Westminster Hall

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 24 June 2025

[Dawn Butler in the Chair]

Care Settings: Right to Maintain Contact

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Westminster Hall

09:35

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the right to maintain contact in care settings.

I appreciate you chairing this debate, Ms Butler, and I am grateful for having secured the time to talk about an issue that has touched thousands of people and left a lasting trauma across our country.

I start by thanking the extraordinary campaigners from Rights for Residents, John’s Campaign, Care Rights UK and others, some of whom are in the Public Gallery today. I mention Diane, Jenny and Julia in particular, who have supported me throughout my work on this issue. Their tireless advocacy, often fuelled by personal grief, has sustained a powerful call for change. I also thank everyone who has contacted me ahead of this debate to share their stories. I cannot name them all, but together they form a mosaic of heartbreak and courage. Their voices are the reason that we are here today, and I will do my best to honour them.

There are moments in our national life that leave deep scars. One of the most painful of these, still raw for so many, was the enforced separation of families during the covid-19 pandemic. In care settings across the country, people were cut off from those they love, for hours, days, weeks, and months—for some, they were cut off until the very end. Families are still living with the trauma of that separation.

[Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)]

One of my constituents, Tracy, came to speak with me at one of my first surgeries. Her mum, Doreen, was one of the individuals my hon. Friend is talking about; she was in a care home during the covid pandemic and was cut off from a lot of contact, and she suffered as a result. Would my hon. Friend agree that it is important those stories are heard as the next steps on this issue are considered?

[Dan Carden]

I am sure my hon. Friend’s constituent will be grateful—as am I—that she has come to add her voice to this campaign. Families are still living with the trauma of that separation, yet even now, people in care settings are still being denied essential human contact.

In those early days, we all understood the need for swift and serious measures to protect public health. But not enough was done to balance that need against the harm of isolation on mental health and wellbeing. Somewhere along the way something vital was lost: the right to connection; the right to love; and the right not to die alone. Let us remember what that meant in real human terms. Elderly people were confined to their rooms in care homes, with no familiar face and no hand to hold. Sick and disabled people were denied a trusted advocate when they needed them the most.

Ahead of this debate, Val wrote to me. She told me how she was forced to watch her mother’s health decline through the pane of a glass window. Her mother lost weight, she lost the ability to walk and to feed herself, and in time she became deeply depressed and withdrawn. However, when visits were allowed again, Val saw a transformation. With regular contact, and with care and love from a family member, her mother began to return to herself. Val told me that:

“It wasn’t the dementia or covid that got her. It was loneliness, isolation and abandonment.”

Gemma also shared her story. She described how her mother was kept in solitary confinement-like conditions. When Gemma’s mum’s partner died suddenly, she had to break the news over a stuttering video call, with no family there to comfort her mother as the grief landed. Those stories represent a pattern of suffering that should never have been allowed and must never be repeated.

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

I would like briefly to mention the case of the Priestman family in my constituency. Paul Priestman, a military veteran, suffered a stroke in 2019 and now requires care. That is being provided in a care home in Rochdale, many miles from the family home. The family have serious concerns about the quality of Paul’s care, but find they are routinely ignored by the care home. Does my hon. Friend agree that the stories he cites and this debate show that, rather than being viewed as essential to the wellbeing of the person in care, families are too often dismissed, ignored or considered an afterthought by care providers?

[Dan Carden]

My hon. Friend totally grasps the seriousness of the issue. It is why campaigners are fighting for a legal right—Gloria’s law—to maintain contact. That would put into law the right to at least one care supporter, a trusted loved one, to provide support and advocacy in all health and care settings, so that no one is ever alone when they need help the most. The campaign is supported by cross-party MPs; more than 100 organisations, including covid-bereaved groups from all four UK nations; charities; disabled rights groups; and bodies such as the National Care Forum.

In response to pressure, the previous Government amended Care Quality Commission regulations to make facilitating visits part of the fundamental standard of care. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) who steered that through Government in the previous Parliament. The newly inserted regulation 9A requires that in-person visiting in care homes, hospitals and hospices and accompaniment to appointments should always be facilitated by providers in line with people’s needs and preferences. Only in exceptional circumstances should that be restricted.

Although that is a welcome step forward, it has fallen short. Just like the guidance that preceded it, regulation 9A lacks clarity, oversight and accountability. In practice, it is too often misunderstood, misapplied or outright ignored. This past winter, Rights for Residents received hundreds of calls from distressed families who were blocked from seeing their loved ones. Outbreaks of flu or norovirus were being used as justification to deny all access, in some cases for more than two weeks, despite regulation 9A being in place.

I will give a couple of examples. Tina’s mother, who has dementia, was in hospital being treated for pneumonia, when a blanket visiting ban was imposed due to an outbreak of norovirus. It took days of trying before Tina received any update on her mother’s welfare. Days later, she received a voicemail of her mum’s frail voice whispering, “Don’t give up on me, Tina.” Her mental and physical condition deteriorated rapidly during that time, which Tina believes was exacerbated by their separation.

Amanda’s mother, who lost mobility after a brain haemorrhage, depends on family support for personal care and emotional wellbeing. During another blanket ban, Amanda, despite quoting regulation 9A, was told that her mother’s right to contact was not worth the risk. By the time visits resumed, her mother had lost weight and become visibly withdrawn.

Many similar experiences have been reported to Care Rights UK’s advice line, from people denied access to their friends and family, including when the care provider was aware of regulation 9A, but still chose not to comply with it. For example, the charity recently supported someone living with dementia who had had visits stopped as part of a settling-in process in their care home. The provider failed to recognise the importance of maintaining support from familiar loved ones as a key part of dementia care.

To understand the scale of the problem, Rights for Residents ran a national survey between February and May this year. The results are deeply concerning. Four in 10 respondents had never even heard of regulation 9A. One in four reported care settings implementing complete visiting bans since April 2024. Even when family members were aware of and cited regulation 9A, in more than a third of cases that had no effect on visiting arrangements. Many care settings continue to regard regulation 9A as guidance only, which can be ignored without consequence. As Rights for Residents put it:

“These findings indicate that the introduction of CQC Regulation 9A has not been effective or sufficient in upholding the visiting rights of those using health and care settings, and that as a result, people are experiencing avoidable harm from unnecessary visiting bans.”

The conclusion is clear: without a clearly defined legal right to maintain contact, access will continue to be patchy, precarious and far too easy to deny. The postcode lottery of uneven implementation was unacceptable during the pandemic and is unacceptable now. I stress that this is not about unlimited access. Care supporters would be subject to the same appropriate safety precautions as staff. It is about protecting the principle that the connection with loved ones is not an optional extra, but essential to dignified care. No member of staff, no matter how professional or compassionate, can replace the bond between a parent and child, husband and wife, brother and sister, or with a lifelong friend or partner. Loved ones are more than companions. They are vital safeguards. They are the eyes and ears that notice what others might miss. They protect against neglect, spot subtle signs of distress and speak up when something is not right.

To leave this matter to the discretion of individual managers, without clear legal underpinning, is to leave the most vulnerable at the mercy of arbitrary decisions that could severely impact their wellbeing. It is not only a matter of compassion; it is a matter of rights. We all have a right to a family life. That right should not disappear behind locked doors when someone requires care. That is why we are calling on the Government to guarantee the right of every person in a care setting to have at least one essential care supporter—not just guidance and not tinkering around the edges of regulation, but a right, protected in law. During the general election, my party, Labour, promised to make that change in government. That promise must now be delivered. It said:

“We will guarantee the rights of those in residential care to be able to see their families.”

The only way to guarantee that right is through the law.

The review of regulation 9A is due shortly and, from 30 June to 31 July, the covid inquiry will hear evidence on experiences of the care sector during the pandemic. As families relive the trauma of that period, the Government have the opportunity to show them that they have been heard, that lessons have been learned and that action will follow. If we truly believe in dignity and compassion in care, that cannot be delayed any further. We owe it to every family torn apart. We owe it to every patient or resident still facing the risk of being isolated. We owe it to every one of our constituents who fears that when the time comes, they too might be left without a loved one’s hand to hold. This change will cost the Government nothing, but for those it protects, it means everything.

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

I call Liz Saville Roberts.

09:48

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. I am very glad to see you in your seat, Ms Butler, and I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) for bringing this debate forward. He will be aware that this is a hugely important topic for the many of us whose experiences with our families during the covid pandemic have not faded into the past.

Visiting restrictions at that time threw a harsh focus on the issue. Between 2 April 2020 and 22 July 2020, UK Government guidance advised against all visits to care homes except in exceptional circumstances, such as “end of life”. End of life? What happens before that matters too. We need to know what the exceptional circumstances in the regulations may have been, because there is obviously room to define them. Fundamentally, though, we need clarification on a legal right.

We need to learn from that time. Following the experiences of many families during the pandemic, more and more voices have called out the inconsistency between the treatment of vulnerable or cognitively impaired adults and the treatment of children, who have a right to be supported by their parents in health and care settings. Of course, it is entirely right that children maintain contact with their parents, and we would rightly be appalled were that denied, but somehow the social needs for love and family contact are regarded as a luxury—a “nice to have” but something that is ultimately expendable—for adults in certain circumstances.

A clear case emerged at the time for the Government to support giving families and carers of dementia sufferers the same rights that parents of sick children have. The Government should allow for family representatives to stay with such patients at any time of the day, and for their role as carers to be recognised and accommodated. It is recognised that changes in environment for people with dementia, such as going into hospital or moving into care, can cause immense challenges. Just think about it: all familiar things and all familiar routines are left behind, and the routines of the institution take over. What is most convenient for the institution is inevitably the priority. We talk about putting the patient first, but we know how flimsy those words are when health and care institutions feel threatened, liable or under staffing pressures.

[Dan Carden]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising an issue that I did not touch on: the fact that good institutions and good care homes will want the involvement of families. They do not use blanket bans or try to prevent family members from being part of the care of their residents. The worry is that the most vulnerable in the worst-run care settings are most at risk.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

That is exactly the point. The real good that family carers could do for health and care settings that are well run should not be regarded as a nuisance to be fitted in but something that can complement excellent services.

Care and nursing homes operate under a number of constraints, financial and regulatory pressures especially. Many are excellent. They are shining beacons of humanity and kindness and provide a welcoming home. Remember, this is a place where people live and a home for the people who live within their walls, but that is not the case for all those who live in care settings. MPs will almost certainly have been approached by family members who are extremely reluctant to raise questions about the care of a loved one in a home, because they are afraid that their loved one will be evicted from that home. That is what the care home owners and managers can do, so it is our role to raise those concerns and be their voices.

I pay tribute to the many pressure groups and charities that have drawn attention to this issue. Among them are John’s Campaign, Rights for Residents, and Care Rights UK, which was formerly the Relatives & Residents Association. I am personally immensely grateful to Julia Jones of John’s Campaign and dementia nurse Delyth Thomas for their advice after my mother Nancy’s stroke at Christmas 2020 and her final death from dementia a year later. I would like to read a tiny bit that I wrote at the time:

“Many of the key workers with whom we interacted over the last 12 months were extraordinary. We have been beyond lucky to have dealt with a number of nurses, doctors and care workers who had the confidence and humanity to keep to the spirit and not the letter of official edicts. Even so, I touched my mother’s hand only once during the critical six weeks after her first stroke. There were no hugs. Health authority infection policy vetoed family bonds of love as a health hazard to be minimised.”

She used hearing aids, and we could only speak to her through the window, but the batteries were not replaced. She could hear nothing, and we know how important hearing is for reducing the effects of dementia.

Ysbyty Gwynedd and Ysbyty Bryn Beryl—that is the district hospital and the local community hospital—were signed up to John’s Campaign, which enabled me to be recognised as my mother’s carer. If only I had known that months earlier. I of course bear in mind that this was during the covid period, but people need to know their rights. At one stage in early 2022 the staff at the community hospital asked me to come in specifically to help to take pressure off nurses because there was a covid outbreak. I contributed as a carer—I had a role to play. As a family carer I helped that hospital.

I was required to take covid measures—tests and vaccination—exactly as was expected of staff members. That is completely feasible for identified family carers alongside salaried carers—it is an option for us. Family members, as recognised and respected carers, can be a real source of help to hospitals and care settings, if we can only tease apart the web of fear of liability, and a culture that presumes that the human needs of adults with cognitive impairments are limited to food, shelter and a screen in the corner of the room whenever an emergency threatens the organisation that holds their life in its hands.

We are social creatures. If we are denied social contact, we are damaged. We need to recognise that as a human right. Regulations expected to be facilitated in undefined emergency circumstances are evidently failing. I am so glad that health and social care was in the Labour party’s manifesto for the last general election. It was in Plaid Cymru’s manifesto too. Health and social care are devolved, but it is a human right, and that is not devolved; that is a reserved power. I hope that now we have learned the lessons of covid we can move ahead and legislate to make health and social care a human right.

09:56

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you for filling in, Ms Butler, and bridging the gap to enable the debate to go ahead. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) for leading today’s debate. As a strong advocate for stability and comfort for young children, I will focus on young children and those unfortunately in care settings. It is important that we do what we can to make their journey through that stage of their life as secure as possible. It is great to be here to speak on that.

I commend the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) for her comments. She cast her mind back to covid and different circumstances, different times, different regulations, and more controlled ways of caring. We do not criticise the covid regulations, because they were important to have in place, but many people were unable to have the last few minutes with their loved ones, who were very much part of their lives. My mother-in-law passed away at the Ulster hospital on her own. My point is that sometimes circumstances do not allow us to do what we would like to do, and that was one of those circumstances.

I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective in this debate, as I always do. I know the Minister is always keen to try to help us when we put forward our suggestions. As of 31 March 2024, almost 4,000 children and young people were in care in Northern Ireland. I will focus on that and how important it is to get it right for them. That was the highest number recorded since the introduction of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. It gives us a perspective on a society and young people in particular in Northern Ireland who are under terrible pressure. The figures are absolutely shocking. We must remember that there are many circumstances that can warrant a child being put into care.

Contact within care settings is important to preserve emotional bonds, social interaction and the friendship that biological siblings share. Although they might fight a bit, the fact of the matter is that there is no greater love than that between a brother and a sister, a brother and a brother, a sister and a sister, or whatever it might be. Being removed from a familial setting and placed in a strange and unfamiliar one can be damaging to a child’s cognitive health, which shows why contact is so important for mental stability.

Another worrying trend from Northern Ireland is the fact that there are those with mental health issues who are as young as eight years old—my goodness. Can we visualise that at eight years old, when someone is young and innocent? Yet the pressures on an eight-year-old are so great. That is what is happening in Northern Ireland. That is why the numbers are so large. Consistent contact has also been proven to achieve better long-term outcomes for families and assist with the transition back to a family dynamic.

I know the Minister is always keen to respond to our queries. What opportunity has she had to contact the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland to ascertain what exchange of ideas, policies, strategies or new approaches there might be to ensure that families can transition back to a family dynamic, which is how it should always be, if at all possible? We live in a fractured society; life is not the same as it was when I was a wee boy. I do not think anybody in this Chamber is as old as me, with maybe one exception, but society as I remember it was so different, and today it is even more challenging.

Contact should not be only for parents; it is imperative that sibling contact is looked at and encouraged to create a sense of normality in care. It is not all about the regime, the rules or the conditions of being there; it is about the relationship between siblings and how they can have some normality. An Ofsted study showed that 86% of children in care thought that it was important to keep siblings together—that is a certainty from the young children themselves. I believe in my heart that it is really important. It is not always possible, but we should strive by all means within our power to ensure that children can keep in touch with their siblings.

The reality is that often many siblings have had and remain in minimal contact. It is terribly sad when those who were part of the same family unit are suddenly hundreds of miles apart. Nobody is at fault, I suspect, but if it is possible to keep them together, we should. For example, for siblings who may come from abusive households—sometimes those are the ones I am aware of as an MP—shared experiences can create a more positive healing journey. I fear that if the same situation continues without any stops or changes, it will hinder the healing process for young children. When they grow up to be parents themselves, what happened to them in the past will make them focus on bringing their children up in a certain way as well, so let us get it right the children of today—the parents of tomorrow.

To conclude, I am a supporter of contact, and I recognise what the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton has contributed in starting this debate. I hope that we can do more to prioritise maintaining contact for young children, parents, siblings and extended families. It is crucial for their mental and emotional wellbeing, and ensuring familiarity can go above and beyond in supporting transitions. There is no doubt that care settings can be incredibly challenging environments. For some children, they are never easy, so let us do what we can—we collectively in this room, and the Government, who have a particular opportunity to make a change, and make the process as stress-free as possible.

I look very much to the Minister, as I often do, for further engagement with the devolved institutions. I would appreciate it if she could do that, to ensure that stronger sibling contact can also be maintained. This debate is so important, so well done to the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton for bringing it forward. There might not be a big number of people here today, but that does not reflect the seriousness or importance of this debate. Those of us who have a personal interest in this issue, and all of us as MPs, have an obligation to our constituents who have asked us to make sure that these things are put on the record.

I believe that we have a great responsibility as MPs. We have an opportunity to formulate law and to support the Government in amending the direction in which they may go, to ensure that young people—the children of today; the parents of tomorrow—can lead a good life. If we try to do that as MPs, and as a Government, we will be building a better society and a better place for everyone to live in. That is my ultimate goal, and one I think we all share. It is a big challenge—let us see if we can do it.

10:04

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is very much appreciated that you have come to chair this important debate, Ms Butler, and I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) for securing it. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) just said, the number of people in this debate is not a reflection of its importance. All hon. Members who have contributed have spoken with real moral authority and have reflected the gravity of what we are talking about: the rights of some of the most vulnerable people in our society—those living in care homes, hospitals and hospices—and their right to maintain contact with and see their loved ones.

Throughout the covid-19 pandemic, thousands of people living in care settings in my constituency and across the country were forbidden from seeing those closest to them. That was especially devastating for residents living with conditions such as dementia or severe memory loss, which affect approximately 70% of care home residents. For those individuals, familiar faces are more than just comforting; they are essential to their sense of identity and stability. Let us imagine being cut off from the people we know best, who can calm us in moments of confusion, and who understand our needs in ways that no staff member possibly can. This is not an abstract issue but a painful reality that caused immeasurable harm during the pandemic.

Even as the rest of the country began to reopen in 2022, care homes continued to impose harsh restrictions. Data shows that between April and September 2022, 10% of care homes permitted no visitors at all during covid outbreaks, 20% confined residents to their rooms for up to 28 days and nearly half maintained some form of visiting restrictions even without any outbreak present. The impact of those policies was brutal. Vulnerable people in Mid Sussex and across the country were left isolated and confused, their symptoms worsening without the emotional and practical support that only loved ones can provide.

I want to share a story that will be distressing to some. Last week, I was horrified to watch a report on BBC South East about a 92-year-old gentleman, Donald Burgess, from East Sussex. Donald was a wheelchair user, having had one leg amputated, and on 21 June 2022, he was reportedly brandishing a knife in his wheelchair, having become irritable and confused. Care home staff failed to resolve the situation and so the police were called. Donald was sprayed with pepper spray, hit with a baton and tasered by police, all while still in his wheelchair. Donald was taken to hospital as a result of those injuries, and he subsequently caught and died from covid-19 a couple of weeks later.

On the BBC South East news report last week, Donald’s family were interviewed. Those family members only lived 10 minutes away from his care home. They said that if they had been called, they would have been able to go there and, potentially, calm him and resolve the entire situation. It is beyond tragic that that happened, and that it is how Donald’s life ended. If hon. Members present who are not from the south-east region are interested, the video and reports of the attack on Donald are available to view online.

I commend the tireless work of advocacy organisations such as the Relatives and Residents Association, Rights for Residents, Care Rights UK and John’s Campaign. Their efforts have been instrumental in raising awareness and pushing for change. I also commend the way that the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton set out the case for the required change.

The Government’s recent introduction of regulation 9A by the Care Quality Commission—a new fundamental standard on visiting and accompanying—is a welcome step forward. But while that regulation aims to ensure that care providers do not discourage visits, and that people can attend medical appointments accompanied by a family member or advocate, it falls short of what is needed. Regulation 9A relies on enforcement by the CQC, an organisation that is well understood to be stretched thin and facing a number of challenges. The CQC cannot prosecute providers for breaches of the regulation, and often lacks the resources for swift and consistent enforcement. Most importantly, the regulation does not create an enforceable right held by the individual resident. That gap leaves residents and their families vulnerable.

Without clear legal protections and a statutory right to visitation, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past. That is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are calling on the Government to implement Gloria’s law without delay. Gloria’s law would enshrine in primary legislation the right for every person in a care or health setting to have at least one essential care supporter present, regardless of circumstances. As Rights for Residents says,

“only Gloria’s Law will guarantee that none of us will be forcibly separated from our loved ones again”.

I urge the Minister to answer the following important questions. First, does she believe that regulation 9A alone is sufficient to prevent isolation and ensure that residents can be supported in times of crisis or future public health emergencies? Secondly, are the Government confident that the CQC and the Department of Health and Social Care have the capacity, resources and real-time data systems to monitor visiting arrangements and act swiftly if restrictions become harmful? Thirdly, will the Government commit to going further by passing Gloria’s law, guaranteeing a statutory right to unrestricted in-person support from at least one essential care supporter?

The lessons of the pandemic are clear. Families are not visitors but vital partners in supporting those we love through their most vulnerable moments, so let us act now and give vulnerable people the rights they need and deserve. In doing so, perhaps we will save lives like Donald’s.

10:11

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I declare my interest, as an NHS consultant.

I know from my own professional experience that hospitals and other care settings can be distressing places for patients and their relatives. Even with our excellent NHS staff on hand, patients want more assurance and familiarity while they undergo care and treatment. For many, that support comes from the family and friends who visit them during their hospital stay, or while they are in a hospice or receiving care in a care home. I pay tribute to the very many excellent staff who work in those settings and provide care around the clock and during public holidays, and put themselves out to care for others.

For residents, care homes are just that: their home. They should be entitled to have relatives and friends visit them as they would in any other home. Visitors also improve care. An inability to visit one’s relative in hospital leads to an increased feeling of not knowing how they are this morning—whether they are getting worse or better, whether they are in pain or are comfortable, or whether they can reach what they need to get. Relatives fear not being able to help the resident, and worry about whether they are lonely or stressed because they are not there to support them. That adds to the relatives’ stress.

The patient or the person in the care home knows that staff are busy and may not want to bother them for small things, such as reaching a book or their glasses, passing them a drink—which is so important for hydration—helping them eat a meal, moving the curtains so the sun is not in their eyes or providing an extra blanket. Instead, many wait hours for their relative to come. Sometimes, they just want a cuddle and to hold hands with the person they love. Clearly, that is in the best interests of their health and wellbeing.

Relatives know the person they are seeing the best, and are able to identify changes in condition that may go unnoticed by staff. I remember visiting a relative of mine who was getting better following surgery and was stepped down from the high-dependency unit to the ward. When I arrived, I realised that he looked grey, pale and unwell. He was indeed in shock and required urgent fluid resuscitation. I shudder to think what would have happened had that not occurred at the beginning of visiting time.

It was with those things in mind that the previous Government introduced the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and, in particular, regulation 9A. Like others, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) for doing so. The regulations were designed to ensure that patients staying in hospital or residential care settings could receive visitors in a fair and consistent way. They also aimed to ensure that care home residents would not face barriers or discouragement if they wanted to take their visitors outside, and they made provisions for those attending non-residential hospital or hospice appointments to have guaranteed rights for friends or family members to accompany them.

However, now that these regulations are in place, we need to ensure that they are working effectively and that systems are in place to detect any attempts to water down or remove the rights that they provide. I want to raise the exceptional circumstances limitation with the Minister. Members will know that the regulations grant visiting rights unless there are exceptional circumstances. The CQC guidance states that providers should base this assessment

“on the health, safety and welfare of people using the service or other people involved. This should include giving consideration to the appropriate balance of a person’s rights, the needs of people using their service and any identified risks”.

If concerns have been raised about current levels of compliance with visiting regulations, we must begin by identifying how and why this caveat in the rules is being used. Can the Minister tell us what kinds of circumstances private providers deem to be exceptional? Who is making these decisions and who is overseeing that process? The CQC guidance also states that where additional precautions or restrictions are needed, they should represent

“the most proportionate and least restrictive option”

that is available. Is the Minister confident that this principle is being followed, and what is she doing to provide transparency for patients and their carers about decision making?

In summary, can the Minister tell us how many times the exceptional circumstances provision has been used in the last year by each institution and how many visits or accompanying visits have been blocked as a result? Is she monitoring such blocking? What steps is she taking to ensure that those with reduced mental capacity have their rights to visits upheld?

It is important that these rules are followed. The vast majority of care settings provide excellent care, but the concern is that the better care settings are more open than others, and as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) said, sometimes, visiting times may be restricted to cover up poor care, adding to the stress of the patient or resident and their carers. It is important that the Minister does what she can to improve the education and training of staff, and change the culture of settings so that everyone is able to receive the visits they need.

Some providers are even using the realms of infection control measures to exclude visitors. Surely, if infection control measures are frequently being used to restrict visiting, that is a red flag that the infection control measures in that institution are not providing adequate safety for residents. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that staff follow the requirements placed on them and to make sure that individual providers are not being selective in their adherence to the rules?

It is clear from what we have heard today that more needs to be done to ensure that patients receive the visits and accompaniments that they are entitled to. If we are serious about putting patients and residents first, more needs to be done to guarantee them the social and emotional support that they need to be comfortable, as well as the best treatment or palliative medical care available.

As others have already said, the CQC is not able to prosecute for breaches of regulation 9A, although it can take action such as civil enforcement measures. Does the Minister believe that is a strong enough incentive for providers to meet their obligations, or does she recognise that increased enforcement powers might be needed to ensure that the rights of patients are protected? What other schemes has the Department considered to help providers to better facilitate contact and visiting arrangements?

I will finish by saying that I work as an NHS consultant paediatrician, and in paediatrics we always have open visiting for parents. Parents are really helpful in providing the care and looking after the children as part of a teamwork approach between parents and staff. Can the Minister say why such visiting arrangements are not available for people of all ages when they are at their most vulnerable, because I cannot see why they should not be? Indeed, I think that it would help quite dramatically.

10:19

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)]

Thank you, Ms Butler, for chairing this important debate at such short notice, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) for securing it.

The Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), has asked me to pass on his apologies; he is unable to represent the Government in this debate as he is currently in session on the Mental Health Bill Committee. However, he joins me in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton not only for securing this debate, but for all the work he has done in advocating for relatives and friends to have the right to visit care home residents and patients in hospitals and hospices.

I also thank all those who have shared their personal stories and those who are in the Public Gallery today. I can say without hesitation that the Minister for Care and I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of visiting in care settings. Contact with family and friends is a crucial part of a person’s care. Indeed, there is evidence that supporting people to be actively involved in their own care, treatment and support can improve outcomes and experiences for people receiving care. No one should be denied reasonable access to visitors when they are in a care home, a hospital, or a hospice. That includes receiving assistance from a care supporter or simply going for a walk with a family member or friend.

Before the covid-19 pandemic care homes, hospitals and hospices set visiting policies based on their specific local circumstances. During the pandemic, restrictions on visiting were implemented to prevent the spread of covid-19. Those restrictions were in response to clinical advice and were designed to protect people living in care or in hospital, who were often among the most vulnerable to the virus. Visiting and accompanying is one of the fundamental standards against which the Care Quality Commission assesses quality of care.

The Government recognise how important visiting is for the health and wellbeing of residents in care homes and patients in hospitals and hospices. We have monitored the position since the new fundamental standard was introduced in 2023. We know that the majority of health and care providers are facilitating visits and recognise their importance. The capacity tracker, a digital tool where adult social care providers self-report data, shows that 99.3% of care home providers are facilitating visits. That figure has been stable since September 2022. However, we also know that there are times when it is necessary for movement in and out of care settings to be temporarily restricted.

[Dr Johnson]

Can the Minister clarify what constitutes a visit in those circumstances? Would an hour’s visit once a week count, or is there a specific timeframe that qualifies?

[Ashley Dalton]

I do not have that data to hand, but I will make sure that it is provided to the shadow Minister afterwards.

While there is sometimes the need for temporary restrictions or modifications to minimise significant risks, the Government hope that such instances are a rarity. It is our aspiration to ensure that visiting policy and practice strike the best possible balance between individual wellbeing and public health needs. I have been really moved by, and taken note of, the evidence put forward by many Members that that may not always be the case.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) talked about her experience with her mother, and brought to life the value that family and friends bring to the emotional wellbeing of the person being cared for and how, as partners in care, they play a key role in delivering that care.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am interested to hear the Minister talk about visits, but I think the essence of what many of us have discussed today is that there is a role for family carers alongside salaried carers. We desperately urge the Government to find a way to bring that forward in law.

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention, and it is noted. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) told the powerful story of his own mother-in-law and his experiences there, and spoke about the importance of family contact, specifically for children in health and social care settings. For the sake of clarity, regulation 9A does not cover children’s homes—there are other regulations for that. We are talking specifically about health and social care settings.

We heard powerful interventions from other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand). The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), asked a series of questions: is regulation 9A sufficient? Can the CQC monitor an Act? What are the exceptional circumstances of regulation 9A? Who is making those decisions? What principle is being followed and how is it being properly monitored?

The Government are committed to understanding the current position and considering how it can be improved. That is why in April we launched a review of CQC regulation 9A: visiting and accompanying in care homes, hospitals and hospices. All the issues raised today will be explored as part of that review. We want the review to be thorough and will consider the experiences of those receiving care, their families and loved ones, providers and health experts, as well as information from the Care Quality Commission, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. To ensure that we get a wide range of views, we have also opened a call for evidence and are running focus groups, with the first one taking place later today.

The representations made in today’s debate will help to inform the review. I further thank all contributors, and assure them that their contributions have been noted. We are determined to understand whether the expectations set by the regulation are right and that its application in practice works in the best way across care homes, hospitals and hospices, and in relation to visiting and accompanying.

I can confirm for the hon. Member for Strangford that we will look at the experience of all UK nations, including Northern Ireland and Scotland, where the Care Reform (Scotland) Bill, which includes Anne’s law, was approved on 10 June. That law requires care providers to facilitate visits to care home residents and to identify an essential care supporter for each resident.

I can assure hon. Members that we will reflect on the points made here as we conduct the review. We will move fast and ensure that we do justice to this important issue. We need to understand the problems and gaps if we are to draw the right conclusions from the review. We are pressing on with evidence gathering and focus groups right now. We plan to publish the outcome of the review and any further steps in the autumn.

10:27

[Dan Carden]

Thank you, Ms Butler, for getting here so quickly and saving our debate. I also thank the campaigners for coming here today, all hon. Members who participated and the Minister for her understanding of people’s experiences and openness to receiving evidence. I see this as a matter of principle. Sometimes, when the state contracts out services and provision, it oversteps the mark and we forget what really matters, which is the love and care of our families and the people closest to us. No bureaucrat or care home manager has the right to say, “No you cannot maintain contact with the people you love.”

That is something that the law needs to put right. If it can be done, it will be to the benefit of all—the families, those needing care and the institutions providing that care. I hope that the Minister, alongside the Minister for Care, will keep an open mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the right to maintain contact in care settings.

10:29

Sitting suspended.

Unadopted Estates and Roads

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered unadopted estates and roads.

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler, and a real pleasure to have the Minister present to respond.

I am proud to be part of a Labour party that takes the housing crisis, which affects far too many families across the country, deeply seriously. For a long time we have not been building enough homes in this country, and families in my constituency, and far too many like it right across the UK, are paying the price. As a party, we recognise the best traditions of this country: homes provide more than just a building; they are about security, stability and a platform for prosperity for each and every one of the people we are lucky enough to represent.

I will speak about a growing issue that is threatening to undercut that very principle for far too many homeowners in Hitchin, in the other towns and villages I represent, and in far too many communities right across the country. That is the growing scandal of fleeceholds, as well as the challenges with unadopted estates and the issues that the families left in them have to face.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

In my constituency, we have arguably the largest number of new builds in the country; we are vying with Warwickshire for the crown of new build county. I have been inundated with requests for help with freehold management companies. My constituents are telling me the same stories they are telling my hon. Friend—and I assume other Members present—about the lack of transparency, poor communication, soaring bills and contracts they cannot get out of. To date, we have contacted Centrick, Greenbelt, Ground Solutions, Meadfleet, Premier Estates, FirstPort, Trustgreen, Virtu Property, Ward Surveyors and Hardwick Construction. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is fine time we saw an end to the fleecehold stealth tax, which effectively forces homeowners to write a blank cheque to management companies for years to come?

[Alistair Strathern]

I thank my hon. Friend; she will be a powerful champion for the many residents in her community who are falling on the hard edge of this challenge. Sadly, she is far from alone. Far too many MPs from right across the country have been speaking to me about the issues that their constituents have been facing, too. Indeed, when we drafted a letter to try to challenge some developers about the growing prevalence of fleecehold practices, over 50 colleagues signed up in the first week, and many more have got in touch since to contribute to our work.

The Competition and Markets Authority identified that up to 80% of new homes are now going unadopted as a result of the practice, and far too often it is becoming the default model for new estate delivery across the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Unfortunately—or fortunately, whatever way we want to look at it—this is an issue not just in his constituency, but across the whole of the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. Local councils will not go into unadopted housing estates for kerbside collection of bins in Northern Ireland because the roads are unadopted. Instead, residents must bring their bins to the entrance of the estate. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more must be done to support elderly or disabled residents in new housing areas, to ensure that they are able to avail themselves of those council facilities that they pay the rates for, but cannot access just because they happen to be on an unadopted estate?

[Alistair Strathern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Again, he will be a powerful champion for his residents at the hard edge of the challenges with unadopted estates in his constituency. The example he highlights is powerful, because it is testament to the fact that more and more families living on unadopted estates are simply not getting the services that the rest of us who live on historically adopted estates take for granted from our local authorities.

The fleecehold stealth tax is at the heart of some of the inequity that this growing challenge creates. Right across the country, more and more families are on the hook to private management companies, paying fees of typically £350 or more a year for services that every other homeowner pays for through their council tax.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for showing leadership on this issue and supporting not only his constituents but mine in Stockton North. I have seen high service charges in my constituency at Willow Sage Court and Wynyard, and unadopted roads on the Queensgate estate were left for four years before my intervention. Does he agree that homeowners deserve, when they buy a new property, to have an agreement with the developer on when those roads will be made up and adopted, and to have a reasonable expectation that this will happen?

[Alistair Strathern]

Absolutely. The certainty and fairness my hon. Friend calls for is the bare minimum we should expect for our constituents and the bare minimum that families should have when moving into a new property, often one they have saved up for over a long time to take that big, exciting step. I know his constituents will be all the better for the work he has done to champion that, but it should not fall to him and other hon. Members to fight for this. It should be a matter of course for new developments.

That inequity I was talking about is a real challenge. Not only is it unfair that lots of our constituents are having to pay hundreds of pounds—and often much more than that—each year for services that others receive as standard, but the very nature of fleecehold is designed to structurally inflate some of those costs. Those management companies are very rarely accountable to the actual residents of these new estates that they in theory provide services for. As a result, there is no incentive for them to keep costs low; I have had examples of people having to pay more than £250 per household just to fix a single lightbulb on the estate. Constituents are individually on the hook for thousands of pounds across the estate as a result of road challenges, and there are many more examples of no real pressure or accountability for the costs residents have to pay.

Alongside that, the complicated legal nature of those structures, the professional fees involved, and the fact that certain estates can be subdivided into tiny blocks or pockets of five homes—each of which has to have its own management company and therefore has to pay for all those professional services over and over again—mean that a large chunk of those fees often does not go towards any service at all. It simply covers professional fees, auditing costs, and wider costs associated with a structure that is by its very essence deeply inefficient and not set up to provide a service to the residents who rely on it.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and thank him for his powerful speech about the iniquity of the current situation. From talking to residents of Ebbsfleet Garden City in my constituency, I know there is growing frustration because they are paying council tax to management companies as well as service charges, with very little clarity, as he says, about what are often very high fees. Does he agree that we need clearer guidelines on timescales and standards for roads and communal areas to be adopted by local authorities, so that residents in places such as Ebbsfleet and other communities mentioned can have certainty about what they are paying for and to whom?

[Alistair Strathern]

I know my hon. Friend is a tireless champion of his constituents who are impacted by this issue. He is spot on: this fleecehold stealth tax—because it is in essence a stealth tax our constituents are being asked to pay—is not just unfair to residents, but means they are all too often ultimately reliant on management companies to provide a service that they rarely receive. Not only are they having to pay more than those in adopted estates, but they often get a worse service, because there is no transparency or accountability around the management companies taking on those practices.

It is not just a cost issue for my constituents or many like them. There are other big non-financial costs associated with fleecehold. Far too many estates have had to band together and sink countless hours into holding management companies to account to get transparency over works, to ensure that very basic works and maintenance are carried out, and to make sure that things we all take for granted—such as safety inspections on play parks—actually take place. My constituents have had to sink days and days of their time into fighting for the bare minimum.

Alongside the very fragmented legal nature of those entities, they can also put my constituents at risk at crucial moments. I spoke to constituents whose house sales have nearly fallen through—one actually did—because the management company in question failed to provide the management pack in a timely fashion. That meant that during conveyancing they were unable to complete the sale and move to the dream property they had been looking forward to and needed to move to for their jobs.

I spoke to another constituent whose credit score was decimated when, after missing a payment by just a couple of weeks, their management company enacted some of its powers under the contract to go straight to the mortgage company, add the balance to the mortgage and extract the fee that way, with all the impact one would expect that to have on the homeowner’s credit score and sense of security.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. We have a situation in my constituency in Groomsport on a road called The Point. There is no management company for this road; it is actually owned by the local residents who live along it. However, it has been like a dirt track for decades. We are in a situation where we cannot get the Department for Infrastructure, which is the road service, to adopt this road, because the residents would have to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds to get the DFI to adopt it. Does there not need to be some sort of special dispensation for people caught in this type of trap that will enable the Government to adopt roads when they have been in such a situation for decades?

[Alistair Strathern]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman gives an example of the kind that I think will be familiar to all too many of us. Essentially, an unadopted part of our constituency—be that a road, or common ground within an estate—falls into this limbo state, where no one step ups to be accountable for it. Without action or some kind of central movement to compel some change in the future, more and more of the public realm will fall into exactly the kind of disrepair that he has just described, with all the disillusionment among people that comes with it.

The case for change is clear. We currently have a system that is not doing right by our homeowners on new estates. Indeed, all too often it falls far short of the ideals of security and prosperity that home ownership and new house building are meant to deliver. However, in the absence of any action, this situation is increasingly becoming the norm.

As I have said, the CMA estimates that over 80% of the estates built in recent years are now subject to fleecehold; that figure certainly sounds accurate for my patch and I suspect that it does for other hon. Members’ patches, too. If we do not act and make some changes in the future, there is a very real risk that a lot of the 1.5 million homes that we are so committed to building over this Parliament will also end up falling into the fleecehold stealth tax trap.

What can we do? There are several actions that I urge the Minister to ensure that the Government continue to push forward. It is very clear to me that we need to stop the existence of fleecehold estates at source. The CMA has powerful recommendations about how to do that, such as bringing forward minimum adoptable standards and mandatory adoption timeframes, which should ensure that we do not create more of this problem on new developments as we tackle the housing crisis that so urgently needs action.

I know that the Minister for Housing and Planning is committed to launching a consultation on this issue, and I urge him to move at real pace. We owe it to our constituents to listen to them about the issues they face and to ensure that in the future fewer of them have to suffer these problems. Acting on the CMA’s recommendations and speedily introducing legislation to bring them into effect will be a powerful tool to do that.

However, we cannot act only on behalf of new estates. We will all have constituents in existing fleecehold estates who will be very concerned that, without action, they will not only continue to face the very challenges that we have been talking about today but will also become, in effect, second-class homeowners. As unadopted estates become a thing of the past, those on legacy unadopted estates risk being at a very real disadvantage as that problem becomes more isolated and more siloed.

In the short term, there are definitely things that the Government can do to hold management companies to greater account. There is the potential to bring forward secondary legislation that would ensure we are better able to regulate the services that such companies provide, putting our householders and our constituents back in the driving seat and making them much more able to hold management companies to account if they do not provide a robust, transparent and timely service, as well as helping to drive down some of the rip-off fees that have been imposed and ensuring that they can access information in a timely and transparent fashion.

However, we know that for lots of these estates, that will not be enough. In the ten-minute rule Bill that I introduced a couple of months ago, I advanced the idea of a resident’s right to manage. It would enable residents on existing fleecehold estates to take back control, to step into the driving seat, to push out the management companies that have been ripping them off for far too long, and to be in a position where they are the controller of their estate’s future, and can commission the services they would like. Although that is not quite the council adoption that I know many residents long for in the longer term, such a powerful move would put residents back where they should have been all along—in control of their estate and of all of the public realm that they rely on to go about their day-to-day lives.

I also urge the Minister to work with the Local Government Association and local authorities across the country to consider what further measures can be taken to ensure that, over time, we put an end to all the unadopted estates that we are all currently having to advocate for as a result of this deeply inequitable situation. Far too many households are stuck in the fleecehold limbo trap. Although better regulation and a right to manage would be powerful steps forward and welcomed by many people, ultimately local authorities’ adoption of these estates will be the only answer that completely resolves all the challenges that we have talked about today.

I urge Ministers to move at speed in bringing forward the legislation needed to cut off the creation of new unadopted estates. I would also welcome Government action to hold management companies to account, including through better regulation of service charges and tighter requirements on the transparency with which managing agents must operate. I also support action on the right to manage, so that our residents and constituents on existing unadopted estates are back in the driving seat, where they desperately deserve to be. However, I recognise that we will need to continue the conversation to work towards a longer-term vision. We will need to work with local authorities, Ministers and our constituents to make sure that we finally have a pathway to adoption for existing unadopted estates, which have been neglected for far too long, as many hon. Members have said.

This Government are absolutely right to focus on the housing crisis, which is one of the biggest challenges facing the country, and I am very excited that they have such a big, bold vision for taking it on. They are not just building 1.5 million homes, but ensuring record investment in social and affordable housing, as well as much tighter regulation of key issues from solar panels to building regulations.

However, if we do not tackle the challenge of fleecehold and end the growing scandal of unadopted estates, we will still be setting up far too many of our constituents for a life of misery, a life of battling to get the bare minimum and a life of paying hundreds of pounds or more every year—money that other residents simply do not have to pay—because they happen to live on an unadopted estate. That cannot be right, and it is not a situation that I will tolerate for my constituents. I know that many other hon. Members will not tolerate it, either. I look forward to working with the Minister and this Government to make sure that we tackle it with the seriousness it deserves.

11:16

[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, Ms Butler. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) on securing this important debate, which is characteristic of the type of issues that he champions. I do not think this issue gets nearly enough coverage, and it is great that we have the opportunity to debate it this morning. It is one of those issues that, exactly as he says, turns dreams into nightmares and can ruin people’s lives or make people’s lives just that bit harder. It is exactly the sort of issue that he is passionate about and that he always uses his platform to raise, and I am grateful that he has. I am also grateful for other colleagues’ contributions.

I am grateful not just for my hon. Friend’s excellent diagnosis of the problem, but for charitably offering solutions to the Government. I am also grateful to him for raising these issues in his ten-minute rule Bill, which is a good way for Members of Parliament to raise issues with the Government and to hear our policy ideas. I make it clear that we support the underlying goals of his Bill, which aligns very nicely with our manifesto commitment to end the injustice of fleecehold estates.

It is important to recognise that, yes, this is an issue for my hon. Friend’s constituents, but we are also seeing it across the country. From Ebbsfleet up to Stockton and, in the middle, South Derbyshire—so good that it is nearly Nottingham—residents are facing these growing challenges, and we must be there to support them.

As the Minister with responsibility for building safety, I often say that in my area, and across Government more generally, we are trying to serve twin moral imperatives. The first is to make sure that people have a home. I think every day of the 6,000 children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and the 180,000 children in temporary accommodation the previous night. We have to make sure that people have homes, but we also have to ensure that they are good homes and that, exactly as my hon. Friend says, we are not setting up people to fail. We have to make sure those homes are warm and dry, safe from fire and, in this case, do not come with overheads or lower-quality infrastructure that make owning, renting or living in that home a nightmare and a battle. Those are the Government’s goals, and they are perfectly compatible

Exactly as my hon. Friend says, this issue has an impact on both supply and local authority budgets, so it is right that we take our time to assemble the best available evidence to make sure that we get the best possible change, but we appreciate that we need to get on and move at pace.

I will start close to where my hon. Friend finished, with the Competition and Markets Authority’s study of house building. The study was published last year and provides evidence for what I suspect we already knew from our constituency mailbags—over the past few years, we have seen significant growth in the number of unadopted estates. The study talks about some of the causes behind that trend, concluding that this practice is detrimental to consumers.

The Government agree with the CMA’s conclusion that, overall, the house building market is not delivering for consumers and has consistently failed to do so over successive decades. We have looked very closely at the report’s recommendations, which call for measures to strengthen protection for existing homeowners and for the Government to mandate adoption of all new estates and implement common adoptable standards for infrastructure on those new estates. We accepted many of the recommendations last October, but we believe that further work is required in some areas—I will talk a little about that. I take to heart what my hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin and for Dartford (Jim Dickson) said about the importance of certainty and fairness, which are absent from this process. Without them, people cannot build their lives properly.

Ms Butler, you will not be surprised to hear me say that, as it so often does, this starts with individual rights—residents’ rights on unadopted housing estates. As we have heard, residents living on privately managed estates with unadopted amenities are struggling with a range of problems, including poor service, excessive bills and limited to no transparency about how money is spent, onerous restrictions on the title deeds to their properties—my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin raised a particularly egregious case—and a general lack of control over how the estate is managed. That speaks to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire.

The CMA found that approximately 20% of freehold estates have what is known as an embedded management company set in the title deeds. It found that residents may find it extremely hard—indeed, sometimes impossible —to remove or change an embedded management company, no matter what quality of service they receive. Of course, that cannot be right. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin talked about a lack of accountability. Well, what could be a greater lack of accountability?

In the spirit of urgency that my hon. Friend talked about, in the immediate term we need to introduce protections for residential freeholders on already-constructed freehold estates. As hon. Members may be aware, the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, passed by the previous Parliament, created a regulatory framework that will provide for exactly the sorts of protections and rights to which my hon. Friend referred. It provides for standardised demands, an annual report, a right for homeowners to challenge the reasonableness of charges levied, a requirement for estate managers to consult homeowners where the anticipated cost exceeds an appropriate amount, and a right for residential freeholders to apply to a tribunal to appoint a manager in the event of serious management failure. That is the prize before us.

As the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), made clear in his written ministerial statement last November, we need to act as quickly as feasible to implement those provisions, but they need to be enacted with detailed secondary legislation. We want to get this right, not least because these are, at their heart, extremely technical matters, and the last thing we want to do is give hope by promising change, and for the change not to deliver because it was not operable or effective. We will bring these measures into effect as soon as possible, but we first need to consult on the technical detail. We will publish the consultation document later this year. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin said that we need real pace, and my hon. Friend the Housing Minister and I have heard that strongly.

More broadly, at the heart of this, having the choice of a managing agent is really important, whether for unadopted estates or buildings in which lots of people live together. Sometimes residents step up—who knows their community better than they do?—but those are hard jobs. I have met many resident management companies in the course of my work, and there is an awful lot for them to step up and do. That is why there are sometimes frustrations. We agreed with what the CMA said about RMCs needing the right guidance and support to do the job themselves, where they choose to do so.

We also know that for many buildings or estates, there will be a really important role for managing agents. When done well, managing agents are an important part of enhancing communities and individual lives. Where that is not the case—too often, it is not—they can have all the detrimental impacts we have heard about. That is why the Government are so committed to strengthening the regulation of managing agents of leasehold properties and estate managers of freehold estates. We believe that, at a minimum, there should be mandatory professional qualifications for managing agents, whether they manage a building or an estate. We will consult on that measure later this year. That is an important part of driving up standards in the industry to make sure that all managing agents are making the positive contribution that we know they want to make, and that they should and can make when done well.

The point on adoption is often around the quality of infrastructure. Local authorities have significant challenges, and nobody expects new builds to add more burden—certainly not through the provision of poor housing or the infrastructure that supports it. Traditionally, without the challenges we see today, local authorities and water companies would adopt those respective parts of a new residential estate, whether it be the roads, the drains or the sewers, and they would set clear standards and provide oversight to ensure these were delivered to adoptable standards. Where that has not been the case, the responsibility for ongoing maintenance falls on the residents. For some on the adoption journey, which in many cases can take more than a decade because of these ongoing concerns, they pick up the bill with no resolution in sight—they live in that twilight zone.

We are conscious that, at the heart of this, developers have to build to a good standard. Otherwise there is poorer infrastructure and a lack of adoptability, never mind the lack of redress for homeowners and the lack of oversight. There are too many examples where developments have been left unfinished for years, and we do not think homeowners should be left in that limbo.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin talks about complexity, and we will have more complex schemes with different ownerships, tenures and types—we want that as a Government—but that will add a degree of complexity. Similarly, there are greater expectations on developers, for good reasons. Whether it is sustainable drainage systems, biodiversity net gain, electric vehicle charging points, playgrounds or sports pitches, they all make this more challenging, which is why the clarity on standards that we intend to set from the centre is so important.

My hon. Friend has made a powerful case, which has been reflected strongly in the interventions from colleagues and in the mailbags of all hon. and right hon. Members. I am grateful that he has given them this hearing. It is vital that we take on this issue in the round to make sure that we get it right and secure a change that delivers for people. That is why we will seek views from a wide range of parties, including local authorities, management companies, developers and, crucially, freeholders and residents. I hope colleagues will help to bring the voices of their constituents into the consultations.

I make it clear that we intend to act. There is a clear commitment to act, and we have a legislative framework to do so. We will see action in this area. We want to move at the best pace that we can, and we know at the heart of this issue is a significant prize: improving the lives of many people across the country. We are very committed to doing so.

Question put and agreed to.

11:27

Sitting suspended.

VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers in the Chair]

14:30

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of the VAT registration threshold on SMEs.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. It was Napoleon Bonaparte who once said that “England is a nation of shopkeepers”. As is often the case with Napoleon, he was wrong. England, and indeed the UK, is a nation of entrepreneurs. Across the UK, early risers and late-night grafters—the men and women who channel their entrepreneurial spirits into businesses and serving their communities—form the backbone of our economy. However, we in this place sometimes let them down. That is certainly the case with the current nonsensical VAT registration threshold.

Right now, businesses in the UK have to be VAT registered when their turnover reaches just £90,000—an arbitrary figure. Once a small business has crossed that cliff edge, it is hit with added regulatory compliance costs and the need to charge their customers 20% more for their services. I do not want to pre-empt the Minister’s response, but I am well aware of the fact that the UK has one of the highest thresholds in Europe—that is not the point. I am arguing for the boldness to unleash the Great British entrepreneurial spirit once again.

Increasing the threshold to £90,000 was a positive move by the previous Conservative Government. I recognise the complexities surrounding the Windsor framework, but when we voted to leave the European Union in 2016, we wanted to take back control of our money, our borders and our laws. We should look at this again, and seek to also include Northern Ireland businesses with an increased VAT registration threshold.

As a chartered accountant by profession, I have seen first hand the implications that the UK’s tax regime can have for businesses. I enjoy conversations about the economy and business growth, and one recent example from my constituency surgery stands out. I met with Chris and Annie Ensell, talented entrepreneurs running a thriving wedding photography business called Bloom Weddings. Joined by their daughter, they told me of their success and their frustration. They had both become increasingly concerned about approaching and potentially surpassing the VAT registration threshold cliff edge.

They now face the agonising decision between limiting the number of weddings they agree to service or passing on increased costs to their customers, which would limit their competitiveness. I ask the Minister—who is part of a Government that say they are going for growth—is that fair? How will this encourage more people like Chris and Annie to build up their businesses?

In the Government’s manifesto, they claimed they understand that small firms, entrepreneurs and the self-employed face unique challenges, but we have seen them eat into small to medium-sized enterprise profit margins by increasing national insurance contributions and the national minimum wage. We have also seen them add more regulatory burdens with the Employment Rights Bill, which is set to add £5 billion to the costs of UK businesses. However, today is an opportunity to for the Minister to show real support for small businesses, such as those in my Mid Leicestershire constituency, by committing to review the VAT registration threshold.

I regret to say that I am not overly optimistic. When the previous Government rightly increased the threshold, Sir Edward Troup, a Labour tax adviser, ridiculed the idea, claiming that halving the threshold would somehow encourage growth. Perhaps even more shockingly, the current Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), has proposed slashing the threshold to a derisory £30,000.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that this demonstrates that the Labour Government do not understand how our small businesses operate, and are not on their side? We see the impact of not only VAT registration, but employer’s national insurance, minimum wage and business rates increases, among other things. Does he agree that this Government do not understand how small businesses want to grow, operate and thrive?

[Mr Bedford]

I absolutely agree. Over the last year, particularly in the Budget and recent announcements, we have seen measures that stifle the growth of SMEs and small businesses. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that today because I am passionate about supporting them, not only so that the economy can grow, but so that we can create jobs and opportunities for all. I will always support small family businesses, and I will never support proposals to slash the VAT threshold to such low levels.

What is even more frustrating is the fact that the voice of industry has not been heard; its calls have fallen on deaf ears. The Federation of Small Businesses has previously highlighted that the extra bureaucracy of being VAT-registered adds £4,100 on average to the running costs of a business. UKHospitality also notes that there have been missed opportunities to be bolder and to alleviate regulatory burdens on the hospitality sector.

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

I do not know if the hon. Member is aware, but just this morning the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland released a report about the complications that the Windsor framework is creating for small businesses in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that SMEs are the backbone of the UK economy in all regions and that we need to try to do whatever we can to reduce bureaucracy rather than increase it, which is what the Windsor framework has achieved?

[Mr Bedford]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and I absolutely agree. As a Unionist myself, I want to see all parts of the UK thrive and grow, and that obviously includes Northern Ireland. This debate equally applies to Northern Ireland as it does to everywhere else in the Union.

I was talking about UKHospitality, which says it would like to see the VAT rate cut to 12.5% for the industry. I think that proposal has merits and I encourage the Minister to consider it.

Finally, I recently met the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and it was clear that confidence among small businesses is in decline. The ICAEW would like to see the whole VAT system simplified and the registration threshold reviewed. That would reduce compliance costs, but it would also enable small businesses to grow beyond the restrictive cliff edge that is currently in place.

The Minister may not be a fan of Margaret Thatcher, our first female Prime Minister, but she believed that if people work hard, they should have the opportunity to succeed, and that the Government’s role is to create the conditions for that success. That was why she launched the enterprise allowance scheme, which helped to create now-famous brands such as Superdry and Creation Records.

However, if the Minister wants a more contemporary example of a state supporting businesses to grow, he should look at our good friends in Singapore. First, as is well-documented, corporation tax in Singapore is low, but in addition small businesses in Singapore have the pioneer certificate incentive, which encourages start-ups in undersubscribed industries. I am not asking the Minister for such a scheme here—I know that that would perhaps be too bold—but what I am asking for is a modest and sensible change that would make a real difference to entrepreneurs across the country. Raise the VAT registration threshold; push it beyond £90,000. Do it for the small businesses that want to grow, to diversify and to serve their communities, but also do it for the economy and for consumers, who will benefit from lower prices and greater choice. Above all, do it for the spirit of enterprise that has always defined the United Kingdom.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

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

14:37

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and I thank the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing this important debate.

Small and medium-sized enterprises are not just crucial to our economy; they are its lifeblood, driving innovation, employment and local growth. In my constituency of Mid Dunbartonshire, we have many SMEs that contribute enormously to the local economy, including hair and beauty salons, and they also keep our high streets alive. Beyond this, though, our local businesses shape our communities, fostering a sense of identity and community pride, which we simply do not see when international conglomerates set up shop.

However, as has already been mentioned, in the current business environment, with the increase in employer’s national insurance contributions, the huge increase in utilities costs, and inflation driving up the cost of materials, the current VAT threshold poses a substantial barrier, actively stifling the potential of SMEs and limiting their growth.

The VAT threshold, currently set at £90,000, creates a growth cliff edge for SMEs. Many businesses deliberately limit their turnover to avoid crossing this threshold and facing the administrative burden, increased costs and competitive disadvantages that follow. That ceiling hampers ambition and penalises success—the exact opposite of what our tax system should encourage.

The leap to becoming VAT registered means businesses face not only significant new compliance costs, but the challenge of remaining price competitive. Non-VAT-registered competitors can undercut prices, placing growing businesses at a distinct disadvantage, and their larger competitors can use their size to offset the additional burden of VAT. Essentially our small, growing businesses are competing with those at the top and those at the bottom, both of which the system is designed to help. Moreover, the sudden administrative burden—VAT accounting, quarterly reporting and more complex financial management—is daunting and resource intensive.

Such complexity distracts entrepreneurs from their primary goal: growing their business, creating jobs and contributing positively to their local economy. The current VAT threshold discourages growth, distorts competition and creates unnecessary administrative challenges for SMEs. It is clearly time for change. Through a smoother transitional system or targeted administrative support, we must ensure our tax system empowers small businesses to grow confidently, and does not hold them back at critical stages of their development.

14:41

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this important debate. He is a passionate defender of small and medium-sized businesses in his constituency and across the country.

I meet small business owners in my constituency of Broxbourne almost every week, and every single one, from Carmela’s hairdressers in Cheshunt to the Smokeshed restaurant in Hoddesdon, has made it clear to me just how damaging Labour Government policies are towards small businesses. This Labour Government have put up the cost of growing a small business significantly, with the hike in employer’s national insurance making it more expensive for businesses to bring on and employ new people. Increasing the burden of regulation is also deterring employers from taking risks with who they employ. Both of those disastrous policies are leading to fewer people in work, taxes at the highest level on record and growth down. As I have said in this Chamber before, the drastic reduction in business rates relief is crippling for our retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, which are the anchor of so many of our town centres up and down our beautiful United Kingdom.

As we have heard this morning, what is also holding SMEs back is the current rules around VAT registration. When I go out and speak to businesses across my constituency of Broxbourne, whether I speak to them in business forums, through Love Hoddesdon, Love Cheshunt, Love Waltham Cross or the Stanstead Abbotts small business network group, they are all united in one thing and one single policy that they reckon is really holding them back: the VAT threshold. They all moan to me about it. They all say they need an easier solution. I have so many examples of businesses that I speak to that have said, “Lewis, it is not worth upscaling our business. It is not worth trying to do better, not worth taking on more business, not worth employing more people. It is not worth doing those things because, when we go just over the threshold, it takes our competitive edge away when we are trying to compete with people that are just below that threshold.” They have all come forward with a simple solution, which is that there should be a taper mechanism to build up to the 20%, rather than the cliff edge that we have now.

The situation is absolute nonsense. I have successful business owners in my constituency that go in day in, day out. As I have said in this Chamber before, I was told at the Dispatch box by a Government Minister that it is the Government that create economic growth. Well, it is not. They do not understand how business works in this country. Their whole philosophy around who creates economic growth is wrong. It is the millions of small business owners up and down the United Kingdom and all of the entrepreneurs that invest in their ideas that create economic growth. As I said, it cannot be right that I have examples in my constituency of people turning down work, not taking on more employees, and not creating the economic growth that we all want to see for this country because of measures like the VAT threshold.

We heard before the general election that this Government were going to be the most pro-business we had ever seen, but they have not come up with a single policy that has helped my business owners in Broxbourne. They all think that all this Government’s policies around businesses, including changing the threshold for business rates and not looking into the issue of VAT registration, are affecting how they do business across the country. That simply cannot be right—it is nonsense. We all want more jobs created and we all want our high streets to thrive.

Lots of business owners have lots of issues with what is going on in the economy right now, but this one single thing unites them. When I speak to them, they all raise this issue with me. They all want the Government to take it seriously and think up a solution. The Minister could go and speak to his officials at the Treasury and there could be a simple solution to this problem. That would create economic growth overnight. Businesses up and down the country would probably take on more employees and more business if this problem was solved. It is affecting lots of the people that I speak to in my constituency of Broxbourne.

Why on earth would someone come out of the education system, invest in their idea, take risks and set up a business in the United Kingdom right now? It is so heavily burdened with regulation. We need to unlock the aspiration of the next generation, and we can do that by solving simple things that business owners come to speak to us about. We need to make sure that the VAT threshold is no longer a cliff edge and bring in a taper mechanism.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in reply to this debate. I am hopeful that he will think long and hard about what he can do about this issue, because he has the tools at his disposal to solve it. I suspect that there will be lots of consensus among those of us speaking in this debate on the issue and on what we think the solution will be. I hope that the Minister is listening and will take note of all our comments when he winds up.

14:47

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for securing today’s important debate because, as he and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) have illustrated, many of our small independent businesses have contacted us as their representatives about the challenge around the VAT threshold time and again.

The VAT threshold builds on the collective impact of all the budgetary changes that have been having a hugely detrimental—indeed, catastrophic—impact on our many family businesses. The increases in employers’ national insurance, minimum wage, business rates—crikey, the list goes on. That is before we start looking at other legislation that is coming down the line, such as the Employment Rights Bill, which is creating more uncertainty for employees, dare I say, because employers quite rightly will not want to take the risk of growing and expanding, with further regulation and legislation coming down the line.

Small businesses are the lifeblood of any prosperous community, and my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley is no exception. Keighley is home to many fantastic small high street businesses, as well as a number of nationally and internationally acclaimed manufacturers. Likewise, Ilkley boasts a fabulously good high street, which helped the town to be officially named the best place to live in the whole north of England, as rated by The Sunday Times. I am sorry to say that our many small businesses are under immensely increasing regulatory and tax pressures as we go forward. Whether because of the rise in budgetary pressures introduced by the Budget last year or VAT, the subject of this debate, those businesses are struggling right now to make ends meet, and the challenge continues.

The mighty British fish and chip shop is one sector that is particularly struggling, with rising input prices and uncertainty over supply chains. I am honoured to represent many fish and chip shops across Keighley and Ilkley, and was lucky enough meet a great constituent of mine, Dwaine Smith, and go along to Old Time Fisheries at the top of Devonshire Street in Keighley to sample the fine offering. He was keen to get across to me the absolute pressure that the fish and chip industry is facing as a result of the increased cost of fish and chips coming into the sector, as well as the increased pressures around employer’s national insurance, the minimum wage and the challenge around VAT thresholds. On a number of occasions I have spoken to the operator of Kirkgate Fisheries, in Silsden in my constituency, and he has raised the issue of VAT with me as the No. 1 challenge that he is facing. Bearing out what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire said, as an organisation it has actively looked at reducing the number of hours that it is open because of the challenges associated with VAT registration and the threshold that has been put in place.

We cannot be in a scenario where businesses are coming to us time and again, whether in the fish and chip industry or other sectors such as the wedding industry, as was referenced by my hon. Friend—it applies to every business—because they are being effectively constrained from growing and expanding because of the VAT registration challenges and the burden of the VAT threshold. It is sad to see popular, successful businesses in our communities having to commit acts of self-harm, not because they want to but because they have no other option available—they are forced to because of the increased taxes being put on their shoulders.

That brings me to the nub of the issue: this debate is about not just the level of the VAT threshold—although I am pleased to say that it rose steadily under the last Conservative Administration—but the hugely negative impact that the cost of VAT registration is having on the growth of many businesses in my constituency. It is not viable to sit just under the threshold, as has often been communicated to me by many of my constituents, and without further investment to get above it, businesses stagnate. That is the problem that we are actively seeing. I hope that the Minister will reference this cliff edge, which many of our hard-working businesses are facing, and that he will address how the Government plan to see the transition for businesses between VAT regimes.

I want to see businesses across Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and the Worth valley thrive; I want to see families set up businesses that they have control of, that are pillars of the community and drive the local economy. Without doubt, they are the fabric of our communities. To do that, we must create a tax system that encourages expansion and growth. At the moment, the VAT threshold is a great filter to success. It is stagnating many of our businesses and constraining them from being able to grow at the speed they wish. At worst, many of our businesses are reducing their hours of operation and the amount of products that they are selling, because of the VAT threshold and the cost of VAT registration. This simply cannot continue. It is within the power of the Government to make that change, and I hope that the Minister is listening.

Finally, I would like to understand from the Minister whether any financial impact assessment has been made by this Government, not only on VAT but on the collective impact of those additional regulatory and financial burdens that have been put on hard-working businesses in our constituencies. I go door-knocking every week, speaking to residents and large and small businesses across my constituency. On the doorstep I openly ask people, 20% or 25% of the way into this Parliament—a year into this Government—to give me one thing that they feel the Government have delivered that has had a positive impact on their business. They cannot name one thing.

14:54

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for setting the scene and giving us all an opportunity to engage with the Minister on this issue, as the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) just did. The Minister is always a very pleasant gentleman—we all know that—and he always seems to be incredibly calm. I am not sure how he does it; maybe all the worries are somebody else’s worries—I do not know what they are. But I do wish him well with his answers to the questions that we pose today.

I read a very interesting article that outlined the pros and cons of raising the VAT threshold above the £90,000 that we are sitting at. What was most notable was the fact that these arguments were all made around an unalterable fact: we in Northern Ireland are hampered from truly having a full discussion by the Windsor framework, which does not allow Northern Ireland VAT to rise above the £90,000 threshold. Even if this debate today could make a change, and even if the Minister agreed with the change, it could not happen. Why? Because of the Windsor framework. I look to my right-hand side: maybe one of the Conservative Members there might have been in the previous Government who left us in Northern Ireland in that limbo land. They can answer for themselves—it is not for me to answer for them—but I do make the point that we were let down badly by the Conservatives in relation to this.

The reality is that, unless we can have regional VAT rates, the UK is prevented from acting in our best interests economically by the EU. It is a fact of life for us, unfortunately, nine years after the vote. I voted—and my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) beside me voted—to leave under the same terms as the rest of the United Kingdom; but the EU is still dictating our economic policy in Northern Ireland. That is the reason that the DUP has consistently stood against this European interference. Perhaps, now that some businesses in other Members’ constituencies are being affected, in different regions—

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but does he not now regret his vote to leave, seeing as it created all of these problems for his constituents?

[Jim Shannon]

No. I thank the hon. Member—he is a friend—but look, honestly, I am a Brexiteer; it is no secret. I want the same Brexit as the rest of the United Kingdom got. I did not get that. We were let down by a Government who did us over, so we did not get what we wanted, but if I had got the same as everybody else in England, Scotland and Wales—and my hon. Friend had—then I would not be having this conversation, and I would not be doing this spiel. I am still a Brexiteer and always will be a Brexiteer, and incidentally, the majority of people in my constituency voted to have the same Brexit as the rest of the United Kingdom, and my constituents did not get it either. When the Minister thinks about today’s debate, if he does not mind me saying, I would ask that he would petition the Cabinet, if it is not too much to ask for, to withdraw from this inherently flawed agreement for us in Northern Ireland.

The article that I read discussed the benefit of raising the threshold, highlighting that Government should want to encourage small businesses to grow. It would be much more effective to raise the threshold to £250,000, I would have thought. It is probably a better figure to work with. That is, of course, supported by the Government’s own statistics, which showed that, in 2022-23, £117 billion —75% of the total net VAT collected in the UK—was paid by traders with an annual turnover of more than £10 million. So, what does that mean exactly? Raising the threshold to £250,000 may not, therefore, have a significant impact on VAT’s total receipts, but it would allow His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to save costs and to focus its time on ensuring that the largest VAT payers paid the right amount of tax.

The Government have a big, difficult task before them; they have got to balance the books—whatever the figure might be for the black hole, or whatever it may have been. They have set themselves that target to balance those books, and I understand that. Maybe there is another way of saving money, perhaps within HMRC, that could be better. The Minister is a very wise man; he will understand the point I am making, and the civil servants, who are the brains of the Department—I hope the Minister does not mind me saying that—will be able to respond, and maybe pass the message on about whether that can be done.

Raising the threshold would allow a large number of traders in my area, and others, to focus on growth and not question whether they could grow a business enough to cover the additional accountancy costs when VAT is involved. When most businesses register for VAT, they are faced with a choice: either increase their prices by up to 20% or lose 20% of their existing prices as VAT. That is a difficult scenario for a business. The former makes the business less competitive and likely to see a drop in sales, and the latter eats into the profits and ultimately reduces the amount of money the business can use to expand. Neither option advocates for small business growth. As I have said, this is a moot point, as the EU will not allow us in Northern Ireland even to consider raising the threshold. I cannot tell businesses in Strangford or across Northern Ireland that it could be an option.

Some argue that there are benefits to retaining the VAT thresholds. Research undertaken for HMRC in 2016 found that 20% of unregistered businesses that were trading close to the VAT threshold had taken action to remain below it. Of those businesses, almost half said they had closed their businesses for part of the year to avoid having to register for VAT. One in five said they had turned down work, which was an indication that they could not grow as they wanted to because of the restriction. That strongly suggests that a significant number of businesses actively manage their turnover in order to stay below the VAT registration threshold. Lowering the threshold would prevent businesses from suppressing their trade in that way, which would in turn encourage economic growth.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in recent years, because of inflation, even small businesses in the retail trade that try to maintain a level just below the threshold find that they must pass on rising prices to the consumer? That means they will inevitably come to or above the threshold, and even an attempt to keep below it will often fail.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend always intervenes with words of wisdom and understanding. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that.

There is little point in Northern Ireland MPs discussing this issue, unless the discussion involves the revocation of the Northern Ireland protocol and each aspect of European interference. I ask the Minister sincerely, respectfully and honestly to take back to the Cabinet the circumstances of the Windsor framework, to ensure that Northern Ireland traders can have the very same options as those in England, Scotland and Wales.

15:03

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

Thank you for allowing me to speak, Mr Vickers, after I turned up late.

Few people can speak about VAT with such excitement as I can. I was UK entrepreneur of the year, I have lectured on entrepreneurship for 20 years, and I have mentored many early-stage businesses. I have concluded that the one thing we can do that could transform the small business community is to increase the VAT registration threshold to allow microbusinesses to scale up.

Has anyone tried to get hold of a tradesman recently—a plumber, a decorator or an electrician? I will use the collective word plumber, to make it easier for people of my mentality to understand. There is an army of plumbers —mostly men who work alone—who seem incredibly hard to get hold of. They tend to be older, they learned on the tools or at a technical college, and they are happy to limit their income to squeeze below the £90,000 VAT restriction. There are many who, looking for a bit of holiday money, might do a job on the side for cash.

There is a real shortage of plumbers, joiners and electricians, in part due to the closing down of technical colleges, and the young pursuing non-vocational degrees while loading themselves with student debt. Historically and internationally, skilled tradespeople have been held in great esteem, although not so much in today’s Britain. We all know good tradespeople with a great client list and reputation, all of whom make excellent money and are their own boss. An early learn for all those people is that the VAT registration threshold is essential: they need to pay 20% beyond that £90,000. My key point is that these sole traders will not take on an apprentice or an assistant, because that would take them over the VAT starting point.

Not being VAT-registered is a fantastic advantage for a person. He or she has a 20% advantage over competitors who have several staff. In addition, the sort of person who likes being on the tools is not the sort of person who would relish the additional paperwork of being VAT-registered. It is not only doing the VAT paperwork that puts sole traders off growing their business; it is the real burden of hiring people, the payroll, the contracts of employment and the HR responsibilities. We need to make it worth their while, so an increase of a few tens of thousands will not do the job. There are 4.4 million self-employed people in the UK; just think what a catapult forward for our economy we would see if only 10% of them were to hire a couple of people.

I propose that the VAT starting level be increased from £90,000 to £250,000 for all businesses. If that happened, I predict that a massive number of microbusinesses would hire an apprentice or two, creating a pool of young plumbers getting trained. As the availability of plumbers increased, householders would get work done quicker, there would be more competition and therefore lower charges, and clients would be happier. Small businesses, having built up a bit of a scale with three employees, might then grow into a proper business with 100 or more employees, like Pimlico Plumbers.

It is believed that my proposal would cost the Treasury perhaps £2 billion in lost VAT, but I am sure that HMRC would win out overall. It would get income tax and national insurance from the newly-hired and well-paid staff, and the bigger companies would start paying corporation tax. It would also reduce the tax-avoidance cash economy. In my opinion, the 20% difference in the change from £90,000 to £250,000 would be easily made up.

Arguments are made that we should drop the threshold to zero and make all sales subject to VAT, but that would be a massive disincentive to people starting a business. The results of my proposed VAT change would be more people in well-paid employment, a gateway for the young into an excellent career, a solution to skilled trade shortages, a stimulant to the economy, and higher tax collected by the Exchequer—a win-win. Why would we want to incentivise millions of people not to hire youngsters, not to grow their businesses and not to pay more tax?

15:08

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this important debate. It is a pleasure to wind up on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.

As we have heard from a number of colleagues, small and medium-sized enterprises are the heartbeat of our local economies. It is not just that they are the engine of growth: they have enormous social impact too. Whether it is the physios or beauty technicians who travel to people’s homes, sometimes to visit older people who are less mobile and cannot get out, or market traders selling the wares they have made at home, sole traders and small businesses bring real vibrancy to our local economies, and we must do everything we can to support them. I am proud that the Liberal Democrats have tabled various amendments to Government legislation to call for impact assessments on measures that affect small businesses, including the changes to national insurance contributions, the Employment Rights Bill and the business rates changes.

The jobs tax will hit small businesses particularly hard. The change in the threshold as well as the rates particularly gets small businesses. The Government’s proposals on business rates will be very difficult for small businesses. It is not just about the changes this year, with the bills going up; next year, under the Government’s proposals, small independent businesses will effectively subside the larger chains.

I say with some affection to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that although he wishes he had the same Brexit as everyone else, he should be careful what he wishes for. I am sure he will know from Liberal Democrat research that since the Conservatives botched the Brexit deal small businesses have had to complete 2 billion extra pieces of paperwork thanks to Brexit red tape—enough to wrap around the world 15 times. I am sure none of us want to see additional red tape for small businesses and sole traders.

We have heard compelling arguments that the Government should at the very least look at the VAT regime. Do they have any plans to change it or review the threshold? We Liberal Democrats would welcome a review and would be keen to see any impact assessment that the Government might commission. There have been compelling arguments about simplifying the system. From what colleagues across the House have said, we know that the current threshold deters sole traders and others from earning more, which is really bad for growth.

Many people want to avoid the complicated form-filling, and I hear from my constituents that they also want to avoid the misery of sitting on the phone trying to get through to HMRC. We have all heard horror stories of people calling time and time again, only to have their calls cut off, unable to get through or get the advice they need. Will the Minister give an update on what is happening in HMRC to provide additional support for small businesses in particular? We know that those who are incredibly wealthy have a direct line to HMRC, but our small businesses—the engines of growth—often struggle to get the advice they need.

We urge the Government to simplify the VAT regime, and there are companies with proposals on how to do that. One quick example, which is slightly different from today’s topic, is that Amazon is working with HMRC to discuss cracking down on resellers, to tackle VAT tax avoidance by shell companies and avoid the situation many people experience when they order something from an online marketplace and either it is not very good quality when it arrives or it does not arrive at all. Conversations are happening about how to simplify the process for legitimate sellers on platforms. If there are big-eyed companies out there with ideas on how to simplify the VAT registration system, I very much hope the Government will take them up and roll them out not just to those who sell online but to those who sell in our communities.

Finally, the Minister will have heard over several months from colleagues across the House that small businesses are very different, and that one size does not fit all. Small businesses struggle with the paperwork, and do not have the lawyers or HR departments that larger businesses have, so I urge the Minister to consider proposals for a small business one-stop shop, to make sure that small businesses across the land receive the advice they desperately need.

15:13

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on securing this excellent debate. We arguably do not spend enough time in this place discussing small and medium-sized businesses, which account for some three fifths of employment and half of all turnover in the entire private sector.

The good thing about having a debate on this subject is that we have the Government in the room, rather than behind their keyboards. That is important, because I noticed while preparing for this debate that it comes hot on the heels of a written question on the same subject, which I am afraid to say received a textbook non-answer from the Treasury. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire asked a perfectly reasonable question: will the Chancellor make an assessment of the growth impact of increasing the VAT registration threshold? That was a pretty direct question, yet the Minister’s response completely ignored the point about growth and instead merely stated that the threshold was £90,000. While we are very grateful for the answer, this is something that I am sure my hon. Friend already knew. As my hon. Friend is in this Chamber, I gently suggest that the Minister provide him with a fuller answer.

In some senses, raising the VAT threshold on SMEs would be a tax cut, so there is cause for optimism, given the Government’s newfound enthusiasm for cutting taxes—for those who live in Mauritius. If the Labour party is happy to take 80% of Mauritian workers out of income tax altogether as part of their £30 billion Chagos surrender deal, I am pretty sure they will be sympathetic to taking British SMEs out of VAT registration.

Surely the Minister will remember that last year, when we were in government, the Conservatives raised the VAT registration threshold to the current £90,000. That took 28,000 businesses out of registration, which helped them to compete and grow, and it reduced their administrative burden. We also introduced policies such as business rate relief and full expensing to reduce costs and encourage investment in our country. Put simply, we backed British businesses to drive economic growth. Contrast that with Labour’s approach—it is trying but failing to balance the books on the back of British businesses. In its very first year in office, Labour has introduced the £25 billion hike, and the reduction in the secondary threshold of employer national insurance contributions; the rise in business rates, which the party had promised to abolish, by the way; the £5 billion-a-year burden of the Employment Rights Bill; and, let us not forget, the inheritance tax raid on family businesses.

[Mr MacDonald]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the increase in the registration threshold from £85,000 to £90,000, which came after many years of it not being increased and is far below inflation. In your time in office, you did no favours for small businesses, as far as VAT is concerned. Would you agree with that?

[Gareth Davies]

I think the hon. Gentleman is accusing you, Mr Vickers, rather than me. I simply say to him that increasing the threshold made a big difference to the 28,000 businesses that were taken out of registration. I encourage him to speak to businesses in his constituency that benefited from what is essentially a tax cut, in addition to all the other measures that I mentioned that we introduced.

The contrast between what the Conservatives did in office and the approach of the Labour Government in their first year is quite stark, and the consequences are even starker. Insolvency rates are at a 15-year high, new registrations have fallen at the fastest rate since the financial crisis, payroll employment is falling, and inflation is well above target and will be higher for longer. It is no wonder that only 14% of companies with fewer than 10 employees have confidence in the Chancellor’s growth plans. According to one survey, just 29% of UK small businesses are now predicting growth this year. Meanwhile, the Federation of Small Businesses reported that its members now view the tax burden as their second biggest barrier to growth.

Here we see very clearly the vicious cycle that Labour has fallen into, just as it did in the 1970s: higher taxes and higher inflation, leading to lower growth and lower revenues, leading to still higher taxation. That is why, even though the Chancellor promised British businesses that she would not be back for more, she is now refusing to rule out even more taxes and tax rises in the autumn Budget. That is no wonder, because the National Institute of Economic and Social Research forecasts a £60 billion shortfall in the public finances—and that was before we had Labour MPs in open revolt about the slightly tiny welfare reforms and an unfunded commitment to increase defence spending by £40 billion.

In that worrying context, I hope the Minister can stand up and provide some certainty to SMEs by giving his assurance that the next Budget will not see a reduction in the registration threshold, or indeed an increase in the rate of VAT. I would like him to stand up and rule those out right now, for all of us to hear. I know that these assurances will fall short of the increase in the registration threshold that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire and other Members are looking for today, but it will provide more certainty if the Minister rules those things out.

I would also be grateful for an update on the so-called new business growth service, which the Government promised would be a “one-stop shop” for advice and support. That was supposed to launch in the first half of this year, but the Government’s industrial strategy has apparently now had to push that back to later this summer. Perhaps one reason for the delay is that the best advice a business growth service could possibly give anybody is “Do not vote Labour”. That is clear for us all to see.

SMEs probably have quite a lot of advice of their own for the Government, but unfortunately the going rate for speaking to a Labour Minister is apparently £55,000, and one has to endure the inevitable gloom of the Labour party conference. In the spirit of this debate, perhaps the Minister could confirm whether the price tag for meeting him is before or after VAT. Either way, like most Labour policies, I expect it will bring in less revenue than was first hoped.

[Mike Martin]

What is the going rate for meeting with a shadow Minister?

[Gareth Davies]

I am delighted that the Liberal Democrats are keen to meet us and are willing to pay for it. Perhaps we can speak afterwards, but his constituents can speak to me any time. We are always available, across the country.

This has been an excellent debate, with many views. It has highlighted the great importance of business to all our constituents, and I mean that seriously. The comments from colleagues on my side have illuminated the many different businesses that we have, whether it is Bloom Weddings, Chris and Annie’s business in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire; the fish and chip shops Old Time Fisheries and Kirkgate Fisheries in Keighley and Ilkley, which no doubt provide fantastic fish and chips but are unfortunately reducing their hours, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley pointed out; or Carmela’s in the great constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. All are having a hard time of it, but they remain excellent businesses. Some are, no doubt, places where we can all eat out.

The Liberal Democrats have made some important points. The hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) spoke about plumbers, and the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) about the hair and beauty salons and high streets in Mid Dunbartonshire.

This is an important debate to have. I am reminded of the last election when one party had a key policy in their manifesto around VAT thresholds, and that was Reform. However, I am afraid that when it comes to the hard graft of making the case in this place, the party is, yet again, nowhere to be seen.

I hope we can all agree that our country is stronger because of the men and women who get up every morning, go to work and drive our economy forward, as the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) said. At the heart of every successful economy is the simple fact that prosperity begins small. It begins with the family-run café on the high street, the corner shop, the book shop and the local butchers, and the single parent who is just launching their dream from their spare room or their garage. These are not just businesses. These are stories of people who had an idea, stuck it out and made it happen. When we pile on more and more burdens, when taxes climb too high and regulation tangles dreams in red tape, we do not just make it harder to do business; the hope of what might be possible completely dims. A free society depends on free enterprise. When we get out of the way and support small businesses, we are not just fuelling the economy but lifting communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire believes that lifting the VAT threshold will help achieve that, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

15:25

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

It is a pleasure to speak with you as Chair, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire for securing this debate. I feel that I am letting the side down by not having a quote from Napoleon to open my remarks, but I listened carefully to the hon. Member’s contribution to the debate, and to the contributions of all hon. Members, including the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) —and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). I hope that my remarks will address most of the points that they raised.

It is clear from all hon. Members’ contributions to this debate that, across the House, we agree on how valuable small businesses and entrepreneurs are to the local economies and communities in the areas we represent. As a Government, we recognise that contribution. Before I turn to the VAT threshold, the focus of this debate, I will briefly set out the wider support that the Government are providing to the small businesses that are so important in our constituencies across the country. That support includes measures set out only yesterday in the industrial strategy. A new business growth service will streamline small businesses’ access to Government support, advice and funding, providing the access that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson asked about. Reforms to public procurement will help small businesses to secure Government contracts. We will help small businesses to adopt new technologies. We will continue to tackle the challenge of late payments to SMEs. The Government are also planning to publish an SME strategy later this year, giving more detail on the Government’s wider offer for small businesses.

Hon. Members will also be aware that the Chancellor recently announced the 2025 spending review, which contained measures to support small businesses. In particular, the Chancellor increased the financial capacity of the British Business Bank to £25.6 billion, which will enable a two-thirds increase in support for small businesses across the UK. That support in the spending review sits alongside the Government’s support for small businesses through the tax system. We have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500 and expanded it to all eligible employers. We have frozen the small business rates multiplier to protect small properties from inflationary bill increases to business rates. We are introducing permanently lower business rates for smaller retail hospitality and leisure businesses from 2026, and we have committed in the corporate tax road map to maintaining the small profits rate and marginal relief at their current rates and thresholds, as well as maintaining the £1 million annual investment allowance.

I will now turn to the VAT threshold, which is the focus of this debate. As several hon. Members have said, a number of businesses have raised concerns about that threshold. In particular, they are concerned that the cliff edge of the £90,000 threshold, as it is, may disincentivise businesses that are close to the threshold from growing and surpassing it, and they have connected concerns about the level at which the threshold is set.

Let me first address the argument that the threshold disincentivises small businesses from growth as they approach it. I acknowledge that some businesses will take legitimate action to avoid reaching the VAT threshold, and will bunch just below that threshold. However, those businesses are a minority, accounting for around 0.5% of all businesses that are not VAT-registered. Some businesses, and indeed some hon. Members in this debate, have suggested that the Government should introduce a taper mechanism, in which the amount of VAT that businesses must charge is phased in. However, there is little evidence to suggest that a taper would tackle the bunching of businesses just below the threshold, although it would add additional complexity to the tax system. At £90,000, the UK has a higher VAT registration threshold than any EU member, and the joint highest in the OECD. That threshold keeps most UK businesses out of VAT altogether.

[Mike Martin]

I am sure that the Minister is aware that the UK is one of only three countries in Europe that does not offer a lower rate of VAT for hospitality and tourism. For example, France, Italy and Spain charge only 10% on those sectors. Will he consider lowering the rate for those sectors as part of the UK’s VAT regime to give our high streets the boost they need?

[James Murray]

I will turn to the questions that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have raised about VAT reliefs in a moment, but I will first finish the point about where the VAT registration threshold is set, because that is an important part of the debate.

It is worth reflecting on the fact that views on the threshold are divided. The case for change has been regularly reviewed over the years, because some businesses argue that a higher threshold would reduce their administrative and financial burdens. However, other businesses contend that a lower threshold would provide a fairer competitive environment, for instance in the hair and beauty sector.

The Government’s approach to the VAT threshold and applicable rates aims to balance the potential impacts on small businesses, including their growth and financial sustainability, with the economy as a whole and, of course tax, revenues. Although the Government always welcome hearing businesses’ views about how the tax system operates, we are not currently planning to change the design of the VAT threshold.

More broadly on VAT, the Government often receive calls from businesses, and indeed from hon. Members, to examine the rate of VAT for specific industries. VAT is a broad-based tax on consumption and the 20% standard rate applies to most goods and services. VAT is the UK’s third largest tax and is forecast to raise £180 billion in 2025-26. Of course, tax breaks have an impact on the public finances and they must represent value for money for the taxpayer, so exceptions to the standard rate have always been limited and balanced against affordability considerations. The assessment of any new VAT relief should consider whether the cost saving is likely to be passed on to consumers.

Fundamentally, the best support that we can provide to small businesses is economic growth. Delivering secure, strong and sustainable growth to boost prosperity and living standards across the UK is the Government’s No. 1 mission, as set out in our plan for change. That is why, when we took office, we took the necessary decisions to provide the stability that is so important for investment and growth by tackling the £22 billion hole in the public finances that we inherited from the previous Government.

[Robbie Moore]

I struggle to understand how the Minister can come out with these pre-written speeches and expect anyone to believe him. How can he say that stability has now been put back into the wider economy when many hard-working businesses, including the SMEs that many hon. Members have talked about in this debate, are struggling to deal with the consequences of employer’s national insurance contributions rising; the consequences of VAT, which we are debating today; and the consequences of the Employment Rights Bill, which are coming down the line? Yet he still stands at the Dispatch Box and comes out with the bizarre claim that the Government have installed stability with their plan for change. That is nonsense.

[James Murray]

I think the hon. Gentleman must be forgetting the recent history of this country’s economy when his party was in charge, because the many small businesses that I have met are not clamouring for a return to the economic chaos that we saw under Liz Truss or the 14 years of economic stagnation that his party presided over. The stability that we restored to the public finances and to the economy is an essential prerequisite for investment and growth; indeed, it is the foundation on which economic growth can succeed.

[Mr Angus MacDonald]

I am reluctant to come in on the side of the Opposition on this issue, but I can tell the Minister that my constituency has never suffered as much in my whole business career as it has since the Budget last year. National insurance increases and related increases have absolutely crucified business up there. If the Government cared to come up to the highlands and come round local businesses with me, they would be in for a real shock, but I strongly recommend that they do so.

[James Murray]

I do not recall the hon. Gentleman ever opposing extra investment in the national health service during his interventions in the main Chamber, because, of course, the decisions that we took around employer’s national insurance contributions were taken to stabilise the public finances and put our public services back on their feet. We acknowledged at the Budget last year, when we took those difficult decisions, that they would have consequences. However, we also acknowledged that no responsible Government could have let things continue as they were, or taken what we inherited from the previous Government without putting public finances back on a firm footing.

That is exactly what we have done from our first day in office. Alongside that essential work to steady the public finances, we have been removing barriers to growth by overhauling the planning system, launching a new National Wealth Fund and reforming our pension system to unlock billions of pounds. At the spending review earlier this month, we saw the Chancellor marking a key step in our growth mission by allocating substantial new capital investment to ensure that growth is felt across the country.

That investment will be further bolstered in the coming months by other reforms, including the industrial strategy published yesterday, and the 10-year infrastructure strategy published last week. A rising economic tide lifts all boats, big and small, and this Government believe that that should be the most important priority for supporting small businesses.

[Lewis Cocking]

We have all mentioned a number of businesses that think this Labour Government are taking the wrong direction. Can the Minister list the businesses in his constituency that believe that this Labour Government are taking the right direction for business growth in this country? If he lists the businesses in his constituency, we will go and ask them.

[James Murray]

I would typically ask businesses’ permission before I named them in the House of Commons, but I can reassure hon. Members that in conversations with businesses in my constituency, or indeed across the country in my role as a Minister, they understand the difficult decisions we took to restore stability to the public finances and to the economy. That is not to pretend for a moment that those decisions were not difficult and do not come with consequences, but most businesses I speak to recognise our difficult inheritance from the previous Government, and the importance of restoring stability to the public finances as an essential prerequisite for investment and growth.

What is most important is working hand in hand with businesses—whether they are small businesses in our constituencies or large businesses that operate across the country—and putting through the reforms that we know are needed. That includes making sure that the planning system is reformed, that the National Wealth Fund supports their investment, and that we are investing across the country to ensure there are jobs and growth in every part of the UK. That is what we are focused on, working in partnership with businesses, because we know how important that is.

[Jim Shannon]

Irrespective of the Windsor framework and the protocol issue, I understand that experts and businesses have suggested that the VAT threshold should be £250,000. The hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) referred to the fact that that would enable businesses to perhaps employ one or two apprentices or extra people in their companies, and help them to focus on a strategy for growth, which I know the Minister is committed to. Are there any circumstances in which the Minister would consider a £250,000 threshold, because of the benefits that it would clearly bring to all businesses in the United Kingdom?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He referred to the impact of the Windsor framework, which as he correctly pointed out, imposes an upper limit of just over £90,000 on the threshold in Northern Ireland. The Windsor framework is therefore relevant to the threshold in Northern Ireland and, by extension, to the Government’s decisions in Great Britain as well. The debate is becoming slightly wider than the question about the VAT threshold, but I can understand why that is the case. The VAT threshold—in fact, VAT as a whole—is only one of the factors in the landscape that businesses face.

Although we recognise that we have taken some difficult decisions on employer’s national insurance contributions, as I said earlier, the important point to focus on is the stability that those decisions have brought to the public finances and that they have put our public services back on their feet. Many businesses that I speak to recognise that they need their workforce to be healthy and to be able to get on a train and get to work.

Businesses need people who are coming out of school to be trained and to have the right skills to access the jobs of the future. They need the Government to create the right environment for growth, because private sector businesses will drive growth and create wealth and prosperity across the country. Businesses want a partner in Government who will provide the infrastructure, reforms and investment to enable them and everyone across our country to flourish. That is the wider context in which this debate takes place.

This debate has mostly been about the VAT threshold. It has taken a wide definition of the VAT threshold and its connected policies, but I understand why: the threshold sits within a wider context that affects small businesses. We all agree that small businesses are at the heart of all our local communities and economies, and we all want them to thrive. That is why the Government have taken steps to ensure that the tax system supports them. We have doubled the employment allowance, increased the small employers’ compensation rate, frozen the small business multiplier, introduced permanently lower business rates for smaller retail, hospitality and leisure businesses from next year, and committed to maintain the small profits rate and £1 million annual investment allowance.

The industrial strategy, published yesterday, goes even further to support small businesses, including by announcing the creation of a new business growth service that will streamline access to Government support, advice and funding for small businesses. The VAT threshold strikes a balance between keeping the majority of businesses out of VAT altogether while ensuring that we can support public services and maintain fiscal responsibility.

I thank you again for your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and, in particular, I thank the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire for securing the debate.

15:41

[Mr Bedford]

I thank the Minister for his speech. I ask him to take back to the Treasury the various arguments that have been put forward today, particularly about the benefits for the broader economy and for our local communities that could be achieved by reviewing the VAT registration threshold.

I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), who spoke about the benefits of doing so. She said that local businesses foster community pride, but that the tax system is very complicated for them.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), who said he is frustrated that the current system does not have a taper mechanism. I ask the Minister to look at that and consider my hon. Friend’s arguments about how that would benefit small businesses—particularly those that wish to grow.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), particularly for his arguments about the fish and chip shop industry and similar small businesses that are holding back their growth because they are on the cusp of the registration threshold. If they surpass it, additional costs and burdens will be placed on them.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about his frustrations, which I share, about how the Windsor framework constricts businesses in Northern Ireland and prevents them from being more competitive and on a par with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. I appreciate the intervention of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on the same point.

I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), who has particular expertise with VAT. As someone who holds apprenticeships and skills training in high regard, I appreciate his point that reviewing the threshold could enable smaller businesses to take on additional employees and train them in the trades that we need. Plumbers, electricians and other trades would really benefit from apprenticeships and similar types of training.

I thank the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), who spoke about the need for small businesses to be better supported, particularly by the Treasury, in dealing with the bureaucracy. She said that small businesses do not have the advantage of large HR functions or support networks to get them through the bureaucracy.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) for his points. He said that three fifths of employment in this country is in a small business, and that, particularly over the last year, businesses have had to contend with significant challenges posed by the new Government’s economic plan, including the national insurance hike, the business rates increase and the additional burdens placed on businesses by the Employment Rights Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of the VAT registration threshold on SMEs.

15:45

Sitting suspended.

Flood Defences: Chesterfield

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stuart in the Chair]

16:00

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of improving flood defences in Chesterfield.

I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the debate. Flooding is a critical issue for my constituents in Chesterfield and a problem impacting people right across the country. I have seen at first hand the appalling impact that flooding has on our communities. I keenly recall the floods in 2007, when I was a councillor for Rother ward on Chesterfield borough council, and how many of those who were flooded felt abandoned. Following those floods, I, along with Lifehouse church, Chesterfield rotary club and Soroptimist International Chesterfield, set up the Chesterfield flood victims appeal, which raised around £16,000 for flood victims without flood insurance. The work the appeal did, meeting flood victims and helping them as they tried to put their homes and lives together, had a lasting impact on me. It became clear that once someone had been a flood victim, they were forever a flood victim.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate forward. He is right to underline the issue for Chesterfield, but there is a real problem across all the United Kingdom. Thinking of my constituency, and Newtownards in particular, 25,000 houses and properties are in the floodplain, which is bolstered by the floodbanks to make sure they do not get flooded out, and one in 33 in the coastal areas are flooded as well. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is time to have a flood strategy not just for Chesterfield, but for all of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so we can respond in a more global way?

[Mr Perkins]

The hon. Gentleman is right that we need a holistic approach; I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that. Whichever community they are in, flood victims do not just lose irreplaceable possessions or even replaceable furniture and fittings; they lose the peace of mind that most of us take for granted. People in a property at risk of flood— as more than 6 million people across the United Kingdom are—live in fear, every single time there is heavy rain, that it will happen again. Those in flood risk areas will receive Environment Agency text warnings; in the weeks after the floods, every time they get those warnings, they will start lifting all their property upstairs in preparation for potential floods. After two or three false alarms, they stop doing that, but the fear of being flooded again never leaves them. Being insured is important but, even for those who are insured, being flooded and forced from their home for months at a time is a hugely disturbing and disrupting experience.

Following the 2007 floods, two things happened. First, in 2008 the Government, in conjunction with the insurance industry, updated the 2000 statement of principles, which subsequently morphed into the Flood Re scheme, which should mean that all residents, even in flood-hit areas, are able to obtain flood insurance. I stress to anyone who has been flooded that they can still get flood insurance through the Flood Re scheme. That is very important. Many of the people I met after the floods in 2023 said, “Oh well, no one will give us flood insurance round here.” They did not realise that with the Flood Re scheme, they could have been insured.

The second thing that changed was that we got a 250,000 cubic metre flood alleviation scheme on the River Rother at Wingerworth. Although that was welcome, Storm Babet, which hit Derbyshire so fearfully on October 20 2023, demonstrated that tragically, even that scheme was not enough in itself to keep Chesterfield safe. Storm Babet had a devastating effect on Chesterfield, leading to the River Rother and the River Hipper bursting their banks. As many as 600 homes and dozens of businesses were flooded, many of them the very same ones that were flooded in 2007. One of my constituents, Maureen Gilbert, tragically lost her life, drowned in the front room of her own home.

The economic cost to residents, businesses, communities and our nation is enormous. The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency estimated that the 2015-2016 winter floods cost the nation’s economy £1.6 billion. The risk of flooding and the associated costs are only projected to rise over the coming years, due to climate change. The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, has been investigating the Government’s approach to flooding resilience in England. We have heard from expert witnesses about the historical under-investment in flood defences across the country, and about the importance of investing in and maintaining existing flood defences, as well as building new ones.

In Chesterfield, while the Wingerworth flood basin was not enough to prevent that flooding in 2023, it has come into its own over this past winter, as the floods that hit on new year’s day and the following weekend did not lead to any further flooded homes. However, there is still a need for improved protection from flooding for residents on Tapton Terrace; in Brampton, around the Chatsworth Road area; in Birdholme, off the Derby Road; and around Horns Bridge roundabout.

In meetings with management at the Environment Agency locally, I was told that the cost of protecting the homes on Tapton Terrace would actually cost more than the homes would be worth to buy. I was told that it would be cheaper for the EA to buy them than to protect them, so I said, “Go on, buy them then. At least give these people peace of mind.” The truth is that many of the people who live in flood-hit areas lose so much of the value of their homes. For the vast majority of us, the value of our homes is the biggest and most expensive asset that we have. If a person’s house goes from £200,000 to £130,000 over the course of a day, there is nothing that they can do about that—they are effectively trapped in that property. In fairness, the Environment Agency investigated, but it came back and said, “Well, that isn’t something that we can do.”

I have to say that Tapton Terrace is a particular worry to me because of its proximity to the River Rother, whose geography means that the speed with which it floods poses a real risk to life—we have already had one fatality there. It is very hard to see how anyone living in those properties who does not have the mobility to get upstairs is not very seriously at risk, as Mrs Gilbert tragically was in 2023.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in areas where we have significant risk of flooding, it should be compulsory for schools to educate children on building flood plans as part of the curriculum? If people knew that there was a flood coming, they would then actually know what they should be doing. I know for a fact that, if people have a plan, they bounce back and their resilience is greater afterwards, if they become flooded.

[Mr Perkins]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point about the importance of plans and the issue of ensuring that children feel supported. The Minister and I are both former shadow Education Ministers, and we know there is no end to the number of things that people think should be on the school curriculum, but that is something that should be considered.

More broadly, communities need to understand that the Government cannot always build a wall and save them. On some occasions, particularly as we go forward, floods are going to happen, and there needs to be a local plan for how we support people during floods and protect life in those times. The whole community needs to be involved, and that is a very important point.

If the Government accept that in some cases they cannot do more to protect an area such as Tapton Terrace, can the Minister explain what mechanisms might be in place? Who do we need to get around the table to discuss a plan, which might involve knocking homes down and potentially building flood-resilient ones there? We previously had a plan about having all the living space on the first and second floor, and just garage space downstairs. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister how we can look at getting people around the table to discuss that.

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

In my constituency, which borders my hon. Friend’s constituency of Chesterfield, we are affected by exactly the same issues that he has been outlining with exactly the same rivers. I note how interlinked all this is—my hon. Friend has spoken previously about getting people round the table. One of the things I found frustrating was coming up time and time again against the issue of riparian owners and the vital role they play in maintaining water courses. Many riparian owners do so very diligently, but others are not even aware of their responsibilities. What should be the Government’s way forward on that?

[Mr Perkins]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is not one that I was planning to refer to, but I am sure that the Minister will respond to it because my hon. Friend is absolutely right. To an extent, we have taken for granted over the years the contribution that farmers and others play. They need to be compensated for it. Many of them want to be a part of that conversation, but it is very difficult in the current climate.

I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister joined me in Chesterfield earlier this year to see the Wingerworth flood basin in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) and hear why we need a similar scheme in Holymoorside to protect us all from the River Hipper.

I warmly welcome the Government’s recently announcement of significant funding for flood defences, including the record £2.65 billion in the next two years, a £4 billion injection for the three years after that and an additional £7.9 billion over the next decade. It is a welcome sign that the Government are taking flooding seriously. However, we are now waiting for the Government to consult on the revised formula, which will determine the allocation of that vital funding.

When an area is flooded, the local authority is compelled to produce a report, known as a section 19 report, to investigate how the local response worked and identify recommendations for future flood readiness. Derbyshire’s section 19 investigation took an inordinate amount of time to produce what is a relatively short document, and set out a number of potential recommendations and investigations. The final report took more than 16 months from the day of the floods before it was put before the county council’s cabinet for approval, and it appears that very little of that report has led to concrete action to mitigate the flood risk in Chesterfield. It will soon be two years since Storm Babet, and some people are still not able to return to their homes. If we have another flood event this autumn without my constituents seeing any significant efforts being made to protect homes and businesses, they will understandably feel very let down.

The section 19 report stated that, to protect central Chesterfield and Tapton Terrace, Derbyshire county council, in partnership with the Environment Agency, is looking to identify potential sites for flood storage within the Spital Brook catchment to slow its flow into the River Rother. It is also looking to identify potential sites for flood storage within the Holme Brook Catchment, including at Linacre Reservoir, to slow the flow of Holme Brook, again to protect central Chesterfield, Tapton Terrace and the Brampton area. The report also stated that DCC is exploring the feasibility of removing the bridge at Crow Lane near Tapton terrace, that the Environment Agency is investigating whether an updated dredging assessment is required on the Rother near Tapton Terrace and that the EPA is exploring options to be able to progress a scheme to deliver upstream flood storage on the River Hipper, which would also reduce flood risk to downstream communities in Chesterfield.

The option that is really needed is the major scheme on the River Hipper at Holymoorside, but it is unclear what other schemes are being considered, what investigations are taking place and when decisions will be made or work completed. I am also told that Yorkshire Water is investigating the feasibility of a storage measure at Horns Bridge, to be introduced during the next asset management programme period. I am pursuing that with Yorkshire Water. While I would always prefer to have a roundabout flooded rather than people’s homes, I would like to see some real urgency to act, as the closure of Horns Bridge roundabout brings Chesterfield to a standstill and hugely affects transport between the M1 and Sheffield, Derby and Manchester.

Derbyshire county council set up the Derbyshire Strategic Flood Group. I attended the first meeting, at which the council said it would start to investigate the costs and feasibility of the schemes I referred to. That was over 18 months after Storm Babet had taken place. The next meeting is not planned for months while that work is investigated. Again, that makes me question how seriously and urgently Derbyshire county council is taking its job of flood risk management.

The message I want the Government, Derbyshire county council, Yorkshire Water, the Environment Agency and all the other bodies involved to hear from this debate is that we need to see real urgency in the approach to reducing flood risk and protecting Chesterfield. Can the Minister explain what she can do to help me imbue the local authorities with more of a sense of urgency about these works, both large and small?

Secondly, does the Minister believe that the section 19 process is fit for purpose? If a section 19 report identifies the cause or causes of flooding and makes recommendations for what is needed to reduce the risk in future, but there are no statutory requirements on what measures are needed or even timescales for investigations into what work is needed to reduce the risk, how will the public have confidence in that process?

Thirdly, can the Minister update the House on her new funding formula and give us any indication on whether we are more likely to see flood funding for Chesterfield as a result? How will this formula be different from what went before? In the meantime, residents of Chesterfield are looking ahead to another potentially rainy autumn and winter. Can the Minister give the people of Chesterfield an assurance that she understands how desperately we need to see action to further protect people’s homes? Is she aware that the River Hipper scheme will also support a major regeneration project in Brampton on the former Robinson site, as well as more than 50 businesses flooded in 2023 and many more that were nearby and escaped on that occasion?

I am glad that I have had this opportunity to give voice to the frustration that flood victims in my constituency feel. I look forward to the Minister giving me some hope to take back to the people of Chesterfield following this debate.

16:16

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) is right to highlight the mental health impacts that flooding has on communities and individuals; he was also right to say that once someone has been flooded, they are always a flood victim. He discussed the appalling, awful and tragic loss of life in his constituency, as well as similar cases that we have seen, sadly, in other parts of the country. I hope it goes without saying that I am happy to give any assistance I can in getting people around the table.

I will have a look at why the section 19 report has taken so long and how it compares with other section 19 reports around the country so that I can understand what is happening: whether the one my hon. Friend has mentioned is an anomaly or whether it is standard—if it is standard, we clearly need to do something about that. Let me take that point away.

I hope that I can express, if nothing else, the urgency I feel when it comes to dealing with flood risk. My hon. Friend, and everyone else, is right to say that climate change is real and makes flood risks more common. We know from the NAFTA 2.0 reports that one in four homes will be at risk of flooding by the mid-century. The Government are putting in a record amount of funding, but at the same time climate change is making the situation worse. The situation is urgent.

I completely understand how anxious my hon. Friend’s constituents feel when, as he described, they see rainclouds and feel nervous about what will happen. It was really helpful to be in his constituency with him and see the schemes and the streets for myself. That helped me to really picture the individual circumstances they faced, so I thank him for that invitation. I spoke to the Environment Agency ahead of this debate, and want to give you an update—

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

You mean give him an update.

[Emma Hardy]

I can also give you an update, Mr Stuart, but I would like to give my hon. Friend an update, too. The EA recently completed the project to refurbish a section of the floodwall on the River Rother that was damaged during Storm Babet, and £75,000 of DEFRA flood defence funding has been allocated to the avenue for the storage reservoir, which my hon. Friend and I visited together. As he rightly said, it operated during Storm Babet, but there was still widespread flooding downstream.

That funding will allow the EA to investigate any improvements that can be made to how it operates to hopefully reduce more flood risks. The Environment Agency is working with the council to investigate the removal or raising of several bridges along the Rivers Hipper and Rother. That is at an early stage, but it will help us look at how to improve flow and reduce the risk of blockages, which is an issue that was raised previously.

In addition, the Environment Agency, Derbyshire county council and the Don Catchment Rivers Trust are exploring natural flood management opportunities for the Hipper and Spital Brook catchments—my hon. Friend knows I am a fan of natural flood management; I will come to the flood funding formula and how that can enable natural flood management. They have also secured just under £400,000 of funding towards the River Hipper flood alleviation scheme to support the development of the business case, so they are on to the development stage of the project. It includes £275,000 of local levy from the Yorkshire Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and £60,000 from Chesterfield borough council. The scheme will protect over 200 homes and businesses.

Pre our funding formula review, at this moment, the scheme is estimated to cost £16 million, with a funding gap of under £40 million, but that is under the current rules. However, that could change as a result of our funding rules. I will say a bit more about our funding consultation. The current approach to the flood funding formula was drawn up by the previous Government in 2011, and is outdated and not working as it should. It neglects more innovative approaches such as natural flood management. In fact, the solution the previous Government had was to set a separate fund for natural flood management rather than integrating it into how the formula works as a whole.

Our proposed change looks at full Government funding for the first £3 million of projects. That unlocks lots of natural flood management because many smaller natural flood management schemes are less than £3 million; they are struggling because they cannot get the partnership funding to close the gap. Fully funding projects up to £3 million means we can get on with the smaller schemes. Then there is a flat rate of 90% Government contribution and 10% partnership funding. If the project of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield is successful with the business case, it would be looking at 90% Government funding and having to find 10% partnership funding, which is very different from the current situation.

We would also fully fund the refurbishment of existing flood assets. Understandably, people say, “Why do we need partnership funding to maintain an asset that already exists?” Our flooding formula consultation says that we would fully fund refurbishment of assets as well.

The changes make natural flood management much easier. However, that means that many projects move through to the prioritisation stage. The first stage is: does it meet the tests to go through to prioritisation? Then there is prioritisation; even though we are putting a record amount of money into flooding, there is a certain amount there to be allocated, so the consultation looks at prioritisation. What do we want to prioritise when deciding which projects go ahead and which do not? Are we looking at very basic value for money in terms of numbers of properties protected? That would have an impact on rural communities. Are we looking at prioritising natural flood management? Are we looking at prioritising areas of deprivation? What are the prioritisation criteria? That is what the consultation asks. Are we prioritising “frequently flooded” as another criterion, to put weighting towards which ones actually go through to be built?

The consultation is happening at the moment. At this moment, I cannot say whether it would make it easier or harder for my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield to get his scheme developed. But the partnership funding that has held up my hon. Friend’s scheme would be dealt with under our consultation, because 90% would be Government funding and 10% would be partnership.

We need to prioritise which ones are done first. The consultation is genuinely open in listening to people about the criteria they want to prioritise. We obviously have to be really careful when spending any Government money and need a fair and transparent system when it comes to which projects get built first and which do not.

As has been mentioned, we are investing a record amount: £4.2 billion over three years to build, maintain and repair existing flood defences. That is a 5% increase in our annual average investment compared with our existing spend, which was already a record amount. I hope that demonstrates the Government’s commitment and sense of urgency. The current funding will continue to support 1,000 flood schemes, better protecting 52,000 homes and businesses by March 2026. On top of that, a further 14,500 properties will have their expected level of protection maintained or restored through essential maintenance activities.

As my hon. Friends know, we inherited flood defences in their worst state on record. The condition of key flood defences in England was at its lowest since the financial year 2009-10, with only 92% of assets at the required condition. In the current financial year, we are putting £430 million into constructing new schemes, and using a further £220 million to restore flood defences to the condition that they need to be in. That full list was published in March. Last week, we announced £7.9 billion of funding, which is the largest flooding programme in history, as part of our landmark infrastructure strategy.

We are introducing many other changes, but I can see that I am running out of time. On compulsory purchasing, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield recognises that the Environment Agency can compulsory purchase something only if it is for building a specific scheme. Sadly, he and others around the country have raised the problem of properties devaluing when they are continually at risk of flooding. I wonder whether in those particular circumstances, which I saw for myself, there is another conversation to be had about property flood resilience measures and whether more can be done to support those homes.

We have had a radical change with our flooding formula. It has made the system much simpler, so that people around the country can clearly understand that the first £3 million will be fully funded, and after that it will be 90% Government and 10% partnership funding. That is intended to equalise the system everywhere, because at the moment nobody quite understands why one scheme may have a partnership funding gap of £40 million, as in my hon. Friend’s case, and another may have no partnership funding gap at all. This formula makes the system much clearer.

I urge everybody to respond to the flooding consultation and to think about how they want Government money to be prioritised, so that we can protect as many people as possible from the devastating impact of flooding, which causes such a problem not only for the local economy but for mental health. We will continue to build and repair flood defences while delivering natural flood management and sustainable drainage systems, and we will make sure that this country is more resilient to floods.

Question put and agreed to.

16:27

Sitting suspended.

War Memorials

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the role of war memorials.

It is a pleasure to lead my first Westminster Hall debate under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank colleagues from across the House for joining me in this important discussion on the role that war memorials play in our communities and country. This Friday marks the centenary of Kirkcaldy’s war memorial and galleries, with commemorations running from the end of this week to a ceremony next Wednesday, with a military parade and some very special guests. I am leading the debate to pay tribute to those who have maintained Kirkcaldy’s memorial, galleries and gardens over the past century, as well as providing Members with an opportunity to raise important memorials in their own constituencies.

All of us in this House represent areas with war memorials. While our country has huge regional diversity, war memorials form a thread that runs through our national landscape, from the Cenotaph on Whitehall, just outside this place, to North Ronaldsay, the most northerly island of Orkney. Those quiet monuments to sacrifice bring us together and bind us. They remind us that no city, town or village has been spared the pain and loss that conflict has brought to the families of the fallen.

What we most admire about the more than 100,000 war memorials in Britain are, of course, their quiet beauty and the opportunity they afford for contemplation and remembrance, but it is also their inherently egalitarian nature that makes them so respected. Prior to the Boer war, our memorials celebrated great victories and leaders. Just up the road from this place, Trafalgar Square and Nelson’s Column serve as a reminder of that. Yet after the Boer war and the devastation of the first world war, it was widely accepted that we needed a new, more sombre and respectful form of remembrance, which did away with class and military rank, listing each soldier equally as an individual who had given their life for our country.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. In my constituency, I am proud to have a number of war memorials, such as Upper Gornal on Kent street and Woodsetton on Sedgley road. Does my hon. Friend agree that memorials are not just places for quiet reflection and paying our respects, but a physical site for learning and sharing knowledge with residents, so that we never forget the sacrifices that they made?

[Melanie Ward]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important point. I agree completely, and I will say some more about it shortly. There are a few who argue that war memorials, and our ceremonies and rituals around them, glorify war. I stand here as a former humanitarian aid worker who has served in war zones. I strongly believe that remembering the fallen does not glorify war. In fact, the opposite is true. It serves as a reminder of the human cost of war, the sacrifice of individuals and groups, and the devastating gaps that their deaths leave in the places where they lived and within the people whose lives their presence enriched. That is why, all these years on, we choose to remember them.

Of course, I want to talk about some of the beautiful memorials in my constituency. In November, as many of us did, I attended Remembrance Sunday events. For me, they were at Cowdenbeath’s memorials, and I also laid wreaths in Burntisland, Aberdour and Inverkeithing, and I attended Kirkcaldy’s memorial. There are also memorials in Dysart, Dalgety Bay, Crossgates, Kinghorn and North Queensferry. The beautiful commemorative first world war stained-glass window in the now sadly closed Auchtertool kirk has a link to this place, as its designer, Ballantine, also designed windows in the House of Lords.

However, I give special mention to Kirkcaldy’s war memorial, galleries and gardens, which were unveiled 100 years ago this coming Friday. They were the gift of John Nairn, whose family’s linoleum-manufacturing business made Kirkcaldy the linoleum capital of the world. He paid for the construction in memory of his only son, Ian Nairn, who was killed in the Somme in 1918. The memorial in Kirkcaldy is a focal point of our town. It is one of the first things that people see as they leave the train station and head to the town centre, and its award-winning galleries have a large collection of paintings by William McTaggart and Samuel Peploe, and they have hosted exhibitions by Diane Arbus and Fife’s own Jack Vettriano, who was heavily influenced by the works on display in the galleries.

The centenary commemorations begin this Friday, when I will have the solemn honour of beginning the reading of the names of the more than 1,500 dead recorded on the memorial. Each name will be read out one by one over the weekend, from those who lost their lives in the first world war to Sergeant Sean Binnie who died in Helmand, Afghanistan in May 2009, while serving with the Black Watch.

Sean joined the Army in 2003 and served with his battalion in Iraq and the Falkland Islands. He was later deployed on Operation Herrick in Afghanistan, training Afghan troops to fight the Taliban. On 7 May 2009, Sean Binnie was killed, aged 22, during a firefight with Taliban insurgents in Helmand province, while serving as part of the battle group mentoring the Afghan national army. My thoughts, along with those of the whole House, are with his family.

On Wednesday next week, as we in Kirkcaldy hold the service to mark the centenary of the memorial, we will remember Sean and all those who died serving their country. We will think of the gaping holes that their loss has inflicted on those who love them most, and on our communities who raised them. The service would not have happened without the dedication of Kirkcaldy Royal British Legion Scotland, in particular its amazing chair, Bill Mason, and secretary, Ray Davidson, as well as our Deputy Lord Lieutenant Jim Kinloch, who have worked tirelessly to ensure that the names of the fallen featured on the memorial and Kirkcaldy’s veterans are remembered for their sacrifices.

The role that the RBLS Kirkcaldy and the Kirkcaldy United Services Institute, better known as the KUSI club, play in supporting veterans in our community is outstanding. I pay special tribute to the many volunteers in Kirkcaldy who, when asked to knit 1,500 poppies for the centenary, ended up knitting more than 8,000. Those poppies have been attached to nets that now cascade down the central tower at the memorial and dress the balcony. The ceremony will match the serenity and importance of our war memorial in Kirkcaldy. I pay tribute to all involved and ask the Minister, in her remarks, to join me in commending them.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Stuart. In my constituency, Bedworth is rightly called the town that never forgets. On 21 September 2021, the Bedworth Armistice Committee unveiled the Bedworth peace podium, to mark the international day of peace.

Hundreds of children submitted poems and words as part of the project, an important reminder that we must ensure that the next generation learns and understands our country’s history. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must continue to invest in war memorials, and ensure that our young people never forget the sacrifices made by our armed forces and the wars that this country has fought?

[Melanie Ward]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important remarks. There is also a peace part of the memorial in Kirkcaldy, which is an important way to integrate those values into the overall memorial.

I have said a lot about the importance of our memorial to our town of Kirkcaldy, but it has not been free of problems in recent years. In January, it fell victim to an arson attack, the third attack on the memorial in two years. That was not just reckless vandalism; it was an affront to those who gave their lives serving our country and our town. I am glad that an individual was charged with wilful fire-raising in the aftermath.

That raises another issue of how we protect and cherish our memorials, and how we prosecute those who seek to desecrate them. Although I understand that this is a justice issue and, therefore, devolved to the Scottish Government, I ask the Minister to outline how the UK Government plan to strengthen protections for war memorials across the country.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. Does she agree that the desecration of such memorials almost defies belief? It was reported to me today that a granite memorial to the men who died at the battle of Somme, which we commemorate next Tuesday on 1 July, was stolen from a small memorial garden in Coleraine in my constituency. Will she join me in condemning that? I hope that we can get across what the men at the Somme did to get freedom, and that that will have some minor impact on people whose knowledge of those contributions appears to be zero.

[Melanie Ward]

I thank the hon. Member for his important remarks, and I am really sorry to hear about that theft. It is completely unacceptable, and I agree completely that education has a really important part to play. There are so many organisations that play a part in that, including the British Legion and others. We have to educate the next generation so that they understand the importance of these memorials: they are not just pieces of stone; they are memorials to real people who gave their lives for something really important. They made a sacrifice for us all.

Of course, it was not just those in Britain who laid down their lives to fight for the freedoms that we enjoy today. This week we celebrate Armed Forces Day, and we also celebrate Windrush Day, when we celebrate the contribution of migrants to our country. Not only did those from across the Commonwealth fight and die for our freedoms, but they, their children and their grandchildren helped us in building the society, the economy and the public services that were created in the aftermath of the second world war. That is why Kirkcaldy’s war memorial stands alongside memorials in Delhi, Kingston and Sydney.

I have outlined the role that war memorials play in our civic life, our national identity and our national story. They remind us of those who came before us and why we are here: to enjoy the freedoms that many across the world do not currently enjoy. Every day, we walk past the memorial a few yards away that commemorates the parliamentarians, their families and their staff who lost their lives in both world wars. It is a poignant daily reminder in the centre of British democracy that we are here to maintain those freedoms and to care for those less fortunate than ourselves.

As Kirkcaldy’s war memorial marks its last 100 years, it is up to all of us to ensure that it is preserved for the next 100 years. My experience as an aid worker has proved to me that the 21st century is not immune to the bloody destruction that marked much of the 20th century, but we must always carry forward the names of those on the memorials in our constituencies and strive for a better and more peaceful world in their memory. They are, after all, the reason we are here today.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. Speakers have around four minutes—that is an informal initial steer.

16:42

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. More importantly, I thank the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for her passionate and completely accurate portrayal of the role of memorials in community life today. Obviously, my constituency of Strangford—well, maybe it is not obvious; Members may not do not know this, but I hope they do—

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

Oh, I am sure they do.

[Jim Shannon]

Well, they will know about it before I have finished anyway. Newtownards in my constituency of Strangford has always had a history and tradition of serving in uniform, whether it be in the Army, the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force. I declare an interest: I served in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Artillery for 14 and a half years as a part-time soldier.

After the great war, a memorial was erected in Newtownards, acknowledging the sacrifice of so many. A cenotaph made out of plywood was erected by members of the British Legion in Conway Square in 1925 for the Somme commemoration ceremony. The first wreaths were laid at 7.30 am. The reason why the time was important is that that was the time at which the Ulster Division made its attack on 1 July 1916.

After the Somme service, in 1927 members of the Newtownards British Legion conceived the idea of erecting something of a more permanent character. The volunteers made a concrete cenotaph modelled on the same lines as the temporary structure. It was constructed in the grounds of the legion headquarters on land that had been secured from the County Down railway. It is a step down memory lane to think of the County Down railway—that has been away from before I was born, I think.

On the face of the upright standard are the words, “Our Glorious Dead”. The first base is inscribed with, “In Memory of Our Fallen Comrades”, and on the next are the words, “The Great War”. The hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy referred to all those things when she set the scene incredibly well. There is a third step, and then an outer verge. Despite the erection of the permanent memorial in 1934, commemoration events were still being held at the plywood cenotaph as late as 1941.

I first attended the Remembrance Sunday parade when I was in the Army—a long, long time ago—and I have attended since I became a councillor on Ards borough council in 1985. It is always a very poignant occasion to go along and pay respects to those who, as the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy said, gave us the liberty, the freedom and the democracy that we now have. As custodians of those things, we hope to carry them on to the next generation.

At our annual Remembrance service, the names of the fallen are often read out. There are so many names on that list that are still so popular in our town, which is so poignant and impactful. I believe that consideration of the level of sacrifice that was made for the freedom and security of our nation and this world is an essential component of community life.

Schoolchildren are brought to see the Cenotaph, but of course additional memorials have been erected since. There is a memorial to the members of the Polish air force who served, including at the airfield at Ballyhalbert, in the second world war. Of course, some of them came to Northern Ireland, met some of our young ladies, fell in love with them, married them and did not go home again. Some of those Polish guys stayed in Northern Ireland over all those years, which is important to recognise.

There is a memorial dedicated to the members of the 70th Battalion, Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers who were killed in the second world war, and in remembrance of all the civilians and service personnel who lost their lives in the first and second world wars.

There is also a small monument for the UDR Four. I knew three of those four Ulster Defence Regiment men, who were murdered by the IRA. The memorial for them down at Ballydugan in Downpatrick was damaged, but we were able to get Ards to take it on and we have it in Newtownards.

The blood of all our forefathers, in our Army, Navy, Air Force, Royal Ulster Constabulary and prison service, is worthy of honour and we must continue to honour it well in this nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We always do it better than anybody else.

16:46

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Stuart.

It is reported that in Derbyshire we have well over 3,000 memorials, and some estimate that there are as many as 4,000. They range from crosses, obelisks, cenotaphs, columns, statues, boards, plaques and tablets to documents such as rolls of honour or books of remembrance, paintings, prints, tapestries, flags, banners and photographs. The variety is vast. Those memorials can be found in a variety of places among our towns and villages—in village halls, churches and chapels, clock towers, gates and gardens, and a whole host of other settings.

I have already spoken in support of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the work that it does in my constituency of South Derbyshire. However, I want to mention some of the other memorials, and their variety, in the villages dotted across South Derbyshire.

There is a magnificent plaque with raised gold lettering in All Saints’ parish church in Aston on Trent, commemorating those lost in the great war. There is a grey stone tablet attached to the front of the village hall in Burnaston as a tribute to those who fell in the first world war. In Ticknall, in the grounds of the village hall, there is a magnificent plaque encased in wrought iron as a tribute to those who fell in world war one. It is decorated with 19 wrought-iron poppies extending around the case, with the flowers forming a border. The poppies represent the 19 people from Ticknall who fell in world war one.

Overseal has a delightful memorial garden that is surrounded by a fence, with wrought-iron gates at the front and an arch above. Two rectangular metal plaques are attached to a granite block, with the names of the 31 people from Overseal who died in the two world wars. It was wonderful to attend the Remembrance Sunday celebrations in Overseal in November.

In St Mary’s church in Coton in the Elms, the fallen are commemorated in a framed and glazed print roll of honour, with a red and black border containing oak sprays, shields and mottos, and names handwritten in ink in three columns. In Swarkestone parish council, the roll of honour is mounted on the wall and framed, with the names of the fallen written in red, black and blue.

Let us recognise the supreme sacrifice that was made for us so long ago in the two world wars and, at a time of renewed conflict in the world, the sacrifice of so many members of our armed forces in the conflicts since, which continue across the globe. This Armed Forces Week, it seems particularly pertinent to do so, so I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy for securing this really important debate.

16:49

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for securing the debate.

Like everybody else, I will speak about the importance of war memorials, not just as statues but as living symbols of remembrance that link our past to our present and help us shape the future that we want to build together in this country. Each war memorial—a cenotaph, a plaque or something practical such as a hospital wing or a bus shelter—is unique. These monuments build cohesion and serve as a method of remembrance for local communities. Sometimes the names etched on memorials are the only place where those individuals are remembered, so it is vital that we preserve them. Through them, we honour the sacrifices and courage and—a vital point in this divided and polarised world—our shared history.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that something that makes the erection and maintenance of war memorials so much more poignant is that they are often paid for by the local communities themselves? They raise the money, and they continue to do so many years later. Only last weekend, I was at Marchwood village hall in my constituency, looking at a presentation about the war years with residents of that village in order to raise money to restore and refurbish their war memorial.

[Shockat Adam]

I agree: that local link with the community connects the past and the future.

As we remember, we must also reflect. It is painful to acknowledge that the stories that we tell through our war memorials have been incomplete for far too long. Animals that were sacrificed in the war efforts were rightly honoured with a national memorial in Hyde park in 2004, yet black and Asian soldiers who fought, bled and died for Britain have only recently begun to receive dedicated recognition. That is a shame that we as a nation must not shy away from.

More than 1.3 million soldiers from British India, including 400,000 Muslims and 100,000 Sikhs, served with dignity and honour in world war one. More than 53,000 lost their lives, and at least 2.5 million Muslim soldiers and labourers from across the globe supported the allied war effort. In fact, more than 9,000 soldiers from Palestine fought for Britain in world war two, and yet their stories remain largely erased from our national consciousness. As recently as 2021, a report from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission concluded that hundreds of thousands of predominantly black and Asian service personnel were not formally commemorated like their white comrades—a legacy underpinned by systemic racism at the time.

Who we remember and how we remember them matters, especially in these times of amplified fault lines. War memorials are not just stones and bronzes, but teaching tools. They are historical touchstones that allow young people to understand the past and the diverse sacrifices that were made in building this country and defending its freedoms. Excluding the contribution of black and Asian soldiers distorts our understanding of our shared history.

I am proud that in my city of Leicester, we now have a statue commemorating Sikh soldiers. It was unveiled in 2022, making it a long-overdue tribute to a community that made up more than 20% of the British Indian Army during world war one. I also welcome the plans to erect a national Muslim war memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum. That monument will finally give permanent recognition to the service and sacrifices of Muslim soldiers who fought for this country.

There is still much more to do. War memorials must do more than help us remember. They must tell the truth fully and fairly, and help us understand that British history was not built by one group alone but by people from every corner of the world. Memorials are and must always be more than stone and metal; they are symbols of our history and, when reflected accurately, our unity.

16:53

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) on securing this important debate on the role of war memorials.

Glasgow North is home to the Western Necropolis, where nearly 500 service personnel from both world wars are laid to rest in Commonwealth war graves. Among them are Canadians, Australians and even American volunteers who served in Commonwealth forces. Their graves are a solemn reminder of Glasgow’s role as a hub of military activity, from shipbuilding on the Clyde to the hospitals that cared for the wounded. The care and preservation of such sites is about not just maintenance but memory and ensuring that the stories of those who served are not lost to time and neglect.

Remembrance must not only look back; it must evolve to reflect the full breadth of our shared history. Recently, I had the opportunity to visit the Kelvingrove Museum with representatives of Colourful Heritage, which has been closely involved with a new exhibition that highlights the contribution of the more than 4 million British Indian Army soldiers who served in the two world wars. It is a striking and necessary addition to our understanding of those conflicts. Colourful Heritage has already done important work in schools across Scotland, helping young people to engage with this history. It is now taking the next step, with partners, to establish Scotland’s first permanent memorial to the British Indian Army in the grounds of Kelvingrove. Planning permission is in progress, and the design reflects the diversity of those who served: Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and those with no religious faith.

The memorial will also acknowledge the unique connection between Scotland and Force K6, the all-Muslim Punjabi regiment stationed in Scotland, via Dunkirk, during the second world war. Their story, like so many others, deserves a permanent place in our national landscape of remembrance. I hope the Minister can offer support for that initiative. As we reflect today on how we maintain and fund war memorials and support them, it is worth recognising that remembrance is not static; it evolves. It must reflect the full breadth of those who served and sacrificed. That work being done in Glasgow is a meaningful example of that evolution.

16:56

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for securing this important debate.

In preparing for this debate, it occurred to me that war memorials are significant in a variety of ways. The first and most personal is their importance to the families of those who died in war. My great-uncle Philip Ferguson served in the 75th Squadron of the RAF Volunteer Reserve. Philip was one of 13 children, but a combination of age and reserved occupations meant that he was the only one to serve in the second world war. Unfortunately, on 22 January 1943, Philip’s plane was shot down over the channel. For a time, he was officially listed as missing, but it quickly became clear that he had been killed. Clearly, his body was never recovered, so there was no funeral, and until the national memorial at Runnymede was established in 1953, there was no official record of his service and death. To the family, it is important that his name is recorded, and I very much look forward to visiting Runnymede to see the memorial for myself.

Memorials are also important to communities. In 2010, after a considerable amount of lobbying and hard work, a memorial was created and dedicated at Knightswood Cross in my Glasgow West constituency. Terence McCourt, himself a Parachute Regiment veteran and a charity fundraiser, was recently recognised with the award of an MBE, in part for his efforts to secure that memorial. It is the rallying point for all the commemorations that take place in the area, most of them also organised by Terence, but outwith those days, it is always good to see people sitting on its benches, admiring the flowers and perhaps reflecting on their own family’s service.

The third way in which memorials are important is in giving communities a sense of place. I served for some time as a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and my constituency contained part of an area now so ably served by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes). The area in question was, until the 1960s, the location of a great many tenemental properties. One particularly short street was called Lyon Street, and the 1901 census tells us that there were a dozen tenement buildings housing around 1,500 people. It really does beggar belief. Sometimes, according to the census, families of eight or nine took in lodgers to help to pay the rent. From that street, 211 men volunteered to fight in world war one. They served in every Scottish regiment: the Cameronians, the Highland Light Infantry, the Black Watch, the Royal Scots Fusiliers and the Seaforth Highlanders. Forty-five never came home, 27 were wounded and two were missing in action. Immediately after the first world war, Lyon Street was recognised as the most decorated street in Britain.

Unfortunately, nothing now remains of Lyon Street—it does not exist any longer, and even the plaque commemorating the fallen has long since disappeared. When I was the local MSP, I tried hard to locate it, but it seems to have been lost forever. However, the site is now home to St Joseph’s primary school, and the pupils and staff arranged their own memorial and honour the fallen every year.

I mention Lyon Street because researching the story made me realise that this part of Glasgow has changed completely since the world war. Lyon Street has gone and the overcrowded tenements have gone, but the memory of those men, and the place that was their home, is still alive—not least thanks to the pupils of St Joseph’s, who although separated from the first world war by more than 100 years, understand the importance of remembering.

17:00

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for securing the debate.

In Portsmouth North, we are proud of our naval heritage and deep connection to those who serve. Our war memorials are more than stone and metal; they are living markers of sacrifice, service and the values that we hold dear. In St Peter and St Paul church in Wymering, there is a wooden shrine with five panels listing 62 names from world war one and world war two; positioned in the churchyard corner, it has been carefully maintained and restored over decades. The Portsdown hill D-day window, in Christ church in Portsdown, is a beautiful stained glass window depicting St Michael, St George and the Normandy landings. The Nelson monument at the summit of Portsdown hill is a 37 metre granite memorial that was dedicated in 1808 to Admiral Lord Nelson and funded by naval subscription. Although not a war memorial in the modern sense, it is an early tribute to naval heroism.

From the Portsdown hill memorials that honour the Royal Regiment of Artillery and those lost in both world wars to the Paulsgrove war memorials, the plaques inside St Michael’s church, and the silhouettes of soldiers on the lampposts across our city, commemorating individuals who fell during the wars—these sites connect generations. They are places where our communities come together on Remembrance Sunday and beyond to reflect, remember and recommit ourselves to peace.

The sites also have an educational role. I have seen young people from local schools visit our city war memorials and begin to understand history, not as something distant but as something personal. That is why it is so important that we protect, preserve and promote such spaces. Recent attacks on war memorials are attacks on our shared history and those who gave their lives for our freedom; they are disgraceful and must be met with zero tolerance.

I thank all those volunteers, whether with charities, movements or small community groups, for the work they do on the upkeep of these memorials. I urge all MPs to work with our local authorities, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, community groups and our schools to ensure that war memorials across our country, including those in Portsmouth North, are properly maintained and understood, and that they serve as civic spaces and not just historical artefacts. In remembering the past, we strengthen our shared future.

17:03

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) on securing this important debate.

Knowing their history, I always find war memorials particularly poignant places to visit. Our local memorials all tend to stem from the example set by the Cenotaph as a place of remembrance. I understand that more than 1 million people passed by the Cenotaph in its first week, when it was just a temporary structure. What always strikes me is that these places were usually erected by public subscription and because of the will of local people.

We should bear in mind that war memorials were built as places where people could go to remember the fallen from their town—their brothers, fathers, uncles, nephews or sons—because the possibility of travelling to the final resting places in France or beyond would have been outside the realms of reality for most working-class people at the time. I prepared for today’s debate by listing some of the war memorials that I knew around my constituency; I realised that if I were to list them all, we would be here for quite a while. It is extraordinarily poignant to see these memorials in the place where I now live and am very proud to call home, and to imagine people more than 100 years ago having no way to go to their loves ones’ resting places; these memorials were the only places that they could go to remember.

When we passed the memorial in the town centre, my oldest daughter asked, “What is that?” and I explained, “It’s a place to remember and say thank you.” [In British Sign Language: To remember and say thank you]. She signed that back to me, and really brought home that this is what they are: places to remember with deep gratitude the sacrifice that was made.

I will touch on a few of my war memorials as others have, because I want to highlight the proud history they brings to my area. In Purfleet-on-Thames the existing war memorial, which lists the names of the men who gave their lives in the two world wars, has been joined by a memorial to the Gurkhas, of whom we have a sizeable population in my constituency. I was recently very honoured to attend the Gurkha Regiment home in Kent and to see the real proud history and bond between the Gurkha Regiment, our armed forces and our country. I felt a real sense of honour and pride to have that memorial so close to my home. I would encourage people, if they are ever around my area, to visit it; it is a beautiful remembrance of people who have given their lives in the service of our country.

In Tilbury, in the civic square, there is a war memorial that stands proud, maintained by members of the Royal British Legion. Little Thurrock, with a smaller memorial, is visited every 11 November by a jogging group who pay their respects as they pass by. In Aveley village, in the corner of the war memorial gardens, sits a unique memorial to Lance Corporal Nicky Mason, who died in Afghanistan in an act of service in 2008, illustrating the ongoing nature of conflict and our gratitude for those who serve. In Ockendon, I met a woman approaching her centenary whose brother is on the war memorial. She said with great pride, “I’m going to be buried quite close to him any day now.” That is some of the spirit of the people in my patch. In Chafford Hundred, the war memorial is just on the corner of a road. On Remembrance Sunday, residents give up a portion of their front gardens so that the local brass band can unite us all in song.

I conclude by briefly touching on something that the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) mentioned: those who are not recorded on our war memorials. I found it quite shocking to learn that women from both world wars who died in service are not actively recorded on war memorials as a matter of routine. One woman, Grace Mary Potter, was born in Thurrock and served in the Auxiliary Territorial Service. While serving in Kent, she died as a result of a bomb blast, yet her name does not appear on any war memorial to this day. I hope the Minister will reflect on that in her closing remarks. Will she meet either me or representatives who are working to get women’s names on war memorials? I would be very grateful.

17:07

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

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for securing this very important debate during Armed Forces Week.

Throughout the UK, more than 100,000 war memorials have been erected in towns, villages, schools, churches, parks and cemeteries. Some are grand in scale and others modest and simple—but each tells an important story and bears witness to the sacrifice and the grief of those left behind. Most of those memorials were not commissioned by Government but by communities, raised through bake sales, church appeals and private donations, by families who lost sons, daughters, friends and neighbours and needed somewhere to grieve, to remember and to say they mattered.

That spirit of local dedication must never be taken for granted. Successive Governments have taken the position that war memorials are a private matter, and the Ministry of Defence has not formally intervened in what a war memorial commemorates or how it is maintained, so as not to favour one commemoration over another. However, in practice responsibility falls to overstretched councils or passes quietly from one hand to another until someone takes up the role of ensuring these memorials are not forgotten. I want to take this opportunity to thank those who take up that charge.

The Liberal Democrats believe war memorials are an essential part of our national fabric, reminding us not only of sacrifice but of the values we are meant to uphold: peace, service, dignity and freedom. In the wake of two world wars and many later conflicts, these sites remain powerful spaces for public reflection across generations and communities.

In my constituency, we are fortunate to have powerful examples. The Epsom cemetery war memorial, unveiled in 1921, is a striking 18-foot granite cross, flanked by granite walls bearing the names of 265 local residents who lost their lives in the first world war. Epsom’s Commonwealth war graves memorial, with the names of 148 men—Canadians, Australians, Gurkhas and others from across the empire—reminds us that sacrifice did not know borders. That is why we also welcome a more inclusive national memorial. We fully support the plans for permanent memorials to Muslim service personnel and to LGBT veterans, both due to be constructed at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire.

Memorials serve as guardians of our shared memory, and remembrance must speak to all who served and reflect the full breadth of our shared history. We must continue to empower local authorities, charities and communities to care for these memorials. Every name etched in stone represents a life lived, a family changed forever and a sacrifice that should never be forgotten. Every memorial, no matter how humble, deserves our care, and as a society we have a duty to ensure that future generations not only see them but understand and pay respect to the brave people they represent.

17:10

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, as we debate the important topic of war memorials and the fallen whom they commemorate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) on securing this debate. It seems fitting that we are debating this topic in Parliament during Armed Forces Week.

According to estimates from the War Memorials Trust, a charity that works to protect and conserve war memorials, there are more than 100,000 war memorials across the United Kingdom. They range in size and style—from the Cenotaph in Whitehall, around which we centre our national act of remembrance every November, to the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire, down to the humblest war memorials in small hamlets across the country, and even the individual headstones in churchyards throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

My first official duty, when I had the privilege of becoming the Veterans Minister in the Ministry of Defence back in 2012, was to travel to the National Memorial Arboretum and to lay a wreath to commemorate the sacrifice of our armed forces personnel down the ages. There are now over 100 different types of memorial at the arboretum, and we have heard from several hon. Members of further ones to follow, which I welcome. I was there most recently last August, when a special ceremony was held to mark the presentation of a cheque for £250,000 from Mr Craig Moule, the industrious chief executive of Sanctuary housing association, to the Soldiers’, Sailors’ and Airmen’s Families Association—commonly known as SSAFA—whose tie I am honoured to be wearing this afternoon.

A crucial role in the preservation of war memorials is undertaken by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which was founded by royal charter in 1917, before the first world war had even ended. It works on behalf of the Governments of Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom to commemorate the 1.7 million men and women from the Commonwealth who lost their lives in now two world wars. The commission’s declared mission is

“to ensure those who died in service, or as a result of conflict, are commemorated so that they, and the human cost of war, are remembered for ever.”

Down the years I have visited a number of the commission’s memorials, particularly those on the western front, such as the one at Thiepval, which commemorates the fallen at the battle of the Somme, and Tyne Cot for those who fell at Passchendaele.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

As the Member for Surrey Heath, I am proud to have Brookwood military cemetery, one of the largest Commonwealth War Graves Commission sites in the UK, in my constituency. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in paying tribute to the work of the commission in not only preserving our history and heritage, but advancing the education of young people so that they remember the sacrifices of those who have gone before us?

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts me, but for the avoidance of doubt, most certainly—I am a great fan of the commission.

In total, the commission cares for large memorials down to individual graves in some 23,000 locations, encompassing more than 150 countries and territories around the world. I recently visited Rayleigh cemetery in the heart of my constituency. It has a number of individual wartime graves, which are beautifully tended by the commission.

In this context, I highlight a book published earlier this year by the acknowledged author Dr Tessa Dunlop, entitled simply, “Lest We Forget” with the subtitle “War and Peace in 100 British Monuments”. This excellent book summarises a whole variety of war memorials, commemorating events dating back to Roman times, right up to the present day. For the avoidance of doubt. I am not on commission from Dr Dunlop’s publishers, but I did meet her during the production of the book, not least because the 99th in her century of war memorials is located in my constituency at a place called Aaron Lewis Close in Hawkwell. Lieutenant Aaron Lewis was a commando gunner from 29 Commando Regiment, who was tragically killed during a mission in Afghanistan back in 2008. Working with the local authority, Rochford district council and the then-developer David Wilson Homes, we managed to arrange for a small square on that new development to be named in Aaron’s honour. At its centre is a memorial garden with a carved bench which commemorates Aaron’s service. For her book, Tessa Dunlop interviewed Helen Lewis, Aaron’s mother, who along with her husband Barry, have channelled their understandable grief at the loss of their son to create a wonderful charity called the Aaron Lewis Foundation, which has helped to raise hundreds of thousands of pounds, including to provide rehabilitation equipment for wounded service personnel.

Similarly, we now also have Samuel Bailey Drive in Hockley, named after Squadron Leader Sam Bailey, an RAF navigator who died in a tragic mid-air collision between two RAF tornadoes flying out of RAF Lossiemouth over a decade ago. There are 2,000 or more military charities in this country, ranging from the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes and SSAFA, down to individual charities often founded by family members following the death of a loved one in combat. Clearly, it would be impossible, to name all of those charities this afternoon, but nevertheless, I should like to pay tribute to the work of all of them collectively. To paraphrase that famous wartime medley, when talking about the plethora of military charities we have in this country, perhaps I could just say, “Bless them all, the long and the short and the tall”. Dr Tessa Dunlop has written an exceptional book, and I can thoroughly commend it to anyone who is interested in the whole subject of war memorials and everything they represent.

I think we have 13 minutes left, Mr Stuart, so I will just take two more.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Twenty seconds.

[Mr Francois]

Although I have already mentioned the National Memorial Arboretum, I would be failing in my duty as an Essex MP were I not to highlight Essex’s own version, which is known as the Living Memorial, at White House Farm in Rettendon. It was founded by enlightened landowners, Peter and Fran Theobald, a former RAF servicewoman, in 2009. I have visited a number of times down the years, including at the dedication of a memorial organised by the Rayleigh branch of the Royal Naval Association, of which I have the honour of being a member.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Mr Francois]

We have got 12 minutes left, sir.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

We have, and I am chairing. You are not.

17:18

[The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. It is quite clear from the debate today that many Members here, and probably many who have not made it to the debate, could speak at length about the memorials in their own constituencies. I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) on securing the debate and highlighting the importance of war memorials in Britain, particularly in this armed forces week, when many of our minds turn to remembering the service of people in our armed forces. That includes, of course, remembering those who have sacrificed for our futures, their own.

The first duty of every Government is to protect its people, but it can only do so by asking men and women of our armed forces to do extraordinary things. They step forward, as is clear in today’s debate, from every corner of our United Kingdom—every hamlet, every village, every town, and every city, to serve with courage, commitment and resilience, separated from their loved ones and often in difficult and dangerous situations. It is no surprise, therefore, that communities left behind, and who have lost loved ones to conflicts that we have been involved in over the years, seek thereafter to commemorate and to do so in perpetuity to the extent that they can.

The story that my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy told about her war memorial reaching its 100th anniversary today could be replicated around the country, but it is unique in that it has not only an art gallery and community space, but a library attached. It is clearly at the very heart of her community. It is therefore quite understandable that the events to commemorate the anniversary are so extensive and involve so many people—perhaps 8,000. I do not know if it is 8,000 people who have done a poppy each, or 4,000 who have done two each, but clearly quite a lot of people have knitted the poppies that will set a striking backdrop to the commemorations. Perhaps it is not surprising the extent to which her local community cares about that memorial, because of the way in which it came to be in the first place, arising at the end of the first world war, out of the grief of a rich member of society who lost his only son and therefore dedicated time and money thereafter to providing the memorial, the art galleries and, later on, the library.

It is unbelievable to me that memorials can be vandalised as my hon. Friend’s has been. I can only say that I am glad that the damage has been repaired. Although memorials are very rarely paid for by the Ministry of Defence or by the state, there is a scheme run by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that provides for some contribution towards repairs if a memorial is vandalised, which would equate to the VAT. It would enable some contribution from Government, with all the proper forms being filled in. I think the deadline for this year is 30 June, so if that has not been applied for already, and it is helpful, then my hon. Friend needs to get her skates on and move fast.

It is quite clear across parties and from all Members who have spoken today the extent to which local Members of Parliament involve themselves in making sure that their memorials are known about and raised in the House. It is perhaps not surprising that there is amity across the Chamber. There has been no disagreement about how important these memorials are to local communities and the families of those commemorated upon them—not just the immediate family, but through generations. There is also educational value in making sure that the stories of those commemorated on them are told to subsequent generations. The example that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) gave about a local school making sure that a lost memorial is remembered, even though it is 100 years since it was erected, is quite telling about the powerful nature of these stories, which are intergenerational and should go forward in time.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Does the Minister agree that there is a particular importance of memorials to people who have no known grave but the sea? I believe I am right in saying that the three great Royal Naval memorials at Chatham, Portsmouth and Plymouth commemorate more than 66,000 Royal Naval personnel who lost their lives in the two world wars. Of course, the one at Tower Hill commemorates about 36,000 merchant seamen and fishing fleet personnel who were similarly lost with no known grave.

[Maria Eagle]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. For families left behind—increasingly as time passes, it seems to me—the lack of a grave or something to mark an individual’s sacrifice is felt more deeply. It is therefore extremely understandable that there have been memorials erected latterly. It is completely correct and, I think, one of the values of the National Memorial Arboretum. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) referenced his visits there, and I am sure that other colleagues have attended various events there. It is important to have a place in the middle of the country, which is where the Arboretum is, that can be attended and where there are a number of memorials to make sure that there is somewhere for everyone who has lost someone to go and contemplate that loss.

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford also referenced the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which is unsung but extremely valuable and very much appreciated. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), my understanding is that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission does include women. I am not saying that every war memorial around the country includes women—that clearly is not the case—but the Commonwealth War Graves Commission does, as I understand it. However, her point that there are many forgotten people who lost their lives and are not on the memorials is an important one.

I have some numbers on those who have been commemorated who were lost at sea—the merchant sailors as well as the naval personnel—but the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has just mentioned them, so I will not repeat them. The general point is that, apart from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the funding of memorials has overwhelmingly come from public individuals and organisations. That is why they survive—they are part of our communities, they are loved by our communities and they are supported by our communities. That is an important part of their power—they are seen as something that is done by local people, for local people, to commemorate local people.

Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy. I wish her very well with the commemorations. It will be hard to read the names out, so I particularly wish her well with that. If there are 1,500 names on her memorial, she will not do all of them, but it will none the less be a powerful reading. Reading out each name individually will take a lot of time, and it is a powerful indication of quite how many people were lost. It will be one of the most powerful parts of the commemorations. She highlighted what will happen in her constituency and I congratulate her.

17:28

[Melanie Ward]

I thank all the Members who contributed to this debate. The unified tone feels entirely in keeping with the fact that this is Armed Forces Week and with the message that we want to send out from this place this week in particular. It has been invaluable to hear the contributions of so many colleagues, and it is difficult to sum them up in such a short time. I will mention a few of the themes that people raised.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) and a number of other colleagues raised the importance of peace and the fact that war memorials can give space for reflection on peace. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was absolutely right when he said that the British in particular do remembrance so well. It is so important to take great care over something that matters so much. A number of colleagues talked about the importance of diversity and of remembering our diverse communities at our war memorials, including the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) and for Thurrock (Jen Craft) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire).

The Opposition spokesperson spoke powerfully about memorials to fallen British soldiers in the north of France. I have also had the experience of visiting some of those, and they are deeply moving in their scale when one actually sees them and sees the loss that took place. A number of colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), spoke about the place of war memorials in remembering our shared history and the variety of memorials across the country. Others spoke about the importance of education in war memorials, including the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and many others. I thank everyone and hope that it has been a rich debate for everyone to take part in.

17:30

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).