what we need to see in all our villages, a few social homes in every village to keep them viable, to keep young families there, to allow older people to downsize. And we have to have the ability for community land trusts to be able to build more easily. So I ask the minister what provisions he has made in this bill to support the work of these much valued community land trusts.
I do welcome parts of the social housing bill, but it simply doesn't address the mechanics that are driving this crisis. Housing associations, they exist to provide homes for people who cannot afford to buy or rent on the open market. Yet a growing number of those homes are leaving the sector altogether. Since 2018, 19 English housing associations have sold more than 25,000 social and affordable homes to private buyers, and the pace is quickening. Last year's sales were the highest on record, up 89% in just two years. And in South Devon, towns like Salcombe and Dartmouth are among the most expensive places to live in the country.
Absolutely. They are full of second homes and short term lets, but they are not just holiday destinations. Real people live there, people who grew up there, people who work there, people who keep local essential services running and they are being priced out. One local housing association has sold 49 homes social homes since 2022, with the biggest losses in those high cost areas. In Kingswear, another beautiful village on the sea, more than a third of the social housing stock has vanished in just three years. The primary school has closed down and with so few affordable homes left, there is nothing to draw young families back to the area.
And when challenged, the local housing, the housing association points to replacement homes that it has bought in Sherford, which is a new town on the edge of Plymouth, 30 miles away. That's no comfort to a family forced out of of Kingswear. Now I set that against demand. Across the South Hams and Torbay, 3600 homes have been built in five years. Yet more than 2500 households remain in formal housing need. And that's because most of the new homes are sold at full market price, which is far beyond the reach of those who need them. And when a social rented home does come up, the competition is extreme.
119 bids for one home in Marlborough, 113 in Salcombe and 190 bids for one home in Brixham. Even so, the council has no say when a housing association decides to sell. So the bill introduces a new disposal notification requirements intended to give local authorities a better chance of acquiring homes that would otherwise leave the sector. That's a step in the right direction and I welcome it. But it's not going to work because being told a home is about to be sold is not the same as being able to do anything about it. The bill gives the council no first refusal, no priority and no right to step in ahead of a private buyer.
Now, just to finish briefly, I would like to shout out Clay Park in Dartington, where a community land trust is delivering 39 energy efficient homes, all for social rent for people with local connections. And this is absolutely what we need to see in all our villages, a few social homes in every village to keep them viable, to keep young families there, to allow older people to downsize. And we have to have the ability for community land trusts to be able to build more easily. So I ask the minister what provisions he has made in this bill to support the work of these much valued community land trusts.
15:06
15:06
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Serve under your chairmanship. And I congratulate the honourable member for North East Hertfordshire for securing this vital debate. I know from years in Cornwall how big an issue the lack of affordable and council housing has become. In my constituency of Truro and Falmouth in Cornwall, the picture is stark. We have far lower levels of council housing than other parts of the country. Only 11% of our stock is social housing and the countrywide average is 18. Cornwall's home choice register has over 26,000 households waiting for a home, against an estimated stock of 33,000 social and affordable homes right across Cornwall.
We also have 800 households in temporary and emergency accommodation. However, the Housing Revenue Account has a legacy debt of 92 million from the 212 self-financing settlement, and that severely constrains Cornwall Council's ability to build, maintain and deliver social housing. Cornwall Housing also has very low rental income, the result of decisions made by previous Lib Dem and independent council administrations, bringing rents closer to national levels through rent convergence will take time, and the lack of income from low rents has resulted in a backlog of repairs that they're really struggling to get on top of the government's extra billion for social and affordable housing, the Social and Affordable Homes Programme and the preferential rates for council house borrowing are very welcome, as are the safeguards in social in the Social Housing Bill, for example, on rights to buy on new builds.
We have housing associations in Cornwall that are strategic providers working hard to build and provide homes in Cornwall. But our HRA struggles with its debt and repairs and has no headroom to borrow. HRA reform will be crucial if we're to build council homes in Cornwall as well, making it easier for HRA to borrow.
We also have 800 households in temporary and emergency accommodation. However, the Housing Revenue Account has a legacy debt of 92 million from the 212 self-financing settlement, and that severely constrains Cornwall Council's ability to build, maintain and deliver social housing. Cornwall Housing also has very low rental income, the result of decisions made by previous Lib Dem and independent council administrations, bringing rents closer to national levels through rent convergence will take time, and the lack of income from low rents has resulted in a backlog of repairs that they're really struggling to get on top of the government's extra billion for social and affordable housing, the Social and Affordable Homes Programme and the preferential rates for council house borrowing are very welcome, as are the safeguards in social in the Social Housing Bill, for example, on rights to buy on new builds.
We have housing associations in Cornwall that are strategic providers working hard to build and provide homes in Cornwall. But our HRA struggles with its debt and repairs and has no headroom to borrow. HRA reform will be crucial if we're to build council homes in Cornwall as well, making it easier for HRA to borrow.
15:08
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Pleasure to serve under your chairmanship , and I thank the honourable member for bringing this debate. In my constituency of Horsham. The council stock was long ago sold off to Saxonwold, a housing association, and they do a pretty good job for years. During a series of Tory administrations, there was little interest on the council in building any more, so I applaud applaud the current Lib Dem led council for their recent announcement of 22 new homes for social rent. It's a start at least. However, the truth is that having the will isn't enough. You also need the means and in this context, the government's main housing strategy, the standard method for allocating local targets, is having a destructive effect.
It didn't work for the Tory government and it's not working for Labour either. There's a new Horsham District Local Plan passing through the system right now, but it's simply not possible for an authority in an area like mine to require the provision of large amounts of social housing, or indeed any. The subsidy system, based on 106 section 106 taxes doesn't generate nearly enough. And that means that councillors can't set a guaranteed percentage of homes for social rent in the plan, even if they want to. Such a plan would be ruled unsound by the inspector because it's financially undeliverable.
And that is exactly what happened to me when I was cabinet member for planning a few years ago. Because Horsham is a relatively affluent area, we're not in line for government subsidies. So ironically, the very locations that face the highest housing costs are precisely those least likely to get any government investment support. We have a system designed to deliver cheap housing in areas that, on average, have more cheap housing. The government's obsession with counting permissions instead of actual real life houses, has directly undermined Horsham's ability to deliver low cost housing. Unfeasibly high targets forced the council to accept develop proposals which are optimized for quantity, not affordability.
The reality is that private developers are principally in control of choosing the sites. Councils merely edit them. In an area like Horsham, where most of the district is farmland, the market drives developers to buy up green spaces on the edge of existing settlements. The result is a strong incentive towards suburban house building, which by its nature tends to poorer affordability and wasteful land use. At the same time, we have a construction industry trapped in a boom and bust cycle. The absence of consistent local authority house building makes it much harder to bring in low cost models, such as modern modular construction, because that depends on a continued reliable delivery pipeline.
And that's one reason why a company like legal in general, which bravely invested in this market, was forced to close its modular arm a few years ago. But whatever the government decides to do, some change, further change of policy is necessary. So I hope the minister will be honest with himself and realise that the current trajectory is not going to solve anyone's problem in any reasonable length of time. Thank you.
It didn't work for the Tory government and it's not working for Labour either. There's a new Horsham District Local Plan passing through the system right now, but it's simply not possible for an authority in an area like mine to require the provision of large amounts of social housing, or indeed any. The subsidy system, based on 106 section 106 taxes doesn't generate nearly enough. And that means that councillors can't set a guaranteed percentage of homes for social rent in the plan, even if they want to. Such a plan would be ruled unsound by the inspector because it's financially undeliverable.
And that is exactly what happened to me when I was cabinet member for planning a few years ago. Because Horsham is a relatively affluent area, we're not in line for government subsidies. So ironically, the very locations that face the highest housing costs are precisely those least likely to get any government investment support. We have a system designed to deliver cheap housing in areas that, on average, have more cheap housing. The government's obsession with counting permissions instead of actual real life houses, has directly undermined Horsham's ability to deliver low cost housing. Unfeasibly high targets forced the council to accept develop proposals which are optimized for quantity, not affordability.
The reality is that private developers are principally in control of choosing the sites. Councils merely edit them. In an area like Horsham, where most of the district is farmland, the market drives developers to buy up green spaces on the edge of existing settlements. The result is a strong incentive towards suburban house building, which by its nature tends to poorer affordability and wasteful land use. At the same time, we have a construction industry trapped in a boom and bust cycle. The absence of consistent local authority house building makes it much harder to bring in low cost models, such as modern modular construction, because that depends on a continued reliable delivery pipeline.
And that's one reason why a company like legal in general, which bravely invested in this market, was forced to close its modular arm a few years ago. But whatever the government decides to do, some change, further change of policy is necessary. So I hope the minister will be honest with himself and realise that the current trajectory is not going to solve anyone's problem in any reasonable length of time. Thank you.
15:11
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Chair. Thank you to the member for North East for securing this debate. Norwich was there at the birth of social housing 100 years ago. Norwich built its first council house on Angel road and shortly after came the Mile Cross Estate, one of the first of its kind. And by the 1970s our city had a higher proportion of council housing than any other in the country, and Labour in Norwich kept that delivery. We delivered Goldsmith Street 105 council homes built to passive house standards. The first council housing project to win the Riba Stirling Prize, the. The Old Mile cross depot in my constituency, where a Labour council planned and funded 67 new council homes for rent, with more on the full site and Anglia Square.
For so many years it has stood there, not developed and it's been a Labour government that came in that gave the funding to a Labour City Council to unlock that site, that we are now able to get the building going and delivering 1100 homes with a commitment that at least 50% of those will be affordable, with many at social rent. And I want to pay tribute to the former Labour council leaders, including Alan Waters, Brenda Horner and Steve Morphew for their work on this, for driving that vision forward. And Carly Harper Penman, our candidate for mayor who has put housing at the centre of her campaign to be Norfolk and Suffolk mayor.
And that's what delivery looks like, but it isn't finished. We have to do much more to ensure that the council homes my constituents need are delivered. Since May, the Green Party has run Norwich City Council and I want them to succeed, not to squander the Labour's legacy on housing. So my message is simple see those schemes through, don't let them slip and don't dilute them because the need is real. Almost 4000 households in Norwich are waiting for a home. These aren't statistics. They are people who have done everything right and are still waiting. So what needs to happen first?
Investment. And I welcome the government's £39 billion programme for social and affordable homes. I declare an interest as the chair of the East of England Housing Delivery Group. The East of England as a whole is expected to deliver 227,000 homes to support the government's targets over the course of this Parliament. But if we are to do that, we must get our fair share of investment and houses do not build themselves, so we need to make sure that we have the skills in the pipeline to deliver them and to accelerate the construction, and our need for homes must be recognised as urgent.
Secondly, as many other people have said, I welcome the decision to let councils keep their right to buy receipts. That will make a huge difference. Thirdly, quality it isn't enough to build homes. They have to be good ones. People in council housing deserve very high quality homes , like the ones that Norwich Labour built on Goldsmith Street. But too many constituents still contact me with concerns about the quality of housing. Fourth homes must be eco friendly. As I've said before, Goldsmith Street proves that warm, low energy homes with bills tenants can afford aren't a luxury. They are what council housing should be, and every new council home we build should be built to the same admission and fifth community.
Mark Cross worked a century ago because it was never just about housing, it was also about community. And that was celebrated so beautifully by the common law in 2023 at its centenary, because a home is only as good as what surrounds it, the bus that turns up the GP. You can book the school within walking distance, the park, the shop on the corner and when we build homes we have to build that community too in Norwich, Norwich Labour still believes that and I know Labour in government believes that. So we have to keep building to deliver the council homes that so many people still desperately need.
Here, here.
For so many years it has stood there, not developed and it's been a Labour government that came in that gave the funding to a Labour City Council to unlock that site, that we are now able to get the building going and delivering 1100 homes with a commitment that at least 50% of those will be affordable, with many at social rent. And I want to pay tribute to the former Labour council leaders, including Alan Waters, Brenda Horner and Steve Morphew for their work on this, for driving that vision forward. And Carly Harper Penman, our candidate for mayor who has put housing at the centre of her campaign to be Norfolk and Suffolk mayor.
And that's what delivery looks like, but it isn't finished. We have to do much more to ensure that the council homes my constituents need are delivered. Since May, the Green Party has run Norwich City Council and I want them to succeed, not to squander the Labour's legacy on housing. So my message is simple see those schemes through, don't let them slip and don't dilute them because the need is real. Almost 4000 households in Norwich are waiting for a home. These aren't statistics. They are people who have done everything right and are still waiting. So what needs to happen first?
Investment. And I welcome the government's £39 billion programme for social and affordable homes. I declare an interest as the chair of the East of England Housing Delivery Group. The East of England as a whole is expected to deliver 227,000 homes to support the government's targets over the course of this Parliament. But if we are to do that, we must get our fair share of investment and houses do not build themselves, so we need to make sure that we have the skills in the pipeline to deliver them and to accelerate the construction, and our need for homes must be recognised as urgent.
Secondly, as many other people have said, I welcome the decision to let councils keep their right to buy receipts. That will make a huge difference. Thirdly, quality it isn't enough to build homes. They have to be good ones. People in council housing deserve very high quality homes , like the ones that Norwich Labour built on Goldsmith Street. But too many constituents still contact me with concerns about the quality of housing. Fourth homes must be eco friendly. As I've said before, Goldsmith Street proves that warm, low energy homes with bills tenants can afford aren't a luxury. They are what council housing should be, and every new council home we build should be built to the same admission and fifth community.
Mark Cross worked a century ago because it was never just about housing, it was also about community. And that was celebrated so beautifully by the common law in 2023 at its centenary, because a home is only as good as what surrounds it, the bus that turns up the GP. You can book the school within walking distance, the park, the shop on the corner and when we build homes we have to build that community too in Norwich, Norwich Labour still believes that and I know Labour in government believes that. So we have to keep building to deliver the council homes that so many people still desperately need.
Here, here.
15:14
15:14
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I thank the honourable member for North East Hertfordshire for securing this debate and for presenting a very persuasive argument. One of the biggest casework inquiries I get in my constituency of Birmingham, Perry Barr, is around housing and the shortage of housing. I mean, Birmingham being one of the largest councils. In fact, the largest council in Europe has an enormous chronic housing issue. Just in terms of stats, when we look at West Midlands region, we have 7500 homeless families living in temporary accommodation, 15,000 children living in temporary accommodation. Now, that's not just having an impact on those families, it's actually having an impact on those children, often which are living many miles away from their school, and parents struggling to maintain their job because they have to escort their children to school.
So it's having a dramatic effect on our future generations. And of course, Birmingham is the youngest community in terms of age group. And I, so I since, you know, really fear the impact a lack of affordable homes is going to have on our next generation, the 65,000 families waiting on the social housing waiting list. Now, I'm sure the minister will say that the regional West Midlands Regional Authority has received somewhere in the region of £400 million to develop and build 3000 additional homes. And of course, that's welcome. But when you contrast the numbers, it really is a drop in the ocean as to the requirements.
Now, of course, there's also going to be private developers, but one of the biggest issues that I see and my constituents feel is that it's not just about building homes anywhere just to meet the quota. It's about building communities and ensuring that you have the right infrastructure GP surgeries, medical care facilities and local shopping centres. So it's a whole infrastructure that needs to be thought of. And so in terms of planning, which is another big issue, because the Labour government often says we champion devolution, localization. We want local people involved in decision making. But Birmingham is being asked to be anti devolution because powers planning powers are sought to be given to to the regional mayor.
Now, if that happens, it really does take away that community on the ground that wants homes where they fulfil all the criteria. So can I ask the minister quickly, because I know we're limited for time. We had the village developed at the taxpayer's cost of 750 £700 million, £350 million is a loss to the taxpayer because it was sold to legal and general. Would he inquire into what has happened with that loss of 350 to Birmingham taxpayers? Thank you, Chair.
So it's having a dramatic effect on our future generations. And of course, Birmingham is the youngest community in terms of age group. And I, so I since, you know, really fear the impact a lack of affordable homes is going to have on our next generation, the 65,000 families waiting on the social housing waiting list. Now, I'm sure the minister will say that the regional West Midlands Regional Authority has received somewhere in the region of £400 million to develop and build 3000 additional homes. And of course, that's welcome. But when you contrast the numbers, it really is a drop in the ocean as to the requirements.
Now, of course, there's also going to be private developers, but one of the biggest issues that I see and my constituents feel is that it's not just about building homes anywhere just to meet the quota. It's about building communities and ensuring that you have the right infrastructure GP surgeries, medical care facilities and local shopping centres. So it's a whole infrastructure that needs to be thought of. And so in terms of planning, which is another big issue, because the Labour government often says we champion devolution, localization. We want local people involved in decision making. But Birmingham is being asked to be anti devolution because powers planning powers are sought to be given to to the regional mayor.
Now, if that happens, it really does take away that community on the ground that wants homes where they fulfil all the criteria. So can I ask the minister quickly, because I know we're limited for time. We had the village developed at the taxpayer's cost of 750 £700 million, £350 million is a loss to the taxpayer because it was sold to legal and general. Would he inquire into what has happened with that loss of 350 to Birmingham taxpayers? Thank you, Chair.
15:18
15:18
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
Thank you Jeremy. It's a pleasure to serve under your chair, and I want to thank the honourable member for bringing this debate. I want to speak up for Portsmouth today, a city that at its peak had 27,000 homes, council homes and now has less than 16,000. Our city is in the grip of a housing crisis, with too many people struggling to find a secure and affordable home. We have a waiting list of almost 3000 households, with almost 50% of those being exceptional or urgent priority. Yet in 2020 425, Portsmouth built just 40 new homes, not 40 social homes, 40 new homes in total, and in the same period, only 15 units for social rent were added to the council stock, with just six more being started.
Behind these figures. Sir Jeremy, are families waiting for a home, young people struggling to find somewhere they can afford, and residents facing the insecurity of unaffordable rent or moving from temporary accommodation to temporary accommodation. I know personally what a council home means. I grew up in one and many of my aunties, uncles and my own parents were born and lived in council housing. For my family, it meant stability, security and the opportunity to build a future council. Housing is more than bricks and mortar. It gives people a foundation in life, a community and a place to call home.
And every family deserves one. That is why I'm proud. This Labour government has committed to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. We're invigorating council house building and taking action to protect existing social housing. But that national ambition must translate into homes on the ground in Portsmouth. More families need the security I experienced growing up in a safe, affordable home and the chance to build a better future. Cannock Chase and indeed historical Norwich Council has shown what can be achieved when a council creates opportunity and I commend their vision. Portsmouth should be looking at what works elsewhere and looking at how we can do that in my city.
So I ask the minister, will he meet with me to discuss what practical support the government can provide to help Portsmouth Council overcome barriers to planning, building and developing derelict sites, regenerating empty homes and unlocking investment to deliver council houses, social rented homes . Because my residents desperately need it, Portsmouth City Council must act. My residents cannot afford to wait any longer to have a secure place to call home.
Behind these figures. Sir Jeremy, are families waiting for a home, young people struggling to find somewhere they can afford, and residents facing the insecurity of unaffordable rent or moving from temporary accommodation to temporary accommodation. I know personally what a council home means. I grew up in one and many of my aunties, uncles and my own parents were born and lived in council housing. For my family, it meant stability, security and the opportunity to build a future council. Housing is more than bricks and mortar. It gives people a foundation in life, a community and a place to call home.
And every family deserves one. That is why I'm proud. This Labour government has committed to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. We're invigorating council house building and taking action to protect existing social housing. But that national ambition must translate into homes on the ground in Portsmouth. More families need the security I experienced growing up in a safe, affordable home and the chance to build a better future. Cannock Chase and indeed historical Norwich Council has shown what can be achieved when a council creates opportunity and I commend their vision. Portsmouth should be looking at what works elsewhere and looking at how we can do that in my city.
So I ask the minister, will he meet with me to discuss what practical support the government can provide to help Portsmouth Council overcome barriers to planning, building and developing derelict sites, regenerating empty homes and unlocking investment to deliver council houses, social rented homes . Because my residents desperately need it, Portsmouth City Council must act. My residents cannot afford to wait any longer to have a secure place to call home.
15:20
Speaker 17
-
Speaker 17
Thank you. I want to bring a Scottish perspective to this. In May 2024, the Scottish Parliament declared a national housing emergency. That was a significant admission, but declaring an emergency isn't the same as resolving one. More than two years later, the figures make uncomfortable reading. Across Scotland, more than 10,000 children are living in temporary accommodation. That is the highest number on record. There are almost 35,000 open homelessness cases and which is also a record high, and last year there were over 21,000 recorded instances where local authorities failed to offer temporary accommodation to households entitled to it and increased by almost a third.
These figures come from the Scottish Government's own statistics and a couple more out just this morning. Housing statistics for Scotland say house building has fallen by 8% in the last year and at the same time we have over 10,000 council houses all sitting vacant, often through lack of funds and people to bring them back into use. Housing is a constant feature of my constituency casework. We hear from families in overcrowded homes and people living in unsuitable accommodation. Most express a lack of confidence that they will ever find something appropriate to live. As a former council leader, I know that providing good council housing takes more than ambition.
It takes resources and power, something that this Labour government is looking to devolve to local communities in England. But in Scotland the SNP are centralising rather than devolving powers. I have seen what can be achieved when these things come together. Because Stirling has been ranked first in the UK for rooftop solar installations relative to households. I believe our long running programme of installing solar panels on council houses contributed significantly to that achievement. Success of council administrations investing in improving housing stock, helping tenants with energy costs while delivering environmental benefits. I also want to highlight housing importance to rural economies.
Stirling Council has recently allocated UK government funding towards new houses in Tyndrum, at the northern end of my constituency. Local tourism businesses tell me they struggle to recruit staff because prospective employees cannot find affordable accommodation. If a hotel or restaurant cannot recruit because workers have nowhere to live, housing becomes an economic issue as well as a social one. In small rural communities, even a handful of new affordable homes can make an enormous difference. But much more needs to be done. I welcome the UK government's commitment to increasing council and social house building in England. There are lessons to share across the United Kingdom, because devolution should never mean we stop learning from one another.
Ultimately, the test of housing policy is not how many targets we announce, strategies we publish or emergencies we declare. It is about how many families finally receive the keys to a safe, secure and affordable home. And for far too many of my constituents, that day feels still too distant. And if I can finish with a little bit of history, it pains me to admit that Scotland's first pioneering council housing development was in Dundee rather than in my constituency of Stirling. But I was fascinated to discover that even before the Stirling houses were occupied in May 1920, the Commons was debating their affordability.
In April 1920, Labour MP Alexander Wilkie questioned the Secretary of Scotland about rents which threatened to price out the very working people their homes were intended to help. More than a century later, we are still grappling with that same fundamental challenge about providing good homes that people can afford.
These figures come from the Scottish Government's own statistics and a couple more out just this morning. Housing statistics for Scotland say house building has fallen by 8% in the last year and at the same time we have over 10,000 council houses all sitting vacant, often through lack of funds and people to bring them back into use. Housing is a constant feature of my constituency casework. We hear from families in overcrowded homes and people living in unsuitable accommodation. Most express a lack of confidence that they will ever find something appropriate to live. As a former council leader, I know that providing good council housing takes more than ambition.
It takes resources and power, something that this Labour government is looking to devolve to local communities in England. But in Scotland the SNP are centralising rather than devolving powers. I have seen what can be achieved when these things come together. Because Stirling has been ranked first in the UK for rooftop solar installations relative to households. I believe our long running programme of installing solar panels on council houses contributed significantly to that achievement. Success of council administrations investing in improving housing stock, helping tenants with energy costs while delivering environmental benefits. I also want to highlight housing importance to rural economies.
Stirling Council has recently allocated UK government funding towards new houses in Tyndrum, at the northern end of my constituency. Local tourism businesses tell me they struggle to recruit staff because prospective employees cannot find affordable accommodation. If a hotel or restaurant cannot recruit because workers have nowhere to live, housing becomes an economic issue as well as a social one. In small rural communities, even a handful of new affordable homes can make an enormous difference. But much more needs to be done. I welcome the UK government's commitment to increasing council and social house building in England. There are lessons to share across the United Kingdom, because devolution should never mean we stop learning from one another.
Ultimately, the test of housing policy is not how many targets we announce, strategies we publish or emergencies we declare. It is about how many families finally receive the keys to a safe, secure and affordable home. And for far too many of my constituents, that day feels still too distant. And if I can finish with a little bit of history, it pains me to admit that Scotland's first pioneering council housing development was in Dundee rather than in my constituency of Stirling. But I was fascinated to discover that even before the Stirling houses were occupied in May 1920, the Commons was debating their affordability.
In April 1920, Labour MP Alexander Wilkie questioned the Secretary of Scotland about rents which threatened to price out the very working people their homes were intended to help. More than a century later, we are still grappling with that same fundamental challenge about providing good homes that people can afford.
15:23
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. It is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Council housing saved my family's life. Council housing gave me a life. Council housing meant a once homeless lad actually got to be here to fight for everybody, to ensure that they were never any homelessness in this country again.
15:24
15:24
Speaker 18
-
Speaker 18
So, Minister, when we talk about council housing delivery, most people think about building from scratch. But there are other options. Buying and refurbishing existing long term empty houses or buildings means we can increase our housing stock at a lower cost. And crucially, we can do it faster. When we talk about housing, it's easy to think primarily about the housing market, the economic impacts, the cost of mortgages or rents or the cost of living. But we are also talking about whether people have a permanent home or whether or not. When we talk about homelessness, we often think first about rough sleeping.
Yet homelessness takes many forms, and family homelessness can't be overlooked. This is often not on the streets. It's whole families with children living on one mattress, a friend or relative's house as I did at 15 years old. I'm moving between a series of B&Bs and other emergency, supposedly temporary accommodation that can be lasting for years, and because it's not visible, because we don't see the impact, we often don't treat it with the urgency it deserves. At the end of March this year, there were 177,530 children living in temporary accommodation in England. In Doncaster in 2025, we had over 200 children living without a permanent home.
Over the heads. Perhaps even more concerning is that over 22,000 families with children had been living in temporary accommodation for between 2 and 5 years. For children that could be the majority of some of their lives. There are 7800 active households are on the register in Doncaster right now. Now that insecurity of not having a place that's permanent over your head can be devastating. It affects children's education, their physical and mental health, their relationships and their opportunities later in life. A permanent home is is about so much more than having somewhere to sleep. It's about having somewhere you belong.
And I can absolutely vouch for that. Having had lived experience. There were more than 300,000 long term empty homes across England. Acquiring long term empty houses for social housing could deliver more than 8000 additional social rented homes by June 2029, requiring 38% less government grant per property than new build alternatives. That means more homes for the same level of investment, and it means families in them much more quickly. When we have families spending years in temporary accommodation, we cannot afford to overlook opportunities to live to deliver permanent homes much more quickly. And it makes sense financially.
Councils spending billions each year on temporary accommodation investing in permanent housing can reduce our reliance on those arrangements. Ultimately, the success of our housing programs must be measured not just in the number of homes delivered, but in the number of families who are able to leave homelessness behind and build secure, stable lives in the future. We need to deliver those homes, and we need to deliver them as fast as we possibly can.
Yet homelessness takes many forms, and family homelessness can't be overlooked. This is often not on the streets. It's whole families with children living on one mattress, a friend or relative's house as I did at 15 years old. I'm moving between a series of B&Bs and other emergency, supposedly temporary accommodation that can be lasting for years, and because it's not visible, because we don't see the impact, we often don't treat it with the urgency it deserves. At the end of March this year, there were 177,530 children living in temporary accommodation in England. In Doncaster in 2025, we had over 200 children living without a permanent home.
Over the heads. Perhaps even more concerning is that over 22,000 families with children had been living in temporary accommodation for between 2 and 5 years. For children that could be the majority of some of their lives. There are 7800 active households are on the register in Doncaster right now. Now that insecurity of not having a place that's permanent over your head can be devastating. It affects children's education, their physical and mental health, their relationships and their opportunities later in life. A permanent home is is about so much more than having somewhere to sleep. It's about having somewhere you belong.
And I can absolutely vouch for that. Having had lived experience. There were more than 300,000 long term empty homes across England. Acquiring long term empty houses for social housing could deliver more than 8000 additional social rented homes by June 2029, requiring 38% less government grant per property than new build alternatives. That means more homes for the same level of investment, and it means families in them much more quickly. When we have families spending years in temporary accommodation, we cannot afford to overlook opportunities to live to deliver permanent homes much more quickly. And it makes sense financially.
Councils spending billions each year on temporary accommodation investing in permanent housing can reduce our reliance on those arrangements. Ultimately, the success of our housing programs must be measured not just in the number of homes delivered, but in the number of families who are able to leave homelessness behind and build secure, stable lives in the future. We need to deliver those homes, and we need to deliver them as fast as we possibly can.
15:27
15:27
15:27
15:27
15:27
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
My constituency. Speaking across the span of one of England's largest constituencies, housing or the lack of it, is one of the main drivers to my constituency surgeries. It's one of the main drivers of people in desperate need of a place to call home. As my hon. Friend has just very movingly set out, it's an issue that needs to be taken far more seriously, not just in this place, but across the country. And I think the particular lack of access to affordable and social housing in some of our most rural communities is something that's escaped a lot of the national debate in recent years.
Unfortunately, I must say, the more conservatives who run Northumberland County Council are currently engaged in what can only describe as an ongoing misinformation exercise about the impact of of trying to provide more housing. It's very clear to me that what's needed across Northumberland is appropriate development of homes that are needed to allow people to build lives and build communities, to keep those communities together and functioning, but also to provide the long term stability to young people growing up in those communities, to know that they'll be able to have a life where they've grown up should they wish to, rather than growing up with their noses pressed at the windows of communities that they won't ever be able to be a part of because they won't be able to get a home there.
So I won't keep keep calling attention for too long. But I think the crucial thing from where I stand is delivering those homes in an area in , in areas where people can have access to them, where they are able to, to be rented at a reasonable, reasonable rate, but crucially, that they are not removed from circulation and that they are accessible to local people in order to work in the pubs, in the shops, in businesses that keep the lifeblood of our communities moving. Because without them, we will continue to see younger people forced out of rural communities, forced to leave, their families, forced to be unable to care for their elderly relatives.
And that's something that I see come up far too often time and time again in my constituency surgeries.
Unfortunately, I must say, the more conservatives who run Northumberland County Council are currently engaged in what can only describe as an ongoing misinformation exercise about the impact of of trying to provide more housing. It's very clear to me that what's needed across Northumberland is appropriate development of homes that are needed to allow people to build lives and build communities, to keep those communities together and functioning, but also to provide the long term stability to young people growing up in those communities, to know that they'll be able to have a life where they've grown up should they wish to, rather than growing up with their noses pressed at the windows of communities that they won't ever be able to be a part of because they won't be able to get a home there.
So I won't keep keep calling attention for too long. But I think the crucial thing from where I stand is delivering those homes in an area in , in areas where people can have access to them, where they are able to, to be rented at a reasonable, reasonable rate, but crucially, that they are not removed from circulation and that they are accessible to local people in order to work in the pubs, in the shops, in businesses that keep the lifeblood of our communities moving. Because without them, we will continue to see younger people forced out of rural communities, forced to leave, their families, forced to be unable to care for their elderly relatives.
And that's something that I see come up far too often time and time again in my constituency surgeries.
15:29
15:29
15:29
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I warmly congratulate the honourable member for North East Hertfordshire, not only for for securing the the debate, but also the the usual powerful and also thoughtful way in which he, he he commenced the the debate, and indeed, I also congratulate all of the other 1415 members who who contributed. I, I cannot disagree with any of the points which were made very, very powerfully by all of those, and I do hope that the the Minister is, is is indeed listening. I should start by declaring an interest. I'm a member of the Cornwall Rural Housing Association and was a past chief executive and now voluntary board member of the Cornwall Community Land Trust, which is a registered provider of affordable homes across Cornwall and indeed on the on the Isles of Scilly.
And I noticed that not only were we debating the issue of, of, of council housing, but we were straying into to, to questions about the integrity of the planning and development system, which of course is, is critical to delivering the, the biggest housebuilding programme which the government has, has promised because it's quite clear that that in many parts of the country, house building has indeed stalled. And particularly when we're talking about social and affordable homes.
And I noticed that not only were we debating the issue of, of, of council housing, but we were straying into to, to questions about the integrity of the planning and development system, which of course is, is critical to delivering the, the biggest housebuilding programme which the government has, has promised because it's quite clear that that in many parts of the country, house building has indeed stalled. And particularly when we're talking about social and affordable homes.
15:30
15:30
15:30
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. One of the issues we've seen in my constituency is developers trying to renege on their commitment to delivering the social and affordable homes that they originally outlined, citing viability assessments. They then would rather pay something called a commuted sum, in effect, a fine, which doesn't actually then go on to deliver the social homes at scale. Does he agree with me that the minister should be taking away and looking at the the way that the commuted sum is assessed, so we don't lose the opportunity to see social homes delivered?
15:31
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Indeed. I welcome that that that contribution. Indeed, there are many ways in which I believe that that that ministers need to look at the the way in which the the whole system. I mean, our housing and planning system operates almost as if a local needs were an inconvenient afterthought. And despite tinkering at the edges, successive governments have left the planning planning system, which is still rewards land value speculators more than than than council or indeed charitable housing providers puts puts developer profit which is which can be set at 20% on all developments when they're undertaking valuation of developments before affordable homes, and turns a blind eye to the transfer of thousands of homes intended for permanent occupancy to be added to property investment portfolios for recreational and holiday use as as second homes.
I wanted also just to reflect on on the speeches that obviously my my two neighbours and the members for for Truro and Falmouth and Camborne and Redruth spoke in the debate, and I just wanted to, to put on record my my strong support for the for the case they made for, for, for investment
I wanted also just to reflect on on the speeches that obviously my my two neighbours and the members for for Truro and Falmouth and Camborne and Redruth spoke in the debate, and I just wanted to, to put on record my my strong support for the for the case they made for, for, for investment
15:32
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Spoken as a bass and I just wanted to to put on record my my strong support for the for the case they made for for, for investment in the in in Cornwall's desperately needed as social and affordable housing stock as . The the announcement this week for. For further investment in social and affordable homes, which I'm sure the Minister will. Will repeat is of course welcome. On top of the 39 billion in the social and Affordable Homes programme, which was announced last year. But this is dwarfed by by billions of taxpayers money, which is gifted through various tax reliefs and loopholes and private capital driving investment into, in my part of the world holiday lets created when local tenants were evicted to make way for such, such investment.
I mean, it's bad enough that such tax subsidies are granted at all, but not all of this. Which which is what local authorities are obliged to grant are compensated for by by Treasury, thus contributing to a growing black hole in local government finance, leading to to cuts in essential local local services. I'm bound to take this opportunity, Mr. Chair, to to draw attention to the fact that I was very fortunate in the private members Bill ballot and indeed have my Homes and Planning Bill coming before Parliament on Friday the 13th of November, and I hope that all those who have spoken in this debate and their colleagues will be coming along to support to support this this bill, as it stands, a good chance of becoming of being enacted and indeed provides the tools for which the the government and their local communities can can deliver the kind of affordable homes which we've been talking about and are desperately needed today.
Our housing system is a shameful display of just how wide widening inequality in this country is. We need to better understand why the planning and and housing policies of successive governments have failed. Planning policies are, as the honourable member for North East Hertfordshire articulately put based on housebuilding targets but have not delivered, policy designers seem to have overlooked the house building targets are, after all, merely a means to an end, the end being, of course, to meet, to meet housing need. My own Territory of Cornwall is a classic example where the policy has failed. It's one of the fastest growing places in the United Kingdom.
Indeed, it's almost trebled its stock in the last 60 years. And yet, over that period of time, the housing problems of local people. Have you heard from my . My neighbours have got worse. So we so we know that actually simply having house building, particularly if it's the wrong type and it's simply for, for, for wealthy people and for investment purposes doesn't actually help to meet housing needs. The government, government housing policy, successive government housing policy, to be fair, is based on a delusion that private developers are prepared to collude with government to drive down the price of their finished product.
Local authorities should be given the option to set targets to meet need, rather than simply told to go out and to to build homes and to allow those to go ahead in. What the government have done is to make. To make matters worse, though, I'm sure it was done for the. For the best intentions, perhaps ministers became, as the honourable member for North East Hertfordshire implied, sidetracked or distracted or obsessed with facing down Anti-development NIMBYs. Quite rightly, of course they should. That they. That they didn't consider that imposing unachievable housebuilding targets overnight on local authorities might in fact become counterproductive because local authorities suddenly found themselves 18 months ago, unable to demonstrate that they'd carefully identified and consulted on the sufficient five year land supply.
And as a result of that, developed development opportunities on the edges of our communities instead of being able to be delivered under a rural exceptions policy for affordable homes, and now being granted by planning inspectors because there isn't a five year land supply for for unaffordable homes. And so we lose that opportunity. It's been totally counterproductive. So so the purpose is, for example, of my private member's bill, are to give communities the, the, the right to buy. So, so a community asset then becomes a land or buildings which could help that community deliver affordable homes.
So community led housing are the type that my hon. Friends have have for South Devon, for example, have have talked about and also to give new planning limits on second and holiday homes. So you have to apply for planning permission to convert a property from from permanent to to holiday or second occupancy. And that is something which I would hope that that government supporting members would support on the 13th of November and come along and support that bill, because at the present time, the housing minister, who is obviously not here because he's supporting he's engaged in in the social housing bill, which is obviously very relevant to our debate today, is indicating that that he is is unable currently unable to support that bill.
So we have a debate on our hands now. Now, the Liberal Democrats would increase the building of new and affordable and social homes, and we would make sure on a number of fronts, to make homes warmer and cheaper and to, to, to heat with a ten year emergency upgrade programme to ensure that all new homes are zero carbon plus control of right to buy to local authorities, who will be enabled to vary discounts based on local need. As a as a last resort to suspend the right altogether. And indeed, in view of time, I won't list all of the policies that would deliver the utopia that the Liberal Democrat government would undoubtedly deliver as far as far as housing is concerned.
But I would urge urge the Minister that, particularly as we still have the vehicle of the Social Housing Bill in committee at the moment, to take heed to what his colleagues have said to him this afternoon and to accept amendments to improve that bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I mean, it's bad enough that such tax subsidies are granted at all, but not all of this. Which which is what local authorities are obliged to grant are compensated for by by Treasury, thus contributing to a growing black hole in local government finance, leading to to cuts in essential local local services. I'm bound to take this opportunity, Mr. Chair, to to draw attention to the fact that I was very fortunate in the private members Bill ballot and indeed have my Homes and Planning Bill coming before Parliament on Friday the 13th of November, and I hope that all those who have spoken in this debate and their colleagues will be coming along to support to support this this bill, as it stands, a good chance of becoming of being enacted and indeed provides the tools for which the the government and their local communities can can deliver the kind of affordable homes which we've been talking about and are desperately needed today.
Our housing system is a shameful display of just how wide widening inequality in this country is. We need to better understand why the planning and and housing policies of successive governments have failed. Planning policies are, as the honourable member for North East Hertfordshire articulately put based on housebuilding targets but have not delivered, policy designers seem to have overlooked the house building targets are, after all, merely a means to an end, the end being, of course, to meet, to meet housing need. My own Territory of Cornwall is a classic example where the policy has failed. It's one of the fastest growing places in the United Kingdom.
Indeed, it's almost trebled its stock in the last 60 years. And yet, over that period of time, the housing problems of local people. Have you heard from my . My neighbours have got worse. So we so we know that actually simply having house building, particularly if it's the wrong type and it's simply for, for, for wealthy people and for investment purposes doesn't actually help to meet housing needs. The government, government housing policy, successive government housing policy, to be fair, is based on a delusion that private developers are prepared to collude with government to drive down the price of their finished product.
Local authorities should be given the option to set targets to meet need, rather than simply told to go out and to to build homes and to allow those to go ahead in. What the government have done is to make. To make matters worse, though, I'm sure it was done for the. For the best intentions, perhaps ministers became, as the honourable member for North East Hertfordshire implied, sidetracked or distracted or obsessed with facing down Anti-development NIMBYs. Quite rightly, of course they should. That they. That they didn't consider that imposing unachievable housebuilding targets overnight on local authorities might in fact become counterproductive because local authorities suddenly found themselves 18 months ago, unable to demonstrate that they'd carefully identified and consulted on the sufficient five year land supply.
And as a result of that, developed development opportunities on the edges of our communities instead of being able to be delivered under a rural exceptions policy for affordable homes, and now being granted by planning inspectors because there isn't a five year land supply for for unaffordable homes. And so we lose that opportunity. It's been totally counterproductive. So so the purpose is, for example, of my private member's bill, are to give communities the, the, the right to buy. So, so a community asset then becomes a land or buildings which could help that community deliver affordable homes.
So community led housing are the type that my hon. Friends have have for South Devon, for example, have have talked about and also to give new planning limits on second and holiday homes. So you have to apply for planning permission to convert a property from from permanent to to holiday or second occupancy. And that is something which I would hope that that government supporting members would support on the 13th of November and come along and support that bill, because at the present time, the housing minister, who is obviously not here because he's supporting he's engaged in in the social housing bill, which is obviously very relevant to our debate today, is indicating that that he is is unable currently unable to support that bill.
So we have a debate on our hands now. Now, the Liberal Democrats would increase the building of new and affordable and social homes, and we would make sure on a number of fronts, to make homes warmer and cheaper and to, to, to heat with a ten year emergency upgrade programme to ensure that all new homes are zero carbon plus control of right to buy to local authorities, who will be enabled to vary discounts based on local need. As a as a last resort to suspend the right altogether. And indeed, in view of time, I won't list all of the policies that would deliver the utopia that the Liberal Democrat government would undoubtedly deliver as far as far as housing is concerned.
But I would urge urge the Minister that, particularly as we still have the vehicle of the Social Housing Bill in committee at the moment, to take heed to what his colleagues have said to him this afternoon and to accept amendments to improve that bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
15:38
15:38
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
Thank you sir. Jeremy, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to take part in this debate about the delivery of council housing, and it is a very important topic, and I do thank the member for North East Hertfordshire for securing this debate. Building more homes is a critical mission for anyone governing England and Wales today, making the dream of home ownership a reality for even more hard working families. With a record number of people homeless, 177,530 children in temporary accommodation and 49,120 adult households also in temporary accommodation. Clearly, the priority must be to build more council homes.
That is what the opposition wants to see. However, that is what the government is currently failing to do. Now let's just take a look at the government's own data. Just 208,600 net additional dwellings were added in England in Labour's first year of power, a 6% drop from 2324 during the last conservative government's final year in office. Of these, 190,600 were more were new homes, a fall of 8000. Around 4% on 2324. Taken together, the government is on track to build around 400,000 fewer homes than it promised at the election, meaning yet another broken promise made to the British people and the government knows this.
The minister's boss, the Secretary of State, admitted this on national media. Now, this poor showing on homes directly impacts the pressing issue we are debating today, which is the delivery of council housing. Now, we heard the Prime Minister's proudly making his summer promise of the comeback of the council house. But what little details we do know on that policy shows that the money he has earmarked would equal just 15,494 homes a year, barely 5% of the government's annual housing target. This is an exchange for another £79 billion added to the housing subsidy bill. Despite the fact that the UK already spends the most on housing allowances as a percentage of GDP of any OECD country.
Now, one might have been forgiven for thinking that the aptly titled Social Housing Bill introduced earlier this year, might have been the answer to get local authorities, the government, industry and the nation building again. However, as is becoming a theme in this government, we are left severely disappointed by the reality. The government have presented a bill to the House that fails to build a single new council house. Instead of making social and affordable housing sites viable and pushing developments through the pipeline at pace, as the government loves to use that phrase to get people off the street and help children into permanent homes, the government has chosen to use up parliamentary, governmental and civil service time on an ideological assault on right to buy.
It is a shameful course of action, and far from what the 1.34 million people on the social housing waitlist need. Even worse is that this government itself known themselves know that this social housing bill will not deliver new homes. According to data from the minister's own impact assessment in 2020 627, the Pre-november 2024 baseline was 8050 right to buy sales, leading to 5450 replacement homes. The document goes on to show that if this bill were to pass, and the legacy impacts were to wind down in the period of 2031 to 2035, annual right to buy sales would fall to around 1100 a year, with around 1450 replacement homes.
That means that by their own analysis and omission, the government would be overseeing a housing system in which there would be 4000 fewer new social homes funded every year. Moreover, research conducted by the House of Lords Library shows that only a net 3% of social homes become available each year to new tenancies. That means that around 90 additional homes will be available for a new tenant each year, instead of 5000. The bill not only sees no new homes built, but it also actively prevents them being delivered. The government really must refocus its efforts on building more council housing, and that requires serious reforms to the viability of sites for social and affordable homes.
We are halfway through a parliament in which we have spent much time debating the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. Various updates to the National Policy and Planning Policy Framework and the aforementioned bill. Yet after all of this, we are still left without a clear route to building more homes, and projections from the government themselves show that they have managed to build just 26% of their target in 50% of the time. So what would it I'll give you.
That is what the opposition wants to see. However, that is what the government is currently failing to do. Now let's just take a look at the government's own data. Just 208,600 net additional dwellings were added in England in Labour's first year of power, a 6% drop from 2324 during the last conservative government's final year in office. Of these, 190,600 were more were new homes, a fall of 8000. Around 4% on 2324. Taken together, the government is on track to build around 400,000 fewer homes than it promised at the election, meaning yet another broken promise made to the British people and the government knows this.
The minister's boss, the Secretary of State, admitted this on national media. Now, this poor showing on homes directly impacts the pressing issue we are debating today, which is the delivery of council housing. Now, we heard the Prime Minister's proudly making his summer promise of the comeback of the council house. But what little details we do know on that policy shows that the money he has earmarked would equal just 15,494 homes a year, barely 5% of the government's annual housing target. This is an exchange for another £79 billion added to the housing subsidy bill. Despite the fact that the UK already spends the most on housing allowances as a percentage of GDP of any OECD country.
Now, one might have been forgiven for thinking that the aptly titled Social Housing Bill introduced earlier this year, might have been the answer to get local authorities, the government, industry and the nation building again. However, as is becoming a theme in this government, we are left severely disappointed by the reality. The government have presented a bill to the House that fails to build a single new council house. Instead of making social and affordable housing sites viable and pushing developments through the pipeline at pace, as the government loves to use that phrase to get people off the street and help children into permanent homes, the government has chosen to use up parliamentary, governmental and civil service time on an ideological assault on right to buy.
It is a shameful course of action, and far from what the 1.34 million people on the social housing waitlist need. Even worse is that this government itself known themselves know that this social housing bill will not deliver new homes. According to data from the minister's own impact assessment in 2020 627, the Pre-november 2024 baseline was 8050 right to buy sales, leading to 5450 replacement homes. The document goes on to show that if this bill were to pass, and the legacy impacts were to wind down in the period of 2031 to 2035, annual right to buy sales would fall to around 1100 a year, with around 1450 replacement homes.
That means that by their own analysis and omission, the government would be overseeing a housing system in which there would be 4000 fewer new social homes funded every year. Moreover, research conducted by the House of Lords Library shows that only a net 3% of social homes become available each year to new tenancies. That means that around 90 additional homes will be available for a new tenant each year, instead of 5000. The bill not only sees no new homes built, but it also actively prevents them being delivered. The government really must refocus its efforts on building more council housing, and that requires serious reforms to the viability of sites for social and affordable homes.
We are halfway through a parliament in which we have spent much time debating the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. Various updates to the National Policy and Planning Policy Framework and the aforementioned bill. Yet after all of this, we are still left without a clear route to building more homes, and projections from the government themselves show that they have managed to build just 26% of their target in 50% of the time. So what would it I'll give you.
15:43
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you for giving way, I just wondered. Obviously we are in government now, but I wondered if she was going to give any reflections on her party's policies in terms of not letting councils keep rights by receipts, or the fact that I think it was nearly 200,000 homes were lost in in one decade under the conservatives.
15:43
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
I think the the member for her intervention. Of course, it is always important to reflect on any of the legacies. But we've got to be doing here is talking about the here and now and rightly has been said, this government is in control. It has brought forward a social housing bill which is supposed to unlock this system, and yet it isn't doing that. So I think the question should be directed to the minister about how they are actually going to achieve this and actually unlock the potential that everyone in this room wants to see. This is why what we can propose as Conservative Party, in terms of the importance on housebuilding, is that actually what we want to see is taking £50,000 off the cost of building a new home in England and Wales by cutting back on regulations and taxes, by backing a genuinely brownfield first approach to see new homes being built on the existing 1.41 million sites viable for development and building, not blocking a genuine council house comeback and supporting aspiration.
So I call on the minister, I will just I'm nearly there at conclusion. So I'll just conclude. I call on the minister to commit to changing the social housing bill, to back the delivery of council housing and to help bringing the shocking number of people in temporary accommodation down. That is the only way to see more council houses built, to see more people into safe and affordable accommodation, and to get Britain building.
So I call on the minister, I will just I'm nearly there at conclusion. So I'll just conclude. I call on the minister to commit to changing the social housing bill, to back the delivery of council housing and to help bringing the shocking number of people in temporary accommodation down. That is the only way to see more council houses built, to see more people into safe and affordable accommodation, and to get Britain building.
15:45
15:45
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Thank you, Mr. Wright. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I'd like to congratulate the honourable member for North Hertfordshire on securing this important debate on the delivery of council housing. I appreciate his passion for the subject. Following the debate he brought forward on the provision of council housing in September of last year. I would also like to thank all members who have taken part in this debate, and for the rich contributions that have been made, really reflecting the challenges that exist across the country. There are nearly 180,000 children in temporary accommodation in this country.
Over 1.3 million households on local authority housing registers and members across the House will agree that we cannot allow this to continue, because behind every one of those statistics is a person, a family and a child. The Secretary of State, the housing Minister and all the government is clear on our resolve and our intention to tackle this issue, and that councils have a leading role to play under the leadership of the Prime Minister. The government is committed to delivering the biggest council house building programme since the post-war period. This level of our ambition is necessary because of the scale of the challenge we are facing.
This government is removing barriers and backing councils to use all the levers at their disposal to deliver safe and decent homes at a scale not seen for decades. We have taken decisive steps to improve council's financial resources, capacity and capability to invest in new and existing homes, and the social and Affordable homes programme funding is putting councils at the heart of that delivery. This is the biggest long term investment in social and affordable homes in recent memory. Initial allocations under this programme were announced in August and for the first time, three councils outside of London, Newcastle, Eastleigh and Cambridge were awarded strategic partnership status and the GLA has offered allocations of at least 6 billion.
£6 billion to providers of social and affordable housing, with 60% going to local councils. There is over 21.
Over 1.3 million households on local authority housing registers and members across the House will agree that we cannot allow this to continue, because behind every one of those statistics is a person, a family and a child. The Secretary of State, the housing Minister and all the government is clear on our resolve and our intention to tackle this issue, and that councils have a leading role to play under the leadership of the Prime Minister. The government is committed to delivering the biggest council house building programme since the post-war period. This level of our ambition is necessary because of the scale of the challenge we are facing.
This government is removing barriers and backing councils to use all the levers at their disposal to deliver safe and decent homes at a scale not seen for decades. We have taken decisive steps to improve council's financial resources, capacity and capability to invest in new and existing homes, and the social and Affordable homes programme funding is putting councils at the heart of that delivery. This is the biggest long term investment in social and affordable homes in recent memory. Initial allocations under this programme were announced in August and for the first time, three councils outside of London, Newcastle, Eastleigh and Cambridge were awarded strategic partnership status and the GLA has offered allocations of at least 6 billion.
£6 billion to providers of social and affordable housing, with 60% going to local councils. There is over 21.
15:47
Speaker 22
-
Speaker 22
In England. We have 27,000 households on the waiting list for council housing, 5000 which are in priority need. So many of my constituents come to me saying they just can't afford private rented homes. The main issue is there is just not enough council housing. I welcome the government saying we are building more houses, but there needs to be specific help for Leeds, both more funding for land remediation and purchasing city centre developments which are unoccupied or under-occupied.
What additional support can the government provide for this type of housing?
What additional support can the government provide for this type of housing?
15:47
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Well, obviously Leeds is ambitious for its city and it's of course a key member of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority and they're doing a lot of work actually not just on housing, but how they're bringing forward brownfield sites, in particular through growth funding, infrastructure funding, to make sure that, as many members have said, the housing goals alongside that wider community infrastructure. But in addition to the social the funding that I've just mentioned, there is over £21 billion still to allocate, which will be prioritised for social homes and particularly for council homes. This reflects our commitment to increasing council house delivery to further improve financial capacity and deliver new supply, and invest in existing homes.
We have committed to a ten year social housing rent policy with a convergence mechanism. This gives councils much needed certainty on their income to enable them to increase and manage their housing portfolios efficiently and effectively. Yes.
We have committed to a ten year social housing rent policy with a convergence mechanism. This gives councils much needed certainty on their income to enable them to increase and manage their housing portfolios efficiently and effectively. Yes.
15:48
15:49
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Thank you for that. And also that we do need to remember that the government is committed to building a large a million plus social homes over the next period of time in Northern Ireland. The house prices are rising by a greater rate than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Consistently in the last 12 months of the year, housing rents are also going up. So would I could I ask the minister, please, would he share the government's strategy to address the issue of the need for social housing with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, to ensure that we can learn something from the process that government is putting forward?
15:49
15:49
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
I think it makes a very good point about the different approaches across the UK and actually how we can all learn from each other on what works and learning, perhaps from areas where it didn't go quite as planned. I'll make sure that I pass that on to the Housing minister to have those conversations across governments. We've also provided greater certainty on future costs associated with a decent homes standard and the minimum energy efficiency standards, and allocated over £1 billion through the Warm Homes Social Housing Fund to improve the energy efficiency of social homes and quality matters, as rightly outlined by the honourable member for Norwich North and Cannock Chase in the debate today.
In addition to revenue, we know how important borrowing and capacity to borrow is for councils in terms of delivery. Since 2023, a preferential borrowing rate has been available from the Public Works Loan Board for council house building. This rate will be extended and will be announced in more detail in due course. We are continuing to work closely with councils and the wider sector to understand remaining barriers to council house building and investment, including the impact of the housing revenue, account debt and borrowing rates. We have also increased the threshold at which councils must open a housing revenue account from 200 homes to 1000 homes.
This is enabling smaller councils to deliver more homes without occurring the additional operating costs. We've also heard from councils that workforce shortages and skills gaps and capacity pressures will constrain their ability to build. This is why we are investing a further £46 million over the next three years, through the capacity to build funding, on top of the £17 million already invested since 2025. This will help councils develop an ambitious pipeline, strengthen specialist housing capacity and make the most of the government's wider investment in council house building. And these are gaps that have been identified in members in the debate today, including from Camborne and Redruth, from Hexham, from Portsmouth North and Thurrock and Falmouth in the debate.
Finally, we are taking decisive action to reform the right to buy scheme, which has acted as a brake on council confidence to invest on new social housing for too long. We are reforming the scheme to ensure that more homes are built than lost, while maintaining an important route for social housing tenants to own their own homes. As mentioned in the debate by the member for Amber Valley earlier on, my hon. Friend the Housing Minister is at this very moment in the Bill committee debating the detail of our reforms. The Social Housing Bill builds on the reforms to cash discounts we implemented in 2024 to ensure that more social homes are protected, while removing powerful disincentives to build.
Notably, we are tightening the eligibility requirements and exempting newly built social housing from the scheme for 35 years to ensure that homes are not sold before councils have recovered their investment. Yes.
In addition to revenue, we know how important borrowing and capacity to borrow is for councils in terms of delivery. Since 2023, a preferential borrowing rate has been available from the Public Works Loan Board for council house building. This rate will be extended and will be announced in more detail in due course. We are continuing to work closely with councils and the wider sector to understand remaining barriers to council house building and investment, including the impact of the housing revenue, account debt and borrowing rates. We have also increased the threshold at which councils must open a housing revenue account from 200 homes to 1000 homes.
This is enabling smaller councils to deliver more homes without occurring the additional operating costs. We've also heard from councils that workforce shortages and skills gaps and capacity pressures will constrain their ability to build. This is why we are investing a further £46 million over the next three years, through the capacity to build funding, on top of the £17 million already invested since 2025. This will help councils develop an ambitious pipeline, strengthen specialist housing capacity and make the most of the government's wider investment in council house building. And these are gaps that have been identified in members in the debate today, including from Camborne and Redruth, from Hexham, from Portsmouth North and Thurrock and Falmouth in the debate.
Finally, we are taking decisive action to reform the right to buy scheme, which has acted as a brake on council confidence to invest on new social housing for too long. We are reforming the scheme to ensure that more homes are built than lost, while maintaining an important route for social housing tenants to own their own homes. As mentioned in the debate by the member for Amber Valley earlier on, my hon. Friend the Housing Minister is at this very moment in the Bill committee debating the detail of our reforms. The Social Housing Bill builds on the reforms to cash discounts we implemented in 2024 to ensure that more social homes are protected, while removing powerful disincentives to build.
Notably, we are tightening the eligibility requirements and exempting newly built social housing from the scheme for 35 years to ensure that homes are not sold before councils have recovered their investment. Yes.
15:52
15:52
Speaker 13
-
Speaker 13
Ministers obviously heard me talk about £400 million being invested through the regional authority for 3000 homes. Contrast that with more than 700 million that was invested taxpayers money into the Athletes Village, which was then sold at a loss to the taxpayer 350 million. Can the minister assure that this matter will be investigated?
15:52
15:52
Speaker 21
-
Speaker 21
Rights and wrongs of individual programmes at local authority level? And he and I have had many conversations about Birmingham City Council in the past. I'm sure that will continue. But the matter here today is how does central government ensure that we have the framework, the incentives and the funding to get councils building council homes and social homes in their area? In addition, we have enabled councils to retain 100% of receipts from the right to buy sales and provided greater flexibility on how those receipts can be used. This includes permitting councils to combine receipts with grant funding to unlock capacity for house building.
These measures are already bearing fruit. Councils delivered around 10,600 homes in 2020 425, which is the highest level since records began in 199192. Our package of right to buy reforms is estimated to deliver a net gain of around 18,000 social homes over the next ten years, compared to a pre-reform baseline of a loss of 26,000 homes on empty homes, which was mentioned by the honourable member from Doncaster East in the debate. We are strengthening powers to bring empty homes back into use by reforming the empty dwellings management orders. We are reducing the period a property must be empty for before it becomes eligible from two years to six months under that programme.
Now we know that we must go further and we know that we must go faster to deliver the good quality and affordable homes that people need. And we also know that councils share that ambition to. This government is committed to backing councils to build at a scale not seen for decades, and to build the right homes in the right places. This government will continue to work with all levels of local government and regional government to turn that ambition into homes and to better outcomes for local people, so that everyone across the country has access to a home that is decent, that is secure and affordable.
These measures are already bearing fruit. Councils delivered around 10,600 homes in 2020 425, which is the highest level since records began in 199192. Our package of right to buy reforms is estimated to deliver a net gain of around 18,000 social homes over the next ten years, compared to a pre-reform baseline of a loss of 26,000 homes on empty homes, which was mentioned by the honourable member from Doncaster East in the debate. We are strengthening powers to bring empty homes back into use by reforming the empty dwellings management orders. We are reducing the period a property must be empty for before it becomes eligible from two years to six months under that programme.
Now we know that we must go further and we know that we must go faster to deliver the good quality and affordable homes that people need. And we also know that councils share that ambition to. This government is committed to backing councils to build at a scale not seen for decades, and to build the right homes in the right places. This government will continue to work with all levels of local government and regional government to turn that ambition into homes and to better outcomes for local people, so that everyone across the country has access to a home that is decent, that is secure and affordable.
15:54
15:54
15:54
15:54
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Very, very briefly. I want to thank all of the members for taking part in the debate today. It was a wide ranging and passionate debate, so thanks to everyone for their contributions. I note that the minister didn't quite answer the one question I left him with, which was about what what number of council houses the government is projecting to to achieve. A quick search on my phone during the debate suggested that 47,000 council houses were built in 1979, which I suspect might be where most of us would suggest the post-war period came to an end.
So I would be genuinely interested to know if that's the figure that the government is aiming for something like that per year. But but to conclude , more generally, Sir Jeremy, I think there are two key points I would like the Minister to take away from the debate today. Firstly, that we must move away from a failed housing delivery model in this country where we've seemed to accept for a long time that we can only afford to build unaffordable homes. It's been a ludicrous failure and we must put an end to it. And secondly, we've heard so many times in this debate about the 1.3 million people on waiting lists in this country, the nearly 180,000 children in temporary accommodation.
I think it must be one of the most important yardsticks by which this government measures itself, that by the time we come to the next general election, those figures are not just no longer rising, but they have very substantially fallen. Thank you.
So I would be genuinely interested to know if that's the figure that the government is aiming for something like that per year. But but to conclude , more generally, Sir Jeremy, I think there are two key points I would like the Minister to take away from the debate today. Firstly, that we must move away from a failed housing delivery model in this country where we've seemed to accept for a long time that we can only afford to build unaffordable homes. It's been a ludicrous failure and we must put an end to it. And secondly, we've heard so many times in this debate about the 1.3 million people on waiting lists in this country, the nearly 180,000 children in temporary accommodation.
I think it must be one of the most important yardsticks by which this government measures itself, that by the time we come to the next general election, those figures are not just no longer rising, but they have very substantially fallen. Thank you.
15:56
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Grateful to the honourable gentleman and to all who have spoken. The question, therefore, is that this House has considered the delivery of council housing, as many as are of that opinion, say aye. The contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Order, order! We will suspend until 4:00. Order! I will call Carla Lockhart to move the motion. And I will then call the minister to respond. Can I remind all other members that they may only make a speech with prior permission, both from the member in charge of the debate and from the Minister, and they will not, I'm afraid, be an opportunity for the member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for shorter Debates.
I call Carla Lockhart to move the motion.
I call Carla Lockhart to move the motion.
16:00
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
I beg to move that this House has considered domestic farming and food supply. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hunt. Tomorrow the Chancellor will stand at the despatch box and tell us what this government intends to do for the economy before those decisions are finalised. I want to make the case for the people who put food on our tables, because whatever ministers say about supporting working people, farming families have every reason to feel that they have been singled out. I know personally how hard farmers work. I know that hours, the worry and the sacrifices needed to keep a farm functioning.
There is precious little spare money on many farms and certainly no shortage of bills. Yet this government seems to look at a farm valuation and see a pot of money waiting to be taxed. It shows very little understanding of how farming actually works. Agriculture, I get it, is devolved. I recognise that, and I have plenty to say about the decisions being taken at Stormont. But inheritance tax, trade policy and Treasury decisions are matters for this government.
Their consequences are felt on farms throughout our United Kingdom. I'll give way to my honourable friend.
There is precious little spare money on many farms and certainly no shortage of bills. Yet this government seems to look at a farm valuation and see a pot of money waiting to be taxed. It shows very little understanding of how farming actually works. Agriculture, I get it, is devolved. I recognise that, and I have plenty to say about the decisions being taken at Stormont. But inheritance tax, trade policy and Treasury decisions are matters for this government.
Their consequences are felt on farms throughout our United Kingdom. I'll give way to my honourable friend.
16:01
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
The Ulster Farmers Union here represented here. I declare an interest as one of those that our national food security lies inherently in the economic viability of our local family farms. So, and I would say the agri food couple that is Strangford, my constituency, domestic farming is not just an industry. So does the honourable lady agree that and share my concerns that the the, the family tax inheritance, family tax could well be the death knell for the family farms in Northern Ireland.
16:02
16:02
16:02
16:02
16:02
16:02
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Work night and day to put food on the table and the challenges that they face. Does she agree with me that everything should be done to unlock all the red tape that the farmers have to produce food, and it should be part of national security and resilience, because we need to make sure we're self-sufficient.
16:02
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
Obviously, I agree fully. Labour often say it is national security security, but actions speak louder than words in many. In many ways, Northern Ireland punches well above its weight. We have less than 3% of the UK's population, but produce more than 10% of its food output by value. We supply around one fifth of UK egg production, approximately one sixth of its dairy, beef and poultry output output. Those figures should leave ministers in no doubt about Northern Ireland's importance to feeding this nation, and Upper Bann farming keeps a whole network of businesses going. The feed merchant, the machinery dealer, the haulier, the veterinary practices and the processors all depend on a viable industry.
When money stops being spent on farms, those businesses fail it too. I'll give way.
When money stops being spent on farms, those businesses fail it too. I'll give way.
16:03
Speaker 24
-
Speaker 24
And again congratulate the honourable member for bringing this well. She also acknowledged that the Ulster Farmers Union pre-Budget membership Survey actually showed that 85% of their membership, 84% have postponed, cancelled or reduced investment in at least one of the seven areas surveyed. And that has a knock on effect to the supply chains across the country.
16:03
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
Absolutely. And that was the next point that I was going to make. Around the 84% of respondents to that survey have reduced, postponed or cancelled investment. And that's really stark because it's more than and more than half identified inheritance tax policy as a barrier to investment. Farmers are holding back on replacing machinery, improving livestock housing and carrying out drainage work. Ministers keep telling farmers to become more productive. How are they supposed to do that? If the money needed to invest is being held back to prepare for a future tax bill, I welcome the increase in the combined Agricultural Property and Business relief allowance from the original 1 million proposal to 2.5 million per person, but I have never accepted that this resolves the problem.
I'll give way.
I'll give way.
16:04
16:04
Speaker 25
-
Speaker 25
I thank the honourable lady for giving way and for giving leadership on this issue in and on so many other issues. Also, does the member agree that in Northern Ireland, across the UK, domestic farming must be viable? To achieve that, government must provide support helping farmers manage rising costs and ensure that producers receive a fair return for.
16:05
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
Absolutely. I agree with my honourable friend and his assessment. The family farm tax, I can't be clear, should be scrapped. And if Labour do not scrap it tomorrow, they will not be forgiven. When it comes to the ballot box, particularly for their rural MPs. The land, the sheds and the machineries are needed to earn a living. Their value cannot simply be withdrawn from a bank account. If land has to be sold, the farm loses some of its ability to produce food and generate an income for a business already operating on tight margins. That can make all the difference, and I do not think it is unreasonable for a farmer who has worked all their life to want their children to carry on that work.
These are families who have gone without, borrowed, reinvested and spent years building something they hoped would outlast them. More than a third of respondents to the survey anticipated an inheritance tax bill of at least £100,000. More than 7 in 10 are less confident about passing on a financially viable business. Almost 9 in 10 reported increased family stress or worry because of the changes. I would ask the minister to think about the conversations behind those figures. A father wondering what will happen when he's gone, a mother worried about the burden being left to her children, and a young person who wants to farm but cannot see how the figures will actually stack up.
There is enough worry in farming without government adding to it. Tomorrow, the Chancellor can lift some of that uncertainty, and I urge the Minister to make the case for restoring the historic reliefs and allowing working family farms to be passed on. There's also decisions closer to home which are holding our industry back. In Northern Ireland, farmers are told to improve their buildings, reduce emissions and invest in better slurry management. But when they try to do those things, they can find themselves caught in planning delays and environmental assessments with no clear way forward. In some cases, they cannot even get betterment through the planning system.
A farmer may want to replace an old shed with a modern building, improve animal welfare and reduce emissions, yet still struggle to secure approval. How does leaving the old building in place help anyone? I accept that applications must be properly assessed, but there must be a workable route for proposals which demonstrate improve the existing position. Farmers are spending money on advice reports and revised applications. While the costs of proposed works continues to rise, the relevant ministers at Stormont need to get to grips with this. Farmers cannot be expected to modernize if the system prevents them from doing so, and I know that the situation is exactly the same here in GB and I'm fed up.
Farmers are fed up with being made the fall guy in the pursuit of net zero. They are expected to produce affordable food, look after the countryside and pay for changes demanded of them, often without any realistic explanation of how their business is supposed to bear the cost. Some of those making the demands would do well to spend a week on a working farm driving production. I will indeed.
These are families who have gone without, borrowed, reinvested and spent years building something they hoped would outlast them. More than a third of respondents to the survey anticipated an inheritance tax bill of at least £100,000. More than 7 in 10 are less confident about passing on a financially viable business. Almost 9 in 10 reported increased family stress or worry because of the changes. I would ask the minister to think about the conversations behind those figures. A father wondering what will happen when he's gone, a mother worried about the burden being left to her children, and a young person who wants to farm but cannot see how the figures will actually stack up.
There is enough worry in farming without government adding to it. Tomorrow, the Chancellor can lift some of that uncertainty, and I urge the Minister to make the case for restoring the historic reliefs and allowing working family farms to be passed on. There's also decisions closer to home which are holding our industry back. In Northern Ireland, farmers are told to improve their buildings, reduce emissions and invest in better slurry management. But when they try to do those things, they can find themselves caught in planning delays and environmental assessments with no clear way forward. In some cases, they cannot even get betterment through the planning system.
A farmer may want to replace an old shed with a modern building, improve animal welfare and reduce emissions, yet still struggle to secure approval. How does leaving the old building in place help anyone? I accept that applications must be properly assessed, but there must be a workable route for proposals which demonstrate improve the existing position. Farmers are spending money on advice reports and revised applications. While the costs of proposed works continues to rise, the relevant ministers at Stormont need to get to grips with this. Farmers cannot be expected to modernize if the system prevents them from doing so, and I know that the situation is exactly the same here in GB and I'm fed up.
Farmers are fed up with being made the fall guy in the pursuit of net zero. They are expected to produce affordable food, look after the countryside and pay for changes demanded of them, often without any realistic explanation of how their business is supposed to bear the cost. Some of those making the demands would do well to spend a week on a working farm driving production. I will indeed.
16:08
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I thank the honourable lady for giving away, and she's making an excellent speech, raising a lot of the points that go far beyond just Northern Ireland. When she's talking about the need to improve farms and to combat climate change, how are farmers supposed to engage seriously in a process? When my farmers in West Dorset are unable to apply for SFI because that window is closing so quickly, is not properly funded and is leaving them drastically under budget for their financial year ahead, and wondering why they are continuing to make all of the meat, all of the demands the government is making when it is not getting a fair settlement for farmers?
16:09
16:09
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
Clearly today, and I know he's a real advocate for the farming community and his constituency, and he's absolutely right. Driving production, it's actually driving production overseas will not remove the need for food. It will leave us buying more of it from elsewhere, with less control over how it is produced and further distances to transport it. I will indeed.
16:09
Speaker 27
-
Speaker 27
The honourable lady be incredibly generous as as ever she'll recall, the Defence Secretary last weekend told us all as families to be ready because of potential shocks that might come our way. But will she agree with me that the UK as a whole needs to be far more ready, given the things that she was just saying, to become food secure, only 60% of the food that we produce in this country or eat in this country is produced across the four nations of our of our country. Isn't it the the job of government, all four governments in this country, the three devolved in the UK Parliament to make sure we have farm payment schemes that encourage the production of food so we can become food secure.
16:10
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
Absolutely. The farm payments are critical to ensuring just that. So I would wholeheartedly agree with the honourable member who is again another real advocate for our farming and rural communities. When talking about imports, our farmers will make improvements where there are practical, affordable ways to do so, but they should not have their livelihoods put at risk by targets pursued with little regard for the consequences. And the same applies to imports. Earlier this year, I raised concerns about imported eggs and egg products, including reports that imports had increased by 60% since 2021. Our producers have spent considerable sums, considerable sums, meeting the standards required of them.
They are rightly angry at the prospect of being undercut by egg producers under systems which would not be permitted here. Government cannot impose those costs on our farmers and then shrug its shoulders when cheaper products arrive from elsewhere. I will quickly give one.
They are rightly angry at the prospect of being undercut by egg producers under systems which would not be permitted here. Government cannot impose those costs on our farmers and then shrug its shoulders when cheaper products arrive from elsewhere. I will quickly give one.
16:11
Speaker 28
-
Speaker 28
I thank the honourable lady for giving way on that point about imports, I think she might be touching on one of the really important topics as regards the farming community, which is the huge power of the supermarket chains in setting prices, and farmgate prices are clearly making it very difficult for farmers to earn a decent living that they so deserve. So does she agree with me that the government absolutely should take on board some of the comments by Baroness batters around this, and do everything that we can to ensure that farmers get a fair price and that competition works not just in the interests of the supermarkets, but in the interests of our farmers.
16:11
16:11
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
The point, and it's well made. Another area that I think government can help our farmers in is public procurement and should be doing far more. And I've challenged the sourcing of food for Northern Ireland schools. Information provided to me showed that approximately 80% of the education authorities. Beef came from the Republic of Ireland, with around 20% from Northern Ireland. Given the quality of beef produced on our doorstep, I believe that is wrong. I have also raised the use of halal certified chicken. The Education Authority has said it could not meet demand of halal chicken, were excluded from its supply.
You know, again, when you look at Northern Ireland and the number of chicken producers, that should not be the case. We should be able to supply our own markets. Parents are entitled to know what their children are being served and to have clear information about the choices. And they want home grown, homegrown food. I want the Department of Finance and indeed here to use public money wisely and to support our local markets. I also want to return to an issue I've raised repeatedly with this government. Illegal meat imports are. Our farmers can do everything asked of them on biosecurity and still have their livelihoods put at risk by failures at the border.
In January last year, around 600kg of non-compliant meat was stopped at Larne after travelling through Great Britain. I commend the officials who intercepted it, but it should concern every minister responsible that it had traveled so far before being detected at Dover. Almost 99 tonnes were seized during 2024 in 868 separate seizures. In December that year, more than six tonnes were intercepted within just 14 hours, including pork reported to have come from areas of Romania affected by African swine fever. 58 tonnes were seized in the first three months of 2025 alone. I have raised this in writing and directly with ministers.
Last year, the government outlined joint working between agencies, funding offered to Dover Port health authorities and plans to tackle vehicles used by smugglers. I want the Minister today to tell us what has changed as a result, how many additional inspections capacity is now operating, what prosecutions have followed our enforcement agencies getting the resources they need, and has the government properly, properly addressed the weaknesses raised about the border targeting operating model farmers? Remember foot and mouth. They remember the destruction, the restrictions and the heartbreak. We cannot allow those lessons to be forgotten. The cost of effective enforcement must be weighed against the devastation a serious disease outbreak could cause.
Those involved in this trade need to face consequences which make them think twice, seize the products, disrupt the operation and pursue prosecutions wherever the evidence allows. Northern Ireland's farmers also face the additional friction within our own UK market. Created by the Windsor Framework, a great deal has been made of how the EU reset will benefit them. We are apparently supposed to welcome the rest of the United Kingdom being brought under SPS rules.
It does not make and cannot change. I will. Indeed.
You know, again, when you look at Northern Ireland and the number of chicken producers, that should not be the case. We should be able to supply our own markets. Parents are entitled to know what their children are being served and to have clear information about the choices. And they want home grown, homegrown food. I want the Department of Finance and indeed here to use public money wisely and to support our local markets. I also want to return to an issue I've raised repeatedly with this government. Illegal meat imports are. Our farmers can do everything asked of them on biosecurity and still have their livelihoods put at risk by failures at the border.
In January last year, around 600kg of non-compliant meat was stopped at Larne after travelling through Great Britain. I commend the officials who intercepted it, but it should concern every minister responsible that it had traveled so far before being detected at Dover. Almost 99 tonnes were seized during 2024 in 868 separate seizures. In December that year, more than six tonnes were intercepted within just 14 hours, including pork reported to have come from areas of Romania affected by African swine fever. 58 tonnes were seized in the first three months of 2025 alone. I have raised this in writing and directly with ministers.
Last year, the government outlined joint working between agencies, funding offered to Dover Port health authorities and plans to tackle vehicles used by smugglers. I want the Minister today to tell us what has changed as a result, how many additional inspections capacity is now operating, what prosecutions have followed our enforcement agencies getting the resources they need, and has the government properly, properly addressed the weaknesses raised about the border targeting operating model farmers? Remember foot and mouth. They remember the destruction, the restrictions and the heartbreak. We cannot allow those lessons to be forgotten. The cost of effective enforcement must be weighed against the devastation a serious disease outbreak could cause.
Those involved in this trade need to face consequences which make them think twice, seize the products, disrupt the operation and pursue prosecutions wherever the evidence allows. Northern Ireland's farmers also face the additional friction within our own UK market. Created by the Windsor Framework, a great deal has been made of how the EU reset will benefit them. We are apparently supposed to welcome the rest of the United Kingdom being brought under SPS rules.
It does not make and cannot change. I will. Indeed.
16:15
Speaker 30
-
Speaker 30
There's a certain irony in the title of this debate domestic farming. When in respect of one part of this United Kingdom, we are governed not by domestic laws but by foreign EU laws. Does the honourable member agree of the absolute folly of a reset which would subject the whole United Kingdom to that same disenfranchisement of being governed by laws we don't make and cannot change? And does she note that this government has yet to tell us how much the reset in terms of farming would cost in the EU's demands for contributions to its budget?
16:16
Speaker 23
-
Speaker 23
Absolutely agree with that. Maybe the minister can elaborate on that. I've never been convinced that the answer to the disenfranchisement of Northern Ireland is the disenfranchisement of Great Britain. How can laws made elsewhere without the United Kingdom having a vote on them be the right basis for governing our farming industry? Some changes applying to Northern Ireland barely attract scrutiny at all. The Windsor Framework Retail Movement Scheme plant health regulations brought forward this year changed requirements in Great Britain to match those already applying in Northern Ireland. Parliament was considering legislation for GB, while the corresponding requirements in Northern Ireland were already a fact of life.
That is no way to treat part of our own country. We should also remember the freedoms denied to the Northern Ireland farmers. England has legislation to allow precision breeding work in progressing on cattle TB vaccinations in Great Britain, while Northern Ireland remains subject to the EU prohibition. Since the 1st of January, retailers in Great Britain have been unable to supply veterinary medicines directly to Northern Ireland. Other supply arrangements remain, but farmers have lost an established route for obtaining medicines from the rest of their own country. There are also differences in the rules governing mycotoxins in cereals and additional requirements on organic production.
These are practical matters affecting what farmers can use, what they can produce and what it costs them. I want ministers to look again at properly enforced trusted trader schemes for good crossing for goods crossing the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Protect the EU market through targeted controls on goods entering it. Allow trade within our own United Kingdom to take place without these barriers, extending rule taking to Great Britain does not restore Northern Ireland's voice. We shouldn't be protecting the freedom secured through Brexit and ensuring that Northern Ireland's farmers can benefit from them too.
At the end of the day, this debate is about domestic farming and food supply. Yet in Northern Ireland, so many of the laws governing our agri food industry are made by the European Union, with no vote for those we elect and no ability for them to change the the laws. How can ministers talk about securing our domestic food supply, while accepting that part of our own country must take its agricultural rules from elsewhere? Northern Ireland's farmers help feed this United Kingdom. They deserve the same democratic voice in the decisions affecting their livelihoods as farmers elsewhere in it.
All these pressures fall on the same businesses rising costs, disease planning difficulties, barriers to trade and uncertainty over whether the next generation will face a tax bill they cannot afford. Ministers may deal with those issues separately. The farmer has to deal with them all at once. That is why tomorrow's budget matters so much. The Chancellor has an opportunity to restore confidence, realise the investment and give farming families some certainty about the future. I will continue to speak up for farmers of Upper Bann, Northern Ireland and across this United Kingdom. They have worked hard and kept producing through some exceptionally difficult years.
They have been patient. They have made their case. They deserve to be heard. Once a family farm is broken up, it is not easily put back together. Once a young person walks away from farming, we may never get them back. We cannot keep weakening the industry and assume there will always be someone else to carry it on. Scrap the family farm tax, let farmers invest. Give the next generation a reason to stay. No farmers, no food and no future.
That is no way to treat part of our own country. We should also remember the freedoms denied to the Northern Ireland farmers. England has legislation to allow precision breeding work in progressing on cattle TB vaccinations in Great Britain, while Northern Ireland remains subject to the EU prohibition. Since the 1st of January, retailers in Great Britain have been unable to supply veterinary medicines directly to Northern Ireland. Other supply arrangements remain, but farmers have lost an established route for obtaining medicines from the rest of their own country. There are also differences in the rules governing mycotoxins in cereals and additional requirements on organic production.
These are practical matters affecting what farmers can use, what they can produce and what it costs them. I want ministers to look again at properly enforced trusted trader schemes for good crossing for goods crossing the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Protect the EU market through targeted controls on goods entering it. Allow trade within our own United Kingdom to take place without these barriers, extending rule taking to Great Britain does not restore Northern Ireland's voice. We shouldn't be protecting the freedom secured through Brexit and ensuring that Northern Ireland's farmers can benefit from them too.
At the end of the day, this debate is about domestic farming and food supply. Yet in Northern Ireland, so many of the laws governing our agri food industry are made by the European Union, with no vote for those we elect and no ability for them to change the the laws. How can ministers talk about securing our domestic food supply, while accepting that part of our own country must take its agricultural rules from elsewhere? Northern Ireland's farmers help feed this United Kingdom. They deserve the same democratic voice in the decisions affecting their livelihoods as farmers elsewhere in it.
All these pressures fall on the same businesses rising costs, disease planning difficulties, barriers to trade and uncertainty over whether the next generation will face a tax bill they cannot afford. Ministers may deal with those issues separately. The farmer has to deal with them all at once. That is why tomorrow's budget matters so much. The Chancellor has an opportunity to restore confidence, realise the investment and give farming families some certainty about the future. I will continue to speak up for farmers of Upper Bann, Northern Ireland and across this United Kingdom. They have worked hard and kept producing through some exceptionally difficult years.
They have been patient. They have made their case. They deserve to be heard. Once a family farm is broken up, it is not easily put back together. Once a young person walks away from farming, we may never get them back. We cannot keep weakening the industry and assume there will always be someone else to carry it on. Scrap the family farm tax, let farmers invest. Give the next generation a reason to stay. No farmers, no food and no future.
16:19
16:19
16:19
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
Pleasure to serve with you. In the chair, Sir Jeremy. And I'd like to start by thanking the member for Upper Barn for securing this debate about these important matters. She will know agriculture is a devolved issue, and we are committed to working closely with the devolved governments as we work to support UK farmers and boost the nation's food security, and I welcome her focus on UK matters today, alongside the various insights she's brought from Northern Ireland. Before I respond, chair, I. Allow me just to begin by stating that farmers are the backbone of our food system, our rural economy and our national resilience.
Yet I recognise that many are working under extraordinary pressure volatile markets, extreme weather, animal disease, rising input and energy costs. I will happily give way.
Yet I recognise that many are working under extraordinary pressure volatile markets, extreme weather, animal disease, rising input and energy costs. I will happily give way.
16:20
Speaker 29
-
Speaker 29
Thank you for giving way is outlined accurately that while it's devolved, there are issues that fall to the Treasury and to his own responsibility. He's heard the concerns, which I'm sure he's heard many times before. Can he outline the representations which I'm sure he's made to the Treasury on behalf of the farming community ahead of tomorrow's budget?
16:20
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
The member for his intervention. Obviously, matters of taxation are matters for the Chancellor, and more will be known in the budget tomorrow. But I can certainly share that. I work closely with my colleagues in Northern Ireland and have met with colleagues, and in my previous ministerial responsibility, I was delighted to visit Northern Ireland and hope to do so in future on these important issues that are being discussed today. Chair, I'd like to make some progress and to say that the importance of the issues that I addressed earlier, those pressures cannot be overstated. Agriculture alone contributes £14.5 billion to the economy, while the wider food and drink sector contributed £153 billion in 2023, the agri food sector employed 4.1 million people in 2025 and food security is national security.
I will happily give way to my hon. Friend.
I will happily give way to my hon. Friend.
16:21
Speaker 31
-
Speaker 31
I thank the Minister. For months of drought, 175 wildfires and 369 cases of bluetongue this. This summer alone, Cornish farmers have had an exceptionally hard year. Rising fertiliser costs , driven by disruption from a completely avoidable conflict with Iran, has placed a particular burden on British farmers. Can the minister comment further on media reports that the government is going to support the cost of fertiliser in tomorrow's budget? Because if that is the case, that will be very good news indeed.
16:22
Speaker 19
-
Speaker 19
For his question, he's a real champion on farming issues, very evident from my time down in Cornwall over the summer with the Prime Minister, and I know that he's a real champion in this place. On those issues, I obviously can't comment on speculation. Obviously there is an indication that there may be some announcements tomorrow that will be supportive of our farming community, but I ask him for a little more patience ahead of the Chancellor's statement tomorrow. Chair, on the issues of importance raised by the member today. I thank her for the specific issues identified. Trade is a very important matter, which of course affects Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK in order to address the pressures that are raised by farmers in Northern Ireland and across the country, markets must work fairly.
UK farmers should not be undercut by imports produced to lower standards and we will maintain our food and animal welfare standards, use quotas, exclusions and safeguards where necessary, and open new export opportunities for high quality UK produce. The last four deals we have concluded with Switzerland, India, the Gulf Cooperation Council and South Korea created new opportunities for Northern Irish exports while protecting sensitive sectors like pork, poultry and eggs. For example, tariffs on Northern Irish beef, lamb and dairy exports will be removed in the Gulf and will be reduced further. In Switzerland, tariffs on whisky exports to India have been halved and will continue to go down over the next ten years.
We also have a global network of 16 agri food and drink attachés who create new opportunities for export and help businesses access markets around the globe. So far this year, they have removed 26 barriers worth nearly 90 million annually. So the proposed SPS agreement with the European Union is intended to remove the routine border checks and costly paperwork, reducing friction for exporters and supporting the UK's food supply and security. The agreement will remove almost all SPS checks and certificates between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and this will reduce costs for a whole range of businesses and increase choice for consumers.
I know Northern Irish farmers welcome the deal. They see the benefit in the removal of checks on used agricultural machinery like tractors, which often are bought from Great Britain. As another example, seed potatoes will be easier to bring in, and Northern Irish farmers will be operating under the same rules, for example, on pesticides as the rest of the UK. We are also supporting farmers across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland, through our programme of fair dealing reforms on the 2nd of October, the first case of highly pathogenic avian influenza of this season was confirmed in Scotland, and we have now had our first case in England.
Stringent biosecurity remains the best defence to protecting the ill health and welfare of birds and reducing the risk of avian influenza entering the kept bird populations on bovine TB. Worth stating that the government is developing a cattle vaccine and deva skin test, widening sensitive testing, expanding badger vaccination and working towards TB free status for England by 2038. The reason why I stress these points is that the honourable member made a number of points around enforcement at our borders and illegal meat, and I can confirm that government continues to work across departments to develop a new framework in partnership with the Home Office, Border Force, FSA and others, and more details will be published in due course.
With regards to matters on tax raised in the debate this afternoon, I recognise that when the government initially announced reforms to the Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief in 2024, there was significant concern in the industry about their impact, and the government listened to those concerns and acted, going further to protect more farms and businesses. Up to 5 million can still be passed on free of inheritance tax, depending on people's individual circumstances, farming families will be able to pass the family farm down to their children, just as previous generations have done so. Turning to the points raised with regards to certainty, to invest, and where there have been issues in the past around planning.
The farming roadmap was published earlier this year. We recognise that the sector needs confidence to invest, to grow their businesses, plan for the future and secure farms for the next generation, and these are important for profitable food production and resilience to global shocks in England. Through our farming roadmap, we have set a new long term direction for the sector, a direction that is more profitable, productive, sustainable and resilient and will be better able to withstand climate, market and geopolitical shocks. Through the roadmap, we have committed to maintaining domestic food production, at least at current levels, and our commitment to farmers is backed by a record £11.8 billion for sustainable farming and food production over this parliament.
This year, £788 million in new funding has been committed to boost productivity, develop new technologies and maintain a healthy natural environment. Support includes a 250, 200 and £225 million for capital grants, £173 million for productivity and innovation, and a £15 million for on farm reservoirs to strengthen drought resilience. On issues with regards to red tape and bureaucracy, I recognise the frustration of farmers about ever increasing bureaucracy. Regulation is necessary to address risks, but compliance requirements can be a burden and slow growth. We are delivering actions through the government's Regulation Action Plan to reduce these burdens on farmers and will take further action.
So, said Jeremy. The pressures facing UK farming are real and no responsible government should dismiss them. I thank the honourable member for Upper Bann for her insight on the issues raised in today's debate are. Our task is to stand alongside farmers, strengthen profitability and resilience, and to ensure that UK farming can continue to produce the food on which we all depend.
UK farmers should not be undercut by imports produced to lower standards and we will maintain our food and animal welfare standards, use quotas, exclusions and safeguards where necessary, and open new export opportunities for high quality UK produce. The last four deals we have concluded with Switzerland, India, the Gulf Cooperation Council and South Korea created new opportunities for Northern Irish exports while protecting sensitive sectors like pork, poultry and eggs. For example, tariffs on Northern Irish beef, lamb and dairy exports will be removed in the Gulf and will be reduced further. In Switzerland, tariffs on whisky exports to India have been halved and will continue to go down over the next ten years.
We also have a global network of 16 agri food and drink attachés who create new opportunities for export and help businesses access markets around the globe. So far this year, they have removed 26 barriers worth nearly 90 million annually. So the proposed SPS agreement with the European Union is intended to remove the routine border checks and costly paperwork, reducing friction for exporters and supporting the UK's food supply and security. The agreement will remove almost all SPS checks and certificates between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and this will reduce costs for a whole range of businesses and increase choice for consumers.
I know Northern Irish farmers welcome the deal. They see the benefit in the removal of checks on used agricultural machinery like tractors, which often are bought from Great Britain. As another example, seed potatoes will be easier to bring in, and Northern Irish farmers will be operating under the same rules, for example, on pesticides as the rest of the UK. We are also supporting farmers across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland, through our programme of fair dealing reforms on the 2nd of October, the first case of highly pathogenic avian influenza of this season was confirmed in Scotland, and we have now had our first case in England.
Stringent biosecurity remains the best defence to protecting the ill health and welfare of birds and reducing the risk of avian influenza entering the kept bird populations on bovine TB. Worth stating that the government is developing a cattle vaccine and deva skin test, widening sensitive testing, expanding badger vaccination and working towards TB free status for England by 2038. The reason why I stress these points is that the honourable member made a number of points around enforcement at our borders and illegal meat, and I can confirm that government continues to work across departments to develop a new framework in partnership with the Home Office, Border Force, FSA and others, and more details will be published in due course.
With regards to matters on tax raised in the debate this afternoon, I recognise that when the government initially announced reforms to the Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief in 2024, there was significant concern in the industry about their impact, and the government listened to those concerns and acted, going further to protect more farms and businesses. Up to 5 million can still be passed on free of inheritance tax, depending on people's individual circumstances, farming families will be able to pass the family farm down to their children, just as previous generations have done so. Turning to the points raised with regards to certainty, to invest, and where there have been issues in the past around planning.
The farming roadmap was published earlier this year. We recognise that the sector needs confidence to invest, to grow their businesses, plan for the future and secure farms for the next generation, and these are important for profitable food production and resilience to global shocks in England. Through our farming roadmap, we have set a new long term direction for the sector, a direction that is more profitable, productive, sustainable and resilient and will be better able to withstand climate, market and geopolitical shocks. Through the roadmap, we have committed to maintaining domestic food production, at least at current levels, and our commitment to farmers is backed by a record £11.8 billion for sustainable farming and food production over this parliament.
This year, £788 million in new funding has been committed to boost productivity, develop new technologies and maintain a healthy natural environment. Support includes a 250, 200 and £225 million for capital grants, £173 million for productivity and innovation, and a £15 million for on farm reservoirs to strengthen drought resilience. On issues with regards to red tape and bureaucracy, I recognise the frustration of farmers about ever increasing bureaucracy. Regulation is necessary to address risks, but compliance requirements can be a burden and slow growth. We are delivering actions through the government's Regulation Action Plan to reduce these burdens on farmers and will take further action.
So, said Jeremy. The pressures facing UK farming are real and no responsible government should dismiss them. I thank the honourable member for Upper Bann for her insight on the issues raised in today's debate are. Our task is to stand alongside farmers, strengthen profitability and resilience, and to ensure that UK farming can continue to produce the food on which we all depend.
16:28
16:28
16:30
16:30
Speaker 32
-
Speaker 32
Move that this House has considered the government response to the Covid 19 inquiry. Module four report. Can I begin by saying how refreshing it is to see the public health minister here today? Because if there's anybody who will be empathetic, empathetic to what we are discussing today, it must be the Right Honourable Lady because she has campaigned fearlessly on behalf of another group of victims, the people, the victims of contaminated blood scandals. And although I don't want to over do the the connection between the contaminated blood and the vaccine damage victims, I think the responses to those tragedies from successive governments have had a similar pattern.
Total denial of responsibility. To start off with, then, recognition that people have suffered, but not because of anything which the government was responsible for, and then eventually to conceding that the cause and the effect of the damage was there, but still a stalling on providing any effective redress. And I'm afraid it's the stalling of providing any effective redress that I wish to concentrate on today. Because the Hallett inquiry made some very clear recommendations in April this year. Recommendation five the UK government must reform the Vaccine damage payment scheme as soon as possible. The reform should include, as a minimum, increasing the £120,000 payment, at least in line with inflation to date, subsequently applying annual increases in line with inflation.
Introducing multiple levels of payment commensurate with the degree of injury suffered and any transitional arrangements necessary to provide for fairness between applicants to the existing scheme and applicants to the revised scheme. The response from the government, published earlier this month, is in my submission, Mr. Inadequate, and it may be that that's because the Right Honourable Lady has only been in post for three months. It may be because the government officials have not been doing the review work, which they've assured me and others for the last several years that they were doing. But I hope we'll be able to hear from the minister in due course, and I hope that she will be able to say that the government does agree to increase the £120,000 payment.
It is going to agree to applying annual increases in line with inflation, that it is going to introduce multiple levels of payment commensurate with the degree of injury, etc. of course I will.
Total denial of responsibility. To start off with, then, recognition that people have suffered, but not because of anything which the government was responsible for, and then eventually to conceding that the cause and the effect of the damage was there, but still a stalling on providing any effective redress. And I'm afraid it's the stalling of providing any effective redress that I wish to concentrate on today. Because the Hallett inquiry made some very clear recommendations in April this year. Recommendation five the UK government must reform the Vaccine damage payment scheme as soon as possible. The reform should include, as a minimum, increasing the £120,000 payment, at least in line with inflation to date, subsequently applying annual increases in line with inflation.
Introducing multiple levels of payment commensurate with the degree of injury suffered and any transitional arrangements necessary to provide for fairness between applicants to the existing scheme and applicants to the revised scheme. The response from the government, published earlier this month, is in my submission, Mr. Inadequate, and it may be that that's because the Right Honourable Lady has only been in post for three months. It may be because the government officials have not been doing the review work, which they've assured me and others for the last several years that they were doing. But I hope we'll be able to hear from the minister in due course, and I hope that she will be able to say that the government does agree to increase the £120,000 payment.
It is going to agree to applying annual increases in line with inflation, that it is going to introduce multiple levels of payment commensurate with the degree of injury, etc. of course I will.
16:33
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Can I commend them ? Because he's been a stalwart in leading the campaign for this and and very well done. But for too long, a small minority of families who suffered severe adverse outcomes have been left stranded by administrative failures and the lack of fair support. Does the honourable member agree that the promised reforms must be designed in direct collaboration with the vaccine vaccine injured and their families, ensuring they are treated with the dignity, the speed and the fairness that they very much deserve.
16:34
16:34
Speaker 32
-
Speaker 32
My hon. Friend. Absolutely, and I think it's fair to remind everybody that my hon. Friend participated in the very first debate I had on this subject, which is on Friday, the 10th of September 2021. Mr. Stuart. And that was the occasion on which I moved the second reading of a private member's bill, and in so doing, drew attention to what were then 1632 yellow card reports of deaths having taken place shortly after vaccination. I also drew attention then to the public petition, which had been put to Parliament and the government's response. The petition called for improved support for those injured or bereaved through Covid 19 vaccines, and the government response then stated once more is known about the possible links between the vaccine and potential side effects.
It will be considered whether a wider review of Vdps is needed. Well, that was over five years ago and we've now got that review. We've had the public inquiry, we've had the outcome, and yet we haven't had the acceptance by the government of the clear recommendations to which I've already referred. And back in in September 2021, I requested the then Secretary of State to establish an independent review of disablement caused by Covid 19 vaccines and the adequacy of the compensation awarded. And I wasn't then requesting a mammoth public inquiry. But only a short judge led inquiry into how we should most fairly compensate those who suffered the adverse consequences.
And I contrasted the government's pessimistic view with the World Health Organisation's Covax scheme, which, as the Right Honourable Lady will know, I indemnifies claims for vaccine damage in Third world countries and we, the British taxpayers, pay for that. But we haven't got an equivalent scheme in our own jurisdiction. On the 2nd of March 2022, I raised the specific subject of the 1979 Vaccine Damage Payments Act in an adjournment debate, and in that debate, I referred to Kate Scott, whose husband, a fit 44 year old software engineer, spent 124 days in hospital following severe brain injury caused by the vaccine.
Boris Johnson, then the Prime minister, had written to Kate Scott and her family back in August 2021 stating you're not a statistic and must not be ignored. He said that the government would, and I use the word again. Consider Kate's suggestions for reform of the scheme . And in concluding my speech on that occasion, I referred to what David Ennals, the Secretary of State for Social Services, a Labour Secretary of state, had said back in 1979, on the 5th of February, at column 32 of Hansard, when introducing the legislation. And he said for most people, vaccination is a beneficial procedure and it is right for the community to give financial aid and support to those who suffer as the result of vaccinations given as part of the public policy programme.
That was the rationale for the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, a scheme introduced by the then Labour government in its dying days. But I won't criticise them for having put that as their priority at the end of their term of office. In responding to my adjournment debate in February 2022, the then minister, Maria Caulfield, refused even to accept any causality. She said that being 920 claims by then, but the work currently going on is establishing whether there's a causal link between the vaccine and the adverse events that people have been suffering. So fast forward to today, Mr.
Stewart, and we see that we've got the findings of which I've already referred. And then the government response. The government accepts that there's a need for reform of the Vdps and is, according to its response, committed to reviewing the scheme to ensure it is fit for purpose and delivered effectively. But that implies that that's a review that was going to start after the inquiry had reported. But when I and other people who are campaigning on behalf of the victims met the Public Health Minister, the Honourable Lady, the member for Lancashire West, probably about a year ago, she told us that the government was already reviewing the scheme and we asked her in what respect it was.
Reviewing the scheme, she said she couldn't say, but she was conceding that they were reviewing the scheme. But now it seems as though the government is starting afresh, saying they're committed to reviewing the scheme. We will work closely with the vaccine injured and their families as we consider how the scheme could be strengthened in the future. This is a long way from the specific, clear, strong recommendations made by Baroness Hallett. And let's think about what the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, said to Kate Scott in in August 2021, a review he said he'd review it. Hasn't the review already taken place?
And I think I assume it must have already taken place. But there's another issue here because we now know now know that about as at the 30th of June, 264 claims had been successful and 582 claims under the scheme had been rejected. Causation had been established, but they did not meet the 60% disability threshold. So that means, Mr. Stewart, that about on my calculation, about £32 million has been paid out in compensation. And yet, in answer to a question I put down in September 3rd of September, we. I found out that the costs of the staffing, the non staffing and the medical assessment and payments to healthcare bodies, the cost of all that over four years is no less than £82 million.
So all that expenditure of public money in bureaucracy to try and block people who suffered damage and in some cases bereavement as a result of doing the right thing and taking the vaccines. This is just unacceptable, and I hope that the minister will include within her response an explanation as to what the government is going to do to simplify the scheme and stop locking through technical measures, the legitimate claims, and ensure that instead of spending another £82 million over the next four years on bureaucracy, we actually use some of that money to actually compensate the people who have suffered as a result of the vaccine programme.
The I can help the minister because I anticipated, in a sense, when we had private members bill ballot, I put in a number of bills and presentation bills, and one of those bills is the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, UK Covid Inquiry Bill, and that is set down for second reading on the 15th of January 2027. So it's ideally timed to be able to incorporate any recommendations that the Minister comes forward with. And the the long title of the of the bill is to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for the implementation of recommendations of module four of the UK Covid 19 inquiry relating to vaccine damage payment schemes and for connected purposes.
And so that is a real opportunity, a legislative opportunity for the government, and I hope that they will take advantage of it. In the meantime, they have been blocking my Covid 19 vaccine damage payments bill for this session, the one which has already been published, and the explanatory notes in that bill set out. A number of suggested reforms, including looking at the benefits of having a system which doesn't cost the the government anything, but it would ensure that people got recompense, and that would be by introducing a scheme similar to what that, for example, which covers motor insurance, the Motor Insurers Bureau scheme or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, where the industry pays for the costs of the compensation arising from problems in the way in which those schemes have operated and what could be more equitable than that.
But instead of doing that hitherto both the previous government and the current government, what they are doing is they are indemnifying, Big Pharma, indemnifying Big Pharma against any costs associated with vaccines that don't work properly. And that I think is intolerable. So my bill has got a number of recommendations and suggestions. I hope that the Minister will be able to engage with me, if not necessarily in today's debate, but privately afterwards.
It will be considered whether a wider review of Vdps is needed. Well, that was over five years ago and we've now got that review. We've had the public inquiry, we've had the outcome, and yet we haven't had the acceptance by the government of the clear recommendations to which I've already referred. And back in in September 2021, I requested the then Secretary of State to establish an independent review of disablement caused by Covid 19 vaccines and the adequacy of the compensation awarded. And I wasn't then requesting a mammoth public inquiry. But only a short judge led inquiry into how we should most fairly compensate those who suffered the adverse consequences.
And I contrasted the government's pessimistic view with the World Health Organisation's Covax scheme, which, as the Right Honourable Lady will know, I indemnifies claims for vaccine damage in Third world countries and we, the British taxpayers, pay for that. But we haven't got an equivalent scheme in our own jurisdiction. On the 2nd of March 2022, I raised the specific subject of the 1979 Vaccine Damage Payments Act in an adjournment debate, and in that debate, I referred to Kate Scott, whose husband, a fit 44 year old software engineer, spent 124 days in hospital following severe brain injury caused by the vaccine.
Boris Johnson, then the Prime minister, had written to Kate Scott and her family back in August 2021 stating you're not a statistic and must not be ignored. He said that the government would, and I use the word again. Consider Kate's suggestions for reform of the scheme . And in concluding my speech on that occasion, I referred to what David Ennals, the Secretary of State for Social Services, a Labour Secretary of state, had said back in 1979, on the 5th of February, at column 32 of Hansard, when introducing the legislation. And he said for most people, vaccination is a beneficial procedure and it is right for the community to give financial aid and support to those who suffer as the result of vaccinations given as part of the public policy programme.
That was the rationale for the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, a scheme introduced by the then Labour government in its dying days. But I won't criticise them for having put that as their priority at the end of their term of office. In responding to my adjournment debate in February 2022, the then minister, Maria Caulfield, refused even to accept any causality. She said that being 920 claims by then, but the work currently going on is establishing whether there's a causal link between the vaccine and the adverse events that people have been suffering. So fast forward to today, Mr.
Stewart, and we see that we've got the findings of which I've already referred. And then the government response. The government accepts that there's a need for reform of the Vdps and is, according to its response, committed to reviewing the scheme to ensure it is fit for purpose and delivered effectively. But that implies that that's a review that was going to start after the inquiry had reported. But when I and other people who are campaigning on behalf of the victims met the Public Health Minister, the Honourable Lady, the member for Lancashire West, probably about a year ago, she told us that the government was already reviewing the scheme and we asked her in what respect it was.
Reviewing the scheme, she said she couldn't say, but she was conceding that they were reviewing the scheme. But now it seems as though the government is starting afresh, saying they're committed to reviewing the scheme. We will work closely with the vaccine injured and their families as we consider how the scheme could be strengthened in the future. This is a long way from the specific, clear, strong recommendations made by Baroness Hallett. And let's think about what the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, said to Kate Scott in in August 2021, a review he said he'd review it. Hasn't the review already taken place?
And I think I assume it must have already taken place. But there's another issue here because we now know now know that about as at the 30th of June, 264 claims had been successful and 582 claims under the scheme had been rejected. Causation had been established, but they did not meet the 60% disability threshold. So that means, Mr. Stewart, that about on my calculation, about £32 million has been paid out in compensation. And yet, in answer to a question I put down in September 3rd of September, we. I found out that the costs of the staffing, the non staffing and the medical assessment and payments to healthcare bodies, the cost of all that over four years is no less than £82 million.
So all that expenditure of public money in bureaucracy to try and block people who suffered damage and in some cases bereavement as a result of doing the right thing and taking the vaccines. This is just unacceptable, and I hope that the minister will include within her response an explanation as to what the government is going to do to simplify the scheme and stop locking through technical measures, the legitimate claims, and ensure that instead of spending another £82 million over the next four years on bureaucracy, we actually use some of that money to actually compensate the people who have suffered as a result of the vaccine programme.
The I can help the minister because I anticipated, in a sense, when we had private members bill ballot, I put in a number of bills and presentation bills, and one of those bills is the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, UK Covid Inquiry Bill, and that is set down for second reading on the 15th of January 2027. So it's ideally timed to be able to incorporate any recommendations that the Minister comes forward with. And the the long title of the of the bill is to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for the implementation of recommendations of module four of the UK Covid 19 inquiry relating to vaccine damage payment schemes and for connected purposes.
And so that is a real opportunity, a legislative opportunity for the government, and I hope that they will take advantage of it. In the meantime, they have been blocking my Covid 19 vaccine damage payments bill for this session, the one which has already been published, and the explanatory notes in that bill set out. A number of suggested reforms, including looking at the benefits of having a system which doesn't cost the the government anything, but it would ensure that people got recompense, and that would be by introducing a scheme similar to what that, for example, which covers motor insurance, the Motor Insurers Bureau scheme or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, where the industry pays for the costs of the compensation arising from problems in the way in which those schemes have operated and what could be more equitable than that.
But instead of doing that hitherto both the previous government and the current government, what they are doing is they are indemnifying, Big Pharma, indemnifying Big Pharma against any costs associated with vaccines that don't work properly. And that I think is intolerable. So my bill has got a number of recommendations and suggestions. I hope that the Minister will be able to engage with me, if not necessarily in today's debate, but privately afterwards.
16:45
16:45
16:45
Speaker 34
-
Speaker 34
Serve under your chairmanship. I thank the honourable member for Dorset for calling this important debate today. He is focused on one particular aspect of module four vaccines and therapeutics. Looking at the recompense scheme, I would like to broaden the conversation slightly in my remarks alongside the learnings that this module brings. There's also a lot of positive narrative here. So as a public health consultant working during the pandemic, both here and with public health partners in other countries, I would like to recognise the huge public value of our sustained investment here in the UK, in our NHS, public health and scientific research.
Thanks to this, investment capabilities were in place prior to the pandemic, which meant that the UK was in a position to authorise and begin delivering effective Covid 19 vaccines within a year of the first identified UK case, and by September 2022, more than 150 million doses of the three principal vaccines have been administered in the UK, including the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, which was developed here in the UK. Thanks to years of scientific research. And this research capacity is part of a wider global partnership that allows us to ensure that vaccine development can be undertaken swiftly and accurately, both during a pandemic and for other essential vaccinations, such as our flu response.
I want to mention the centre for Epidemic Response and Innovation, Seri in South Africa. It's a key partner that identified the Omicron variants during the pandemic, and is now critical in identifying influenza strains for the development of our influenza vaccine programme every year. It would be good to hear from the minister a little more about how we are continuing to build that international scientific partnership for vaccine development and pandemic preparedness, particularly around the 100 day mission, where the aim is to work with global partners to make safe, effective and affordable diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines available within just 100 days of identifying a future pandemic threat, as well as ensuring that we have the capacity to develop vaccines swiftly and efficiently as part of a global response.
The module also highlighted the issue of equitable access to the vaccines and the role that existing health inequalities played in the UK in terms of vaccination coverage, the inquiry found familiar themes around why there was lower uptake of the vaccine in some communities and groups of people. And as the inquiry rightly highlights, vaccine vaccine inequality is not simply an issue of individual behaviour. It is also a reflection of how services are designed, how communities experience public institutions, and whether the health system can meet people where they are in their daily lives. There is also the issue of public trust in the system that is administering the vaccines, and it should be noted that this cannot simply be manufactured through a national communication campaign at the moment of crisis.
It must be earned over time through reliable services, honest information and meaningful relationships with communities. There is also a useful distinction to be made between legitimate questions about vaccine safety and deliberate misinformation. Again, this is an area that needs to be engaged with proactively and positively, allowing people to have their voices heard and making sure that all available facts and evidence are clearly communicated. So could the minister please update us on how lessons learned from vaccine hesitancy and the health inequality patterns that were observed during the pandemic are now being used to inform our UK vaccine strategy, particularly in light of worrying recent patterns around childhood vaccinations for diseases such as measles and dropping the explicit World Health Organisation target of 95% put in place to ensure population herd immunity.
Finally, with closing remarks, I would like to acknowledge my public health, clinical and care colleagues who contributed so much to the pandemic response, with some tragically giving their lives in order to care for other people. Directors of public health, local authorities, primary care and community organisations should remain a central part of the solution to ensuring vaccine equity. We must ensure that the lessons learned from this inquiry allow us to support their essential work in order to swiftly respond to the next pandemic.
Thanks to this, investment capabilities were in place prior to the pandemic, which meant that the UK was in a position to authorise and begin delivering effective Covid 19 vaccines within a year of the first identified UK case, and by September 2022, more than 150 million doses of the three principal vaccines have been administered in the UK, including the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, which was developed here in the UK. Thanks to years of scientific research. And this research capacity is part of a wider global partnership that allows us to ensure that vaccine development can be undertaken swiftly and accurately, both during a pandemic and for other essential vaccinations, such as our flu response.
I want to mention the centre for Epidemic Response and Innovation, Seri in South Africa. It's a key partner that identified the Omicron variants during the pandemic, and is now critical in identifying influenza strains for the development of our influenza vaccine programme every year. It would be good to hear from the minister a little more about how we are continuing to build that international scientific partnership for vaccine development and pandemic preparedness, particularly around the 100 day mission, where the aim is to work with global partners to make safe, effective and affordable diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines available within just 100 days of identifying a future pandemic threat, as well as ensuring that we have the capacity to develop vaccines swiftly and efficiently as part of a global response.
The module also highlighted the issue of equitable access to the vaccines and the role that existing health inequalities played in the UK in terms of vaccination coverage, the inquiry found familiar themes around why there was lower uptake of the vaccine in some communities and groups of people. And as the inquiry rightly highlights, vaccine vaccine inequality is not simply an issue of individual behaviour. It is also a reflection of how services are designed, how communities experience public institutions, and whether the health system can meet people where they are in their daily lives. There is also the issue of public trust in the system that is administering the vaccines, and it should be noted that this cannot simply be manufactured through a national communication campaign at the moment of crisis.
It must be earned over time through reliable services, honest information and meaningful relationships with communities. There is also a useful distinction to be made between legitimate questions about vaccine safety and deliberate misinformation. Again, this is an area that needs to be engaged with proactively and positively, allowing people to have their voices heard and making sure that all available facts and evidence are clearly communicated. So could the minister please update us on how lessons learned from vaccine hesitancy and the health inequality patterns that were observed during the pandemic are now being used to inform our UK vaccine strategy, particularly in light of worrying recent patterns around childhood vaccinations for diseases such as measles and dropping the explicit World Health Organisation target of 95% put in place to ensure population herd immunity.
Finally, with closing remarks, I would like to acknowledge my public health, clinical and care colleagues who contributed so much to the pandemic response, with some tragically giving their lives in order to care for other people. Directors of public health, local authorities, primary care and community organisations should remain a central part of the solution to ensuring vaccine equity. We must ensure that the lessons learned from this inquiry allow us to support their essential work in order to swiftly respond to the next pandemic.
16:49
16:49
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Mr. Seward. It's a very great pleasure to see you in the chair, not least because through your generosity in taking over from me, I'm allowed to participate in this debate. And can I also pay huge tribute to my hon. Friend for Christchurch, not just for his skill in securing this debate, but also for his long standing campaigning on behalf of those who have been injured by Covid vaccinations. And I think between he and I, we must have met and discussed this with almost every occupant of the minister's job and almost every occupant of the Secretary of State's job over the last few years.
And it seems to me, Mr. Stewart, that we should start here. The argument which I want to concentrate on around reform of the Vaccine damage payment scheme, is not an argument about the wisdom or otherwise of mass vaccination. Quite remarkably, in my judgment, many of those who have been injured or who have lost loved ones in the process of mass vaccination during the Covid pandemic also support the idea of mass vaccination. But they take the view, which I think we should all support that for those who were doing what their government asked them to do, it is only right that they are properly compensated for any loss or damage that they have incurred.
And it seems to me also that the issues that people like Kate Scott, who is my constituent and my hon. Friend mentioned, and who I know the minister has met, have maintained throughout, is that what is wrong with the vaccine damage payment scheme essentially comes down to two things. First of all, the amount of money available and the fact that it isn't all or nothing amount. And secondly, the requirement that there should be 60% disablement in order to take advantage of the scheme. And it is fair to point out that nobody ever claimed, when the scheme was developed, that it was designed to be the only compensation available.
But the reality of the position, as I know the Minister appreciates, is that it is extremely difficult to obtain compensation by any other route, including through the courts, and therefore, it seems to me that vaccine damage payment scheme reform is about two things. It's about fairness to the individuals affected, but it's also about the effectiveness of government policy. And I know this will concern the minister, and I hope the rest of government, it would be brave of any of us to claim that this sort of widespread pandemic event will never happen again. And if it does happen again, then we will rely on the confidence of the British public once again to literally roll up their sleeves and assist in the process of combating whatever disease it is we face.
Next, their confidence in a mass vaccination programme will depend on whether they think people who are injured in that process have been fairly treated. Thus far they have not. And so if the government wants to be confident of the effectiveness of a future pandemic response, it needs to deal effectively with the fallout of the last pandemic response. And finally, Mr. Stewart, let me simply make the point that my hon. Friend may, there is urgency to this. People who have been injured, those who have been bereaved, don't just expect a fair response from the government. They expect it soon.
And there is a mismatch, I'm afraid, between the urgency described in the report of Baroness Hallett and the approach that the government has taken in their response. So, for example, Baroness Hallett says that with regard to the 60% threshold, this part of the scheme should be reformed as a matter of urgency. Com compare and contrast that with the wording of the government's response, which accepts there is a need for reform of the scheme, and I welcome that and is committed to reviewing the scheme to ensure that it is fit for purpose. But it then says the government will provide further details in due course.
Those of us who have served in government know what that means. It does not mean an urgent response, and I know the minister will recognise that this situation deserves just that.
And it seems to me, Mr. Stewart, that we should start here. The argument which I want to concentrate on around reform of the Vaccine damage payment scheme, is not an argument about the wisdom or otherwise of mass vaccination. Quite remarkably, in my judgment, many of those who have been injured or who have lost loved ones in the process of mass vaccination during the Covid pandemic also support the idea of mass vaccination. But they take the view, which I think we should all support that for those who were doing what their government asked them to do, it is only right that they are properly compensated for any loss or damage that they have incurred.
And it seems to me also that the issues that people like Kate Scott, who is my constituent and my hon. Friend mentioned, and who I know the minister has met, have maintained throughout, is that what is wrong with the vaccine damage payment scheme essentially comes down to two things. First of all, the amount of money available and the fact that it isn't all or nothing amount. And secondly, the requirement that there should be 60% disablement in order to take advantage of the scheme. And it is fair to point out that nobody ever claimed, when the scheme was developed, that it was designed to be the only compensation available.
But the reality of the position, as I know the Minister appreciates, is that it is extremely difficult to obtain compensation by any other route, including through the courts, and therefore, it seems to me that vaccine damage payment scheme reform is about two things. It's about fairness to the individuals affected, but it's also about the effectiveness of government policy. And I know this will concern the minister, and I hope the rest of government, it would be brave of any of us to claim that this sort of widespread pandemic event will never happen again. And if it does happen again, then we will rely on the confidence of the British public once again to literally roll up their sleeves and assist in the process of combating whatever disease it is we face.
Next, their confidence in a mass vaccination programme will depend on whether they think people who are injured in that process have been fairly treated. Thus far they have not. And so if the government wants to be confident of the effectiveness of a future pandemic response, it needs to deal effectively with the fallout of the last pandemic response. And finally, Mr. Stewart, let me simply make the point that my hon. Friend may, there is urgency to this. People who have been injured, those who have been bereaved, don't just expect a fair response from the government. They expect it soon.
And there is a mismatch, I'm afraid, between the urgency described in the report of Baroness Hallett and the approach that the government has taken in their response. So, for example, Baroness Hallett says that with regard to the 60% threshold, this part of the scheme should be reformed as a matter of urgency. Com compare and contrast that with the wording of the government's response, which accepts there is a need for reform of the scheme, and I welcome that and is committed to reviewing the scheme to ensure that it is fit for purpose. But it then says the government will provide further details in due course.
Those of us who have served in government know what that means. It does not mean an urgent response, and I know the minister will recognise that this situation deserves just that.
16:53
16:53
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Mr. Stewart, can I congratulate the honourable member for Christchurch for sponsoring this debate? One of the surprising things is, given how many people died during the Covid epidemic and the cost of approximately £400 billion, and the cost of this inquiry heading northwards for £1 billion, is how little debate there has been, either in Westminster Hall or on the floor of the House of Commons. So I just want to use the opportunity of this debate on the fourth part of the inquiry to not just point out the lack of debate so far, but to use recommendation one to highlight a number of things.
Recommendation one and the government's response both draw attention to how sage behaved during Covid, and it says uncritically that they gave co-ordinated scientific and technical advice during. Well, yes, to a point. But on the 11th of February, I think it was 2020, they had a report before them from Imperial College, one based on Chinese statistics showing that there was a a very there was a very strong relationship between age and mortality of people who caught Covid. Basically, if you were a child, you were not at risk. And if you were over 70, you were at serious risk.
Sage did not discuss that at that meeting, even though the paper was there. And had they discussed it, they may well have come forward with different policies to keep children in school and to protect the most vulnerable people, rather than having a blanket policy which said protect the NHS. It's not our job to protect the NHS, it's the NHS, its job to protect us. And actually I always read protecting the NHS as protecting the government because they were frightened of having people on trolleys in corridors. So I think that was a mistake and the information was there and could have been used.
The heroine of this episode and mentioned in the report is Kate Bingham, who ran the vaccine taskforce and was primarily responsible because of her expertise both in, in science and in, in funding for getting the vaccine out quicker than anywhere else. And so we should, given that she was so successful in doing that, we should have listened to what she said when she spoke to the Science and Technology Committee, the health committee in the House. When she spoke to the inquiry, she was excoriating about the government's response to what had happened. She talked about there being institutional blockages, warfare between the business department and the health department.
She didn't recommend what CA, which is a pharmaceutical expert advisory panel, which doesn't seem to have very many powers. She wanted to protect and develop our vaccine manufacturing ability and our science ability. And what do we get the sale of the vaccine manufacturing and innovation centre and nothing else. Thank you.
Recommendation one and the government's response both draw attention to how sage behaved during Covid, and it says uncritically that they gave co-ordinated scientific and technical advice during. Well, yes, to a point. But on the 11th of February, I think it was 2020, they had a report before them from Imperial College, one based on Chinese statistics showing that there was a a very there was a very strong relationship between age and mortality of people who caught Covid. Basically, if you were a child, you were not at risk. And if you were over 70, you were at serious risk.
Sage did not discuss that at that meeting, even though the paper was there. And had they discussed it, they may well have come forward with different policies to keep children in school and to protect the most vulnerable people, rather than having a blanket policy which said protect the NHS. It's not our job to protect the NHS, it's the NHS, its job to protect us. And actually I always read protecting the NHS as protecting the government because they were frightened of having people on trolleys in corridors. So I think that was a mistake and the information was there and could have been used.
The heroine of this episode and mentioned in the report is Kate Bingham, who ran the vaccine taskforce and was primarily responsible because of her expertise both in, in science and in, in funding for getting the vaccine out quicker than anywhere else. And so we should, given that she was so successful in doing that, we should have listened to what she said when she spoke to the Science and Technology Committee, the health committee in the House. When she spoke to the inquiry, she was excoriating about the government's response to what had happened. She talked about there being institutional blockages, warfare between the business department and the health department.
She didn't recommend what CA, which is a pharmaceutical expert advisory panel, which doesn't seem to have very many powers. She wanted to protect and develop our vaccine manufacturing ability and our science ability. And what do we get the sale of the vaccine manufacturing and innovation centre and nothing else. Thank you.
16:57
16:57
16:57
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. The Covid lockdowns were the darkest period in recent British history, bar none. Our freedoms were stripped away in ways most of us never imagined possible. And alongside all of that came extraordinary pressure on millions of people to take the Covid vaccine. Pressure from politicians, employers, media institutions, everything everywhere. For some, refusing meant losing their livelihood. They did it anyway. We were told to trust the science. But the science is not a commandment. It's a process of questioning, testing and challenging of evidence. And when a government asks millions of healthy people to undergo an unproven medical intervention with unwanted consequences, scrutiny should increase.
Covid posed very different risks to different people. An elderly, vulnerable person faced a very different calculation from a healthy 25 year old. In fact, they could not have been more different. The 25 year old was at no risk whatsoever. They were more likely to drown to death than have serious issues with Covid. Yet so much of the messaging treated vaccination as though it were the same decision for everyone. Why? Why were people asking questions treated with such hostility? And why were people who refused a medical invention intervention made to feel like social pariahs? I am particularly concerned about children.
For the overwhelming majority, the risk of severe Covid illness was non-existent. It was a cold. There was no threat at all. And let's remember that the rollout to teenagers was forced through against the advice of Jcvi, who originally declined to recommend a mass rollout for younger teens. The facts are quite clear. We do know that cases of myocarditis and pericarditis occurred following Covid vaccinations, particularly amongst adolescent and young adult males. Millions of healthy young men and women should never have been forced to take that vaccination, and those responsible for that decision must be held accountable.
Informed consent is the only way. Then there was Nadhim Zahawi, the conservative government's vaccines minister at the time. Now, speaking for reform UK, he stated that children 12 to 15 could receive the Covid vaccine even where their parents objected. A 12 year old could take this vaccination against their parents wishes. Think about that. 12 years old. And then came vaccine passports, again forced through by reform Zahawi. I found the entire concept morally repugnant. It was criminal. The idea that the state could make access to ordinary parts of life dependent on disclosing your medical status. That is not how a free country should operate.
I did not take the Covid vaccine. I didn't want it, I didn't need it, and I didn't take it. That decision cost me money. It affected my travel, I lost friends, it made my life considerably more difficult. But I don't regret it for one moment. But this cannot end with another speech about how badly things were handled. We all know that this there must be accountability by law. This inquiry cannot decide whether anyone is liable for what went wrong, what response? That responsibility now rests with government regulators and, where necessary, the courts. The inquiry itself recognised the heavy cost of lockdowns, even as even if it criticised how decisions were made.
That is exactly why there must be a full, honest reckoning of their true costs and benefits, and of the treatment of the care home residents. Questions about pandemic censorship and conflicts of interest demand answers to who decided which questions the public was allowed to ask. Who profited from the answers? These are questions any healthy democracy should ask. The government has accepted that the reform is needed, but it has offered no timetable and no detail. Those who have been injured by these vaccines cannot be left waiting any longer. The scheme needs an overhaul. Nobody can be above the law.
Covid posed very different risks to different people. An elderly, vulnerable person faced a very different calculation from a healthy 25 year old. In fact, they could not have been more different. The 25 year old was at no risk whatsoever. They were more likely to drown to death than have serious issues with Covid. Yet so much of the messaging treated vaccination as though it were the same decision for everyone. Why? Why were people asking questions treated with such hostility? And why were people who refused a medical invention intervention made to feel like social pariahs? I am particularly concerned about children.
For the overwhelming majority, the risk of severe Covid illness was non-existent. It was a cold. There was no threat at all. And let's remember that the rollout to teenagers was forced through against the advice of Jcvi, who originally declined to recommend a mass rollout for younger teens. The facts are quite clear. We do know that cases of myocarditis and pericarditis occurred following Covid vaccinations, particularly amongst adolescent and young adult males. Millions of healthy young men and women should never have been forced to take that vaccination, and those responsible for that decision must be held accountable.
Informed consent is the only way. Then there was Nadhim Zahawi, the conservative government's vaccines minister at the time. Now, speaking for reform UK, he stated that children 12 to 15 could receive the Covid vaccine even where their parents objected. A 12 year old could take this vaccination against their parents wishes. Think about that. 12 years old. And then came vaccine passports, again forced through by reform Zahawi. I found the entire concept morally repugnant. It was criminal. The idea that the state could make access to ordinary parts of life dependent on disclosing your medical status. That is not how a free country should operate.
I did not take the Covid vaccine. I didn't want it, I didn't need it, and I didn't take it. That decision cost me money. It affected my travel, I lost friends, it made my life considerably more difficult. But I don't regret it for one moment. But this cannot end with another speech about how badly things were handled. We all know that this there must be accountability by law. This inquiry cannot decide whether anyone is liable for what went wrong, what response? That responsibility now rests with government regulators and, where necessary, the courts. The inquiry itself recognised the heavy cost of lockdowns, even as even if it criticised how decisions were made.
That is exactly why there must be a full, honest reckoning of their true costs and benefits, and of the treatment of the care home residents. Questions about pandemic censorship and conflicts of interest demand answers to who decided which questions the public was allowed to ask. Who profited from the answers? These are questions any healthy democracy should ask. The government has accepted that the reform is needed, but it has offered no timetable and no detail. Those who have been injured by these vaccines cannot be left waiting any longer. The scheme needs an overhaul. Nobody can be above the law.
17:01
Speaker 35
-
Speaker 35
Thank you, Mr. Stewart. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Some across this House will be aware of the tragic case of NHS pharmacist John Cross in Bromsgrove, who developed paralysing complications after receiving a Covid injection. The effects began two weeks after the vaccine and John was then hospitalised for seven months. He worked hard on his recovery through private physio and under medical advice. He applied to the Vaccine Damage Payment scheme, where he was deemed 55% disabled, therefore falling short of the 60% requirement for qualification. A few months later, John tragically took his own life after a gruelling five year legal challenge by his family at a time when they should have been grieving the loss of their husband, father and grandfather.
The decision was finally overturned. The cross family has been clear the current vaccine compensation scheme is failing victims. The government has repeatedly stated that it is evaluating options to reform the Vdps, yet no official timescale has been set for making a decision on any alterations or recommendations for a change. This is unacceptable. It leaves victims and their families trapped in a state of anxiety and uncertainty. So will the government publish a timescale for conducting its review of the Vaccine damage payment scheme, and the changes that it intends to implement to ensure certainty for victims? Having received fewer than 800 applications in the decade before Covid 19, it is clear that the Vdps needs to adapt to respond to the significant increase in applications from those affected by Covid 19 vaccines since the Covid 19 pandemic began, the number of claims made has risen significantly, with more than 24,000 claims relating to Covid 19 alone.
Yet despite this stark rise, just over 1% have received the tax free payment. John Cross was a part of that forgotten 99% until his family fought for justice. Does the government believe the 60% threshold is still appropriate, and is the binary yes or no process that awards a flat rate payment for successful claims still fit for purpose? Has any consideration been given to the introduction of a tiered compensation framework that implements varying thresholds for payment amounts based on case specific circumstances, such as the severity of the damage and long term care requirements. The cross family is one tragic story amongst many, and I want to stress, Mr.
Stewart, that I am pro-vaccine, as are the cross family. But there must be clear accountability for severe side effects that people have suffered, and those impacted must receive the help that they owed, particularly after they followed government advice. The cross family have always been unequivocal that their fight has never been about money. No amount will bring back John to them. It's always been about accountability, the ability to give others in similar situations, hope and the need to change. A system that told a man he effectively was not disabled enough. I'm proud to support the cross family, and I will continue to do that until they receive the justice that they deserve.
The decision was finally overturned. The cross family has been clear the current vaccine compensation scheme is failing victims. The government has repeatedly stated that it is evaluating options to reform the Vdps, yet no official timescale has been set for making a decision on any alterations or recommendations for a change. This is unacceptable. It leaves victims and their families trapped in a state of anxiety and uncertainty. So will the government publish a timescale for conducting its review of the Vaccine damage payment scheme, and the changes that it intends to implement to ensure certainty for victims? Having received fewer than 800 applications in the decade before Covid 19, it is clear that the Vdps needs to adapt to respond to the significant increase in applications from those affected by Covid 19 vaccines since the Covid 19 pandemic began, the number of claims made has risen significantly, with more than 24,000 claims relating to Covid 19 alone.
Yet despite this stark rise, just over 1% have received the tax free payment. John Cross was a part of that forgotten 99% until his family fought for justice. Does the government believe the 60% threshold is still appropriate, and is the binary yes or no process that awards a flat rate payment for successful claims still fit for purpose? Has any consideration been given to the introduction of a tiered compensation framework that implements varying thresholds for payment amounts based on case specific circumstances, such as the severity of the damage and long term care requirements. The cross family is one tragic story amongst many, and I want to stress, Mr.
Stewart, that I am pro-vaccine, as are the cross family. But there must be clear accountability for severe side effects that people have suffered, and those impacted must receive the help that they owed, particularly after they followed government advice. The cross family have always been unequivocal that their fight has never been about money. No amount will bring back John to them. It's always been about accountability, the ability to give others in similar situations, hope and the need to change. A system that told a man he effectively was not disabled enough. I'm proud to support the cross family, and I will continue to do that until they receive the justice that they deserve.
17:04
17:04
Speaker 36
-
Speaker 36
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Stewart. In a democratic society, we should be able to rely on an inquiry to accurately establish what happened, what should happen and how things should happen better in the future. However, I'm incredibly concerned that this inquiry is failing to do just that, with sweeping assumptions that from the start, the vaccines were to be used and the phrase used was safe and effective. The module four report states it is neither proportionate nor practicable for the inquiry to reach a view on the safety of particular vaccines, but then goes on to declare the utmost reassurance that the steps taken by the UK government and the regulatory bodies did not compromise the UK's rigorous safety standards.
How can they be sure when they have not reached a view on the safety of this time is limited, so I'd like to go to an issue that happened to a person, a mother in my constituency who was given the Moderna Covid 19 booster vaccine in a care home in my constituency. They have recently been successful in their claim to the vaccine damages payment scheme. Their case describes mass serious adverse events in the fellow residents of their mother's care home, and the death of a second resident also attributed to the side effects. The family have since spent years painstakingly collating evidence and research that shows that the MHRA not only failed in its statutory duties by not properly investigating the clear safety signal of multiple care home residents suffering serious a series of fatal reactions, but also failed to be honest about the whole scale.
Lack of safety evidence for using Moderna in the frail elderly care home cohort, either as a main dose or as a booster. 70% of the elderly in our care homes have dementia, and over half of residents are frail. Yet, and I quote, frail subjects with unstable health conditions and co-morbid morbidities, including chronic neurological diseases, were identified as missing information in Moderna's own risk management plan. I have written twice as chair of the Appg for pandemic recovery and Response. I have not yet heard from the Mr. A, so I just wondered, in conclusion, if I could ask for the minister to meet with me and the family to see why we haven't had a response and if she'll take the time to do that.
How can they be sure when they have not reached a view on the safety of this time is limited, so I'd like to go to an issue that happened to a person, a mother in my constituency who was given the Moderna Covid 19 booster vaccine in a care home in my constituency. They have recently been successful in their claim to the vaccine damages payment scheme. Their case describes mass serious adverse events in the fellow residents of their mother's care home, and the death of a second resident also attributed to the side effects. The family have since spent years painstakingly collating evidence and research that shows that the MHRA not only failed in its statutory duties by not properly investigating the clear safety signal of multiple care home residents suffering serious a series of fatal reactions, but also failed to be honest about the whole scale.
Lack of safety evidence for using Moderna in the frail elderly care home cohort, either as a main dose or as a booster. 70% of the elderly in our care homes have dementia, and over half of residents are frail. Yet, and I quote, frail subjects with unstable health conditions and co-morbid morbidities, including chronic neurological diseases, were identified as missing information in Moderna's own risk management plan. I have written twice as chair of the Appg for pandemic recovery and Response. I have not yet heard from the Mr. A, so I just wondered, in conclusion, if I could ask for the minister to meet with me and the family to see why we haven't had a response and if she'll take the time to do that.
17:07
17:07
Speaker 33
-
Speaker 33
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Stewart, and I thank the honourable member for Christchurch for securing this debate today. We must remember all the loved ones who were taken from us by Covid and all those who suffered so terribly during the pandemic and the lockdowns. It is for that reason, during the pandemic that I proposed a Covid memorial would in my Wokingham constituency where people could go to remember their loved ones. And I'm delighted that a would of nearly 8000 trees has been planted. Those who suffered deserved not only our sympathy, but our determination to learn every lesson from this tragic chapter in our country's history.
The inquiry has confirmed that the failure of the last conservative government. Time and time again, the conservatives left our our country vulnerable and unprepared. The British public will never forgive them for partying while communities were engulfed by grief, fear and isolation. Never again can such a tragedy been be repeated. We must learn the lessons from the inquiry and ensure we never return to a politics that ignores expertise and evidence. We cannot afford political leaders like those in reform who would cut back vaccines, trash medical science and spread disinformation. Every party leader should commit to implementing the inquiry's recommendations and supporting the vaccines that help end lockdowns and save lives.
While today's debate concerns module four on vaccine and therapeutics, if I may, I want to briefly touch on module six, which examined the pandemic's impact on adult social care. That report confirmed that bereaved families have known what bereaved families have known. The last conservative government failed to prepare the country and its failures on social care costs. Years of neglect left the sector exposed and created conditions that allowed this horror to unfold. That is why the Liberal Democrats agree with bereaved families, calling for former Health secretary Matt Hancock to be stripped, stripped of his place on the Privy Council return.
The inquiry has confirmed that the failure of the last conservative government. Time and time again, the conservatives left our our country vulnerable and unprepared. The British public will never forgive them for partying while communities were engulfed by grief, fear and isolation. Never again can such a tragedy been be repeated. We must learn the lessons from the inquiry and ensure we never return to a politics that ignores expertise and evidence. We cannot afford political leaders like those in reform who would cut back vaccines, trash medical science and spread disinformation. Every party leader should commit to implementing the inquiry's recommendations and supporting the vaccines that help end lockdowns and save lives.
While today's debate concerns module four on vaccine and therapeutics, if I may, I want to briefly touch on module six, which examined the pandemic's impact on adult social care. That report confirmed that bereaved families have known what bereaved families have known. The last conservative government failed to prepare the country and its failures on social care costs. Years of neglect left the sector exposed and created conditions that allowed this horror to unfold. That is why the Liberal Democrats agree with bereaved families, calling for former Health secretary Matt Hancock to be stripped, stripped of his place on the Privy Council return.
17:09
17:09
Speaker 33
-
Speaker 33
Returning to. module four before returning to module four. The inquiry highlighted one of the genuine successes of the pandemic response the vaccine rollout. The rollout was, in the inquiry's words, an extraordinary feat. The success belongs to our scientists, to NHS staff, community pharmacists and volunteers who volunteered around, who delivered around 132 million jabs in 2021 alone, creating the largest vaccine programme in British history. The vaccine saved almost 475,000 lives in England and Scotland alone. We should never forget that, and we must never allow anyone to rewrite that history. Yet the inquiry was equally clear that trust in the vaccines must be rebuilt.
Childhood vaccination rates have been falling for years, leaving more people vulnerable to preventable disease and increasing pressure on our health service. We must listen to our scientists, not to conspiracy theorists. Nigel Farage and Reform are amplifying dangerous anti-vaccine rhetoric associated with Donald Trump.
Childhood vaccination rates have been falling for years, leaving more people vulnerable to preventable disease and increasing pressure on our health service. We must listen to our scientists, not to conspiracy theorists. Nigel Farage and Reform are amplifying dangerous anti-vaccine rhetoric associated with Donald Trump.
17:11
17:11
Speaker 33
-
Speaker 33
We cannot allow Trump's America to become Farage's Britain. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a strategy to combat anti-vaccine and medical disinformation, alongside a new drive to deliver record vaccination rates. Vaccines should be brought closer to communities through trusted local venues, including church halls and community centres. The best way to honor those we lost is to learn from the lessons of this inquiry, defend science, rebuild trust in vaccination and ensure that when the next crisis comes, Britain is never again so unprepared.
Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
Thank you, Mr. Stewart.
17:11
Speaker 20
-
Speaker 20
His Majesty's Opposition spokesman, Greg Stafford. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Stewart, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the member for Christchurch for securing this debate. He's pressed this issue for many years under both governments, and he deserves credit for his persistence. So I want to begin where the inquiry begins with success. Baroness Hallett described the UK's vaccine development as one of the success stories of the pandemic, and I am proud of the leading role the former conservative government played in that it backed vaccines early and at risk, set up the vaccine taskforce.
Kate Bingham And on the 2nd of December 2020, the UK became the first country in the world to approve the Pfizer vaccine. Across 2021, some 132 million doses were given the largest vaccination programme in our history. The credit belongs to the scientists, the NHS workers, the pharmacists, the 360,000 volunteers who signed up for trials and the public. But the inquiry's report is not only a story of success, it's five recommendations set out what must be done better, and it is on those that the government's response, published on 16th of October, needs scrutiny on recommendation for faster access to health data so that the MMR MHRA can monitor vaccine safety.
The government agrees, and then it says it will need, and I quote, significant investment over time. There is no timeline and there is no funding promise. Reports to the yellow card scheme rose by 75% between 2020 and 2022, which shows that people are willing to report. The system must be able to act on what they tell it now, as my hon. Friend expressed in his remarks, recommendation five is where the response is weakest. The inquiry said the government must reform the vaccine damage payment scheme as soon as possible, and it set four minimums, raise the £120,000 payment at least in line with inflation uprated annually.
Introduce multiple levels of payment according to the degree of injury and provide a fair transitional arrangements. Now, as my hon. Friend for Bromsgrove has said, the government's response gives no date, no figure and no commitment to any one of them. Meanwhile, the cost of administering the scheme rose from £8.9 million in 2223 to £29.2 million in 2526, around £83 million across four years. By my reckoning, awards over the same period come to about £31 million, a scheme that spends more than twice as much on administration as on compensation is not working for taxpayers or for claimants now.
My right hon. Friend the member for Louth and Horncastle ordered a review of the scheme before the last election, and I wish it had concluded sooner, but this government has now had more than two years. I concede that on this occasion the government has kept its word and responded within six months, but a response delivered on time is not the same as a response that commits to anything. And as I say, there is still no timetable, as my right hon. Friend the member for Kenilworth and Southam so eloquently put it, ultimately, vaccine confidence matters. The best way to show to protect it is to show that when something goes wrong, the state stands behind the person.
The vaccine programme was a success. Let us make sure the system built around it is worthy of that success. So I ask the minister a number of questions. Firstly, will the government set out a timetable for its review of the Vaccine Damage payment scheme and the reform it intends to make? Second, which of the inquiry's four minimum reforms will the government commit to? Thirdly, will it look again at a 60% threshold, set performance targets for processing claims and bring administration costs under control? Fourth, will it strengthen the yellow card scheme with funding commitments and a date for the health data framework?
One I've just added now, will she meet with the hon. My right hon. Friend for Tatton, who has been seeking a meeting for such a long time. And finally, Mr. Stewart, will the Minister bring forward proposals before my hon. Friend's Bill, which, as he mentioned, is scheduled for second reading on the 15th of January. I am sure my hon. Friend and I look forward to the Minister's response.
Kate Bingham And on the 2nd of December 2020, the UK became the first country in the world to approve the Pfizer vaccine. Across 2021, some 132 million doses were given the largest vaccination programme in our history. The credit belongs to the scientists, the NHS workers, the pharmacists, the 360,000 volunteers who signed up for trials and the public. But the inquiry's report is not only a story of success, it's five recommendations set out what must be done better, and it is on those that the government's response, published on 16th of October, needs scrutiny on recommendation for faster access to health data so that the MMR MHRA can monitor vaccine safety.
The government agrees, and then it says it will need, and I quote, significant investment over time. There is no timeline and there is no funding promise. Reports to the yellow card scheme rose by 75% between 2020 and 2022, which shows that people are willing to report. The system must be able to act on what they tell it now, as my hon. Friend expressed in his remarks, recommendation five is where the response is weakest. The inquiry said the government must reform the vaccine damage payment scheme as soon as possible, and it set four minimums, raise the £120,000 payment at least in line with inflation uprated annually.
Introduce multiple levels of payment according to the degree of injury and provide a fair transitional arrangements. Now, as my hon. Friend for Bromsgrove has said, the government's response gives no date, no figure and no commitment to any one of them. Meanwhile, the cost of administering the scheme rose from £8.9 million in 2223 to £29.2 million in 2526, around £83 million across four years. By my reckoning, awards over the same period come to about £31 million, a scheme that spends more than twice as much on administration as on compensation is not working for taxpayers or for claimants now.
My right hon. Friend the member for Louth and Horncastle ordered a review of the scheme before the last election, and I wish it had concluded sooner, but this government has now had more than two years. I concede that on this occasion the government has kept its word and responded within six months, but a response delivered on time is not the same as a response that commits to anything. And as I say, there is still no timetable, as my right hon. Friend the member for Kenilworth and Southam so eloquently put it, ultimately, vaccine confidence matters. The best way to show to protect it is to show that when something goes wrong, the state stands behind the person.
The vaccine programme was a success. Let us make sure the system built around it is worthy of that success. So I ask the minister a number of questions. Firstly, will the government set out a timetable for its review of the Vaccine Damage payment scheme and the reform it intends to make? Second, which of the inquiry's four minimum reforms will the government commit to? Thirdly, will it look again at a 60% threshold, set performance targets for processing claims and bring administration costs under control? Fourth, will it strengthen the yellow card scheme with funding commitments and a date for the health data framework?
One I've just added now, will she meet with the hon. My right hon. Friend for Tatton, who has been seeking a meeting for such a long time. And finally, Mr. Stewart, will the Minister bring forward proposals before my hon. Friend's Bill, which, as he mentioned, is scheduled for second reading on the 15th of January. I am sure my hon. Friend and I look forward to the Minister's response.
17:16
17:16
17:16
17:16
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
To serve under you under your chairmanship this afternoon as my next door neighbour in East Yorkshire. I'd like to start by thanking the honourable gentleman, the member for Christchurch, for securing this debate, and I want to pay tribute to him for his work on the Appg for pandemic response and recovery and for all of his campaigning work over so many years. And it was interesting that he referenced his first speech in this area and I think in 2021. So persistence is certainly a quality that my the honourable gentleman has. And can I also say, of course, I'm very willing always to meet with honourable members and right honourable members, too.
And I think this has been a very a very good debate on such an important topic. My hon. Friend for Worthing West, I think, who speaks with great authority as a public health consultant, has set out some of the very good work that happened during the pandemic and also the international perspective as well, that we need to be mindful of. The right hon. Gentleman for Kenilworth and Southam, obviously a very doughty campaigner on behalf of his constituents, Kate Scott made a very eloquent speech, as ever, and I agree with him about the issue of timeliness.
I absolutely take that point, my hon. Friend for Blaikley and Middleton South, who took us back to some of the decisions, the key decisions that were made during the pandemic. The honourable member for Great Yarmouth, who delivered a speech that, sadly, I felt was anti-vaccination, didn't recognise the public health benefits of vaccinations. The honourable member for Bromsgrove, who spoke very movingly about John Cross and his family and the fight that his family had had, and the need for reform of the Vaccine damage payment scheme and the right hon. Lady for Tatton, who of course I will meet as soon as possible with, and the family as well.
So, Mr. Stuart, during the pandemic we on these benches did our best to offer constructive opposition to the previous government, and this government is committed to learning every lesson from the Covid inquiry. We are extremely grateful to the noble Baroness Hallett and her team for the thoughtful and thorough advice that they have offered to us so far. At the end of next week, we will mark 80 years since the National Health Service Act became law, paving the way for the introduction of the NHS two years later, and it will be a chance to remember and pay tribute to all those who serve the public with such courage and professionalism over the pandemic, not least our social care workforce, whose contribution has been overlooked for too long.
So turning to module four, we are also grateful to the small army of researchers, clinicians and regulators who worked around the clock to ensure that vaccines were deployed at speed. Having gone through the rigorous safeguards of a clinical trial. But while it is recognised the success of the vaccine programme, module four reports also sets out a series of recommendations in areas for improvement, for example, the Future vaccination and therapeutic therapeutics programme must, of course, have people's trust be guided by the best available evidence and remain available to all who need them. The inquiry also notes that safety monitoring must continue to evolve, with improvements to health data infrastructure, and the government published our response to these recommendations earlier this month, and we are taking action across the board to improve vaccination uptake.
Pandemic preparedness and the strength of UK life sciences, especially through our pandemic preparedness strategy. If the pandemic taught us anything, it's the UK. Life sciences are not just vital for UK growth, it's that they play a central and strategic role in how we respond to health threats. We propose to establish an advisory group with our partners in industry building resilience across our supply chains. Now, vaccination uptake is not where it needs to be, especially for children, and that is why we need stronger engagement with communities, particularly with those communities where uptake is lower than average.
And as the Minister for Public Health, I'm especially concerned by the re-emergence of measles and other diseases that we thought had been banished. When I was a girl, I also just wanted to respond to my hon. Friend on the on the issue of targets, we still have the target. The World Health Organisation target of 95% coverage. Now, I'm determined to make sure that protection that vaccines afford remains available to the many and not the few. And I have also been clear that there must be strong collaboration across our United Kingdom, because diseases do not stop at Offa's Dyke or at Hadrian's Wall, and we are strengthening the way we monitor outbreaks while improving access to linked healthcare data across all four nations.
But I now want to turn to recommendation five, and specifically to the Vaccine Damage Payment scheme, which is an important financial support for anyone who has been severely disabled following a vaccination. 53 million people followed the example of Her late Majesty the Queen and took the jab to protect themselves, their loved ones and their communities. This country has a global reputation for our uncompromising approach to safety, and vaccines are only authorized once they have met robust standards of effectiveness, safety and quality. However, in rare, devastating circumstances, some people have gone through the nightmare of losing a loved one or suffered severe adverse outcomes following vaccination.
These are people who did as they were asked in good faith and through no fault of their own, have become disabled or worse, and we can never turn a blind eye to the tragic instances where things go wrong. And we must continue to be honest with the wider public that no vaccine is completely free of risk. So this afternoon, I have listened very carefully to the concerns raised about the current scheme, the support available to those affected, the experiences of those who have made claims and the time it's taken to respond to these concerns. People who experience severe outcomes deserve appropriate support.
This is not just about the welfare of those families. Important though that is, as the honourable Right hon. Gentleman said, it's about public trust in our wider vaccine programme because people must be confident stepping into the clinic that the state will be there for them if things go wrong. Now, the the honourable gentleman asked me about when did we start to review the scheme. I wanted to be very clear on this, because I know previous ministers have stood and given answers on this. The Department has been considering options for reform and will now initiate a period of open engagement with those affected.
We are going beyond the case for reform. And turning now to the detail that must underpin any reforms. And the honourable gentleman for Bromsgrove asked me if the government and a number of members did the same, asked me whether the government accept that 60% disability threshold is too high, and will we consider changing it? The government understands the concerns raised about the 60% disability threshold by the inquiry. The inquiry's recommendations will be central to our ongoing work, as the government considers a range of options for potential reform, including introducing those multiple layers of levels of payment.
Last week I met with injured and bereaved families. I understood that, and I understand their frustrations about how long this is taking, when successive governments have kicked this can down the road. I'm happy to give way.
And I think this has been a very a very good debate on such an important topic. My hon. Friend for Worthing West, I think, who speaks with great authority as a public health consultant, has set out some of the very good work that happened during the pandemic and also the international perspective as well, that we need to be mindful of. The right hon. Gentleman for Kenilworth and Southam, obviously a very doughty campaigner on behalf of his constituents, Kate Scott made a very eloquent speech, as ever, and I agree with him about the issue of timeliness.
I absolutely take that point, my hon. Friend for Blaikley and Middleton South, who took us back to some of the decisions, the key decisions that were made during the pandemic. The honourable member for Great Yarmouth, who delivered a speech that, sadly, I felt was anti-vaccination, didn't recognise the public health benefits of vaccinations. The honourable member for Bromsgrove, who spoke very movingly about John Cross and his family and the fight that his family had had, and the need for reform of the Vaccine damage payment scheme and the right hon. Lady for Tatton, who of course I will meet as soon as possible with, and the family as well.
So, Mr. Stuart, during the pandemic we on these benches did our best to offer constructive opposition to the previous government, and this government is committed to learning every lesson from the Covid inquiry. We are extremely grateful to the noble Baroness Hallett and her team for the thoughtful and thorough advice that they have offered to us so far. At the end of next week, we will mark 80 years since the National Health Service Act became law, paving the way for the introduction of the NHS two years later, and it will be a chance to remember and pay tribute to all those who serve the public with such courage and professionalism over the pandemic, not least our social care workforce, whose contribution has been overlooked for too long.
So turning to module four, we are also grateful to the small army of researchers, clinicians and regulators who worked around the clock to ensure that vaccines were deployed at speed. Having gone through the rigorous safeguards of a clinical trial. But while it is recognised the success of the vaccine programme, module four reports also sets out a series of recommendations in areas for improvement, for example, the Future vaccination and therapeutic therapeutics programme must, of course, have people's trust be guided by the best available evidence and remain available to all who need them. The inquiry also notes that safety monitoring must continue to evolve, with improvements to health data infrastructure, and the government published our response to these recommendations earlier this month, and we are taking action across the board to improve vaccination uptake.
Pandemic preparedness and the strength of UK life sciences, especially through our pandemic preparedness strategy. If the pandemic taught us anything, it's the UK. Life sciences are not just vital for UK growth, it's that they play a central and strategic role in how we respond to health threats. We propose to establish an advisory group with our partners in industry building resilience across our supply chains. Now, vaccination uptake is not where it needs to be, especially for children, and that is why we need stronger engagement with communities, particularly with those communities where uptake is lower than average.
And as the Minister for Public Health, I'm especially concerned by the re-emergence of measles and other diseases that we thought had been banished. When I was a girl, I also just wanted to respond to my hon. Friend on the on the issue of targets, we still have the target. The World Health Organisation target of 95% coverage. Now, I'm determined to make sure that protection that vaccines afford remains available to the many and not the few. And I have also been clear that there must be strong collaboration across our United Kingdom, because diseases do not stop at Offa's Dyke or at Hadrian's Wall, and we are strengthening the way we monitor outbreaks while improving access to linked healthcare data across all four nations.
But I now want to turn to recommendation five, and specifically to the Vaccine Damage Payment scheme, which is an important financial support for anyone who has been severely disabled following a vaccination. 53 million people followed the example of Her late Majesty the Queen and took the jab to protect themselves, their loved ones and their communities. This country has a global reputation for our uncompromising approach to safety, and vaccines are only authorized once they have met robust standards of effectiveness, safety and quality. However, in rare, devastating circumstances, some people have gone through the nightmare of losing a loved one or suffered severe adverse outcomes following vaccination.
These are people who did as they were asked in good faith and through no fault of their own, have become disabled or worse, and we can never turn a blind eye to the tragic instances where things go wrong. And we must continue to be honest with the wider public that no vaccine is completely free of risk. So this afternoon, I have listened very carefully to the concerns raised about the current scheme, the support available to those affected, the experiences of those who have made claims and the time it's taken to respond to these concerns. People who experience severe outcomes deserve appropriate support.
This is not just about the welfare of those families. Important though that is, as the honourable Right hon. Gentleman said, it's about public trust in our wider vaccine programme because people must be confident stepping into the clinic that the state will be there for them if things go wrong. Now, the the honourable gentleman asked me about when did we start to review the scheme. I wanted to be very clear on this, because I know previous ministers have stood and given answers on this. The Department has been considering options for reform and will now initiate a period of open engagement with those affected.
We are going beyond the case for reform. And turning now to the detail that must underpin any reforms. And the honourable gentleman for Bromsgrove asked me if the government and a number of members did the same, asked me whether the government accept that 60% disability threshold is too high, and will we consider changing it? The government understands the concerns raised about the 60% disability threshold by the inquiry. The inquiry's recommendations will be central to our ongoing work, as the government considers a range of options for potential reform, including introducing those multiple layers of levels of payment.
Last week I met with injured and bereaved families. I understood that, and I understand their frustrations about how long this is taking, when successive governments have kicked this can down the road. I'm happy to give way.
17:24
17:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
On the point she makes about whether or not graded payments might be available under the scheme. Can she be clear that what she's considering is linking that to the disablement requirement? Because, of course, what we would not want as an outcome is simply reducing the £120,000 for those who are 60% disabled or more. What we are interested in is perhaps giving some money to those who are below the 60% threshold. Can she confirm that's what she's thinking about?
17:24
17:24
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
To say that's what I'm thinking about because of the the unfairness of just that 60% barrier that you have to get through. So , yes, I'm certainly looking at that and that will be considered. I'm not saying exactly what's going to be decided, but that's certainly an option that I've asked officials to look at. So I was just saying that I'd met with some injured and bereaved families in recent days, and understood their frustration about how long everything was taking, and that successive governments appear to have kicked the can down the road. And I note that the scheme has not been reformed since I was a member of the last Labour government in 2007, and, of course it must now be made fit for the future, and I think we can all agree on that.
And that's why ministers will again meet with families of those injured and bereaved before the end of the year , and in the coming weeks before Christmas, my officials will meet with advisers put forward by the families of those injured and bereaved to listen to their views on possible options for reform of the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme. From now until spring, officials will meet and engage with our key partners, including those injured and bereaved, to discuss the reforms, and I look forward to updating colleagues in the spring, nearly everyone in our country. Yes, I'm very happy to give way.
And that's why ministers will again meet with families of those injured and bereaved before the end of the year , and in the coming weeks before Christmas, my officials will meet with advisers put forward by the families of those injured and bereaved to listen to their views on possible options for reform of the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme. From now until spring, officials will meet and engage with our key partners, including those injured and bereaved, to discuss the reforms, and I look forward to updating colleagues in the spring, nearly everyone in our country. Yes, I'm very happy to give way.
17:26
17:26
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Yes, I'm very happy to meet with the right hon. Lady and to discuss all of the points that she wishes to raise. I think nearly everyone in our country remembers when they walked into their local clinic or pharmacy, or even their church hall, or the school sports hall or the village hall to get their jab. We remember with pride how a country rallied together as part of a national effort to save lives. For most of us, the vaccine was a welcome relief, offering additional freedoms and safety. But for some families, it brought that devastating loss and hardship.
And as the new minister responsible for this policy, I want to say to to colleagues that I am committed to working closely with those families that I met just last week, and I want progress to be made quickly. And I also want to say that we will report any interim progress through the UK Covid 19 inquiry implementation updates. The public have a right to know that we are learning from past mistakes and as the Minister for Public Health, I will never take their trust for granted. The government's response to module four will not be some exercise in box ticking or window dressing, because we know when it comes to preparing for future public health emergencies, that readiness is all and we need the trust of our communities.
And as the new minister responsible for this policy, I want to say to to colleagues that I am committed to working closely with those families that I met just last week, and I want progress to be made quickly. And I also want to say that we will report any interim progress through the UK Covid 19 inquiry implementation updates. The public have a right to know that we are learning from past mistakes and as the Minister for Public Health, I will never take their trust for granted. The government's response to module four will not be some exercise in box ticking or window dressing, because we know when it comes to preparing for future public health emergencies, that readiness is all and we need the trust of our communities.
17:28
17:28
Speaker 32
-
Speaker 32
I'm grateful to the minister for that response, and I'm grateful for everybody who's participated in this debate. And nobody can doubt the sincerity of what the minister has has said. I hope that not just she's not just going to be talking to the families, but also to parliamentarians, because lots of us have got constituents. And and I an extract from the Telegraph saying paralysed vaccine victim, not ill enough for payout. That's an example of the issues that are on that particular victim was working for the NHS as a nurse. And so we need action. And can I say that what the the the tone of what the minister has said seems more like a placebo .
And, and placebos have their place in healthcare. But I think we need to go further than that. And she talks about the spring. Well, we're we're still in the autumn. Why why can't we get some action now? And all the time the government knew what was going on at the inquiry. The victims gave evidence at the inquiry. The inquiry made its recommendations. And why can't the government now accept those four recommendations in the recommendation five? That's what I don't understand, and I'm not satisfied in that respect. And I shall continue to campaign on this. I hope, for not another five years.
Mr. Stewart.
And, and placebos have their place in healthcare. But I think we need to go further than that. And she talks about the spring. Well, we're we're still in the autumn. Why why can't we get some action now? And all the time the government knew what was going on at the inquiry. The victims gave evidence at the inquiry. The inquiry made its recommendations. And why can't the government now accept those four recommendations in the recommendation five? That's what I don't understand, and I'm not satisfied in that respect. And I shall continue to campaign on this. I hope, for not another five years.
Mr. Stewart.