Westminster Hall

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 14 May 2025

[Peter Dowd in the Chair]

Future of Public Libraries

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

00:00

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of public libraries.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Public libraries are at the heart of our communities. They have incredible value, as I am sure we will hear from colleagues today, but they also have an important and underutilised role in delivering the Government’s plan for change. I will talk briefly about the diverse and important roles that public libraries play in our society and the profound risks they face, and finally I will urge the Minister to work with colleagues to implement and go boldly beyond the recommendations of the Sanderson review.

That review, commissioned by the previous Government and published last year, calls on Government to develop a national strategy for public libraries. I thank the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals for supporting me to understand the challenge faced by libraries and articulate the need for change. It is good to see some friends from CILIP in the Public Gallery today.

The public library as we know it has been shaped and moulded by the laws and motions enacted in this place. It is 175 years since the Member of Parliament William Ewart, against much opposition, led the charge to introduce the Public Libraries Act 1850. The Act compelled boroughs to establish free public libraries, and it was the first legislative step in the creation of an enduring national institution that provides universal free access to trustworthy information. Opposition was rooted in the belief that knowledge was a volatile force, too potent for “the rough and poor”, who were seen as unfit to grasp or use it responsibly. Libraries, opponents warned, would become breeding grounds for unrest and lecture halls of unhealthy agitation, threatening social order. There is a sweet irony, then, in the face of an explosion of misinformation and a rapidly changing world, that libraries have become a rare beacon of trustworthy information where we can build our knowledge and skills with confidence. It may be that our democracy depends on it.

While I could spend my full time today waxing lyrical about the importance of libraries, I want to think more specifically about the needs they meet, more strategically about their role in delivering Government priorities, and more precisely about the value they contribute to the economy. Everybody knows that the public purse strings are tighter than they once were, but despite facing real-terms cuts of 49% since 2010, public libraries continue to produce immense educational, economic and social value. They have adapted in ways that William Ewart could not have imagined.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. In Somerset we have a huge number of libraries, and a recent independent review cited Somerset libraries as examples of excellence nationally. In community-managed libraries such as Castle Cary, links to carers’ groups have been established. Does he agree that libraries must be kept well-funded and accessible, in recognition of their wide-ranging role in the community, and particularly rural communities?

[Jonathan Davies]

I do agree. We need more money for libraries, but we also need to find ways of collaborating and innovating, so that we can do more with less. The hon. Member makes a good point about rural communities; I thank her for that.

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

I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. Clearly, there is much agreement on the importance of public libraries, but in rural communities such as those in my constituency, access is often limited by insufficient transport and the rural premium associated with running services. Does he agree that the Government should urgently review steps to support access to rural libraries, so that constituencies such as mine are not left without these treasured community assets?

[Jonathan Davies]

I know the hon. Lady is a champion for rural communities and her constituents. The Government are looking carefully at public transport, but a national strategy for public libraries, which I will come to, could draw upon the issue she raises.

Many of our libraries have quietly evolved into digital learning centres, enterprise hubs and pillars of community wellbeing. Across the country brilliant initiatives have emerged, such as the Glass Box in Taunton, where people of all ages develop skills in 3D printing and programming in library spaces. There are initiatives such as Gloucestershire’s library-led programme tackling loneliness among older people. Those are models that should be shared.

As many as 13.7 million adults used a library last year, not just for books but to study, get online and sometimes as a place to feel safe. I believe the Minister referred to libraries as “cultural diamonds” and I could not agree more. Baroness Twycross has noted that they are

“one of the last non-transactional spaces in our communities.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 September 2024; Vol. 839, c. GC140.]

It is hugely encouraging to see such clear appreciation and understanding of public libraries at the heart of Government.

[Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I congratulate him on securing this important debate. He mentioned community spaces. My borough of Haringey uses libraries as community spaces to encourage more people to use them, with various innovative ideas, such as the library late scheme. Libraries open later and get artists and musicians to make use of the community space that libraries are there to serve. Does he agree that is a good way to encourage diverse communities to access library spaces?

[Jonathan Davies]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. People might not think to use the library, but if something else gets them through the door it might prompt them to use it again in future.

Despite the hard work done on mitigation, adaptation and commercialisation, cuts to public services since 2010 have meant that, tragically, public libraries are disappearing. Since 2010 we have lost around 276 static libraries in England, although that could be a substantial underestimate, as we are losing about 40 a year. That is not to mention the loss of good jobs for the trained professionals who run them. That is clearly unsustainable, and must not be allowed to continue.

We know that the situation in local authorities is acute, with a number of councils issuing section 114 notices. Almost one in five English councils will rely on exceptional financial support from central Government this financial year. Although local authorities have a statutory requirement to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service, that requirement is vague and untested, leaving the service at risk of being targeted for savings and efficiencies.

I do not envy local authorities for the difficult choices they have to make. We have a false dichotomy, however, between long-term ambition and short-term crisis.

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. In the Derbyshire Dales libraries play a crucial role, hosting all kinds of community activities and providing space for the next generation to socialise and learn. They are a lifeline for those in the most remote and rural parts of the constituency, especially the elderly. The access that libraries give to the internet, and physical and digital services such as printing and archives, is vital for so many in our towns and villages. The previous Conservative council made significant cuts to opening times of local libraries, and the newly elected Reform group has made no promises to safeguard them. Does my hon. Friend acknowledge the urgent need to protect our local libraries from cuts, especially where they serve remote and rural communities?

[Jonathan Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When the Conservatives ran Derbyshire county council until a matter of days ago, they signed off £625,000 of cuts to the library budget over four years. They did keep all the libraries open and they removed reservation fees for much of the stock. Credit where it is due—I welcome that. Savings were achieved through reduced opening hours, as my hon. Friend said. Reducing opening hours may be a difficult decision that some councils need to take to keep libraries open, but we know that the impact of those decisions will disproportionately be felt by people who already face a lack of opportunity, which is also true of library closures.

As my hon. Friend said, Derbyshire now has a Reform-led council. We know very little about Reform’s priorities for the authority or how it will run services. I urge the new Reform UK leaders of Derbyshire county council to recognise the value of local libraries and find innovative ways to work together, collaborating to help them grow.

I know the Minister will not be able to commit to putting more money into libraries, without a strong evidence base for what it will achieve. That strikes at the heart of the problem. We do not know what the extent of public library provision is. We do not know where it is, what it does and what it could do. Regulated healthcare services are listed in a national database, with contact details for their leaders and information about what is being provided. A similar resource could be developed for libraries across local authorities, schools, colleges, universities, healthcare settings and prisons. It could show who can use them, the extent of their catalogues and the range of skills held by the professionals behind them. There are opportunities to use libraries for a range of activities, including commercial ones, which would help them deliver increased public value.

A national database could support collaboration between library and information professionals and allow the Government to better use the full portfolio of those services to support their skills and community cohesion agendas. That is why I echo calls from the other place for the Government to develop a full national strategy for public libraries, backed by robust data. Not only would that intervention produce savings by reducing demand on other services, but it would unlock significantly more value than it would cost to implement. A national strategy could help a child to get a better start in life, a parent to receive the support they need, a jobseeker to find a quiet and supportive place to search for work, somebody struggling to understand an important but confusing form that they need explaining to them, an entrepreneur to find a new niche, or an older person to safely pay a bill. All that is in addition to satisfying a thirst for knowledge, which seeks to understand and further the human condition.

Many local authorities already calculate the contributions that libraries make to public health initiatives, digital inclusion, adult education, tackling isolation and so much more, but too often that work is done to identify where the least harmful savings can be made. Other institutions, such as schools, jobcentres and the NHS, should know what libraries are contributing to their work, and so should central Government, but without reliable data we do not have a full picture of the value our libraries are delivering, nor can we fully understand what vulnerable or disadvantaged people and communities stand to lose when their libraries start to close.

Better data would also allow us to understand the regional inequalities that doubtless exist in the distribution of services. That is why a key recommendation of the Sanderson review was to establish a national data hub to serve as the evidence base for a national strategy. Much of the rest of the Sanderson review’s recommendations can be implemented at little cost. They include the creation of a libraries laureate to champion the sector, automatic enrolment for children in the libraries run by their local council, support for the network of library volunteers who do so much more for their communities, and awareness days or branding for local libraries to tap into. When the Sanderson review was published, its recommendations were welcomed by the British Library, which has convening power and significant influence in the wider sector.

Based on the huge variety of activities and services that libraries deliver, it is clear that a national strategy must be cross-governmental. Even so, that work needs one person to hold the pen. Industry experts are concerned that libraries no longer appear in a ministerial title, and they would greatly appreciate it if that were restored. I hope the Government will reflect on that modest change.

I shall be grateful if the Minister would reflect on the Sanderson review and advise us on the Government’s plans to deliver on its recommendations, including by providing a timeline of any actions and telling us whether he supports a national plan for libraries. I shall also be grateful if he tells us what conversations he is having with CILIP, the British Library, local authorities and representatives of the libraries sector about how we can work together to improve public library provision. Finally, it would be wonderful to know what representations the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has made to the Treasury to articulate the value of libraries and ask for more money for those vital resources.

It is wonderful to see so many Members from across the House in the Chamber to talk about why public libraries are so very important. I am excited to hear about the best practice from the areas they represent, the challenges their communities have faced and the life-changing impact that libraries have had on their constituents. I look forward to working with colleagues to deliver on the amazing promise of these truly amazing, special and unique places today and for generations to come.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

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

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Thank you very much. That gives me the opportunity to say how much time people will have to speak, because I want to bring in the Opposition spokesperson and the Minister from 10.30 am. Back Benchers will have five minutes, but that may come down, depending on the level of interventions. I call Jim Shannon.

09:44

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. I did not expect to be called this early, but it is always a pleasure to speak in a debate and to serve under your chairship.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on setting the scene so well. Libraries are obviously vastly important to him, as they are to me, from a constituency point of view. He is right to highlight the importance of public libraries across the United Kingdom. I speak from some experience: I used to serve in the Northern Ireland Assembly on the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure, and part of that responsibility was for libraries in Northern Ireland, including libraries in my Strangford constituency. Public libraries are services that are much loved and must be protected, so it is great to be here to discuss them.

It is always good to see the Minister in his place. I look forward to his contribution and to hearing what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), have to say about libraries.

My constituency has many wonderful libraries, including Newtownards library, which was recently refurbished; Killyleagh library, which has also been refurbished; and Ballynahinch library. Libraries are not just about books; they are also about events that can happen in them. They are always related to books, or along those lines, but they are available for different events. Last Friday there was a VE Day event at Killyleagh library, and it was a pleasure to be there. An author from Belfast spoke about his book on the Jewish people who came to Northern Ireland during the second world war. It was a lovely occasion. I think the ambience of the library added to the occasion. The subject matter was very pertinent to the area, because many Jewish people came to live in Killyleagh and their contribution to the society was incredible. I will remember that event on Friday for a long time.

In a world in which our phones and being online can dominate our time, it is fantastic that our community libraries can be upheld. Last year I was fortunate to be given some children’s books at an event here in Westminster. I met staff from the local library back home in Newtownards, and gave the books to the library so that they could in turn use them and give them to children.

The hunger and eagerness of children who read books encourages me greatly. I have six grandchildren. Every one of them, even the wee ones—the youngest are three and four—has devoured books. I was at an event downstairs in Parliament today about eating habits. It had nothing to do with this issue, but one of the things it was about was encouraging children to eat their greens. I am very fortunate because my last two grandchildren, the three-year-old and four-year-old, do not have to be encouraged to eat their greens, or to read books, but it is really important that we do that.

For young children, reading has so many benefits, including for cognitive brain development and enhancing language. I have been shocked in the past, when attending different libraries, by the sheer variety of literature offered. I do not think there is one individual who would struggle to find a book suited to them. In addition to reading, our libraries offer crucial services by providing access to computers and printing and serving as community hubs. There are knit and natter groups for the elderly: they come and do a bit of knitting and they natter for ages—well, they certainly did whenever I was there. Schools will often have libraries, but they also do visits to community libraries for talks and so on, or to meet the authors of popular books.

Libraries NI is fantastic in offering mobile libraries for rural villages that perhaps do not have decent access to library services. This gives constituents who are more isolated, and especially older people, an opportunity to get out and about and engage with others. In Northern Ireland, the arrival of a mobile library to homes across a rural constituency means a lot. Banks and retail shops have gone online and disappeared from the community, but libraries, including mobile libraries, are still there. I hope that our library services will not be left behind and that local libraries across the whole United Kingdom will continue to be funded so that they can remain open.

I will conclude, because I am conscious of the time and the five-minute limit. So many people of a wide variety of ages love and rely on our library services. We must protect libraries through additional funding and the encouragement of their use, so that more people apply for library cards and take advantage of these wonderful services. Our libraries are very much part of the community.

09:49

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

I have said before in this place that libraries are the NHS for the soul. They are funded by our taxes, free at the point of use and there when we need them the most. Libraries are no longer just about borrowing books, although that is still reason enough to love them; they are community hubs, digital lifelines, maker spaces, job centres and warm welcomes all in one. They offer a helping hand, a listening ear and a gateway to opportunity. They improve, enrich and inspire us. A library can change a life, whether it is a child discovering a love of reading, an adult learning new skills or someone finding the support they need to turn their life around. Libraries are the crown jewels of our communities. As with anything precious, they deserve to be cherished, protected and given everything they need to thrive.

Yet today, too many libraries are simply trying to survive. Years of being in the crosshairs of local authority budget cuts have taken their toll. But never underestimate a community that hears that its local library is under threat. The quietest places often have the loudest defenders, and they have a formidable arsenal of defensive weapons available—including, of course, paper cuts. Let us remember that libraries are not a luxury: they are a lifeline—a non-negotiable part of community life.

I have loved libraries since I was five, although I admit that a library was also the first place I ever got fined, and the only place where I have accidentally triggered a bomb scare. I like to think that I have got better at using them responsibly since then. One of my earliest memories is being taken to Bannockburn library by my mum, who told me to pick any book I wanted. I remember being overwhelmed by the choice and thrilled by the freedom. I walked out with a book on Roman warships that sparked a lifelong love of history and libraries. I should also admit that I did not walk it back in until well after the book was due, and I got a fine for my trouble. Happily, in Stirling today it has been many years since a Labour-led council did away with library fines, because no one should face a financial penalty for enjoying a book.

When I was 15 and walking home from orchestra practice, I popped into the library and lost track of time. I left my clarinet in its black case under a table. The next day it was sitting at the police station, after being assessed as a potential security threat to the then Secretary of State for Scotland, who had spoken at the community centre that evening. Let us just say that the local sergeant gave me a very firm talking to when I went to collect it.

In Stirling and Strathallan, we are proud of our library heritage. The Leighton library in Dunblane—the oldest purpose-built library in Scotland—has offered books since 1687; the Smith Art Gallery and Museum included a public reading room when it opened in 1874; and Stirling’s first modern public library was opened in 1904, thanks to Andrew Carnegie’s generosity. That spirit lives on today, most recently when 270 donations from local residents funded the award-winning Thomas Graham library in Strathblane.

Across Stirling and Strathallan we have 18 libraries and two mobile library vans, serving almost 70,000 people across almost 2,500 square kilometres. And our libraries are busy, from Bannockburn library’s award-winning maker space to the fantastic Off the Page book festival, which is happening right now in libraries across my constituency. The University of Stirling’s libraries and archives, including the Scottish political archive, remind us that libraries are also stewards of our shared history.

Libraries are free, welcoming and open to all. They are where a child can fall in love with reading, someone can retrain for work, and a lonely person can find connection. In the rush to balance budgets, we must not lose sight of what libraries give us and what we lose if we let them slip away. Libraries are not a luxury; they are a lifeline. Books can open doors, but libraries hold the keys to those doors. Let us not lock the doors on future generations by undervaluing and under-investing in our libraries. Libraries ask for very little and give us everything in return. If we value community, we must value our libraries. Let us protect them, promote them and make sure that they are there—open, welcoming and thriving—for generations to come.

09:54

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for securing this debate.

I want to talk about the future of public libraries in my fairly rural constituency. In particular, I wish to highlight the role of Radstock library, one of 11 community-run libraries in Bath and North East Somerset. Although the council supports the core service, providing book deliveries and the library system, it is the local community that keeps its doors open. In Radstock’s case, the council provides the staff, premises and IT, but for libraries without council support it is a real struggle.

The value of community-run libraries is immense. In Radstock the library is much more than a place to borrow books. People come to use the public computers and printers, which are vital in a digital age. They come to read, to study, to hot-desk and to connect. The library runs events such as Lego club and knit and natter, and hosts Read Easy and employment skills sessions, diabetes workshops and the local food club.

In a cost of living crisis, libraries provide something incredibly powerful: a free, warm, welcoming space where people can learn, access essential services and find community. Radstock library relies heavily on volunteers to run it day to day, and it matters now more than ever.

We must not forget our rural areas, where mobile libraries remain a lifeline. I would like to make sure that they are considered in this debate and in any future library strategy.

[Sarah Dyke]

My hon. Friend is right: Somerset council operates many mobile libraries across the county, which provide a lifeline to rural villages in Glastonbury and Somerton such as Penselwood, Beercrocombe, Norton-sub-Hamdon, and Baltonsborough, to name a few. The cost of delivering library services has increased, and the recent spiralling costs are coupled with years of under-investment by the previous Conservative administration in Somerset. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must prioritise funding for local government, because without it vital services like libraries will be vulnerable to cost cutting?

[Anna Sabine]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The risk with mobile libraries is that, in terms of numbers, they may not necessarily have as much footfall as a static library, but they provide much more to local communities than can be quantified in footfall. Not everyone lives near a town library, and mobile services are often the only point of access to books, the internet or advice for isolated residents. They also keep people connected, especially older residents and those without transport. From meeting the staff of the mobile library in the Somerset village of Rode in my constituency, I know that they also provide a useful early warning if someone in the village needs extra support or is vulnerable.

The function of libraries has changed dramatically over the past 20 or 30 years, but their importance is growing. If we want to tackle isolation, digital exclusion and inequality, we must protect and properly support both our community-run and mobile library services.

09:56

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for securing this timely debate.

Public libraries are critical community centres that educate and enlighten. They are used disproportionately by people from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. In December 2022, in my Folkestone and Hythe constituency, our main library in Folkestone town centre closed, and it has remained closed since. The library opened to the public in its current location in 1888. It is one of the oldest Carnegie libraries in the country and operated in a beautiful grade II listed building at Grace Hill.

In 2024, Folkestone was named the best place to live in the south-east of England by The Sunday Times, but there is a high level of inequality in my constituency. Three wards in the town are among the 10% most deprived in the UK, and Folkestone library has played a critical role in supporting many people, including families and elderly people who are living in poverty. The library was not some relic of the past. It was not merely a borrow-a-book service, but had become a hub for the community. It had free wi-fi and computers, it put on activities and events, and there was a local heritage service for local historical materials.

I do not want to talk too much about the Conservatives, but the sad reality was that the library, run under Kent county council, had been neglected and was allowed to get into a state of disrepair so that, today, the cost of repairing the building is around £3 million. That would have been much less had the repairs been carried out when they ought to have been.

Kent county council is now run by Reform. One of the first things said by the new leader of the KCC, Linden Kemkaran, was that she wanted to

“appoint some sort of DOGE”.

I took that as a reference to the Elon Musk-led US Government body responsible for savage cuts in the US, including in education. I gently suggest to her that after 14 years of Tory austerity, savage cuts are not what we need. I call on the new leader of Kent county council to commit to saving Grace Hill library, and to work with me and local stakeholders to make that happen.

I have never given up on reopening Folkestone library. I believe it has a future. Tying the library to the existing tide of Folkestone’s regeneration is crucial. Both national and regional government should support regeneration that has already proved successful. We need regeneration to help to fund libraries, and in Folkestone that regeneration has already happened to a degree, through the development of the creative industries over the last 20 years. There is a proposal to extend that further, with a new creative campus that would make arts an even stronger magnet for creativity and economic growth. The library is part of that. A £10 million investment in the creative campus could deliver a curriculum for creatives, creating a multi-use arts and communal space, space for the community to gather, a library offer and so on.

As a community, we know that if we want to reopen the library, we need to be creative and think outside the box. I thank the Minister for coming down to see what Creative Folkestone has done. Alastair Upton, the chief executive officer of Creative Folkestone, and I were incredibly grateful to the Minister for giving up his time to see how Folkestone is leveraging the arts to regenerate our community.

I pay tribute to Jon O’Connor and the Save Folkestone Library campaign, who have collected thousands of signatures and worked really hard to come up with a community vision for the library. It is that spirit of campaigning that will keep libraries alive. As others have said, the future of libraries has to be based on what already works. It also has to be based on regeneration and rely on sources of funding other than traditional funding models. Upskilling the creative campus idea would allow the teaching of existing creatives and provide a hub for activity of all kinds.

I believe that through strong campaigning, determination and thinking creatively about the future, Folkestone library can be saved, but it will need the help and support of the new Reform-run Kent county council. I will seek to meet the new leader of the council and whoever is in charge there to make sure that the library reopens for the good of the people of Folkestone.

09:59

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

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

I have a pub quiz question for the Minister: which historic figure has the greatest number of busts in the United States? People might say George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, but the truth is that it is Robbie Burns. That is because, as the hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) referred to, Andrew Carnegie paid for a huge number of libraries in the States and one of the conditions was that each library had to have a bust of Scotland’s national bard.

Another interesting fact—I am obviously on form today—is that Andrew Carnegie also built many libraries across Scotland and all over the UK, and indeed all over the world. He put one in particular in the village near his castle of Skibo in Sutherland—in the village hall, the building of which he also paid for. So, we can say that in the world there are two Carnegie Halls. The great-grandson of Andrew Carnegie, Mr William Thomson, tried in recent times to get Dolly Parton to come and sing in Sutherland’s Carnegie Hall, but sadly she demurred.

Like the hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan, when I was a boy I visited the Carnegie library in my home town of Tain. I did rather worse than running up a fine; I actually lost a book. It was Enid Blyton’s “Five Get Into A Fix” and losing it put me in a hell of a fix. I avoided going to the library for the next two years because I was petrified of the librarian, Mr Sellar. It was only later, when I was at secondary school, that I took up the habit of using a lending library. Today I am still a member of my lending library in Tain and use it regularly.

In 1909, one of my predecessors as the MP for the north of Scotland, Sir Arthur Bignold, presented a stuffed crocodile to Wick’s Carnegie library, and it is still there. I have no intention of following in Sir Arthur Bignold’s footsteps; I do not have any stuffed crocodiles handy at the moment.

I will cite a couple of facts. A recent survey showed that 16% of the Scottish population visit a library once a week, and slightly over a third visit a library once every month. I will not try to elaborate on the excellent points that have already been made about how important libraries are to civil society. As others have said, old people use them. I remember the demise of bookshops being predicted some years ago; some people thought that the internet would get rid of them. That is not the case, because books are selling more now than ever before. Books are part of the way that we do things as human beings, whatever language and whatever form they are in. Like others, I see libraries as crucial to the happiness of society.

Finally, rather than posing another pub quiz question to the Minister, I will say that I very much look forward to hearing his response to the debate; I am sure that it will contain a lot about best practice and proposals. Would he be kind enough to share his thoughts with the Scottish Government at an appropriate point? I am sad that there are no representatives of the Scottish Government here, but we see a worrying number of closures north of the border. I completely understand that this is a devolved matter, but I am duty bound to take up my constituents’ concerns.

10:04

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for securing this important debate.

When most people think of libraries, they picture buildings in disrepair—defunct, disused and on the verge of imminent closure. It should not have to be this way, and I am pleased to say that, in Ilford, it is not. In Ilford, we have protected our libraries. We have made them more than just places to borrow books; we made them places for families to come together, residents to exercise and communities to learn about our local history. Across the whole of Redbridge, our libraries are now state of the art, with air conditioning, refurbished reference areas, upgraded stock with 50% new titles, meeting spaces, modern public toilets, free wi-fi, and new computers and iPads. Some are now open from 6 am to 10 pm.

We achieved that in the face of the past 15 years of Conservative austerity, which gutted our local budgets. As council leader, I knew that we had to be bold. From policing to parking, and from youth centres to libraries, we refused to accept decline.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

The hon. Member was leader of Redbridge council, which neighbours my borough of Havering, and I congratulate him on managing to keep the libraries in Ilford open. Will he explain, however, why the Labour and Havering Residents Association-run council that neighbours Redbridge has not managed to do the same, such that Gidea Park library, South Hornchurch library and Harold Wood library are closing? Surely we should make libraries community hubs and keep them alive for everyone to use and enjoy.

[Jas Athwal]

Politicians have to realise that they are in control and can make decisions. Nobody comes into politics to manage decline; we come into politics because we want to make a difference. In 2010, when Redbridge council was run by the Conservatives, the first thing they put on the table for closure was Goodmayes library, which is open to this day, because we refused to close it.

To some, what I have described may be small issues, but they are vital to the health and wellbeing of our communities and our children. That is why, despite relentless pressure to retreat and to do less with less, we chose to invest in rather than divest from our library services. We pioneered the co-location model, transforming our libraries into vibrant, multi-user community hubs, as the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) just mentioned.

Our Woodford Green library is also a gym. The library’s health, fitness and diet books are strategically placed so that they are there to greet people as they walk towards the gym, and are there when people come out, so they can take books on all the exercise they have done. Redbridge central library, where I host my surgeries, is a museum and has a busy cafeteria. Hainault library is a children’s centre and community hub. These are models of good practice that could and should be shared under the type of national library strategy for which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire is asking.

In Ilford, our libraries do more than just provide books and study spaces; they are community spaces to meet, learn about our history and exercise. That is what we can achieve when we put our residents at the heart of decision making. Innovative solutions do exist; we just have to be bold enough to deliver them. When we are told to shut down, we have to say that we will invest. That is how we secured the future of our public libraries, and I hope that a similar solution finds its way into a national library strategy.

10:09

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing this debate. The Chamber is very well attended, and rightly so; libraries remain at the heart of our communities.

Libraries are more than just books. They offer computer and internet access, host local community groups and provide safe spaces for those who need it. Library staff, supported by volunteers, are pillars of the community. They help those who are most vulnerable, such as the elderly, children and jobseekers. Even throughout the pandemic, libraries adapted to lockdown, and began to provide online services and activities, including e-books. Those services will have supported many families throughout those difficult times, and many would have struggled without them.

I am passionate about all children having access to a quality education, and libraries help to provide that. They provide the environment for children to be curious and have imagination. I am lucky enough to have Harry Potter world in my constituency. JK Rowling’s ability to read previous authors, like the Enid Blytons of the world, would have driven the imagination that allowed her to create the vision that we all enjoy today. Statistics show that about two thirds of children aged 15 visit the library each year in London. They use them in multiple ways by borrowing books, or using computers, printing facilities or study spaces. Nowhere else can offer all those things.

I am lucky enough to have six libraries in my constituency of South West Hertfordshire: Abbots Langley, Chorleywood Community, Croxley Green, Kings Langley Community, Oxhey and Rickmansworth. I am a regular user of those libraries, hiring meetings rooms at Croxley Green to meet constituents and to discuss a library link scheme. Croxley Green is a tier 2 library, meaning it is a community-focused, small library. Its library link scheme allows residents to request specialised research from a librarian. It also ran a slipper project, encouraging elderly people to bring in their old slippers to be replaced with new ones to keep them warm in the winter.

Rickmansworth library has unfortunately been closed for a number of months due to a refurbishment following a fire. Understandably, locals are concerned because they do not have access to the library services. I know that the county council is providing some of those services off site, but I will continue to work with Hertfordshire county council, whoever the new leader is, to ensure that my community keeps the services that it has had over many years. I do not want Rickmansworth library to be one of the 2,276 libraries that have closed since 2016.

Instead of seeing libraries close, we should be seeking plans to open new ones—for example, in Leavesden in my constituency, which does not have a local library. In England and Wales, only 78% of the population are within a 30-minute walk of a public library. We should be investing to increase that percentage. The Conservative Government committed to publishing a public library strategy, which the election unfortunately prevented.

[Chris Kane]

On the location of libraries, certainly in Scotland, there is a statutory duty is to provide a library service. That means that only one library could be provided for my constituency of nearly 2,500 sq km. Does the hon. Member agree that access and proximity to the library in terms of travel time is important to any strategy?

[Mr Mohindra]

I wholeheartedly agree, especially for some of our more rural communities. There are modern ways of solving that problem, including mobile libraries, which allow communities to have access for a few hours each week to a van that drives around, and books can be pre-ordered via an online system.

Will the Minister commit the Government to publishing a public library strategy? I am sure that members of the wider community would be keen to hear the direction of travel.

I congratulate Hertfordshire library services, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary. We should support all counties to continue offering these services, so that libraries can remain the strong community hubs they have been for so long.

10:14

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for securing a vital debate.

As has been said many times, libraries are not just buildings or physical things; they are an emblem of what communities are, particularly in my constituency, which includes sparsely populated areas of rural Northumberland. They play a crucial role in bringing together those communities, and they foster educational thought and development.

I would like to mention a few of our fantastic libraries: the Spetchells centre in Prudhoe, Northumberland library in Heddon-on-the-Wall, Haltwhistle library, Wylam library, Bellingham library, and the Allendale, Newburn and Crawcrook libraries. My office is located upstairs at the Queen’s Hall library; it is good to have a space at the library that allows me, as an MP, to be based within the community. In Matfen, there is an old telephone box that has been transformed into a book swap shop for residents. I commend Hannah Cutler, a resident from that village, for her valuable contribution to the local community.

It is clear that libraries offer much more than educational material; they are hubs for social interaction, and for communities to share thought. In rural communities and in the fractured social media environment that we live in, that is perhaps more valuable now than ever. The opportunity to have safe, local spaces through which we can curb social isolation with shared community experiences is vital. This morning, I was reading a study that said that one in five children in the north-east do not own a book. I sincerely hope that by the end of this Labour Government’s time in office, we have combated that appalling statistic.

In my constituency, town councils do excellent work in libraries by hosting events such as green jobs fairs and events for the Ukrainian community, who have settled in my constituency since the outbreak of war in Europe and have made a fantastic contribution. Those events bring them, and some of the host families, together as a community. It is a privilege, every week, to look at the “What’s On” in the community libraries and see the different ways that communities are coming together.

Obviously, representing the largest constituency in England—which I think I am contractually obliged to mention every time I rise to speak—I do not manage to get to all the libraries every week, but I try my best. We try to hold our surgeries in every library that I have mentioned, because I think that is crucial.

It is now Mental Health Awareness Week. When we invest in libraries, we are not just investing in literacy; we are investing in mental health support, digital access and in the futures of the residents themselves. In the brief time that I have left, I will talk about rural primary schools and their libraries.

[Jamie Stone]

The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point about mental health. Does he agree that for many people in their old age, visiting a library is one way of combating loneliness, which is one of the tragedies for them?

[Joe Morris]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. That is true not just for old people; in the communities I represent, people who work from home often go to the library and take advantage of that opportunity to get into town. It is tremendously valuable for everyone of all ages. I recognise his point, however, about older people in particular.

I will briefly mention Otterburn primary school, which is one of the smallest schools in the country, in one of the most isolated villages. Staff at the school do tremendous work. The school benefits from a breakfast club, but it is also, through the library, giving children access to books. It was a pleasure to visit the school fairly recently, and to talk about the infrastructure challenges that it faces as an extremely rural school.

10:18

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for bringing forward this debate. It is an honour to celebrate the public library and the dedicated librarians who have kept them going in recent years.

Libraries are more than buildings filled with knowledge and books; they encapsulate who we are. Funded by our taxes, free at the point of need and delivery, they are the cornerstones of education, equality and opportunity in our country. Dr Seuss said, and he could not have put it better, that

“The more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you’ll go.”

I think that sums up the value of the library.

The public library is a safe space for people of all ages and backgrounds to explore their imagination. I feel embarrassed to say this in front of the Minister, who is a very learned gentleman—the writer of nine books—but the library provided me with my earliest opportunities to read. I explored Enid Blyton, “Goosebumps”, “Point Horror”, “The Hardy Boys”, sometimes even Nancy Drew books. I moved on to Ed McBain, Michael Crichton and Stephen King. I also explored Shakespeare, Austen and Dickens, but the lion’s share of what I learned was probably at the lower end of the cultural spectrum. It put me in a good position to learn, to be curious, to enjoy reading and to develop that lifelong habit. I want my constituents in Bournemouth East to be able to develop that too.

The public library also provided me with something important. I grew up in poverty, caring for two young disabled parents. If I had not had a public library on my doorstep where I could go to complete my homework in a warm, safe space, I do not think I would have been elected as an MP. Were it not for the kind eyes of librarians who looked at young children and saw potential and something they wanted to nourish, I do not think I could serve as the Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East. I want to thank the librarians around our country, and particularly those in my constituency, who have gone not just the extra mile but the extra 100 miles to keep libraries going in the face of significant cuts.

Since 2010, UK public libraries have lost around £232.5 million. That is because of cuts by the Conservative Government to the budgets of local authorities of all political colours and that decrease in funding being passed on. We have seen the closure of 800 libraries since 2010 and a loss of librarians, with their numbers going down from 24,000 in 2009 to 15,000 in 2018. That is a travesty.

In Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, where my constituency is based, in the last financial year we have seen hundreds of thousands of pounds taken out of libraries’ budgets by the Liberal Democrat alliance, reckoning with the mismanagement of council funds by the previous Conservative administration and the Conservative austerity that was passed on to it. The budget set by the three towns alliance caused libraries to shorten their opening hours and close for an extra day a week. The Bournemouth Daily Echo says that opening times were cut by an average of 10 hours per week per library across BCP. In response to the public consultation on that budget, 60% of respondents disagreed with the proposed closing times that have been introduced. Many staff have had their hours reduced, and some have left, which is a sad loss of valued and experienced people.

The Labour group in BCP council spoke against those cuts, particularly as the library strategy was yet to be published. It argued against the closures and changes to opening times and asked for a far more strategic approach, while acknowledging the funding pressures. Trying to be proactive and solutions-focused, the group said that no two neighbouring libraries should be closed on the same days at the same times and that we should see libraries as community hubs rather than just lenders of books.

That speaks to the challenge faced by our public library system. Although providing a library service is a key statutory function for councils, the quality and quantity of that service is up to the council; it is dependent on the funding that the council makes available. When we have such a crisis in social care, which is increasing the cost that councils have to bear, those who fall behind will be people who use libraries. We need a radical solution to social care and local government funding, which I know is beyond the Minister’s remit, but it is part of thinking strategically about what local councils mean in this day and age and what role libraries play in the delivery of services by local councils.

I want to echo what many Members have said about libraries being a critical place for MPs to hold their surgeries. I have held my surgeries in Boscombe, Castlepoint, Charminster, Pokesdown and Southbourne, and Springbourne libraries. In fact, the only library I have not held a surgery in is Tuckton, because it is too small. In going to those libraries, meeting the staff and bringing constituents into them, I have seen just how loved those libraries are, not just as places that lend books but as places where people can get guidance, advice and support.

In conclusion, it is important that we provide the funding that libraries need, but it is also important that we provide the funding to councils with a clear definition of what their roles are, so that libraries do not lose out. I thank the dedicated librarians of Bournemouth East, and although we are talking about public libraries, I also thank the House of Commons Library, which is a brilliant institution that has served MPs well. I have benefited enormously from it, and every time I go in, I am greeted with a smile and a significant amount of knowledge, so I want to say a huge thank you to the House of Commons Library staff.

10:24

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing this important debate. Public libraries are at the heart of our communities, and we urgently need a national strategy to protect and strengthen them.

In 2016, North Yorkshire council faced the devastating prospect of closing 31 libraries. Instead, communities were given the chance to step in—and they did. In Scarborough, we are really fortunate that the Newby and Scalby library was one of the lucky few, and that local volunteers formed a charity to keep it open. Today, it is thriving. It has 60 volunteers, including trustees, gardeners, cleaners and 40 library assistants.

In 2024 alone, those volunteers gave over 11,000 hours. Their dedication has led to 42,000 visits and 550 events for 6,000 attendees, and has helped 1,500 people with individual IT assistance, bus passes, passport applications and how to use a mobile phone. They also run a home library service. That is not just a library; it is vital social infrastructure. Earlier this year, I was honoured to attend the celebrations as the Newby and Scalby volunteers received the King’s award for voluntary service.

Although we must champion our community libraries, volunteers cannot be expected to keep them open indefinitely, especially as funding continues to shrink. According to the University of Warwick, library funding has fallen by more than half since 2010. Libraries are looking to the Government for a long-term plan that includes a sustainable funding model. I would be grateful if the Minister could address when the Government intend to implement the recommendations of the 2023 Sanderson review, including the establishment of a libraries laureate.

The title “libraries laureate” conjures up a Pied Piper figure, leading a trail of word-hungry children into the book corner, but it is, of course, nothing of the kind. They would be a high-profile, distinct voice who could advocate on behalf of libraries, and raise awareness of what books can provide and, as we have heard from many Members today, what libraries can provide beyond books. Libraries provide human contact in a world in which loneliness and the company of a smartphone are on the rise.

In the old days, people were fined when they had an overdue library book, but these days they can steal a library book and use it to write another book, or anything else. Library book borrowers cannot do that, of course, but if someone is the owner of an AI company, they can use books uploaded to the internet to train AI models. We must protect the rights of authors, otherwise we face a future short on not only libraries, but the creative working people who write the books that fill the shelves.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Opposition spokesperson, can Members bear in mind that I want to give the sponsor the opportunity to wind up at the end?

10:28

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for securing this important debate, and all hon. Members for their passionate contributions. The Liberal Democrats believe in keeping libraries well funded and accessible, recognising their role in promoting literature, people skills and public wellbeing. Public libraries are some of the most beloved community services, and we are all painfully aware that despite the statutory duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service, many local authorities across the country have tried to find financial savings in this area.

Speaking as a lifelong councillor and a council leader, I know the hard choices that many local authorities are facing. Many will be trying to either consolidate library services, reduce opening hours or delay important building repairs. Research by the BBC suggests that at least 190 libraries in the UK have closed in the last five years, and the potential long-term consequences are troubling. Shockingly, the UK has one of the lowest rankings for teenage literacy among OECD countries, which affects the personal attainment and life chances of young people. It is in a library that many children first learn that books can be chosen and read for fun, not just assigned for homework by a teacher.

The last Government’s independent review of public libraries, published in 2023, highlighted a lack of awareness of what libraries achieve, not just among the public but across local and national Government, which is compounded by a lack of adequate reporting on their good work. Libraries are vital to many marginalised adults in our society, including the elderly, those living in poverty or in social isolation, the unemployed or those with limited digital and literacy skills. They offer somewhere that is free to use, safe and easily accessible with a wealth of important information on everything from jobseeking to medical advice. The library is a lifeline.

I have not mentioned all the adopted uses of libraries: as a venue for a vast range of community events, support groups, employment workshops, live music, art and craft activities, flexible working spaces, and access to the internet and public records, among many other functions. Braunton library in my constituency of South Devon recently won south-west England’s library of the year award at the British Book Awards. Among the features that make the library stand out is reading initiatives, its popular children’s Lego club, social groups like “knit and natter”, and an Arts Council project called “The Gatherers” which brought local people and resettled Afghan families into a flower-collecting society to break down language and cultural barriers and help to integrate people more fully into British society.

As Liberal Democrats, we welcome the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s announcement in February of an additional £5.5 million for the libraries improvement fund, but it is likely that other Departments owe a debt of gratitude to public libraries that is not fully recognised. Even a small public library such as Braunton library holds over 300 community events annually. That is a typical example of the way public libraries are being asked to pick up ever wider duties from other public services. In England, 30% of adults aged 16 and over—around 13 million adults—have used a public library in the past 12 months; 27% of them brought a child with them, and the most recent figures suggest as that many as two thirds of all children in England visit a library at least once a year.

Our libraries are a public service with a colossal reach into communities. They represent people who sometimes have a very quiet voice in public debates. The Liberal Democrats would be open and flexible to ensuring a sustainable funding solution, including a review of the good causes eligible for lottery funding and possible mechanisms for library endowments. Libraries support lifelong learning and social cohesion, yet they are being asked to do far more with far less. We must ensure that in the future, the funding of libraries reflects the increasing diversity of the roles they fulfil.

10:32

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship again today, Mr Dowd. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for securing this important debate. It is great to hear from Members from across the House and across the country, and I thank them for championing libraries in their constituencies.

Libraries matter; they are one of the few places in public life where people of all ages and backgrounds are welcomed in without cost or condition. Whether it is a child discovering books for the first time, students revising for exams, pensioners playing bridge or Scrabble, or those needing digital support or wi-fi to apply for jobs, libraries quietly meet a range of needs every single day. Baroness Sanderson put it very well in the other place:

“no matter who you are or where you are from, you can walk into any library in the country and ask for help. In return, you will be asked for precisely nothing.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 September 2024; Vol. 839, c. GC128.]—

well, apart from maybe to return your book on time.

That civic spirit, quiet, constant and universal, defines the best of what public services should be, and demand for libraries nationally continues to highlight this popular public service. Recent published data from DCMS highlights that nearly one in three adults in England—around 13.7 million people—have used a library in the last year. As we all know, libraries are a statutory service under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, and rightly so, but how they are delivered is a matter for local councils. That is consistent with the principles that we Conservatives believe in: local services delivered by local people, community engagement, and fiscal responsibility.

It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the challenges of funding and provision that local authorities and libraries face. As a former local councillor, I understand the scale of those challenges for many councils, and the new duties and demands on precious resources, but it is not all doom and gloom, as my home area has demonstrated. In my borough of Bexley, the Conservative-run council has built two new state-of-the-art libraries, in Sidcup and Thamesmead. The Sidcup library on the high street has been extremely popular since its opening, with a new cinema, and was very busy when I visited on Saturday to view the fantastic VE Day display arranged by the Lamorbey and Sidcup local history society, alongside brilliant local archive and history volunteers. Old Bexley, Sidcup and Welling was home to Roald Dahl for part of his life, as it was for other creative talent such as Quentin Blake, Roger Moore and, perhaps most famous, Gary Oldman, who portrayed Winston Churchill in the motion picture “Darkest Hour”. Lots of entertainment for readers and film fans comes from Bexley, and I hope many will enjoy it during this summer’s reading challenge. I am happy to support the people taking part in that this year in our libraries.

Councils across the country have adapted creatively to the challenging backdrop for libraries in the online age. From traditional council-run libraries to commissioned trusts and community-supported services, delivery models have evolved, but the mission remains unchanged: to provide a comprehensive and efficient service that meets the needs of local people. I take this opportunity to thank all library professionals around the country, but particularly those in Bexley and the House of Commons Library, and the incredible volunteers at Blackfen community library in my constituency, which has gone from strength to strength since opening as a real community hub in Blackfen. I am proud to support it throughout the year.

That library and the new Sidcup library on the high street highlight the powerful role that libraries can play in generating local economic activity and footfall in town centres. That point has not been made much today, but it is important. In government, the Conservatives supported that evolution. Through the libraries improvement fund, we invested more than £20 million to help modernise buildings, improve digital access and ensure that libraries remained fit for purpose in the 21st century. We commissioned the independent review of English public libraries, excellently led by Baroness Sanderson, which laid out a practical vision for renewal through stronger data, better branding, wider membership and deeper community connections. We supported the idea of a universal library card, a national data hub and closer alignment with institutions such as the British Library to strengthen the sector’s long-term sustainability. This is not about centralisation; it is about enabling the sector to thrive by giving it the tools, visibility and consistency it needs.

We must acknowledge the vital role that libraries played during the coronavirus outbreak, which my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) mentioned. They moved swiftly online, offering ebooks, streamed activities and virtual learning. In the most difficult circumstances, libraries kept people connected to culture, community and one another.

We must be honest though. We understand that local councils face financial pressures, which are being made worse by the Government’s Budget decisions. Bexley council is already £5 million worse off this year, so it has to make more difficult decisions. I encourage councils in that situation to look at the community library model, which has worked well in my constituency and has prevented closures. We must help councils to protect core services while encouraging partnerships, co-location with other services and volunteer engagement where appropriate. I urge the Government to build on the momentum of the cross-party Sanderson review, which provided a road map that balances modernisation with the values that have always underpinned public libraries: access, education, community and trust.

It is disappointing that a refreshed public libraries strategy was not published before last year’s general election, but I am sure the Minister agrees that that work must not be lost. This is why we are disappointed that the Minister, Baroness Twycross, has so far avoided giving a direct answer to a direct question on this matter, so I ask the Minister here today: when will his Department publish a strategy for English public libraries, as many Members have called for? I know he understands the need for a new strategy that is informed by data, rooted in localism and underpinned by a longer term vision for this essential local provision. That would allow libraries not just to survive but to flourish in the years ahead.

Members on both sides of this House believe in the quiet power of public libraries to educate and inspire, and we stand ready to work across the House to ensure their future is every bit as valuable as their past.

10:39

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)]

It is a delight, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I will not comment on how well dressed you are today.

It is a great delight to take part in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing it. He talked a bit about the history of libraries. I absolutely adore a library. I have used the British Library many times, when it was in its old place in the British Museum and in the new building—still new to me, that is; younger people here will not remember its old place. I have used the London Library and libraries in Worcester, Stoke, Manchester, Birmingham, Southwark, Newcastle, Oxford and Cambridge. I have used Lambeth Palace library, as well as libraries in Cardiff, Treorchy and Porth. I absolutely adore using libraries. Many hon. Members mentioned their constituencies, but I agree with the Argentinian writer, Jorge Luis Borges, who said,

“I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire made several points about titles. Being in two Departments, I have many bits in my title,. Sometimes people say we should have a tourism Minister, a this Minister or a that Minister. The real question is whether we engage sufficiently with the sector and get the work done. I know that Baroness Twycross, who took over these responsibilities from me relatively recently, is very engaged in this work. I want to give her space to lay out what she will be able to achieve and the work she is engaged in, before we start talking about titles and reassignment.

Responding to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) puts me in a slight difficulty. Quite a few hon. Members referred to things that are extremely devolved. Libraries are fundamentally devolved responsibilities. The hon. Member made extremely good points about how libraries can help with mental health and health generally and issues such as loneliness, but I am not going to tell people in Northern Ireland how to run the library service. If I did, I would suddenly get an email and a demand for a meeting, so I will be careful.

That also applies to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane). There is a competition in size of constituencies going on today. I know areas of my hon. Friend’s constituency well because I was—arguably—educated partly in Stirling. I note that Bannockburn library is closed today. When libraries are closed or open is a financial issue, which is tough for many local authorities. I was a councillor in Hackney a long time ago and know how difficult it is for local councillors making tough financial decisions, desperate to keep libraries open every day if possible, but struggling to do so.

My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) referred to Andrew Carnegie, who was an extraordinary donor and investor in libraries. As the MP for a former mining constituency, I am aware that mining communities often had to do for themselves. The miners’ unions and trade unions played an important part in ensuring that their members learned how to read. It was not just about being able to read “Alton Locke” by Charles Kingsley, one of the early Christian socialists, or “The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists” and other socialist tomes that were so important to the trade union movement. Libraries were a vital part of enabling the working classes to get on in life, so for Labour MPs, this debate has a particular piquancy.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) wants to reopen the library alongside the creative campus in Folkestone. When I visited on a day that was gorgeous sunny, though slightly windy, I was impressed by Tracey Emin’s discarded sock sculpture on the floor and other brilliant artworks around the town. I tried to pick up the sock, of course, because I thought it was litter, which was the whole point. Integration of all creative industries working together with the library service is a potent thing. The library building my hon. Friend referred to is beautiful. Had it been better looked after by Kent County Council in recent years, it would be more readily accessible and better preserved for the future. Like my hon. Friend, I hope very much that the library will reopen.

I am not sure about the statistic, mentioned by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, that there are more busts of Rabbie Burns than of anybody else. I am very happy if there are, but I suspect that there are more of Gladstone—there may even be more of Winston Churchill. None the less, he made the point about Carnegie. Of course, philanthropy is an important reason why we ended up with so many libraries around the UK. I want philanthropy to play an increasing part in the future. That is not because I want local authorities to walk away from their responsibilities, but simply because I applaud those philanthropists who gave away every single penny of the vast wealth that they made in their lifetimes. The more we can do to enable that, the better—not only for our libraries, but for our creative sector, museums and galleries, many of which, especially those associated with local authorities, are struggling in exactly the same way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) is a former councillor who has experienced some of the difficulties of trying to keep local authority libraries going. Incidentally, those difficulties affect not just local authority libraries, but libraries in universities and in so many other public institutions. They have struggled to survive. Some of them are independent libraries. He made a good point about how important it is to diversify, and mentioned that one library in his patch has a gym. A few weeks ago, I was in Ogmore Vale, in my patch, where the library, gym and community function are all part of the same service; they are very much thought of in an integrated way. That is the pattern adopted by lots of local authorities, which sometimes still run the libraries in house, and sometimes decide to hand them over to a third party to allow for further financial investment.

The hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) referred to the specialised advice that libraries may provide. Advice to businesses has not particularly featured in our debate, but it is an important part of what the British Library and many local libraries often provide. If someone wants to set up a business in a local area, they will need to understand that local area, and one of the most important facilities for that is the local library, which will have statistical advice. The library will want to help them in whatever way it can—with planning law or whatever it may be. Losing that aspect of what libraries provide would be bad for economic growth—our ability to grow not just in some parts of the UK but everywhere.

From the day I started as MP for the Rhondda in 2001, one of my strategies was to look at how many local businesses I had. People often think that the way to get more local jobs is to get one big business that will employ 1,000 or 2,000 people. Actually, in most constituencies, it is more effective to enable lots of small businesses to grow—to go from employing two people to employing five or 10 people. There are few areas where we can do that without libraries having a role to play.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) rightly referred to VE Day celebrations, in which libraries up and down the country played an important part, because of their important role in enabling and helping the community. Our libraries are sometimes associated with an archive facility, which has a particular value. British people, like people all around the world, love to explore their genealogy, so it is really important to make those archive facilities available to people. In a library, someone can investigate what their grandad or auntie did in the war, or where they lived, for free—something that they otherwise might have to pay for. I note that Hexham library has “Rhymetime” tomorrow morning at 10 am; on Saturday at 4 o’clock in the afternoon, it has “Ukrainian Stories”, which I think is a book launch.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) admitted to reading Nancy Drew mysteries, which I think were marketed primarily at girls. I read several, but I had a cover to hide the fact that it was Nancy Drew. Modern books for young adults and kids are very different and not specifically targeted at boys and girls. There has been a complete transformation in that market, and hurrah for that. I think it was Alexander Pope who said:

“A little learning is a dangerous thing;

Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring”.

This is one of the great things about libraries. Not only do they enable us to take our first step into reading, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East said, they enable us to move on from Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys to Dickens, Shakespeare and many others. I am sure that none of us—I think we can say this of every single Member—would have arrived here if we had never used a library, and none of us would have ended up as a Member of Parliament.

My hon. Friend was right, as others were, to pay tribute to the House of Commons Library. It has a slightly different role because it provides so much advice for us to inform our contributions to debates. It also has an awful lot of books, including some of mine.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) referred to the Data (Use and Access) Bill debate later, so I will leave the bit about copyright and AI for this afternoon’s debate when I will appear in a different capacity. She is absolutely right about volunteers. So many libraries either rely entirely, as community libraries, on volunteers to run them and keep them open, or have volunteers as part of a team. I pay tribute to all the people who have managed to keep libraries open. My father, who is no longer with us, lived in Alderney in his latter years. He and his wife loved spending a day as volunteers at the library. I think he quite liked the business of issuing fines—one of his favourite moments was when he found out that his next-door neighbour had not returned his book for 17 years or whatever. My hon. Friend is also right that libraries are a vital part of the social infrastructure.

The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) was also a councillor. I think councillors have a particular interest, as I have mentioned, and insights to bring to this debate. He referred to Braunton library and the 300 community events. That is mirrored in every single library up and down the land. No library is characterised by Ali MacGraw stuffiness. It is a place entirely open to the public. People have referred to the role of libraries during covid. They have also referred to them as non-judgmental spaces where people can simply just be, including in the winter. Sometimes it is a place to feel warmth, which is really important. One of my favourite moments in a library was a few years ago when I persuaded the British Museum to lend one of its articulated Japanese dragons to my library in Treorchy. I do not know whether we Welsh are just obsessed with dragons, but I remember seeing kids looking at that Japanese dragon and they were absolutely fascinated and loved it. That sense of enticing people into being curious is another aspect of why libraries can be so important.

The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) referred warmly to his experience in his constituency. I am going to bridle slightly because he referred to our Budget decisions. If we refer to the 14 years of Budget decisions that caused the difficulties facing the library service across the whole United Kingdom, we could be here a lot longer. The truth is that many local authorities have had a really tough time with their budgets cut year after year, and one of my anxieties was always that. One of the dangers for national Government is saying, “Right, we are going to tell local authorities to do more while giving them less money, because we—national Government—will not then have to make the cuts; somebody else has to.” That is a thing that happened to the library service over all those years.

I hate all the gloom about libraries. I hate it when people keep banging on about how all the libraries have closed and all the rest of it. The truth is that, as people have referred to, roughly a third of people in the UK have used a library at least once. I do not think that is an annual pilgrimage. Many of them will have used it repeatedly and there are people who go to the library every single day of the week, or every week.

Libraries are all about promoting and enabling reading. Sometimes we forget that role—if I could get every child in the country to read one extra book a year, would that not be a success in the end for them individually and for the economy? We have not referred to the publishing business in the UK, which is an important part of our creative industries. We export more books than any other country in the world, and I want to keep it like that.

We have referred to libraries as community spaces. I have also referred to their archive responsibilities and how important those are for many people. Libraries are constantly evolving: 47 libraries in Norfolk provide a service to weigh babies and, as I understand it, in Devon they provide 3D printers. I and many other Members have referred to libraries that are doing innovative and fascinating new things all the time.

Last year, upper-tier local authorities spent £694 million on libraries in England.

[Mr French]

Will the Minister give way briefly?

[Chris Bryant]

Oh, all right.

[Mr French]

One of the key asks from this debate from Members across the House is that the Government publish a national strategy on the back of the Sanderson review. Can I push the Minister to commit to that today?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is such an impatient man—it is not as if his party did not have 14 years to produce a national strategy, or anything like that. One of the asks was about titles, and one of the others was about whether there should be a national strategy. As I said earlier, I am keen to allow Baroness Twycross, who has only recently taken on responsibilities in that area, to go where she wants to on this.

One of the difficulties with a national strategy is that so much is devolved. Of course, we try to foster good relations with our Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland counterparts, and there is a regular get-together with the devolved Administrations to promote that, but a lot of these decisions are made by local authorities and in other Departments. When local authorities and Departments get only an annual settlement, rather than a three-year settlement, it makes it much more difficult for them to make coherent, long-term decisions. I hope that we will change that in the spending review—that is one of the things I hope will help with funding. However, I have no idea what budget allocations there will be for independent Departments. So I am somewhat resisting the idea of a national strategy. At the moment, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is already producing three or four national strategies on different subjects, so I am hesitant to advance down that route.

The Sanderson report made key recommendations, many of them not for Government at all, but for the sector. We are keen to see those play out and be adopted wherever possible. We are working with the sector and with Arts Council England, which has a specific responsibility in relation to libraries in England.

Several hon. Members have referred to the amount of money—£5.5 million—that we have set aside this year for improving libraries. We also have a superintending role. The 1964 legislation was deliberately drafted in a rather ambiguous way, which is one of the issues we always face. In ’24-25 we engaged with 53 local authorities in a superintending role, and we have engaged with seven since April this year.

As Members have said, 276 libraries closed between 2010 and 2023. We do want to make that closure process stop because we believe passionately in libraries.

10:58

[Jonathan Davies]

I thank colleagues from across the House for contributing to this important debate. We have heard stories of how libraries have transformed individuals’ lives. I was particularly moved by what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), and many other colleagues across the House, said. We have learned a lot, but we have also had some lighter moments about the role that libraries play.

I know that ministerial responsibilities have changed and that there is no mechanism to get Baroness Twycross to come here, but I would be grateful if the Minister made sure that she has heard what has been said in this debate.

We have not had a commitment to a national strategy today. A lot of good work is coming through, but there are aspects of the Sanderson review that are valuable, and I believe that many of those aspects could be implemented very cheaply or at almost no cost. That might be something that the sector could do itself, but with the help of the convening power of the Government.

I would be grateful if the messages we have heard from across the House get to Baroness Twycross and if, a little bit further down the line, when the Department has had more time to chew this over and she has had time to embed herself in her role, we revisited the subject to see what progress has been made.

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

Rebalancing Regional Economies

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. If you do not have that permission, do not try to speak. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up. I also remind Members that the debate is only half an hour; if the Member in charge does take interventions, bear in mind that the Minister also has to respond.

11:01

[Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of rebalancing regional economies.

It is a true pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. This Government have rightly prioritised growth, devolution and the need for growth to be seen in all regions and nations. Last year’s Budget and this year’s spring statement freed up £113 billion of infrastructure investment. Huge amounts of work are being done to develop industrial strategies that will drive forward key sectors. We have new trade deals, and have seen the corporate world commit record levels of investment in renewable energy, artificial intelligence and many more sectors.

Brilliant stuff—but what does it actually mean to the people of Rossendale and Darwen, Blackpool, Winsford, Macclesfield, or Cornwall? Clearly not much yet, given the kicking we got in the local elections. These small towns and coastal communities are the places where productivity is lowest.

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

My constituency is both rural and coastal, which presents a unique set of challenges in terms of deprivation and neglect. Urban areas often receive targeted investment, but rural and coastal communities can be overlooked. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must adopt a tailored approach, taking into account the rural premium in the index of multiple deprivation, to specifically address the distinct needs of such areas and unlock their significant economic potential?

[Andy MacNae]

I agree with the hon. Member; her point is largely the thrust of my speech, so hopefully I will align with her thinking.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate. He is absolutely right about regional rebalancing of the economies. From a Northern Irish perspective, I can encourage him that Invest Northern Ireland has decided to relocate many of its upcoming businesses outside the Belfast metropolitan area, as a way of moving forward, but does he agree that location can never overtake viability in the economy?

[Andy MacNae]

Absolutely. That is the essence of growth for all. It is about going beyond location and beyond geography as a determinant, and getting the right outcomes for everyone. Our small towns and coastal communities are where productivity is lowest, and where the cost of living and housing crises have hit hardest. They have been left out and let down for so long that it is no wonder trust and expectation are so low—but those are the places where the next election will be won or lost, and where this Government must deliver for our communities if we are to live up to our promises.

To mean something to Rossendale and Darwen, and to places like it, growth must translate into real and tangible change in every neighbourhood. It must mean good jobs and accessible opportunities for young people where they live. It must mean that our towns feel clean and safe, and that people have the houses they need. It must mean that our small and medium-sized businesses thrive and put more money in people’s pockets. It must mean that our roads, buses and rail systems actually connect to where people need to go.

I think we all get that—I certainly know the Minister does—but what worries me is that, when it comes to actual decision making, too often the investment planning defaults to big cities and existing growth areas, with the role of small towns seemingly reduced to just feeding people into the great city machine. Indeed, it can often be a presumption that the answer for small towns is nothing more than better transport into a city. Such thinking totally misses the point.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

rose—

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Andy MacNae]

I will give way to my hon. Friends sequentially.

[Alex Ballinger]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he welcome the news announced today that 12,000 civil servants will move out of London and into the regions to work on exactly these issues? Would he recommend that some of the civil servants moving to the west midlands should come from the Department for Business and Trade, so they can focus on the automotive sectors, the defence sectors and the advanced manufacturing that really make our region great?

[Andy MacNae]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Indeed, that movement out into the regions is vital; a thrust throughout this debate is the understanding of regional and local realities. That movement can only be welcomed, and it should be as broad as it possibly can be.

[Chris McDonald]

I was very exercised by my hon. Friend’s point about “feeding people” from small towns into cities—a very patronising view espoused by ill-informed lobby groups such as the Centre for Cities. Does he agree that that view denies the reality: that people who live in towns want their towns to be successful and have real pride in their towns, including places such as Stockton, Billingham and Norton in my constituency? That success is good for the country, good for those towns and good for the people who live in them.

[Andy MacNae]

I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. It is the pride that we have in our towns that really matters. Good things should happen in our towns, not just in some distant city that only a tiny proportion of people in a town might be lucky enough to be able to travel to. That includes pride in our neighbourhoods; neighbourhoods are important to their residents.

Having said that, I do not deny for a moment that cities are our economic engines and that we desperately need to address the productivity gap between our regional centres and London—but, as we have said, this process cannot just be about the cities and the big towns. It matters little to the people of Bacup how well Manchester is doing. Instead, we need to see the good things happening in Manchester mirrored in places such as Bacup. That is the true test of whether we are delivering for all.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Greater Manchester has the fastest growing economy in the UK, with the most diverse range of sector strengths in the country, but despite that, Greater Manchester’s productivity is still 35% below London’s. Does he agree that we cannot rebalance our regional economies without major investments, such as the Northern Arc, which could double the size of the region’s economy in 30 years?

[Andy MacNae]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is largely the point: we must rebalance our economies by bridging the productivity gap between our cities, including our northern cities, and the rest of the country. At the same time, though, we must make sure that that growth in cities such as Manchester, which in many ways is doing great, is felt in Lancashire and other places at the same time.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. My point is similar to that of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour). We often discuss the rebalancing of regional economies in terms of urban versus rural or north versus south, but does my hon. Friend agree that we must consider more nuanced geographical and socioeconomic factors, including those of communities in remote coastal areas such as Cornwall, whose characteristics differ substantially from inland rural communities on issues such as non-resident population, the cost of beach safety, the ability to attract construction workers and, of course, a massive challenge with housing costs?

[Andy MacNae]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, the requirement for bespoke interventions is the thrust of the latter parts of my speech.

Whether places such as Bacup feel the benefit of Government interventions is a test for whether we are delivering growth for all. The last Government failed spectacularly in this challenge and, if we are to avoid the same fate, we must do things differently.

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

It is now nearly 13 years since the Institute for Public Policy Research North published its landmark report, “Northern Prosperity is National Prosperity”, which set out in black and white the evidence that investing in the regions—all regions across the UK—is one of the best ways to achieve growth nationally. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is long past time that we devolved power and funding in order to create jobs in all our communities across the UK?

[Andy MacNae]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—I remember that brilliant report very well, and that process of devolution is a crucial element of getting this right.

What are the underlying issues and what can we do about them? It is perfectly understandable that, in looking for growth, we go first to places where it can be achieved most easily at scale and at the lowest cost. That is an instinct backed-up by long-established practices. We see it manifest in announcements around the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, the lower Thames crossing, Heathrow and Old Trafford.

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

While I welcome the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, does my hon. Friend agree that extending it down to places such as Swindon would not only boost the economy in my region, but also the country?

[Andy MacNae]

Indeed; part of the thrust of my argument is that these growth corridors must extend into the areas that need them most, and I am sure that Swindon very much needs to be part of that mix. The focus on those easier areas is perfectly reasonable, but if we continue in this vein of only doing the big and easy things, all the money will be gone before we get anywhere near the likes of Rossendale and Darwen.

In places such as my home, delivering growth is not easy—it is complex and bespoke and needs sustained focus. There is rarely a silver bullet and, if there was one, it would be tough to deliver. But, if properly valued, the long-term benefits of doing the hard yards are huge not just in economic terms, but in terms of health, crime, housing, environment and general wellbeing. That is the rub: as things stand, too often we do not fully value these benefits, either quantitatively or qualitatively. Ministers make decisions and advisers advise. The Government guidance for investment is the Green Book, which sets out how decisions on major investment projects are appraised. It was last reviewed in 2020 and is subject to another review now. Despite a clear intent for that guidance to support regional rebalancing, it is clear that embedded practices too often default to over-reliance on simplistic and short-term cost-benefit ratios.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

We have had debates on the Green Book in Westminster Hall before, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that there is a real opportunity, in the Treasury’s review of its methodology, to drive growth in our regions and in constituencies such as mine. We should be valuing things such as investing in the tram-train between Manchester Piccadilly and Marple in a way that generates growth. Does he agree that that is an opportunity that the Government should seize?

[Andy MacNae]

I agree 100% with the hon. Lady. It is a huge opportunity, and I will come to the specifics around it very shortly.

Some Departments still require projects to surpass a certain benefit-cost threshold before the investment decision gets anywhere near a Minister’s desk. It is a statement of fact to say that that reliance on benefit-cost ratios favours better-off areas and quick wins, contributing to regional and sub-regional imbalance over many years. That issue does not stop with the Green Book—it is broader than that; I would argue that it can be summed up as the simple human temptation to take the quicker and easier option.

The problem has historically been compounded by a failure to join up investment thinking across Departments and geographical footprints—for instance, local regeneration funding not being linked to regional transport or housing strategy. The great failure of the last Government’s levelling-up programme was to abandon any sort of strategic approach and simply rely on bidding competitions and piecemeal sticking-plaster interventions determined by the likelihood of a good headline.

If we are really to see the benefits of growth in places such as Rossendale and Darwen, we need to address all that head-on. The Green Book and appraisal practice must change to properly value all impacts of investment in our small towns. We must ensure that all appraisal processes, including departmental models, follow the intent of that guidance. Green Book best practice must be updated to ensure that project funding is primarily based on strategic objectives, which may include aspects that cannot be valued quantitatively, rather than arbitrary forecasts. That must include ending all arbitrary benefit-cost ratio thresholds based on limited economic forecasting, replacing them with strengthened and broadened place-based systems of evaluation, with public transparency about the calculations.

Appraisals must recognise the long-term and interlinked nature of key interventions extending over the period by which the benefits are valued, and address the excessive discounting of long-term impacts. More fundamentally, our strategies must insist on doing the hard yards, while giving the fiscal flexibility, regulatory framework and sustained leadership to deliver effectively.

The question “What does this do for our most deprived and left-behind neighbourhoods?” should be embedded in every investment strategy and decision process. We should develop tests that seek to answer that question and by which we can judge investments. By insisting on truly holistic, place-based approaches designed to benefit all, we can deliver much more meaningful impact. In delivering that sort of approach, devolution and local leadership could and should play a vital role—but only if we do it right.

It has been well argued that to close national productivity gaps we need to focus investment through integrated settlements towards the cities and devolved authorities. With developed institutions and the greatest ability to get things done, I agree with that, but that is the relatively easy bit. We must also do the hard bit: such progress must be in parallel with targeted investment in deprived towns outside the immediate economic envelope of the city, in line with original strategy and founded on the principle of growth for all that cuts across devolved areas. That strategy must be supported by flexible funding and delivery capacity to respond to specific challenges and opportunities.

We cannot continue to justify Government investment flowing into the likes of Manchester while the towns of Lancashire do not even appear in the picture. As a practical example, take the TransPennine route upgrade—a major project that will transform connectivity between cities and major towns across the Pennines. It has been presented, in some quarters, as a transformational project for our region. However, if I ask, “What does this do for Rossendale and Darwen, or any small town on or near the route?”, the answer is, “Frankly, not much—all it does is take trains past us a bit quicker.”

Would we not rather think about the rail upgrade as one part of a wider project that enables a growth corridor, and in which we make a positive impact on small towns and rural areas in that corridor a fundamental requirement of the investment, for instance by insisting on local procurement, associated recruitment and skills programmes, investment and startup incentives, brownfield remediation, housing renewal, local transport improvements, public realm investment and so on?

Such an approach could be delivered through a partnership of Liverpool, Manchester, Lancashire and West Yorkshire authorities, with mayors sharing accountability. It would require a fully place-based appraisal mechanism, flexible funding and long-term delivery capability. It should also be expected to bring in other agencies such as Homes England, Active Travel England and Historic England to provide additional leverage. By insisting on such an holistic approach, we could get something far more impactful, and bigger than the sum of its parts.

We have tried all this before with regional development agencies, housing market renewal, the single regeneration budget, the new deal for communities programme, local enterprise growth initiatives, local enterprise partnerships and so on. Many of these things were great, but they never quite got there. Too often programmes would retreat into doing the same easy thing over and over again, lose strategic focus and just deliver a lot of nice-to-haves or be pulled back into spending orthodoxies by risk-averse oversight. As Gordon Brown reflected—I will not do a Scottish accent:

“The frustration is that we haven’t made enough progress. Given the deindustrialisation of Britain, we haven’t managed to find a way to generate the kind of growth and wealth in the areas of the country that were at the heart of the first Industrial Revolution.”

This Government, who were elected by those very areas, must again take up that challenge.

For too long, geography has meant destiny. Small towns such as Bacup, Whitworth, Rawtenstall and Darwen have been at the back of the queue and left behind, as others shout louder and seemingly offer easier solutions. Our decision-making process has compounded that and left our communities behind. We must change the game. Our new default must be to put our left-behind neighbourhoods first. We must learn the lessons of the past and not allow established orthodoxies and a desire for easy wins to stand in the way. In the end, we simply cannot afford to fail those communities that need us most.

11:17

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. It was a pleasure to hear the outstanding contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae). I am grateful to him for securing the debate, and I am grateful to my colleagues who have come and found a way to contribute to it as well. This is a very important debate. The frustration over the imbalances both between and within regions is felt locally, whether it is in Teesside or Cornwall or anywhere in between, so it is right that colleagues are interested in this.

I have a whole argument to set out, but instinctively I will start with something I have said for a number of years, both when I shadowed this brief in opposition and throughout my time in government—something, most importantly, that the Prime Minister has said on multiple occasions: we see the fundamental transfer of power and resources from this place to local communities as a huge priority for this Government. We do that because we believe it is right that people should have a stronger say over their future, be it their economic future, their social future or the future of the fabric of their community, but we also strongly believe that that is what delivers.

It is right that the No. 1 mission for this Government is growth, but if we are to get that, the heart of our growth mission must be making sure that everybody has good opportunities, and that prosperity is spread across the UK. This is hard to say, especially as a Minister, but also from Westminster itself: it is an inside job. When I became the Minister for local growth, a job I loved doing, I did not walk through a sheep dip that gave me omniscience over Lancashire, Teesside, the west Midlands or Halesowen. The experts are my hon. Friends, but more importantly they are their constituents. My role—and our job as a Government—is to get those resources and powers out to them, so that they can change their communities and shape their economic futures. That is an important and huge goal.

It is very hard not to get into a conversation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) says, about either north or south, urban or rural and city or town, and that is a feature of this debate. But certainly when it comes to growth across those areas outside London and the south-east that have had the hardest time over the past few decades, I do not see these things as either/or’s. I think they interlock.

[Afzal Khan]

This is an important debate. In Manchester, a shocking 11 children in a class of 30 are living in poverty, which we know impacts their development, experiences, education and mental health. We must ensure that the economy works for the people we serve, so does the Minister agree that tackling child poverty must be central to our plans for regional rebalancing, especially in areas such as Manchester Rusholme?

[Alex Norris]

I agree that child poverty is particularly cruel. It is cruel because of the hardship that those children grow up in, but it is also cruel because their potential is snuffed out before they have even had a chance, and we should want everybody to have a chance to play their role in their community. That speaks to the very important point that even within communities that are thriving, there are still some of those neighbourhoods. This is a conversation about towns, but it is also a conversation about neighbourhoods. The very poorest neighbourhoods exist in all parts of the country, and we should have a real neighbourhoods focus for how we tackle that.

As I said, I think that these things interlock. I make no apology for believing that there is an importance in ensuring that our cities thrive. If our largest 11 underperforming cities got to the national average, that would be worth £20.5 billion; to the Exchequer, it would be £63 billion of additional output. That is a huge prize. I am thinking about Belfast and the incredible success story that is going on there in banking and finance, in the creative industries and in tech generally. These are incredible opportunities, which have the potential to change that community and change lives.

However, it is right that colleagues here, such as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), should ask, “But what does that mean for Newtownards? What does that mean for Coleraine? What does that mean for Ballymena?” Those conversations are very much in the spirit that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen led us off in. We will as a Government—this has been part of the debate already today—look to back those projects that have a potentially transformative impact. Whether that involves the Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge corridor or unlocking the growth potential of our cities, we are going to do those things. We think that that should be at the core of our industrial strategy. I am talking about backing places with potential for growth, and growth with a degree of speed as well. There is the clustering that is going on. I am thinking about Liverpool and Manchester and some of the technology clustering. We are going to back those things. We think that is the right thing to do. But I want to give colleagues a real assurance that our approach has a lot more than that, too. As I have said, it is about power and it is about resources.

With regard to the power piece, I am very proud of our devolution agenda. As a Government, we have built on what the previous Government did. They did good things in establishing the mayoralties that they did. We want that to go wider and deeper, which I will talk about in a second. In recent months, I have been working very closely with our mayors on the development of local growth plans, so that—again, in the spirit of what my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen says—rather than Ministers sitting in Whitehall with a map and working out where they think there might be some potential, we are saying to the leaders of those communities, “Get together with your community. Tell us where your economic future is. Tell us what the hurdles are to realising that economic future. Tell us what resources you need to deliver that economic future. We will agree those plans with you and we will back you. We will give you the power to do that. You can use tools, such as investment zones or freeports, but we want you to say what it takes.”

I am very pleased to say that as we get to the spending review this year, we will see those plans come out. Whether we are talking about the Liverpool city region, the east midlands—my area—the Greater Manchester combined authority, the west midlands or elsewhere, people will see emerging very exciting plans that will be about a new vision, a new understanding of where this country’s potential and opportunities are, because suddenly they will be popping up all over the country. I am really excited about that, but we need more people to be part of the settlement.

The devolution steps taken by previous Governments were good ones, but it could go much further, so we have made a commitment to a deeper devolution settlement—more powers across housing, planning, transport, energy, skills, employment support and more, so that locally those tools are there to shape place and to shape the economic future. I am delighted to say that Lancashire is soon to be part of this. We want more people to be in on that settlement because we think it delivers for their communities, so it is great that the Lancashire combined county authority is up and running. Of course, there are six areas in the devolution priority programme. That means that when those priorities are delivered and over the line, in addition to the devolution we have already, the proportion of England covered by devolution will rise to 77%, or just over 44 million people, by next May.

[Perran Moon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Norris]

I will shortly. That will cover the entirety of the north, which may well be the point that my hon. Friend wants to make.

[Perran Moon]

I wholeheartedly agree with the principle of devolving powers out of this place and into regions, but does the Minister agree that in certain parts of the country, namely Cornwall, it will be very difficult for the model that is designed within the English devolution Bill to apply? Does he agree that we need flexibility and a nuanced approach to those areas that are desperate for devolution but will not and cannot sign up to the model that is currently Government strategy?

[Alex Norris]

I recognise that Cornwall is different. That point is obviously established in multinational architecture as well. There is no doubt that there are differences in Cornwall. I know that my hon. Friend and his Cornish colleagues are making that case very strongly to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, and I am hearing that case as well. We know that that will continue. We need to have a programme that fits, and my hon. Friend will understand our need for coherence, too, but I appreciate the spirit in which he makes his point. I know there are differences in Cornwall, and those conversations will continue.

[Luke Myer]

Do the Government accept the subsidiarity principle wherein powers should not just sit at the mayoral level, but should be as close to the community as possible? That would empower our local authorities and communities themselves, rather than just creating structures that sit above communities and are distant from them.

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend, with characteristic vigour, takes me to the next part of my argument. I do not see the finished devolution product being a shift of power from Whitehall and Westminster to a regional or sub-regional body that is far away from communities and the local authority. I think that transfer is an unalloyed good, but I do not think it is the whole job.

That is why I was so pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen was the one who opened the debate. Our plan for neighbourhoods is a step in that direction—we are saying that we want money and power to be held at a neighbourhood level, to shape place. We think that is the second part of devolution. The first part probably gets the most public attention—creating new mayors and new structures creates a lot of interest. For me, the magic is in that next stage, which is where communities really take control for themselves—and of their future.

That is not just rhetoric from me; we have put our money where our mouths are. The £1.5 billion we have committed to the plan for neighbourhoods will deliver up to £20 million of funding and support for 75 areas over the next decade. It is hopefully a starting point. In April I had the pleasure of visiting two of the areas, Darwen and Rawtenstall, which are in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I was struck by the energy—my hon. Friend always has that characteristic energy, of course, but his former colleagues in local government had it too, as well as the neighbourhood board and all the folks who had come to play their role in that process. I was struck by how ambitious they were for their communities, and the plans they had. As I go around the UK talking to people, mentioning local growth and the plan for neighbourhoods, it is striking how they want to use the money to catalyse further investments in their communities.

[Andy MacNae]

This is all wonderful stuff, and obviously we are massively behind these plans, but does the Minister agree that in order to make the most of the plan for neighbourhoods, we must address the infrastructure constraints within the sub-regions—constraints that have traditionally held back our areas? In the case of Rawtenstall and many areas, it is the rail links. There is also the transport grid. There are so many aspects of this. We will only get the value for money out of our plan for neighbourhoods if we address the infrastructure around our areas, too.

[Alex Norris]

I agree with that. When I visited my hon. Friend’s constituency, I was struck by the fact that he is in a valley, and if anything is wrong with that road, everything is wrong with that road and everything grinds to a halt. Of course the plan cannot be seen in isolation.

I have only one minute left, and I want to cover the Green Book before I conclude. My hon. Friend made a very good case for updating the Green Book. As he said, a review is under way. That will ensure that the Green Book provides objective, transparent advice on public investment across the country, including outside of London and the south-east, meaning that investment in all regions gets a proper hearing and areas get proper backing for growth. I encourage colleagues to continue to talk to the Treasury, as I know they are doing, about what they want to see from a future Green Book to ensure that they are getting the investment they need in their communities.

There has been a lot of energy in this room; there is always a lot of energy in the room when we talk about local devolution and local leadership. We have huge untapped potential in this country, and what it takes to tap into that potential, and that desire for communities to take control of their future, is a Government who support the transfer of money and power from this place to them to allow them to shape place. I am really excited to be getting on with that job, and to be working with colleagues in doing so.

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

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer in the Chair]

14:30

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of extended producer responsibility for packaging on glass packaging producers.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. In the UK, the glass manufacturing sector supports more than 120,000 jobs, adding £2.2 billion to the economy each year. I am immensely proud to have Beatson Clark in my constituency, which has been manufacturing glass in Rotherham for more than 270 years. It is a key local employer, and the only remaining independent UK-owned glass container manufacturer. It is also the only company in the UK that still produces amber pharmaceutical glass. After adding in the supply chain, more than 2,000 people are dependent on Beatson Clark for their livelihood.

As we move to a fully circular economy, glass is the perfect packaging material. It is infinitely recyclable, does not lose quality over time and does not release harmful microplastics into products, including the human body or the environment at large. It is easily and widely recyclable, with no degradation as part of the recycling process. Bottle banks were first introduced in the UK in the 1970s. Glass that was collected then is most likely still in circulation today.

Glass manufacture is energy-intensive, but with electric and hybrid furnaces and readily available technology there is no reason why glass cannot be a net zero product in the not too distant future, especially with Government support with infrastructure and electricity costs, as per the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations. Yet, because of the Government’s dogged decision to press ahead with extended producer responsibility, initiated by the previous Administration, we instead face the decimation of our domestic glass industry.

Job losses and the closure of sites are literally just around the corner. That is not the industry overreacting. British Glass has already received warnings from more than one beer and cider manufacturer that there is no future for glass in this country due to the EPR policy. EPR follows hot on the heels of a challenging few years for UK glass manufacturing. The energy crisis, increased costs and a reduction in trade tariffs from 6% to 0% since leaving the EU have made cheaper imported glass so much more attractive.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

Holden’s Bottling company in my constituency has written to me with concerns about EPR, saying it makes the company simply uncompetitive. Does my hon. Friend agree that if EPR fees were calculated on volume not weight, it would incentivise using more sustainable materials such as glass over plastic?

[Sarah Champion]

I support my hon. Friend 100%. It is crazy that we are not doing that by volume, because glass is heavier. We are forcing people to move to lighter products, particularly plastic.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend also accept that because glass is heavier than other products, it costs more to recycle and transport? It may break during transport, so it is not the case that it is a more sustainable product.

[Sarah Champion]

I have not heard that or seen any evidence of that. All I can say is that in Wales, 95% of the glass is kerbside-collected and recycled. I do not know where my hon. Friend’s stats come from. If she would like to share them with me and the industry, I would like to have a look.

Glass produced in Turkey is not currently covered by emissions trading, so the CO₂ emitted is not captured by matching penalties. In addition, Turkish glass manufacturers have built factories in organised industrial zones and benefit from Government support in the form of lower water, natural gas or telecommunications costs, as well as a lower taxation scheme.

The lower cost base, supported by the Turkish Government in the form of state aid, is assisting Turkey in targeting export prices at rates that are lower than UK factory costs. However, it is the baseline fees set for glass under the extended producer responsibility that are set to be the hammer-blow. And the hammer administering that blow is being wielded by a Labour Government, which I find hugely disappointing.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I want to put on the record my pride in having a glassworks in Irvine in my constituency and in its many workers, including Mr Thomson, who lived next door to me in Auchenharvie Place when I was growing up. The Government must consider the concerns of the sector about the EPR and look at the evidence that has been supplied. And I urge the Minister to adopt the sensible solutions that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) is suggesting today.

[Sarah Champion]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

The glass sector has always supported the principle behind EPR. It lobbied, on sound environmental and safety grounds, against inclusion in the deposit return scheme, knowing and accepting that that would mean the inclusion of all glass products in EPR. Yet the terms of EPR have seemingly been deliberately stacked against the sector.

It is not only glass manufacturers who will be hit hard by this change. Indeed, since being granted this debate I have been inundated with messages from organisations worried about the impact of EPR.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to ensure that the implementation of EPR avoids unintended consequences for businesses such as pubs, which are already facing huge headwinds? In many cases, pubs already manage their packaging waste through commercial contracts, so they would face double the levy.

[Sarah Champion]

My hon. Friend makes a sound point, which I will reinforce.

Let me go through some—I emphasise “some”—of the organisations that have been in touch with me about this issue. They include Vinarchy, one of the world’s largest wine companies; the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates; the Campaign for Real Ale, CAMRA; the British Beer and Pub Association; the Wine and Spirit Trade Association; UKHospitality; the Foodservice Packaging Association; the Metal Packaging Manufacturers Association; the Scotch Whisky Association; the Irish Whiskey Association; the English Whisky Guild; the Brewing, Food and Beverage Industry Suppliers’ Association; the National Association of Cider Makers; and WineGB. All these organisations have spoken out against EPR and their criticisms of the approach being taken by the Government have been surprisingly—indeed, strikingly—similar. Minister, they cannot all be wrong.

Other assessments of EPR plans have been similarly damning. The Office for Budget Responsibility has concluded that EPR is a tax. It will not improve recycling rates and it will damage businesses. The Bank of England and the British Retail Consortium have recently stated that the impact of this policy on businesses will be similar to that of the increased national insurance costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) said, all this is coming at a time of rising economic uncertainty, which is the result of the Trump tariffs. Pubs face an estimated £8 million hike in their costs, which will equate to an extra £2,000 per year for a large pub.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Like her, I have heard from the British Beer and Pub Association, and I have also heard from several of the pubs in my constituency of West Dorset. The British Beer and Pub Association has said that the increase per bottle on beer and cider will be between 5p and 7p. That comes on the back of increases in business rates—one of my local pubs, The George in West Bay, saw their business rates rise from £8,000 a year to £27,000 a year, with increased national insurance contributions on top. If we want to keep village pubs, we need to support them and not keep taxing them.

[Sarah Champion]

I agree 100%. These consequences —one hopes that they are unintended consequences—are the stark evidence that has been put to the Minister, but seemingly it is not making any difference.

I go back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay made. EPR is intended to apply to household waste only. As pubs and similar businesses already pay for their packaging waste collection via commercial contracts, they are being charged double.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She is pointing out the double counting and the effect of EPR. I have 19 pubs and Fuller’s brewery in my constituency, and they employ about 4,000 people. With all the other pressures on pubs and the hospitality industry at the moment, this is a bridge too far. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to reconsider this?

[Sarah Champion]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend: the Government need to pause, and I will go on to argue why they need to do that.

One of the problems is that packaging producers are unable to exclude these products from their EPR liability. There is no way out for pubs and hospitality businesses other than to pay. The Wine and Spirit Trade Association has said:

“Defra’s new rules do not work, and the vast majority of bottles sold in hospitality will pay EPR fees, completely unfairly. Defra are aware of their mistake but have admitted the issue would not be prioritised.”

Why? For brewers, the cost of glass beer bottle packaging is estimated to be more than £150 million per year. These additional costs will ultimately be passed on to the consumers. The Government themselves estimate that 85% of EPR costs will fall on the end user. With the public already facing stubbornly high costs of living and inflationary pressure, I cannot comprehend why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is proceeding with a policy that its own analysis suggests may not meaningfully improve recycling rates. I urge the Minister to change course and step away from this madness.

Let us look in detail at this flawed scheme. The exact methodology for calculating EPR has still not been fully shared, even though it came into effect last month. The process to date has been far from transparent. Based on current illustrative fees, glass is liable for around 30% of EPR costs, while only representing around 5% of in-scope material by volume. That is because fees are calculated by weight, not volume. Glass, as a relatively heavy material, suffers unfairly because of that, yet volume is the limiting factor when collecting and processing waste, not weight.

British Glass has raised several areas that it believes are incorrect in the methodology for calculating the base fees, but it has received no certainty from DEFRA that these will be reflected in the final fees. I am aware that other packaging trade associations have serious concerns about the methodology used to create the base fees. The fee for glass currently stands at £240 per tonne, which equates to around 10p per glass bottle—significantly higher than under similar schemes in Europe.

Germany is often cited, including by DEFRA, as having a good example of a successful EPR scheme. In Germany, the fee stands at £24, or €28, per tonne of glass. I appreciate that collection methods are different in Europe so the comparison is not exact, but are we seriously expected to believe it costs 10 times as much to collect and process glass in the UK as it does in Germany?

The policy makes even less sense when we consider that brands and retailers do not buy packaging by weight, but by unit. That is why it is essential to have an EPR fee that takes into account unit numbers. Recyclable glass can be 20 times heavier than less recyclable packaging, resulting in vastly disproportionate EPR fees on glass.

When I raised these issues previously, the Minister acknowledged that the per-unit impact on glass is higher than for other materials, yet the Government have failed to address that, calling into question their repeated claim that the policy is material-neutral. That is simply not true. Glass is being penalised. The implementation of EPR leaves glass at the mercy of its competitors. Glass beverage containers have been subject to EPR fees since the start of April 2025. Competing materials such as aluminium and plastic will face no policy fees until the introduction of the DRS in, at the earliest, October 2027.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sarah Champion]

Not at the moment.

In the meantime, our Government are driving packaging customers decisively and permanently away from glass. If, for example, a brand sells 1 million half-litre bottles, the EPR fees for glass would be £72,000. If, on the other hand, the brand decides to put its product into plastic or aluminium, it will pay no EPR fees whatsoever. Officials and Ministers have argued that materials that are part of a deposit return scheme will be subject to set-up costs, and it is on those grounds that they are granted exemption from EPR fees for close to two and a half years. Yet those set-up costs are still unknown publicly and therefore cannot be, and have not been, considered by brands and retailers when making their packaging choices. The truth is that brands and retailers can avoid the imminent threat of additional costs from EPR by switching away from glass packaging to not pay EPR fees on their beverage products. Once those producers have decided to switch packaging materials, they must invest in new filling technology, and that makes it highly unlikely that they will ever switch back to glass.

This is not a hypothetical problem. The glass industry is already seeing evidence of material-switching to less recyclable packaging. I know that DEFRA has been sent a great deal of evidence of material-switching but, let us be honest, this policy choice does not seem based on evidence but on some unfathomable ideology.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Sarah Champion]

I am sorry, no.

In public, and in response to correspondence, DEFRA stated that there is no, or not enough, evidence of material-switching. That is simply not true. The industry, our businesses, and the sectors affected have supplied that evidence. It makes me wonder whether there is any threshold of evidence that would result in a rethink of the scheme.

DEFRA has highlighted the modulation of future EPR fees to address those expansive concerns, but let us be honest, even at the earliest point that such modulation would be introduced, huge and likely terminal damage will already have been done to glass manufacturers. It is not clear under the current guidelines whether glass will receive a reduction in fees, and it could even receive a fee increase in the future. Fees are currently charged retrospectively so, given the lack of confirmed information on the level of fees that glass will face, the costs are essentially unrecoverable. How can businesses be expected to operate under this profound uncertainty about their current and future costs?

For DEFRA, “reuse” often represents a magic bullet that will address all concerns, if only the industry would get onboard. The glass sector is keen to be part of the development of reuse and glass is the perfect material for it, but we must accept that large-scale national reuse systems are at least a decade away because there is currently no reuse infrastructure. Furthermore, not all products are suitable for reuse. Glass manufacturers can already supply reusable bottles, but a reuse scheme is much more than that. It would require significant buy-in across the whole supply chain.

The Minister also needs to recognise that not all glass bottles are for drinks. Beatson Clark, in my constituency, manufactures medicine bottles. Reuse is a laudable goal and one that the glass industry is keen to collaborate with the Government to achieve, but it is being repeatedly deployed as grounds to ignore the industry’s concerns about EPR. Reuse and EPR are two separate issues, and the conflation seems a deliberate muddying of the debate. The short-term impact of EPR could destroy the UK glass industry long before plans for reuse are even on the drawing board.

DEFRA has stated that the recycling reforms will add at least 21,000 new jobs and £10 billion to the UK economy, and stimulate the growth on which the Government are rightly focused. Yet it is unclear how those new jobs will be created. They are unlikely to be the kind of wealth-generating jobs that we currently have in the glass sector—jobs that are based in our manufacturing heartland, which really needs that work. Even if the Minister’s prediction were true, why risk existing jobs? Why not take the time to get EPR right and have both?

This is not scaremongering. The glass packaging industry is being driven into a crisis directly of the Government’s own making. UK glass manufacturers are already reporting that demand is down by 20%—although the EPR policy has been in place for only a month—and that low-cost imports have increased to help to absorb EPR costs.

On paper, I get that the Government are ostensibly seeking to encourage recycling, while recovering the cost to the public purse of its delivery. That is the right objective, but their approach will achieve the exact opposite. It will encourage switching to less recyclable materials; add costs to businesses such as pubs and breweries already struggling under inflationary and other cost pressures; and increase prices for consumers. If the concerns of industry are not addressed today, the Government also risk destroying our domestic capacity, leaving us reliant on highly polluting foreign imports.

I have raised these issues with the Minister time and again, as have other hon. Members, British Glass and individual businesses. I cannot therefore understand the reticence to engage with these very real problems. The origins of EPR lie with the previous Administration, but by continuing this flawed and ultimately self-defeating approach, a Labour Government risk destroying a great British industry. Does the Minister really want to be responsible for killing off our most recyclable packaging producer?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

We have approximately 39 minutes before I call the Front-Bench spokespeople, and eight Members who wish to speak, so I will impose a five-minute limit on speeches. Could hon. Members speak to the time, or slightly less? If there are interventions, I will have to reduce that limit.

14:51

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

It is a privilege to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this debate, and I congratulate her on opening it with such a comprehensive description of the issues that the industry is facing. I will start by declaring an interest, because my husband is the finance director of a wine merchant. I assure hon. Members that the impact of EPR on the wine industry has been described to me on many occasions—it is causing such great concern.

North Shropshire has a number of excellent breweries, in addition to wine merchants, including Joule’s, Stonehouse and Salopian. In fact, Salopian had one of its excellent products, Shropshire Gold, in Strangers Bar two weeks ago—I hope that everybody had an opportunity to sample it. The pubs that the breweries supply are at the heart of our rural communities, and are fundamental to both village and market town life.

The hospitality and drinks industry are facing a number of headwinds, and the EPR scheme threatens to have a devastating effect on them. We recognise that the principle of applying a levy to those products to encourage producers to reduce the amount of packaging, and unnecessary packaging, is absolutely sound. There are significant concerns with the EPR scheme, however, and it causes a significant issue for the industry.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

This is an important debate. I am lucky to have Robinsons Brewery in my constituency, as well as a number of pubs and the excellent bottling and packaging plant in the Bredbury industrial estate. They have been in touch with me about this issue, because they already pay for commercial waste collection and packaging recovery notes, and the threat of EPR will cost them an additional £500,000. The scheme is not only costly, but complex—does my hon. Friend agree that one of the concerns is unnecessary complexity, and that should be looked at?

[Helen Morgan]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend: the continuation of the PRN scheme alongside the EPR scheme is one consideration.

We need to protect local and high street businesses. The lack of clear information about what the levy will be is really problematic. Since September 2024, the price has been estimated at between £110 and £330 per tonne—a huge variation. Businesses cannot plan their cash flow and how much they need to accrue without at least some certainty about the levy that will be introduced on a scheme that is already in place. I urge the Minister to nail down that final amount as quickly as possible, so that there is certainty for managing this difficult situation.

There is an enormous amount of bureaucracy involved in calculating the amount of packaging. For example, an importer of wine bottles sells bottles to the on-trade and the off-trade. Although the importer can make good assumptions about the off-trade, where people buy bottles for personal consumption, they have no idea what happens when bottles go to the on-trade—they have lost control, so how do they realistically accrue?

Some of DEFRA’s assumptions are not helpful, such as that a bottle of wine or beer bought from a pub will end up being recycled by the council just because it cannot be proven that the person who bought it did not take it home with them. That seems insane. Most pubs are paying huge amounts of money to get their waste recycled privately and they are not costing the council anything, but the producer—the importer of the product—is now having to charge them. They will be paying twice, which is not sustainable for most local pubs.

Small pubs will have to pay about £350 or more a year, a medium-sized pub will have to pay around £750 and larger ones will have to pay £2,000, on top of their excessive business rates. It is important to remember that pubs cannot absorb that, because of their tiny margins, so 85% of those costs are likely to be passed on to consumers anyway. The idea that the producer pays is not going to work in this instance because pubs cannot change the packaging they use, so the consumer will end up paying, which is extremely problematic. The cost will be about 5p to 7p on every bottle of beer and around 15p on a bottle of wine; that might not seem like a great increase for a one-off purchase, but it will cost consumers an extra £154 million a year to buy bottled beer, which is quite considerable.

It is crucial that businesses are supported in transitioning to this scheme, because they are already struggling with the employer’s national insurance hike, the business rate increase and, for wine merchants, the changes to the way that duty is paid. I call on the Minister to take a sensible, common-sense approach to this issue and to consider an exemption from EPR for pubs. We should also reconsider the scope and timeline of its implementation, because we are at risk of delivering a crippling blow to hospitality and the drinks industry, which are already struggling with huge headwinds.

In the time that I have left, I will mention the example of a wine merchant—Members may wonder how I know this information. The wine merchant in question has a turnover of £25 million and makes profits of only £500,000 a year. That is a 5% profit margin, and this wine merchant is unusual in that it is quite profitable. EPR is estimated to cost it £272,000, more than 50% of its current profit margin, so there is no way that it will be able to avoid passing that on to the pubs and the consumers that buy from it.

The increase in national insurance will cost the wine merchant £92,000, and the ABV changes a further £262,000. It is a highly profitable and successful business of enormous longevity, but there may be no alternative for it other than putting up prices and laying people off. I urge the Minister to take into account these really serious concerns about the viability of businesses and to reconsider the implementation of this tax.

14:57

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing the debate.

In the 10 months since I was elected MP for Ealing Southall, one issue has been raised with me more than any other: litter and fly-tipping. That is why I have made it my business as an MP to campaign on the issue, and that is why I welcome the extended producer responsibility regulations. They sound complicated, but they mean that the businesses that make the packaging that ends up on our streets and in our parks need to pay for that packaging to be recycled or disposed of. It is the polluter pays principle, and it makes complete sense to my constituents in Ealing Southall.

Up to now, local councils have had to pay the full cost of getting rid of that rubbish, and that means it is actually local council tax payers who foot the bill. That is not fair, and I know that my constituents will welcome the businesses that produce the packaging finally being forced to pay for it. When they buy a SIM card on the internet, they wonder why it comes with so much plastic and paper packaging. The new system means that businesses will face extra costs for that, which will give them a reason to reduce packaging, taking rubbish out of the system in the first place. For my constituents, that will mean less cardboard and plastic strewn on our streets.

The new system will also mean that Ealing council will now get an extra £4.7 million this year from the levy. It sounds like a lot of money, but in fact it costs £30 million every year to collect and get rid of all our rubbish. It is only right that the people who produce the rubbish should have to pay at least some of that massive cost.

[Sarah Champion]

Will my hon. Friend please assure her constituents that the whole sector supports EPR, but that, because of the two-year lag, there will be more plastic on her streets, not less?

[Deirdre Costigan]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am afraid that the glass industry is perpetuating some of these untruths, and it just needs to get on board with the policy—it constantly wants to delay, but we need to make EPR happen now.

The glass industry says that it does not support the policy and that glass is more recyclable than other products. Let it tell that to my constituents, who see glass bottles in black sack fly-tips in parks, or dropped in little piles on streets where people have been street drinking, every day. In fact, just 43% of glass is recycled back into bottles. The glass industry also says that glass is being treated unfairly compared with plastic and cans, but plastic and cans will be included in the deposit return scheme, as we have already heard. Glass had the opportunity to be part of the scheme and the industry lobbied hard not be included. I congratulate it—it did a good job—but it cannot get off scot-free. It is either part of the reverse vending machine plan or part of the “polluter pays” system that we are talking about today. It has to be in one or the other—it creates litter and it must pay for the cost of clearing it up. Council tax payers cannot be left to continue picking up the tab.

The glass industry also says that it is being charged more than it should be, because the fees are based on weight. As I have said, weight is important: the heavier a product is, the more it costs to transport for recycling. It is also breakable, which increases the cost further, and glass costs a lot more to recycle, both in money and in carbon, as the heat has to be so high. Recycled glass bottles use 75% of the energy needed to make new bottles, compared with just 15% for reuse. The charges in the plan are based on the estimated costs to councils of recycling glass, and the industry needs to understand that. Glass really does need to come up with a sustainable plan for reuse, rather than arguing against the tide of the “polluter pays” principle.

I know the published fees are still in draft so that the Minister and her Department can ensure they are fair and based on actual costs. I have a lot of sympathy for the pub and restaurant businesses that might be affected, but the Department is looking in detail at some of the points raised, so I am sure a sensible solution will be found. It is important to emphasise that clean streets are vital for pubs and restaurants—they will not make money if no one wants to go to their mucky town centre.

The final argument from the industry is that it does not think the fees it pays will be spent on waste and recycling. I have heard that a lot, but already my local council in Ealing is making plans to spend some of the money on cracking down on fly-tipping. It will use CCTV by Southall common and treat fly-tipping as an environmental crime with police tape and a cordon, based on work by Keep Britain Tidy. Ealing council also has plans to open a new reuse centre in Acton.

There are calls from the glass industry, as we have heard, to delay the “polluter pays” levy, but I strongly urge the Minister to resist those calls. The previous Government delayed taking action, which led to rubbish on our streets increasing by more than one third on their watch. People in Ealing Southall want cleaner streets. They are sick to death of bottles, cans, cardboard, mattresses, sofas and all the rest of it blighting their community. The Government have already shown they are deadly serious about making local areas feel loved again. Let us get on with sorting out the mess and bring in the new law to clean up our streets.

15:03

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this really important debate so that we can collectively put pressure on the Government.

Times are hard. Things cost more and people are genuinely unhappy. What we do not want is to take away their beer or make it more expensive. The beer or pub sector in my constituency of Woking supports more than 1,800 jobs and contributes £100 million to Woking’s local economy. That is probably not surprising, as we are home to Asahi UK, a huge brand that covers Fuller’s, Peroni and Cornish Orchards, to name a few. Pubs are generally much more than just a business. They are hubs in our high streets and at the centre of our community life—places we go to watch a football match or take our grandparent on a Sunday afternoon to make sure they get out of the house. They are a fun place to drink pints with a few of your friends. Who here has been to the pub after a funeral, sharing stories about loved ones? I know I have, at The Cricketers in Horsell in my constituency. The core of what we are speaking about today is that pubs are really important places for people, and I am worried that the Government’s rules will undermine that.

In grief or in happiness, the British pub is an integral institution and always there for us—or so we hope; but the future of the pub is under threat. The Government’s poorly designed EPR scheme is a production tax in all but name, placing more than £100 million of new annual costs on brewers for glass packaging alone. The Liberal Democrats support the goal of making packaging and manufacturing more sustainable. We have long advocated improved recycling and a well-designed deposit return scheme, but the current approach to EPR risks doing more harm than good. It heaps unpredictable and escalating costs on to producers great and small—whether that is Asahi or the small brewery in my constituency, Thurstons —without offering clarity or stability that businesses need to plan for the future. For local brewers or publicans already battling inflation and higher taxes, these additional costs affect jobs and investment. Disastrously, this cost is also passed on to people going down the pub or buying a bottle of what they fancy from a shop. In Woking, it means a direct hit to ordinary people already struggling with the cost of living crisis.

This issue extends beyond my constituency. What is worse, this scheme is supposed to apply only to household waste, but the way it is currently designed means that pubs are charged double. Despite already paying for commercial waste collection, they now face an additional £60 million burden across the sector, with some larger venues expected to pay up to £2,000 extra each year. Even the Government have acknowledged that that is a flaw, yet this will not be fixed until year three of the scheme. That delay is not acceptable. Why should a struggling local pub in Woking, or any other constituency for that matter, be forced to bear unnecessary costs for the next two years while the Government dither?

It gets worse. The Office for Budget Responsibility has rightly classified EPR as a tax, yet businesses still lack the basic clarity around the final fees, the reporting rules or even whether they will be liable. Such uncertainty is paralysing for businesses already hurt by international or local events. How can small brewers or pubs make investment decisions when they do not know the rules of the game they will be playing or what the liabilities will be?

The impact of EPR extends beyond hospitality. Let us talk about glass, as the hon. Member for Rotherham did. More than 60% of glass packaging in the UK is produced domestically, but the EPR scheme risks pushing manufacturers to abandon glass altogether in favour of cheaper, less sustainable materials, such as our old friend plastic. We have seen similar schemes in the United States drive glass manufacturers out altogether. In the UK, more than 6,000 people work in the glass sector, and penalising them is the wrong thing to do. I therefore ask, urge and implore the Minister to commit to reviewing EPR in order to support the food and drink sector, especially in my Woking constituency. The Liberal Democrats and I support environmental initiatives, but not at the cost of local jobs, economic growth or the viability of businesses that hold our communities together. The Government must rethink this scheme.

15:08

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this important debate.

As the MP for Burton and Uttoxeter, I am proud to represent my hometown and the home of British brewing. As I have said many times in this house, Burton’s brewery heritage stretches back centuries, and our iconic breweries are known the world over not just for the quality of their beer, which I sample very regularly, but for the communities that they support and the skilled jobs that they sustain. Brewing is in our blood; it shapes our local economy, our identity and indeed the very character of our communities. When policies come forward that could affect the future of this proud industry, we must pay close attention. Extended producer responsibility is one such policy. The ambition behind it is good—we want to see more recycling, less waste and a greener future—but the way this policy is being introduced risks real harm to businesses that are already working very hard to do the right thing.

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is right that nobody is against the principle of recycling or the aims we are trying to achieve, but the policy is having unintended consequences for many small brewers and small pubs, which have very tight overheads. In some cases, the cost of EPR is more than their total profit, which is why I hope the Government will look again and come back with a revised scheme.

[Jacob Collier]

Absolutely—I am just about to make that point. Under the current plans, brewers, particularly those using glass bottles, face more than £150 million a year in new charges. That is not a minor adjustment. For some producers it could be the difference between profit and loss, in a sector that is already under huge strain.

The impact does not stop at the brewery gate. Pubs, many of which already pay for their own commercial waste disposal, will be charged again under EPR. That double payment for the same waste will cost up to £2,000 a year for larger venues. While DEFRA has acknowledged that this is a flaw in the system, a fix is not expected for another two years. In the meantime, pubs will foot the bill.

EPR will have a direct impact in my constituency, which has the most brewing jobs of any constituency in the UK and is home to companies such as Punch and Greene King, and to brewers such as Molson Coors and Marston’s. The policy will stifle growth and investment at a time when they are the Government’s No. 1 mission. There is also confusion about how EPR should be classified. The Office for Budget Responsibility calls it a tax, whereas DEFRA calls it a levy.

That lack of clarity really matters. Businesses in my constituency and around the country need certainty to invest, plan and grow, and at the moment they do not have it. Perhaps most frustratingly of all, according to the Government’s own analysis these changes might not meaningfully improve recycling rates. We risk burdening brewers and pubs with new costs without a guarantee that EPR will actually deliver the environmental benefits that we want to see.

Nobody is asking for the goals of EPR to be abandoned, but we need to make sure that the system works for the environment and for British industry, local jobs and communities such as mine that depend on them. Burton’s brewers have survived wars, recessions and global pandemics. They can continue to thrive with the right support, but they cannot and should not be asked to carry an unfair burden. Will the Minister please listen to the industry and work together with us to get this right?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. We are running out of time, so I will reduce the time limit to four minutes.

15:12

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I give a special thanks to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for setting the scene so well—Champion by name and champion by nature. Well done.

We are all aware of the need to be good stewards of this planet, and for that reason we have set ourselves goals and targets that I support. The hon. Lady raised the practicality of those goals—it is not that we do not agree with them; we all accept their principle, but the question is how we achieve them in a way that does not affect the businesses that will feel the pain the most. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place; I think she and I previously discussed this in a debate in the Chamber just before Christmas.

In Northern Ireland, as is becoming the norm, we have different recycling obligations. The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2023 amend the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 to update the glass remelt formula by increasing the proportion of glass packaging waste that producers must recycle by remelt by 3 percentage points to 75%.

We are all agreed on the need to have something. The packaging and packaging waste directive is included in annex 2 of the Windsor framework, about which the Minister and I spoke during our discussion in the Chamber. That means that the directive will continue to apply in Northern Ireland following the UK’s EU exit. It is currently anticipated that this will be the final year of the 2007 regulations being in force, with extended producer responsibility for packaging expected to be introduced this year. For the Hansard record, what discussions has the Minister had with the Northern Ireland Assembly—I know she has had them, but can we have that on record?

Over the past three years, the target for glass recycling has been stuck at 82%. Our local councils are doing a grand job with kerbside glass collection, and that has changed mindsets, including my own. Changing mindsets has been important, so that all glass goes into that small bin in the kitchen, then is taken down to the recycling centre or left at the end of the road for the council to collect. However, more can be done to ensure that packaging is made from recycled products when possible and financially viable. I believe that that is something that the phased scheme is capable of achieving.

The bottom line for me, as well as for the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), is ensuring that additional obligations on businesses are financially viable. I do not use that term lightly; I believe that a business should not have to choose between reasonable profit and meeting its obligations. Although the phasing in of the scheme has given a taster, I underline the concerns of the metal, food packaging and glass industry associations. My understanding is the same as that of the hon. Lady: the profit margin is as tight as it can be. If it is that tight, it will not take very much to throw businesses over the line and for them to find themselves in financial difficulties, so I thank the hon. Lady for that introduction.

The concern is that calculating base fees based on the weight of packaging will put a disproportionate cost burden on heavier materials and might cause a market distortion towards less environmentally friendly materials, which would go against many principles. Glass is one such sectors. I understand that the Government have indicated their willingness to assess the matter and I look to the Minister to provide assurance that that is, and will remain, the case.

We must ensure that our businesses can produce at a price point that is attractive, and not have people considering importation because of the massive variation in cost. We have no control whatsoever over recycling obligations for imports. We must meet the targets, but only by bringing businesses along with us, not by leaving them behind or giving them financial obligations that they will find hard to achieve. I know that that is the Minister’s desire, and it will hopefully be the aim for the coming years.

15:17

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing such an important debate.

There are 51 pubs in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South, supporting 1,280 local jobs and contributing more than £40 million to our local economy. However, I have heard repeatedly from breweries and pubs in my constituency that the extended producer responsibility for packaging will have a substantial cost implication for those pubs, particularly for the smaller ones, which struggle to absorb additional costs. Although the scheme covers household waste, most glass pub products are classified as household waste, and as such, they are not exempt from EPR fees. Pubs now face a double whammy, as they will have to pay EPR fees on top of the costs that they already pay for waste collection and recycling through private contracts. Although I greatly welcome plans to amend that in the coming years, in the meantime, large pubs face, on average, costs of £2,000 per year.

We know that brewers have slim profit margins already, at roughly 2p per bottle, so the EPR levy—or tax—threatens to eliminate those margins, and I worry that consumers will pay the brunt. In fact, the Government’s own analysis estimates that around 85% of EPR costs will be passed on to consumers. For bottled beer, that could mean an extra 5p to 7p per bottle—my Jim would really be annoyed about that. We risk driving up the cost of food and drink in our local pubs, potentially deterring customers and weakening the competitiveness of our sector.

Heineken supports several pubs in my constituency, including the Spotgate, the Black Lake Inn, where I had a nice meal on Sunday, the White Hart, the Swynnerton Arms, the Roebuck Inn and the Princess Royal. I have heard directly from them about the real impact that EPR fees are having on their businesses. I know that there is a plan to adjust EPR fees in two years’ time, based on the environmental impact of packaging materials. However, under the current fee structure, which involves charging per tonne of packaging material, different packaging materials are charged at different prices. Often, packaging materials with the best recycling record pay the most, which is particularly damaging for businesses such as pubs, which rely on glass packaging.

As a Stoke-on-Trent MP, it would be remiss of me not to mention the ongoing impact on the ceramics companies in my constituency. Heavy-duty packaging materials, such as glass and steel, which are commonly used by ceramics manufacturers, attract higher EPR costs due to their weight. The health of the ceramics industry relies on the glass industry. We cannot make glass without ceramics refractories. If the glass industry is on its knees, that will have a knock-on effect on the ceramics manufacturers.

Although I appreciate that the implementation has already been delayed twice, I urge the Minister to rethink or to provide a clear and fixed date with at least one year’s notice. Businesses need that certainty to plan, invest and transition smoothly, without the disruption caused by shifting timelines.

15:20

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this debate, and for her frank and wide-ranging speech. I will use my time to highlight the significant and growing concerns within the hospitality sector, particularly in our pubs.

The principle behind EPR—ensuring that producers take responsibility for the packaging waste that they create—has my full support. It is absolutely right that we strive to reduce waste, increase recycling, and shift towards a more sustainable circular economy. In delivering these changes, however, we must also ensure that we do not unfairly burden working people or the businesses that serve our communities, especially when many of them are already doing their part.

A truly circular economy means designing waste out of our systems and reusing valuable materials like glass. Glass is one of the most recyclable materials that we have, and in the hospitality sector it has been instrumental in supporting closed-loop recycling systems, not just recently but for decades.

The Government have highlighted the development of the EPR policy since 2019. I acknowledge the points raised in a written response to me from the Minister, which outlined the extensive consultations undertaken in 2019, 2021, and 2023 on the implementation of the legislation. It is clear that the Government have engaged with stakeholders, including glass manufacturers, to shape the policy and assess business impacts. Despite the consultation, concerns remain, particularly among those at the frontline of hospitality, about the unintended consequences of this otherwise positive step forward.

I echo what has been said about the specific challenges those on the frontline face, and ask whether the Minister will consider targeted adjustments that would maintain the integrity of the scheme while ensuring fairness for businesses that are already contributing to recycling efforts. Specifically, the classification of glass packaging used in pubs as household waste, as has been said, is estimated to cost pubs £2,500 a year on top of the other cost increases they face. That is despite them already managing their waste through commercial channels, at a relatively high cost that often rises above inflation.

Pubs are assets to communities in Britain. They are not just alcohol vendors, but places for people to hold what might be the only conversation they have that day. They are community centres, workplaces, incubators for the hospitality staff of tomorrow, and linchpins of many village economies. However, the British Beer and Pub Association estimates that the double charging that the EPR could inadvertently bring in could add between 5p and 7p to every bottle of beer sold in the UK. The risk is that the producers of beer will be discouraged from using glass and could gravitate towards alternatives, such as plastic, which although lighter, does not offer the same level of recyclability.

There is a level of unfairness in the proposed EPR fees for pubs, which, as other hon. Members have stated, will effectively pay twice for waste collection. The fact that the OBR has defined EPR as a tax but DEFRA deems it a levy, has left pubs uncertain as to whether costs will have to be absorbed by businesses or whether they will be passed on to their customers, something that could depress demand and make it even harder for businesses to plan for the future.

We must get the implementation of EPR right, so that we achieve environmental progress without putting an unfair burden on the very people and businesses who keep our communities going. Pubs, brewers, and hospitality businesses are already doing their bit. I hope that the Government will ensure that their policies rightly reflect and reward that effort.

15:23

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this debate, although I fear she is not going to agree with what I am about to say.

Glass is one of the most used materials in the world—we have used it for thousands of years. In ancient times, glassmaking was viewed as mysterious and magical. It is a really special product and we use a lot of it in this country. I think that the extended producer responsibility is the right way to go. We are talking about recycling, reusing and reducing. There is a business in my constituency called ecoSIP, run by a man called Alex Taylor. He is a supporter of the EPR scheme; I suspect that the Minister will be pleased that there is a business that does support it. He wrote to me and said:

“We are supporters of the EPR scheme. We believe it forces companies to take responsibility for the emissions and waste that they create, and provides incentives to decarbonise.”

He is part of a UK-led green packaging revolution. It is happening in Leighton Buzzard, but also across the east of England—in Ipswich, for example—and right across our country. EcoSIP is on a mission to decarbonise the drinks industry with lightweight, low-carbon packaging. I have been to visit and I have seen the little packages used for its wine. Each pouch uses just 2.5 grams of material. Its packaging uses 90% less CO₂ than glass, yet the wine inside tastes just as good. We need to take that on board, not least because we are in the midst of a climate emergency.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Is my hon. Friend aware of Frugalpac, which produces wine containers in Ipswich, and is similarly trying to wean us off our reliance on glass and other unsustainable packaging and to offer green jobs in this country?

[Alex Mayer]

I am absolutely aware of Frugalpac in Ipswich. The east of England, where I am from, is leading the charge.

These modern green manufacturing organisations face certain issues. I urge the Minister to talk to other Departments as well, not least about the Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) Order 1988, which I am told makes it illegal to sell 125 ml portions, which is what an average person would normally order as a glass of wine, in this modern packaging. There is stuff to be done, but luckily that is not a DEFRA thing.

There will always be a role for glass. It looks pretty—there is a bottle of it here. I love my Bonne Maman jars. We are never going to be able to turn an ecoSIP container into a candlestick holder. But we have to crack down on waste and boost recycling. The extended producer responsibility is an important first step, not least because it will also create 21,000 jobs and put a £10 billion investment into recycling, which is really welcome. In conclusion, I urge the Minister not to bottle it and to make sure that she goes full steam ahead.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

We now move on to Front-Bench spokespeople, starting with Sarah Dyke for the Lib Dems.

15:27

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer, and to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats on this important issue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing the debate.

It is right that the Government are taking action to make manufacturing and packaging more sustainable. Recycling is essential for protecting natural resources and reducing the environmental impact of waste, but given that only 9% of plastic ever produced has been recycled, it has never been more urgent to make packaging more sustainable. The introduction of EPR can help us to achieve that, but it is important that it does not come at the cost of business viability.

The Liberal Democrats have real concerns that the EPR scheme, as it stands, will put the financial stability of small and medium-sized businesses at risk. Further uncertainty and instability for these businesses must be avoided, especially as they navigate the aftermath of the previous Conservative Government’s economic mismanagement and try to find a way through the challenges being put on them by the current Government.

Representatives from the pub, beer and cider sectors have told me that they are really concerned about the impact that EPR will have on their businesses. The drinks sector in Glastonbury and Somerton supports 101 pubs and over 1,200 local jobs, and contributes £29 million to the local economy. Profit margins for many of these businesses are paper thin, and they will have no choice but to pass on the additional costs they incur to their customers.

That is backed up by DEFRA’s impact assessment, which confirms that 85% of the costs will be passed on to consumers. Research from the British Beer and Pub Association has found that EPR could add £154 million a year to the cost of beer bottles, negatively impacting many traditional beer and cider-producing businesses that use glass bottles. The Society of Independent Brewers and Associates has noted that the implementation of EPR in its current form will likely have a significant impact on small independent breweries, pubs and consumers.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I should declare an interest, as chair of the Scotch whisky all-party parliamentary group.

My hon. Friend mentions independent brewers. Independent distilleries in North East Fife and elsewhere in Scotland face a real challenge, because they often do not produce separate bottles for hospitality and for other consumers. Does she agree that the Government need to look at that in their consultation, because those businesses will end up being taken into EPR through both household waste and hospitality?

[Sarah Dyke]

My hon. Friend makes a really good point. Those are, indeed, the unintended consequences we will see if the scheme is rolled out in its current form.

I am really worried about how this will impact the independent pubs in my constituency such as the Etsome Arms in Somerton, which prides itself on celebrating brilliant local brewers. This comes at a time when the UK has lost a hundred small breweries in the past year alone, with many more facing costs that they cannot absorb by themselves.

Glastonbury and Somerton is home to breweries such as Glastonbury Ales and Fine Tuned Brewery, near Somerton, as well as distilleries such as the Spirit of Glastonbury gin company. I visited Fine Tuned Brewery earlier this year to hear about some of the challenges that small breweries face, and the people who run the brewery explained their concerns about the impact that EPR will have on their business. They feel like they have been left in the dark due to poor communication from DEFRA.

It is clear that the knock-on costs of EPR will have an impact on these businesses. In fact, many in the industry are concerned that beer and cider producers might be incentivised to switch to less costly packaging such as aluminium or plastic. Those materials are more difficult to recycle than glass, so there is a risk that the scheme will achieve the opposite of its intentions. This potential backward shift in material usage may be only two years away, when the deposit return scheme comes into force.

In addition—and this concern has been echoed by many Members today—I have spoken to people in the industry who say it is clear that producers may end up paying twice for hospitality and business waste packaging under the current guidelines: once for existing waste collection and then again through EPR. I hope the Minister will comment on this uncertainty and provide businesses with the clarity they need.

On Sunday, people across my wonderful county celebrated Somerset Day and the important traditions of the region. One such deep-seated tradition is cider making. It is an economically significant and indispensable part of Somerset’s cultural fabric. Glastonbury and Somerton is home to fantastic producers such as Dowding’s in Wincanton, King Brain in Little Weston, Burrow Hill in Kingsbury Episcopi, Tricky Cider in Low Ham, Harry’s Cider in Long Sutton, Hecks Cider in Street and Bere Cider in Bere, near Aller, to name just a few.

Cider makers are fully supportive of a circular economy, but many are worried about how EPR might make their businesses unviable. Many cider producers operate on thin profit margins, as I have said, and some may struggle to remain viable if they are laden with these additional costs. The National Association of Cider Makers has expressed frustration that the introduction of EPR does not align with the introduction of the DRS in two years’ time. While the full costs of EPR will not be confirmed until June, the hammer blow is already being felt. Businesses have been experiencing disruption since its introduction last month, making it very difficult for them to plan effectively.

Combined with other costs, EPR is squeezing profitability and threatening employment. Given the economic importance of cider makers, whether through the people they employ or the cider apple-growing farms they partner with, it is a massive concern to many in Somerset that these additional costs could seriously damage the industry.

When I held a very well-attended cider blossom season tasting event in Parliament earlier this year, a cider maker told me that cider is often seen as synonymous with Britain, and that British cider’s terroir is something that no other country can replicate. Cider making is a unique industry, so the costs of EPR must be proportionate and producers must be supported as they move towards a circular economy, rather than being forced out of business.

The Liberal Democrats know how important it is that businesses are given the notice, support and time they need to plan and adjust. The lack of clear information on the final fees and the timing of the start of producer liability creates challenges for business planning. I hope the Minister can give some clarity on that matter today.

The Liberal Democrats believe it is crucial that businesses are supported in this transition, especially when they have already been hit by higher employer national insurance contributions and higher business rates, as has been outlined by my colleagues today. We have concerns not only about how EPR’s implementation might affect small businesses but about how the scheme will be regulated.

The Environment Agency is already severely underfunded and struggles to fulfil its regulatory obligations on water quality. Consequently, we are cautious about EPR and want to ensure that it comes with appropriate support and additional funding for the Environment Agency to meet this additional responsibility.

Likewise, given that EPR changes the way local authorities will be required to manage household recycling, we believe that the role of local authorities in the scheme must be properly supported—they are constantly being asked to do more and more with less and less.

The Liberal Democrats recognise the importance of making packaging more sustainable, which is why we have long been committed to introducing a deposit return scheme for food and drink bottles and containers. It is also why we want to see the complete elimination of non-recyclable, single-use plastics within three years, and why we want to end plastic waste exports by 2030. However, we are also clear that those ambitions must be achieved by working collaboratively with industry to ensure that small drinks businesses are not left behind or struggle to remain viable. If we do not deal with this issue, then less recyclable and less circular materials, or cheaper imported glass with a larger carbon footprint, will become a more viable option for businesses in a sector in which the margins are already very tight.

15:38

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this important debate, which provides an opportunity to examine the matter further. I also congratulate colleagues from across the House, and across the country, for their powerful contributions referencing the glass manufacturers, pubs, breweries, distilleries and other affected businesses in their constituencies.

As we have heard, pubs are an important part of our local communities, and of our social and family interactions, in both happy and sad times. A number of pubs have been namechecked today, and we have had a cider tour. I believe that even Heineken was namechecked, and, from memory, it refreshes the parts that other beers cannot reach.

The hon. Member for Rotherham made a powerful speech in which she advocated very strongly for Beatson Clark, a major manufacturer in her constituency that plays an important role in producing the amber glass for medicine bottles.

We Conservatives have a proud record of environmental stewardship. Between 2010 and 2022, we successfully reduced the amount of waste going to landfill by 47% and the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfill by 46%. We also introduced a simpler recycling collection system to make it easier to recycle, saving people time and preventing confusion to boost recycling rates. Additionally, our introduction of the single-use plastic bag charge in 2015 saw a remarkable 95% cut in sales of plastic bags in major supermarkets, significantly reducing plastic waste.

We also passed the landmark Environment Act 2021 and set targets to tackle some of the biggest pressures facing our environment. That includes ensuring progress on clean air, clean and plentiful water, less waste, a more sustainable use of our resources, a step change in tree planting, a better marine environment, and a more diverse, resilient and healthy natural environment. In addition, the Act includes a new, historic and legally binding target to halt decline in species by 2030.

However, we must acknowledge that challenges persist. Concerningly, household waste recycling rates have plateaued. The latest published data from December 2024 showed a small decline from 44.6% in 2021 to 44.1%. However, there were some positives: notably, a rise in packaging waste recycling from 62.4% in 2022 to 64.8% in 2023.

The previous Conservative Government laid the foundations for progress in recycling and enhancing the circular economy by embracing the “polluter pays” principle to drive up recycling and improve resource efficiency. The Labour Government have attempted to take up the Conservative baton, but as ever with their implementation, the devil is in the detail. Although further action is needed to drive up recycling rates, significant concerns have been raised about the extended producer responsibility scheme in its current form, including issues relating to fee calculations, consistency across the devolved nations, cross-border business implications and the timing of the scheme’s roll-out, given the new financial challenges that this Government have bestowed upon businesses.

Although some aspects of the EPR scheme have come into effect, including data reporting, businesses are yet to feel the fee element. For example, waste disposal fees—otherwise called waste management fees— which need to be paid for packaging that is classified as household packaging, commonly binned packaging or glass household drinks containers, will be invoiced from October 2025. That invoice will be for fees for packaging placed on the market in 2024.

Modulated fees—an extension of waste disposal fees—are scheduled to come into effect in 2026 and will add a financial incentive or penalty, taking into account the environmental impact and recyclability of specific packaging formats. Therefore, hard-to-recycle packaging may face a higher fee.

This debate is focused on glass, and Members will no doubt be aware of concerns raised by the British Glass Manufacturers Confederation about waste disposal fees. Although it is welcome that the Government have clarified that they are looking at weight-based fees, there are concerns that glass will still be significantly impacted. As has been said today, there is much uncertainty about how the fees will be calculated, thereby penalising glass.

The spirits industry is an important part of the UK economy, and there are many spirit businesses operating across the UK. The UK Spirits Alliance has also raised concerns about the potential economic impact of those fees on the industry, which supports more than 446,000 jobs and contributes £13 billion annually to the UK economy. Disproportionate treatment of glass could threaten that vital sector. I understand that DEFRA has suggested that 80% of the cost of EPR will be passed on to the consumer. Small and medium-sized producers, including independent distillers, will have to make the difficult decision either to absorb the cost or pass it on.

The British Beer and Pub Association estimates that EPR fees will add 5p to 7p per beer bottle, equating to £154 million in additional annual costs. Alarmingly, the Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that EPR is unlikely to have a material impact on recycling rates, which raises questions about whether this iteration of the scheme is effective in achieving its environmental aims.

With that in mind, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the Government believe that glass, which is 100% recyclable, should have higher or lower waste disposal fees than plastic or aluminium. Furthermore, will she confirm what assessment has been made of the potential damage to the glass industry from the waste disposal fees, taking into account both the economic cost and the impact on jobs? Is she concerned that high waste disposal fees for glass may result in a shift in packaging to plastic, which may ultimately undermine the UK’s environmental goals?

Will the Minister also outline how the UK Government are working with the devolved nations to implement the EPR? What differences will there be nation to nation? What impact will that have on businesses operating across borders? For example, how will the Scottish Government’s decision to include glass in the DRS impact the roll-out of England’s EPR? It is so important to have joined-up thinking and policy implementation across our United Kingdom in sectors that span our domestic borders. Will the Minister also clarify whether the Government have ambitions to expand the EPR scheme to any other industries? If so, will impact assessments be carried out? In the light of the OBR’s assessment of the EPR, how will the Government seek to increase recycling rates?

I mentioned the timing of the roll-out of the EPR, and it is important to highlight how significant that is. The scheme, which imposes additional costs on businesses, is being introduced at a time when the Labour Government have caused significant uncertainty and pressure for businesses. The introduction of Labour’s jobs tax—the increase in national insurance contributions—means that businesses face an extra £900 in national insurance costs per employee. For many businesses, that may lead to job cuts, wage freezes or investment being put on hold. Sadly, in some cases, it may lead to businesses being shut down. If a business is able to survive, it is likely that those additional costs will be passed on to consumers.

Given that context, it is only right to consider whether it is appropriate to add further costs on businesses, however commendable the aim. His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition will continue to scrutinise these developments closely and ensure that the concerns of businesses and consumers are not ignored, while we continue to protect our precious environment.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Minister, will you try to leave a short time for the proposer to wind up the debate?

15:46

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

I am grateful for that guidance, Mr Stringer. I did not do that last week, so the Clerks have clearly made a mark against my name. I will do my best, and I have my team on standby to yank me down, as I am sure you will do. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for asking for this debate. She has been a doughty supporter of Beatson Clark in her constituency and of the glass industry in general. I also thank hon. Members from across the parties who have made valuable points today.

The aim of the reforms is to create a more circular and resource-efficient economy. They are the biggest reforms in a generation. The three elements—simpler recycling, DRS and extended producer responsibility for packaging—will turn the dial on recycling rates, which, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) said, have stagnated over the past 15 years and are bumping along at 42% to 44%. Assessments show that getting our household recycling rate up to 65% over the next 10 years will drive £10 billion of new investment in the British economy and create 21,000 new jobs.

[Sarah Champion]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mary Creagh]

I will make some progress and then give way.

UK circular industries—those that keep products and materials in circulation for as long as possible—currently deliver £67 billion a year to the economy, up from £44 billion in 2008, and provide 827,000 jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) talked about the innovators in her constituency creating new packaging. I will take away the point about weights and measures and see what we can do in a cross-ministerial way.

[Sarah Champion]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mary Creagh]

I will give time at the end but I want to make some progress.

The annual growth rate of circular industries is 3%, more than double the UK’s overall growth rate of 1.2%. Extended producer responsibility for packaging—pEPR—moves recycling costs from taxpayers to packaging producers. Think about it: not everybody drinks and not everybody shops online, but we are all paying for the costs of collection. We have had a great tour of drinking places, hostelries and amazing producers, but at the moment everybody in the country is paying for that, through council tax and general taxation. These reforms are creating systematic change, and that is hard.

Simpler recycling in England will make recycling easier and consistent. People will be able to recycle the same materials, including glass, whether they are at home, work or school, which will create a step change in the quality and quantity of recyclate streams. That is enabled by pEPR, which will pay for the new costs associated with the change, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) mentioned.

We are also introducing deposit return schemes in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland that add refundable deposits to single-use plastic, steel and aluminium containers. I discussed this with my colleague in Northern Ireland last week at the British-Irish Council environment ministerial meeting at Kew Gardens. We had a two-hour debate about how we would co-operate on the circular economy, in particular looking at the challenges of Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man—island economies with no real reprocessing facilities—and what we can all learn from each other.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mary Creagh]

I am going to make some headway.

DRSs cut litter, boost recycling rates to more than 90% and create high-quality materials that industry can reuse. Since it launched in 2024, the Republic of Ireland’s DRS has seen over 1 billion containers returned and a near 50% reduction in drinks container litter. Last week, I met Timmy Dooley, the Minister of State for Environment, Climate and Communications in the Republic of Ireland, who he said he had been sceptical of the DRS but now has the zeal of a convert.

This challenge is changing the way in which retailers and producers think about eco-design. Walkers is starting to use paper-based packaging for crisp multipacks, and many supermarkets are now using paper rather than plastic trays for fresh food. Our vision is to become world leaders in circular design, technology and industry.

These reforms were started by Michael Gove, late of this parish, back in 2018—seven years ago. I remember successive Secretaries of State for DEFRA coming to the Environmental Audit Committee, when I was Chair, and promising these reforms and deposit return schemes. There has been extensive engagement and consultation with business on pEPR, including public consultations in 2019 and 2021. Businesses have had a clear indication, and the scheme has already been delayed twice.

My officials run monthly packaging engagement forums, which regularly draw more than 1,000 attendees, to provide updates and test policy development with stakeholders. I have met British Glass several times to hear its concerns. I met Heineken last September. I met British Glass in October 2024, and then in January at a glass reuse roundtable hosted by the British Beer and Pub Association at the Budweiser Brewing Group. On 11 February, the Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), joined me to discuss the glass sector. We have engaged on this issue.

The glass sector lobbied extensively to be excluded from the deposit return scheme. We respected that position, and kept that approach during the final passage of the DRS and pEPR legislation. Legislation on pEPR was supported on both sides of the House, but sadly the DRS was not. My officials have talked with businesses that make and use glass packaging, and we have listened to feedback to ensure that the fees are set fairly. I am very aware of the issues that the glass sector has raised about dual-use items—items that can be disposed of in either business or household waste streams. It has been difficult to find an answer that works for everyone, and because of the issues raised in the debate, I have asked my officials to consult with industry immediately to find the fairest solution.

There has been a lot of talk about small businesses. Many international pEPR schemes offer no exemption for small business. We responded to UK small business concerns by putting in place some of the most generous exemptions of any scheme globally. The exemptions mean that businesses with a turnover of below £2 million, or that place less than 50 tonnes of packaging on the market, are not obliged to pay fees. Those exemptions apply to approximately 70% of UK businesses supplying packaging in the UK. There are quarterly payment options to help with cash flow for larger businesses, and we will watch the de minimis thresholds carefully. If we raised the thresholds, that would put costs on to the remaining businesses, because local authority collection costs would remain the same.

The pEPR fees for glass are lower than those for aluminium and plastic. Because glass packaging is heavier, it costs more to handle per unit than some other materials. We have worked closely with industry and local authorities to make sure that the costs used to set producer fees accurately reflect the on-the-ground waste management operation costs that every taxpayer currently has to pay. Weight is a driving factor in waste management and it is the most common basis used to determine costs for public and private sector collection; that is why it is central to our approach. But the scheme relies on all producers paying their fair share. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall said, there was a range, but there was unhappiness with that, so in December we introduced a set point of £240 per tonne. The fewer free riders there are in the system—

[Helen Morgan]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mary Creagh]

Let me finish my point; I have not made it yet.

The fewer that do not report and pay on their packaging, the lower the fees will be for everybody. That point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham in previous debates: some people do not report their packaging. I have instructed my officials to work with regulators. We have done a sprint on that and tracked down about 1,800 suspected free riders, with a little over 200 companies under review. I pay tribute to the Environment Agency officials up in Sheffield who have done that, and to agency officials and the Met police, who last week arrested two individuals in London for packaging export note fraud and suspected money laundering. We are going to keep this under review. This work is having a real impact. We will publish the year one base fees in June, and I am optimistic that the result will be an improved picture.

I am happy to give way if Members still have questions.

[Helen Morgan]

Businesses really need to know what that rate will be as soon as possible. The financial year has already started, they have very little headroom in their cash flows and they need to be able to plan. Will the Minister commit to give us that number as soon as possible?

[Mary Creagh]

That number will be published by the end of June and businesses are aware of that timescale.

[Dr Gardner]

There are wider issues with EPR, including for innovative companies supplying new types of packaging. Woolcool produces wool-based packaging that is compostable and biodegradable, but it is classed as worse than polystyrene because it is so innovative that it is unclassified. Will the Minister agree to look into that?

[Mary Creagh]

I will look into that. I know that wool is used in certain packaging situations. In a way, its usage is too small to register, but we will look at all these innovative ideas and how we keep things in circulation for as long as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) mentioned many pubs—did he mention Greene King?

[Jacob Collier]

indicated assent.

[Mary Creagh]

He did. Greene King, of Bury St Edmunds, has already started using reusable glass bottles in 65 pubs served by its Runcorn depot. It has collected over half a million bottles since January. I reassure hon. Members that I am alive to these issues and we hope to make further progress.

15:58

[Sarah Champion]

I decided not to intervene on the Minister because we have had this argument a lot and she still does not seem to be hearing a whole room of MPs bringing examples to her. She talked about all producers paying their fair share. I agree, and the glass sector agrees, but that is not happening because only glass is paying. The freeloaders the Minister talks about are currently plastic and aluminium. I am really supportive of all the other examples of packaging—absolutely, let us have all of them—but at the moment the Minister has a stark choice. She mentions the jobs that will be created; she does not mention those that will be lost. It is those jobs, and the likelihood of our losing the glass industry, that I urge her to focus on. She should pause the scheme, listen to and act on the concerns, and bring the whole scheme into force in October 2027, when the other two key materials will be in place. That is the only fair, just and, dare I say it, Labour way of doing this. At the moment the good guys are being punished, and people in our constituencies are going to lose their jobs.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of extended producer responsibility for packaging on glass packaging producers.

15:59

Sitting suspended.

Carer’s Leave

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

14:30

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered carer’s leave.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Stringer. I declare my interest as both an honorary vice-president of Carers UK and a board member of the Fife Carers Centre, which celebrated its 30th anniversary last week.

It is now just shy of two years since my private Member’s Bill, the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, received Royal Assent, and a little over a year since the necessary regulations were passed to enact the legislation. It came after years of work by dedicated campaigners both within and outside Parliament, and I had the pleasure of meeting some of them at an event to celebrate the law passing. I said then what I say now, which is that by passing the Act, I stood on the shoulders of many who came before.

But the job is not done just because the law is passed. Employment rights are useful only if they are known about and enforceable, and if they solve the policy issue that they intend to. I want to use this debate to look at how the law has been working for unpaid carers over the past year. The myriad problems and hurdles faced by unpaid carers, or indeed anyone, are not solved by the magic of one private Member’s Bill, as much as I wish they were—as politicians, I think we all wish they were. According to the latest census data from all four nations, there are at least 5.8 million people in the UK providing unpaid care for an ill, older or disabled family member or friend. Of those people, 2.8 million were recorded as balancing that caring responsibility with work.

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

Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The hon. Lady is making an important speech and I thank her for her work on this issue. She will know about my passion to support unpaid carers, particularly young carers. She is giving some very important and high figures. However, is it likely that those figures are actually higher, because certainly many young carers, and I suspect it is the same with adult carers, do not recognise that they are carers?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point that out. I occasionally use my husband as an example in this debate. He cares for his elderly mother who is in her 90s, but he would not call himself a carer; it is just part of what he does as a son.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

A constituent of mine who lives in Glastonbury told me that she cares for her 95-year-old mum who needs constant assistance. She is concerned because not only is she having to spend more time with her as time goes on, but she has lost her winter fuel allowance and respite care is out of her reach. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that we introduce paid carer’s leave to ensure that carers get the relief that they need while caring for their loved ones?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

My hon. Friend has anticipated some of my speech. There is no doubt that many unpaid carers want to care for their loved ones, but when they need respite or when the caring responsibility becomes too much, they need a social care service to support them. That is one of the challenges that many of them face.

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

Thank you for securing the debate. It is an important topic and it is a privilege to be here. I used to do a lot of work with carers and young carers in my job in the NHS, and I used to visit some of the Ayrshire carers centres. One thing that people told me was important to them was getting a break, whether it be a day out or a few days away, and another was getting peer support from other carers. Respite has already been mentioned. Do you agree that it is important for carers to get a break and opportunities for peer support?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that I am not part of the debate. Can we revert to normal parliamentary language? I do not like correcting people. We have just been through the previous debate and I did not, but I think it is necessary.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Thank you, Mr Stringer.

I am grateful for the intervention and I think the hon. Lady is absolutely right. In St Andrews in my constituency I met a group called the CRAP Carers—which stood for caring, resilient and positive. There is no doubt that the network of support that unpaid carers can access is really important.

We estimate that the value of the support that unpaid carers give to our economy equates to over £160 billion per year. That is to say that our care force is massive, and it needs valuing and supporting alongside every other industry. We also know, as Members have already touched on, that statistically being an unpaid carer makes someone worse off.

Early this year I hosted a policy breakfast with the Centre for Care at Sheffield University. Although the Minister could not attend, I am grateful that the Department for Business and Trade and the Department of Health and Social Care sent civil service representatives. We heard how the Centre for Care has been doing some important research on the impact of being an unpaid carer on income, which was published last year.

Staggeringly, the research finds an average relative income gap of up to 45% for those informal carers providing the most hours of care. I recommend that the Minister read the research; it is quite heavy on statistical analysis, but I am sure that the Centre for Care would be happy to meet with him, if it has not done so already. The academic research confirms what we already know from the surveys carried out by organisations such as Carers UK: unpaid carers are more likely to live in poverty, and doing something altruistic for the people you love makes you worse off.

The state of caring survey carried out by Carers UK for 2024 found that 40% of respondents had had to give up work, finding the juggle unmanageable, and of those still in employment, 44% had reduced their working hours, while a quarter had moved to a more junior role. That leaves the vast majority of unpaid carers with less money in their pockets every month. That is at a time when they may be living with the person they care for, and we know that there is a significant disability price tag. The personal independence payment down here, and the adult disability payment in Scotland—now a devolved benefit—are vital, but they are not enough to make up that difference.

The issue is not just immediate poverty although that is a very real issue, but about tackling poverty among pensioners, especially women, who are still more likely to be unpaid carers and to subsequently reduce or stop working as a result. We have a gender pension gap because we have a gender pay gap. The latest Government data sets that gender pension gap at 35%, but other organisations put it much higher. We know that caring plays a large part in that.

Responding to Carers UK last year, over two thirds of carers who had given up work said that they were worried about managing in the future, while over half of those who had reduced their hours said that they had cut back on savings for their retirement. All of that matters, not just to the individuals and their families who are struggling or to those who have promising careers that never reach their potential, but to this Government, who need to respond to the rising rates of poverty among older people while trying to reduce the benefits bill.

The struggles that lead to people stepping back from work are entirely understandable. Caring is hard, tiring, stressful, time-consuming and does not neatly fit into our free hours of the day. Flexible working does make up some of that picture, which I am sure the Minister will acknowledge, but there will always be pinch moments when care arrangements need changing, extra hospital appointments need attending or where all the tiny acts of care and admin for a loved one cannot be fitted in and around work.

The risk is that people use up their holiday, which is something that all the evidence tells us is bad for their health—as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) referred to in her intervention on respite. The Carer’s Leave Act 2023 was aimed at solving that—or at the very least, helping with it. It was the first legal right for carers to take leave from work for caring. It was an acknowledgment of how hard it can be, aimed at prompting a conversation about support in employment.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Last night, an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill introducing paid carer’s leave was debated in the House of Lords, where a Plaid Cymru colleague spoke from the experience of having been a young unpaid carer herself. In that debate, the Government Whip provided an update of the review into the Carer’s Leave Act 2023. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must, as part of that review, recognise that in order to make a true difference, carer’s leave must be paid leave?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am grateful for that update on the progress of the Employment Rights Bill in the other place last night. My party’s policy is for paid carer’s leave, and I am conscious that my Act only formalised some of the less formal arrangements that many people undertake, but it hopefully prompts conversations with the employer. I hope the Government review will look at paid carer’s leave and introduce it sooner rather than later. I would be more than happy if my Act were superseded.

One year on, the question is whether the policy is working. What do we know so far? It is clearly far too early to see an impact on poverty or even net employment rates, and I do not think the legislation that was passed is significant enough for that. Even if the statistics were available, there are too many moving parts to isolate cause and effect, but by now we should have a feeling of how well the Government are communicating advice about carer’s leave to businesses. Are businesses updating their policies and systems for requesting and recording leave? Are they training their managers? Do their employees know about their rights? Would they feel comfortable using them? Has the dial been moved at all towards more carer-friendly workplaces?

My big worry in the first few months after the regulations passed was that the Government were not doing enough to tell businesses about the new rights and what was required of them. I accept that at that time we obviously had a general election and a new Government. For too long, the main advice on gov.uk was on a webpage for new businesses setting up for the first time. I am happy that that seems to have been remedied, and that using the search engine to look for carer’s leave makes the right page pop up, but I am less comforted by the lack of resources on carer’s leave, or on unpaid carers at all, on the Department for Business and Trade’s website.

Yesterday, my team searched for “carer’s leave” and found no results under “guidance and regulation”, no results under “research and statistics”, one result under “policy papers and consultations” and three under “news”, two of which were from when the law was passed two years ago. It appears that the Government’s only interest in carer’s leave is in announcing a review into how it is working. Given that I secured this debate, I am clearly happy to see how things are going and how we can improve them, but I venture to say that the Government risk abandoning their responsibilities to working carers if they do not take an interest in promoting the leave that is available right now. What are they doing to ensure businesses, big and small, know about the rights of their employees and are supported in implementing them? How is this information getting out to business owners and busy managers, who simply do not have the time to look up a right that they might not even know exists? The Department for Business and Trade and the Treasury have more power to reach companies than any other organisation. If the review finds later this year that companies did not know about the leave, and therefore that it has been ineffective, DBT will need to look at its own failings and at the fact that it did not do more.

The enforcement of legal rights is not the only way the Department can encourage carer-friendly workplaces. Businesses could be signposted to a whole range of resources, including guidance from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and the Employers for Carers network. Carer Positive in Scotland is done with the Scottish Government, and I am pleased to say that my office is a Carer Positive employer. There is no reason why similar initiatives could not at least be encouraged down here.

As to what is happening with businesses, we can get something of a snapshot from an employer survey report published by Carers UK in January. I say “something of a snapshot” for one big reason: the employers answering the surveys are those already tapped into the networks and already alive to the issues facing carers, so low levels of reform could indicate that less reform is needed because policies were already in place, and high improvements could be because the self-selecting group is motivated to go above and beyond. But there are some really promising findings in the responses. Almost 90% of responding organisations reported no challenges in implementing the Act. More than half have a dedicated carer’s leave policy, compared with less than a quarter before the legislation came in. Some 23% of organisations saw an increase in uptake of their internal networks or support groups for employers. Many responded in free text that the law change had prompted greater understanding about what it means to be a carer, and about how people can move in and out of that status.

But there are a number of factors that I am worried about. The Government should be worried about them too, and should be looking at fixing them immediately, as well as in the longer review. Only three quarters of organisations told their employees about the new right—remember that these are the ones more likely to take action. That tallies with other research, which found that only two thirds of working carers know about carer’s leave. Hundreds of people become carers every day, and most people do not pay attention on their intranet or in their work emails to things that are not relevant to them, so unless that information is easily accessible and reiterated regularly, the chances are that salience among working carers will continue to lessen as time passes.

Even for employees who know about the right, there is a reported reluctance to be open about caring responsibilities or to request time off: 15% of respondents to the State of Caring survey said that they were worried about a negative reaction to taking time off for caring. It is deeply worrying that some respondents said that even though their organisations had policies in place, their line managers blocked requests for support. We should never be hearing reports such as:

“I work for a large public sector organisation, how you are treated all depends on that one single manager”,

or,

“My employer offers flexible working but my line manager doesn’t and says carer’s leave is for emergencies only which it isn’t.”

Given the integral need for line managers to implement carer-friendly policies, it is vital that businesses offer internal training and guidance. It is therefore worrying that of the organisations that responded to the survey on carer’s leave, only a quarter had specifically raised awareness or provided training to managers on implementing the right to leave. If the kind of organisations that are already tapped in to Carer Positive networks are not doing that, it is not hard to imagine what is happening in areas where there is low support for carers. There is a role for the Government to make sure that rights for working carers are a reality, not just a piece of paper.

Finally, there is the elephant in the room that is paid carer’s leave, which has already been referred to, and whether people can afford to take time off. I have always said that I want to see the legislation amended and upgraded. Last year, I worked with the Minister for Employment Rights, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), on the Delegated Legislation Committee considering the then draft Carer’s Leave Regulations 2024. I recall that he, too, wanted it to be paid. He might reflect on his own frustrations with how long it took to see that law through, and ensure that the can is not kicked down the road.

I will leave it to colleagues to look to the future, but today, I urge the Government to take steps so that the current law—the Carer’s Leave Act 2023—can reach its potential, is known about, talked about and accepted in our workplaces, and that it sparks conversations on what it means to be a carer and how work can be made to work for the unpaid carers that we all rely on.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I intend to call the Front Bench spokespeople at 5.10 pm, so hon. Members can work out the timings for themselves.

16:47

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this important debate. She has been an advocate for carers throughout her parliamentary career, and I thank her for all her hard work.

Unpaid carers are the backbone of Britain’s social care system. They carry out remarkable and irreplaceable roles, often with little help and too often at great personal cost. I would like to tell the story of one of my constituents, Sarah. She spent nearly 30 years as a full-time carer for her son, who has profound and complex needs. He suffered neurological damage before and during birth, and although he is verbal, he has severe autism and behavioural challenges, which, through no fault of his own, have dominated the lives of everyone around him. Sarah’s story is one of lifelong dedication and unconditional love. For years, her son’s unpredictable behaviour dictated his family’s routine. He was excluded from multiple schools and, later, from supported living settings because his needs were too challenging to manage in shared environments. He now lives with one-to-one professional carers. The support that he receives is of a high standard, but it costs as much as all the benefits he receives.

Sarah no longer qualifies for carer’s allowance because her son no longer lives at home. However, as a mother she remains deeply involved in his care. Over the years, she has given up work. She is approaching 60 with no pension or savings and with health problems of her own. On top of that, she now supports her elderly in-laws and ageing parents. Like so many others, she is a carer several times over—unseen, unpaid and exhausted. Sarah described herself to me as simply “broken” from years of having no room to breathe or recover.

Sarah contacted me not just because of the long hours of care or the loss of income, but because of the fear caused by the Government’s proposed changes to disability benefits, especially the personal independence payment. Her son relies on PIP; the suggestion that that support could be taken away or turned into a voucher system has devastated Sarah’s mental health. She told me that she cannot sleep and feels physically unwell from anxiety.

Carer’s leave is designed to support those who give so much of themselves to care for family and friends, but we must ensure that that support is not undermined by other policies. When carers are able to share some of their responsibilities with professional services and return to work, they should encounter stability, not the prospect that they will have to return to full-time caring because of sudden changes. However, proposals such as the changes to PIP risk having exactly that effect, which causes immense anxiety among the very people who we claim to be helping, including Sarah, who worries whether her son will be affected or not.

Carer’s allowance is just £81.90 a week, which is the lowest amount for a benefit of its kind. Worse still, carers are being punished for going even slightly over their earnings threshold. Tens of thousands of carers are being asked to repay thousands of pounds each, and often through no fault of their own. Indeed, many of them did not even know that they had gone over the threshold, and in many cases it was the Department for Work and Pensions that had failed to update their records in time. That is yet another example of carers being treated as an afterthought.

I am immensely proud that the Liberal Democrats, thanks to the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife, passed the Carer’s Leave Act 2023. The Act gives 2 million employees across the UK the legal right to at least one week of unpaid carer’s leave each year, which was a crucial first step, but now we must go further and make that paid leave.

Caring is vital, emotionally draining and complex work, which deserved to be recognised as such. That is why we should introduce paid carer’s leave and consult on extending the eligibility for it. We should also give unpaid carers a statutory guarantee of regular respite breaks, and not just when a council can afford them. We should also increase carer’s allowance by at least £20 a week, with higher earning thresholds and a taper, so that people are not penalised for doing extra hours at work.

Sarah’s story is not unique. Her exhaustion, her fear and her resilience are echoed in stories in millions of households up and down the country. We owe it to her and to every unpaid carer to stop taking them for granted.

16:51

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) not just for securing this debate but for her tireless advocacy for carers. Her landmark Carer’s Leave Act was a vital first step in recognising the contribution of unpaid carers, and showed just how committed the Liberal Democrats are to securing a fair deal for carers.

In Wales, the situation of carers is especially urgent. Over 310,000 people in Wales identify as unpaid carers—more than 10.5% of the population, which is a higher percentage than in any other UK nation. In some parts of my constituency, particularly in the Swansea valley, the figure is closer to 13%, which itself is likely to be an underestimate. Many carers do not realise that they qualify as such, so they go without vital support.

[Ann Davies]

The value of the 310,000 carers we have in Wales is £10 billion, so they are saving the Welsh economy—or the DWP here—£10 billion. Surely, we must have a system whereby carers, through the leave that they can receive, are empowered to apply for jobs that will give them the opportunity to work and care at the same time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that having such a system is vital for the DWP’s money to be used wisely?

[David Chadwick]

I absolutely agree. We have already heard in this debate some of the personal stories of people involved in caring and the challenges that they are taking on. The hon. Lady was quite right to point to the financial figures and the impact that this situation is having on our economy. For example, Powys Teaching Health Board has a deficit of just over £16 million a year, and it is paying another £16 million a year to other health boards to provide social care in our area. That highlights the contribution that unpaid carers make: if the gap were not being plugged by unpaid carers, the cost would be even higher.

Wales struggles more with the issue of unpaid carers than other UK nations because we have an ageing population, poorer health outcomes and rising levels of complex care needs. Our carers are stepping up where our social care system is stretched, but they do so at great personal cost, as has already been highlighted. They are disproportionately affected by poverty—unpaid carers in Wales are nearly twice as likely as other people to live in poverty and one in five of them are among the most deprived people in our society. For many of them, taking unpaid leave to care for a loved one simply is not an option; it is a financial risk that they simply cannot afford to take.

That is why the Carer’s Leave Act matters, because it gives carers across the UK the legal right to five days of unpaid leave. However, that right is only meaningful if people can afford to use it and know about it. Recent data from Carers Wales shows that 55% of carers have not taken unpaid leave—not because they do not need it, but because they cannot afford to lose that income. A year on from the law taking effect, a third of carers in Wales still do not know their full rights.

This is not just about fairness—it is about economic reality. Both the UK and Welsh Governments have spoken about the importance of getting more people into work and driving economic growth. The work of unpaid carers saves the Welsh Government over £10 billion a year. Paid carer’s leave is not a luxury but a necessity. It is a matter of dignity, equality and basic economic justice. I urge the Government to build on the ambition shown by the Liberal Democrats and commit to introducing paid carer’s leave by the end of this Parliament. Carers should not be punished for their compassion. They should be supported, respected and recognised as the backbone of our caring system.

16:55

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I commend the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for leading the debate. It is a real pleasure to see her back in Westminster Hall leading a debate. Party Whips sometimes do not get an opportunity to do things, so well done to her for making time for this, even though she does not have much time. I congratulate the hon. Lady in all her endeavours in supporting this subject matter. Even among the Government, there is sympathy, compassion and understanding of why this matter is so important, because every one of us deals with these issues every day of the week.

The most recent statistics show that there are some 5.7 million unpaid carers across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That represents around 9% of the population, so industrious elected representatives, which we all are, will deal with those people every day of their week and understand the circumstances. They will also understand the commitment and time that those people give voluntarily, without any idea of what it will cost them—they just do it because, as the story the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) told shows, they love the people they care for. That is surely what it is all about. Their work and determination to care for a loved one does not go unnoticed, and it is extremely important that we do all we can to support them.

The pending Employment Rights Bill sets out the case for paid carer’s leave for Northern Ireland. The stats back home are quite worrying—I think they are similar to those in Wales, although the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) said that they are probably higher. One in three people in Northern Ireland have had to give up employment because of their caring responsibilities. Shockingly, 44% of carers in Northern Ireland have lost out on as much as £1,000 a month in wages due to leaving work or reducing their hours.

The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) told the story of Sarah. He said that it was not unique, and it is not—it is a story that is replicated every day in my constituency and, I believe, in the constituency of every Member who is here and of every Member who is not here. Every week in my office I meet those volunteers —those family members—who give their all. Their commitment drains them emotionally and physically. Sometimes, when it comes to filling out benefit forms, I see the difficulties that they have and I sometimes wonder how on earth they are able to look after anybody with all their complex health issues.

The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) is no longer in his place, but he mentioned young carers. I know that that has been one of his passions in this Chamber. It is also something that I deal with, although maybe not as much as I used to—I have a girl in the office now who does almost all the DWP and benefit issues. She tells me that young carers are often not acknowledged in the way that they should be. They do it because they love their mums and dads—that is what it is all about.

Carers UK has estimated that providing five days of fully paid carer’s leave for employees in Northern Ireland could cost the Northern Ireland Executive between £10.3 million and £15.2 million a year. However, that could still save the Northern Ireland Executive some £4.3 million a year in carer’s allowance payments. What carers do, and the cost factor for them, can never be overstated. In terms of that large cost to the Executive, there is a give and take. There is no doubt that that could be a beneficial step to take to support those with caring responsibilities.

The whole thrust of this debate, put forward by the hon. Member for North East Fife, is about how we can help carers the most. We all like the Minister, not just because of his role, but because he is always amenable and personable when we propose things to him, and I hope that he can give us and our constituents some encouragement.

A crucial point is that the proposed PIP changes will impact those who receive carer’s allowance. If a claimant no longer qualifies for the daily living component when the new guidelines come into force, they will also lose their direct access to carer’s allowance. That loss could be as much as £10,000, and will change the whole scenario for the carer and the family—the impact will be incredible.

I know what the Government are doing, but they have to look at things and make some changes. My fear has always been that the people they will hurt the most will be the people who can least accept it. I am interested in hearing the Minister’s thoughts on what benefits the proposed changes to PIP will bring about. Those who will suffer will be not only PIP claimants, but carers and, ultimately, families.

We must do better for our constituents who sacrifice to help others. As a representative for Strangford, in Northern Ireland, I know the impact on my constituency and right across the Province, where there is currently no carer’s leave legislation. I look to the Minister in a beseeching way, and because, as a Minister, he has all the answers—so no pressure at all—on the matters on which we need some succour and support. I hope he will engage with his counterparts back home in the Northern Ireland Assembly and with Government colleagues to discuss what more can be done to support our carers. That is why we are here: to support our constituents and do our best for them. If that is something that we can do better after today, this will have been a debate well worth having.

17:02

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Stringer. It is also a great pleasure to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in this debate, given that it has been secured by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). I thank her not only for securing the debate, but for all the work that she has done on this issue over a number of years. We are all grateful to her.

Listening to hon. Members’ contributions, I was struck by the thought that we have represented all the countries of the United Kingdom—from Scotland to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That makes it clear that this issue is of national importance, but it is also a very personal and specific problem, which many millions of individuals are dealing with in every constituency throughout the country.

I think of my Mid Sussex constituent Fe, whom I met a few weeks ago. She is probably about my age, and has basically been a carer for the past 20 years—first for her mother, who sadly passed away, and now for her father, who has recently gone into a care home. Because of that 20 years of caring she has often been unable to work, and has at times been in employment that does not reflect her qualifications or the complexity of the work that she can do.

Effectively, Fe has been impoverished by caring for her mother, and now her father. Now that her father is in a care home, the family home—her home—has had to be put on the market. When it is sold, Fe will find herself homeless. The hope is that there might be some money left over from the care home fees, but that may not be the case. Fe is looking at a bleak future: she has not paid into a pension and has been unable to build up a nest egg to look after her future after a lifetime of caring for others.

Despite the enormous contribution that they make, unpaid carers like Fe live in financial hardship. As other hon. Members have said, the carer’s allowance, which is the main form of Government support, is just £81.90 a week—the lowest level for a benefit of its kind. That is not just unfair; it is also unsustainable. As our population ages and more people live longer with more complex needs, demand is only going to grow. How can we expect people like Fe to keep caring if they are pushed to the brink financially, emotionally and professionally? I do not see how we can. Worst of all, many carers have been punished for simply trying to make ends meet. As everyone here is probably aware, if a carer earns just £1 over the threshold of £150 a week they lose their entire carer’s allowance.

[Sarah Dyke]

My hon. Friend was probably going on to say that most carers have no idea that they have accidentally been overpaid carer’s allowance. Unpaid carers are doing such a remarkable job. I have been contacted by many in Glastonbury and Somerton who deserve our support. They are facing extreme financial hardship. Does she agree that we need to stop pursuing carers for old overpayments of carer’s allowance?

[Alison Bennett]

I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. I absolutely agree that there should be an amnesty on those overpayments. They were accrued through no fault on the part of the people who received carer’s allowance. It came about through a failure of the Government, the Department for Work and Pensions and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to communicate with each other, convey information and follow up on debts as they accrued.

This is a scandal. Many of those carers had no idea they were being overpaid. That is why I and Lib Dem colleagues are fighting for a better deal. In our manifesto, we pledged to increase the carer’s allowance by £20 a week, which would have raised it to £101.90—an extra £1,040 a year. We would also raise the earnings threshold to £183 a week, in line with 16 hours on the minimum wage. Crucially, we would taper the allowance gradually, instead of cutting it off entirely. That is fair, and means that carers will not be penalised for working a few extra hours to support themselves.

Our vision for carers goes beyond financial support. We would introduce a statutory guarantee of regular respite breaks, because everyone needs time to rest, including carers. Many local councils already offer a respite service, but they have been stretched and pushed to the brink. Those councils do not have the resources to meet the demand for something so vital. We would make it a legal right to support respite care by introducing free personal care and pushing for long-term sustainable funding for social care, which is something I would like to see the Government act much faster on.

We must support carers because they are frankly being let down. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I would introduce paid carer’s leave, building on the Carer’s Leave Act 2023. The coming into force of that landmark law means that 2 million carers have the right to take unpaid leave. Our next step is to make that paid leave, because caring for a loved one should not come at the cost of someone losing their job or income. All of that is rooted in one simple belief: no one should have to choose between caring for a loved one and having a decent life of their own.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I note that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers. A lot of employers are already going further than the statutory requirement, in offering some days of paid leave. Members of Employers for Carers have found it has helped with retention of workers. Does she agree that some leading employers are already showing the benefits of providing paid carer’s leave on a voluntary basis?

[Alison Bennett]

I thank the hon. Member for that question. I agree there are some exemplar employers who lead the way. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the benefits to the economy of offering paid leave outweigh the potential costs.

Carers are more likely to be women, more likely to be middle-aged and more likely to be juggling children and caring responsibilities. They are that sandwich generation. One in seven people in the workplace are doing just that. They deserve real action and real support. I say to every unpaid carer listening today that, whether they realise it or not, they are pillars of our society. We, here and everywhere else, must recognise that. Carers, we see you and value you; the Liberal Democrats are on your side.

17:09

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this important debate.

On behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, I too want to underscore the indispensable role of unpaid carers in our society and highlight the pressing need to protect and enhance carer’s leave. Such individuals, often family members or friends, provide vital support to those with long-term care needs, enabling them to live with dignity and independence. Unpaid carers, as others have said in this debate, are the backbone of our social care system. Their contributions are not only compassionate but economically significant—estimates suggest that unpaid care in England and Wales alone is valued at approximately £162 billion annually. Without their dedication, our health and social care services would face insurmountable challenges.

Moreover, many carers balance their responsibilities with some employment. The ability to take carer’s leave is crucial to helping them maintain that balance, reducing the risk of financial hardship and social isolation. The last Conservative Government recognised the vital role of carers, but first I want to pay tribute to the private Member’s Bill—now the Carer’s Leave Act 2023—in the name of the hon. Member for North East Fife. I think that all of us who have had private Members’ Bills know how difficult it is to navigate the various systems and to secure the Government of the day’s support in order to get those Bills through. I am pleased to say that, under the last Conservative Government, the hon. Lady persuaded the Government to support her Bill, and we now see it on the statute book. It was enacted in April 2024, granting employees the right to one week of unpaid leave annually to care for dependants with long-term needs. That was a landmark achievement, providing carers with much-needed flexibility and acknowledging their invaluable contributions.

Furthermore, under the last Government we increased the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance from £151 to £196 a week, enabling carers to earn more without losing benefits. That change enabled carers to work up to 16 hours a week at the national living wage, offering greater financial stability. Regrettably, this new Labour Government appear to be undermining those advancements. Recent welfare reforms have led to significant cuts in disability benefits, with over 150,000 carers losing access to carer’s allowance. Those cuts not only jeopardise the financial security of carers, but risk increasing pressure on our already strained health and social care system.

While the Labour Government have introduced the Employment Rights Bill—or the unemployment Bill—it notably lacks provision for paid carer’s leave. The omission is a missed opportunity to further support carers, particularly those on low incomes who may struggle to afford unpaid leave. To truly support them, the Government must take note of the foundations laid by the Carer’s Leave Act by continuing the introduction of paid carer’s leave, providing greater flexibility in how leave can be taken and ensuring that carers are not financially penalised for their invaluable contributions.

Additionally, the Government must do more to ensure that any welfare reforms do not disproportionately impact carers. Their wellbeing is intrinsically linked to the health of those they care for, and by extension, to the wellbeing of our society as a whole. Carers are the unsung heroes of our communities. They deserve our recognition, support, and commitment to policies that will empower them. It is incumbent on the Government to protect and enhance carer’s leave, ensuring that they can continue their vital work without undue hardship.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Minister, if you can, please leave time for the proposer to wind up. I have no idea if we are going to have a Division, but it might be wise if we can finish before 5.30 pm.

17:14

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)]

I will do my best, Mr Stringer. No doubt the tension of knowing there might be an interruption will add to the excitement of my comments. It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I declare an interest as a foster carer. We are not specifically talking about foster care, but it is part of the wider ambit of care. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing today’s debate and on her very long-standing and successful advocacy for unpaid carers. We all recognise the key role she played in establishing the unpaid carer’s entitlement through her sponsorship of the Carer’s Leave Act 2023.

It is right that we take time to discuss the support available to unpaid carers who provide care to a family member, partner or friend alongside paid work. I accept the hon. Member’s analysis that her Act, while an important step forward, is not a panacea for all the issues that carers face. A number of hon. Members have emphasised that point.

I start by recognising the dedication and compassion of carers across the country. It is important to recognise their contribution to society, both in their working life and as carers, but we also need to consider the support they need to navigate their dual responsibilities. I join the hon. Member in paying tribute to the support groups available to carers. Their role is often understated, but that wider network has a very important part to play for carers.

As we have heard, carers all too often end up stopping work altogether, or they reduce their hours to manage their caring responsibilities. Just half of adult carers are in work, and a quarter are economically inactive. The hon. Lady mentioned the Centre for Care’s research report, which I will certainly look at.

We have heard about a considerable number of challenges today, which demonstrates why it is essential that we think about how we support carers to balance those responsibilities alongside other aspects of their life, including, of course, work. The hon. Lady recognised that we are improving access to flexible working through our landmark Employment Rights Bill. We believe that will help people to balance their work and other responsibilities, including their family life, such as where an individual is working alongside delivering care to a loved one inside or outside the home.

The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) spoke very movingly about his constituent Sarah. I do not think her experience is unique, and we all recognise that there are people like Sarah in every constituency and every part of this country. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned carer’s allowance, and I will pull up the shadow Minister on what he said about the increase in carer’s allowance, as it actually came into effect on 7 April 2025. This Government increased the earnings limit from £151 a week to £196 a week, so it is equivalent to 16 hours a week at the national living wage. It is the largest ever increase in the earnings limit since carer’s allowance was introduced back in 1976, and the highest increase in percentage terms since 2001.

That means carers can now earn up to £10,000 a year while retaining their carer’s allowance, which can be worth around an additional £2,000 a year. As a result, more than 60,000 additional people will be able to receive carer’s allowance between this year and 2029-30.

Several hon. Members referred to the difficulties their constituents have had after receiving an overpayment, and it is fair to say that issue has been recognised by the Department for Work and Pensions. We understand the anxiety it causes, which is why it is important that we independently review what has happened and find out what went wrong to make sure that things are put right. We urge anyone in receipt of carer’s allowance to inform the Department of any change in their circumstances so that overpayments can be reviewed. It is certainly something that the Department will be advised of following this debate.

Employees caring for someone who is disabled, elderly or living with a long-term health condition are entitled to carer’s leave, which can be taken flexibly in half or whole days, or in one go, over the course of a year. Thanks to the hon. Member for North East Fife, the Carer’s Leave Act has now been in force for just over a year. It is still bedding in, and our plan to make work pay includes a commitment to review its implementation. To deliver that commitment, the post-implementation review of the Act is now under way.

We have also outlined our commitment to explore the potential benefits of further policy development to support unpaid carers in employment, while being mindful of the impact on business. That work will include careful consideration of paid carer’s leave, and again, work is under way. Officials in my Department have spoken to over 70 employers, third sector organisations and charities such as Carers UK. There have been events in Wales, England and Scotland, and that engagement will continue as the review progresses, alongside both qualitative and quantitative research.

[Anna Dixon]

I thank the Minister for his commitment to review carer’s leave and to consider the opportunity for looking at paid carer’s leave. Does he agree that would particularly benefit low-income workers and women? They make up the bulk of unpaid carers, and they find it particularly difficult to take unpaid carer’s leave because they simply cannot afford it.

[Justin Madders]

That point has been mentioned a number of times in this debate, and we will certainly look at the research as it is produced.

I have noted that the shadow Minister now supports paid carer’s leave, although he could not bring himself to support it during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill. I am aware that there has been some debate on the issue in the other place, and we will look very carefully at how that debate unfolds.

It is important that we take the time to carefully consider the potential impact of any further policy before taking any decisions. As the hon. Member for North East Fife said, we often receive responses on the 2023 Act’s application from organisations that are engaged on this issue. I pay tribute to those organisations, and some are clearly leading the way. An important point was made that, even in organisations that are very supportive of carer’s leave and have all the policies in place, people sometimes do not get any further if they have the wrong line manager. That applies to a number of similar entitlements, so more work is needed.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) mentioned, we need to ensure that any decisions we make are grounded in evidence. There are several potential approaches to further support, including paid carer’s leave, and we will continue to consider those with external stakeholders. It is important to note that careful design is needed where leave entitlements have a pay entitlement attached. Thought must be given not only to the impact on carers and businesses but to how any such paid entitlement would interact with existing legislation and rights.

The hon. Member for North East Fife asked a number of important questions about the Department’s role in informing employers and carers of their new rights. Obviously, gov.uk is one source, but other organisations and charities that we work with, such as Carers UK and the Carers Trust, are also sources of information. There are also carers’ networks, employers and bodies such as ACAS and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. As part of our stakeholder engagement in business roundtables, we are considering what further work we can do to promote information on carers’ rights. I am a strong believer that rights are only as good as people’s awareness and ability to enforce them.

We are engaging with carers and businesses. We are working with advocacy groups such as Carers UK and the Centre for Care, and we are working across Government to provide a coherent approach. There is now a ministerial working group on unpaid carers, involving the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education, and it is discussing a cross-governmental approach.

Turning to the broader dimensions of the debate, the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) spoke with great sincerity about the issues faced by his constituents. The themes that he picked out in relation to his constituents, and to Wales more broadly, about awareness of those rights and whether people can afford to exercise them, were important and are replicated across the UK.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke with his customary sincerity—I do not say that just because he was pleasant about me—and conveyed the importance of carers in his constituency and across Northern Ireland. I commit to speaking to my counterpart in the Northern Ireland Executive about some of the points he raised.

I am conscious that there may be Divisions shortly and that I need to give the hon. Member for North East Fife an opportunity to respond, so I conclude by saying that we have heard the case that Members have made about the importance of supporting carers and their need to balance paid work against their caring responsibilities. All the issues raised are being considered in the Department’s ongoing work.

I genuinely value the heartfelt and constructive discussion we have had this afternoon. We all agree that unpaid carers deserve our recognition and support, and I am glad to see Members coming together to express that. I once again thank the hon. Member for securing this debate, and I am sure we will continue this discussion.

17:26

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I start by thanking all the Members who have taken time to participate in the debate. There are several Liberal Democrats present, which says a lot about the position my party takes on carers and the recognition it gives to unpaid carers, for which I am grateful. I also thank the Department for Business and Trade and the civil servants who supported me during the passage of my private Member’s Bill, now the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, in the last Parliament—they did excellent work. The real purpose of this debate is to ensure that excellent work is not lost and is seen by the people who need the help and support.

I am encouraged by the response from His Majesty’s Opposition and their approach to paid carer’s leave, and by what the Government are saying. However, I am very conscious that if we are moving forward on paid carer’s leave, we need to make sure that the current carer’s leave legislation is available to as many people as possible. I am also encouraged to hear from the Minister that there is a ministerial working group on unpaid carers. The last time I discussed carers on the Floor of the House it was to ask for a carer’s strategy; it sounds like the working group might be the beginning of one, which I am pleased to hear. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), our carers spokesperson, will be following up on that with the Minister and the Government.

We all recognise what unpaid carers do, and we all recognise how much they do. What we are saying is that, if we really want to see growth—which is what the Government say they want, and everyone in the Chamber would agree—then we need to allow those carers who can work, to work. There will always be circumstances where unpaid carers cannot work because of the severity of the condition that their loved one is experiencing. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) brought one of those cases to light. But where carers can work, they should be given the opportunity and support to do so, because economic inactivity is causing real issues in our economy. That is why carer’s leave is an issue that all MPs should care about.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered carer’s leave.

17:28

Sitting adjourned.