Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Spending Review 2025: Scotland
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of the Spending Review 2025 on Scotland.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. On behalf of the Scottish contingent, I would like to thank the weather for finally breaking slightly, so that we can enjoy these much more suitable conditions—something else delivered by a Labour Government.
It is a privilege to discuss today the implications of the recent UK Government spending review for Scotland—a review that marks a pivotal moment for our country, offering both opportunities and challenges that we must confront with clarity and resolve. Let me begin by acknowledging some of the significant investments that were announced in the spending review and associated announcements. The allocation of £25 million for the Forth green freeport, which includes Rosyth in my constituency, is a welcome development and an investment that has the potential to transform the local economy, create jobs and position Scotland at the forefront of green innovation. I commend the Government for recognising the strategic importance of that initiative. In addition, the provision of £234 million in local funds to bring investment to communities across Scotland is a vital step forward.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on all he does in this place; he is making an excellent name for himself when it comes to working for his constituents. Although the new growth fund that will invest in deprived communities across the United Kingdom is welcome, the Scottish funding from it will be the same overall level in cash terms as under the UK shared prosperity fund for 2025-26. There are regions and locations in Scotland and Northern Ireland that have been historically underfunded, and therefore equality of spending will not bring about equality of outcome. Does he agree that the Minister, who is an honourable lady, must look at this and ensure that the Government’s goal is equality of outcome? It must be the same for everybody.
Graeme Downie
I think the Government are already moving towards a focus on outcomes for budgeting, and I would like to see more of that.
As my constituency contains a large number of former coalfields, I have been working closely with colleagues on the replacement of the shared prosperity fund and how we can ensure that it delivers skills and investment for young people and opportunities in all parts of the United Kingdom. I can assure the Minister that I will be working with local stakeholders in Dunfermline and Dollar to ensure that our area secures a fair share of the funding that has been allocated for the many great projects that stand to deliver real benefits to my constituents.
Over the next three years, this Labour Government will provide the Scottish Government with an additional £9.1 billion for Scottish public services. That is the largest settlement in real terms since devolution began, and a historic opportunity for the Scottish Government to invest in the NHS, police, housing and schools—services that are the bedrock of our society, yet are the root cause of much of the correspondence I receive from constituents who are being failed by the current Scottish Government in Holyrood.
One year on from a housing emergency being declared, house building is down in Scotland, and 10,000 children remain in temporary accommodation, with no home to call their own. Indeed, as a former Fife councillor, I know that Fife council is still in the unenviable position of knowing that it breaks the law every single day when it comes to housing, because of the salami-slicing of local government budgets by the Scottish Government. That the SNP Scottish Government knowingly preside over such a situation is unfathomable, having taken their eye off multiple balls during their disastrous time in power.
I must also express my concern that, no matter how much funding is made available, the Government in Holyrood continue to fall back on a familiar pattern of whingeing and wasting. We have seen this time and again, from the mismanagement of ferry contracts to the establishment of overseas embassies that serve little practical purpose beyond a vanity project and a residence for the Minister to have a very nice time on holidays funded by the public purse.
This morning I looked over the caseload in my office, and a third of cases received are from people with problems relating to devolved policy areas. So fed up are the people of Dunfermline and Dollar by the myriad failures of the SNP that they know the best place to come for help is Scottish Labour MPs and a UK Labour Government. This morning, we learned that more Scottish public money will be spent on defending the former chief executive of the SNP in a court case about a caravan found in my constituency.
In England, the UK Labour Government have recruited more than 1,500 GPs since 1 October thanks to Government action and the digitisation of the health service in England progressing more quickly. Meanwhile, in this place I have had to raise issues including access for little boys to timely medical help for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a lack of local dentists, and care and support for those with Parkinson’s. I am also aware of the case of Vicki Tocher, a constituent of mine who has been battling for almost a year to get her eight-year-old son, Issac, in front of doctors after he suffered a traumatic brain injury while at school.
In Scotland we see delays to national treatment centres. One in six Scots is on an NHS waiting list, there are 50,000 fewer operations than before the pandemic, and a record number have been forced to turn to private healthcare. In February, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine said that the number of patients waiting more than 12 hours in A&E in Scotland is 99 times higher than it was 14 years ago.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Scottish Conservatives have suggested that we should be prioritising Scottish-based students for medical places at university, because they are much more likely to stay in the UK and therefore contribute to our workforce. Would the hon. Gentleman support that to help the backlog and health services in Scotland?
Graeme Downie
We have actually seen announcements from the UK Health Secretary about prioritising UK students.
In my constituency, a new GP surgery in Kincardine has been promised for well over a decade, but is still awaiting Government funding. That village in the west of my constituency is growing, and its current GP surgery, which is little more than a cottage that used to be a police station, has been there for more than 120 years.
On digitisation, there has been better news in Scotland in the past couple of weeks. The NHS Scotland digital app will launch later this year; however, it will work only in dermatology and one NHS board. I am sure I could make jokes about rash decisions and the SNP getting under people’s skin, but these critical issues are having a real impact across the country. There is a real risk that as football clubs across Scotland begin pre-season training, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care might stop visiting hospitals and go back to last season’s failed tactics of being driven to the pub and between football grounds.
The spending review, driven by the UK Labour Government, rightly puts faith in our young people and the future. It includes investment in AI and the nuclear and defence sectors, alongside £1.2 billion for training and apprenticeships, designed to equip the next generation with skills and give them the opportunities they deserve. Yet in my constituency, Fife college has warned of cuts to courses and campus closures due to the mismanagement of the Scottish budget by the SNP. That is a betrayal of our young people’s potential, and takes money away from the working class kids of Fife to prop up its own failures in higher and further education elsewhere in the country.
While the UK Labour Government are investing in regional transport across England, in Scotland rail fares have increased three times since March 2024 and we have lost 1,400 bus routes since the SNP came to power—something my constituents feel strongly and keenly because of the rural nature of the constituency, including Dollar, Muckhart and the west Fife villages. That is not progress but regression, and is particularly challenging for the rural parts of my constituency.
Moreover, the ideological objection in Scotland to nuclear power and the refusal to embrace new small modular reactors will cost Scotland dearly. We are losing out on jobs, investment and the opportunity to secure our energy future. That is not just short-sighted but a dereliction of duty.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will tailor his critique of the SNP Government to the spending review. I appreciate the thrust of his remarks, but he will understand my advice.
Graeme Downie
Thank you, Sir John. I will of course take that on board. You will glad to hear what I am coming to next.
Economically, however, we have seen the SNP’s failure to take responsibility for the Scottish economy, as confirmed by the Scottish Fiscal Commission. That has cost the country about £1 billion and left it unable to keep pace with UK economic growth. Yet all we hear, after 19 years in power, is that it is someone else’s fault. We have also seen the proposed closure of Alexander Dennis in Larbert and Camelon, with the potential loss of 400 jobs. The chief executive stated:
“the Scottish Government has little regard for domestic bus manufacturing jobs in Scotland”.
I now turn to the actions that I believe the UK Government can take, following the spending review, to support economic growth and other aspects in Scotland. As an island nation, we depend on maritime and aviation infrastructure. There are promising opportunities in Fife for the development of sustainable aviation fuels and their maritime equivalent. Those sectors were a priority in the spending review, so money was set aside to support them, and legislation on this matter is currently passing through the House. I urge the Government to support investment in those key sectors.
The spending review also stated that aviation infrastructure must be improved. One practical step that we can take is to finalise a US visa pre-agreement clearance at Edinburgh airport, where I understand there have been negotiations between the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the US State Department. Will the Minister prioritise that issue and do everything she can to make it a reality?
While on the subject of transport I must raise again the matter of a direct passenger ferry route between Rosyth and Dunkirk. Despite the genuine best efforts of my SNP predecessor, who worked incredibly hard on this issue, progress has been stymied by legal complications regarding border control posts. However, it is estimated that such a route could carry 79,000 passengers annually and bring an additional £11.5 million to the Scottish economy, and on the freight side remove 8.2 million km of freight traffic from UK roads, significantly reducing carbon emissions.
To meet the target of launching the service by spring 2026, we must resolve the legal issues swiftly. There are strong indications that the Scottish Government can act in the short term, but I think there is genuine legal confusion. I have written to the Secretary of State just this week to ask if he will work with Scottish Ministers on a legal assurance letter that would guarantee the issue will be investigated in time to solve the problem for 2026. Will the Minister pursue that with the Secretary of State as a matter of urgency?
Finally, I turn to defence. The spending review confirmed that defence spending will rise to 2.6% of GDP from 2027, with an ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament. We have seen announcements this week around the NATO summit that defence spending will rise even more, which I fully support. This aligns with the strategic defence review and underscores the Government’s commitment to national security.
Scotland viewed on a globe rather than a flat map is a frontline nation in defence of NATO’s northern flank. From the high north, Russian ships and submarines pose a threat to NATO merchant shipping and critical underwater cables in the Atlantic. Both the strategic defence review and the spending review rightly highlight the need to strengthen NATO’s deterrence in northern Europe and the high north. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has also emphasised the importance of an expanded role for NATO in that region.
It is a source of great pride for me that Scotland’s highly skilled defence workforce is at the forefront of meeting the UK’s defence needs, including building and launching new Type 31 frigates from Rosyth in my constituency. The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle), has confirmed the importance of export orders for this ship. Can the Minister to assist me in any way possible to support the workforce and secure orders for both export and the Royal Navy of this versatile ship?
Thankfully, defence is mainly reserved to Westminster. However, the total failure of the Scottish Government on devolved matters such as skills and infrastructure has directly impacted the defence sector, our armed forces and the ability of the spending review to meet its goals, along with the strategic defence review. We have the farcical position that senior people in the SNP say that it is party policy that public money should not be spent on military equipment, denying young people the chance to become welders—a skill much sought after across a range of sectors. Even more ridiculously, the SNP has responded to a request for medical aid from Ukraine by dictating that aid could not be used on military casualties—a preposterous view that is utterly detached from reality. Millions of pounds are wasted on embassies, but the SNP cannot even handle a simple request from an ally.
The spending review has unlocked the start of long-term plans in other Departments, which can also support the wider defence industry in Scotland, securing jobs and investment. This week, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade spoke about the prospect of a defence growth fund in Scotland. What discussions has the Minister had with her colleagues about that fund? How is she ensuring that it will include a broad partnership in Scotland, including in areas such as skills, so that young people in my constituency can benefit from the necessary increase in defence spending?
The UK Government’s spending review offers Scotland a path forward—one of investment, opportunity and renewal. To realise this potential, we must first confront the failures of the SNP Government and demand better for our constituents. We must ensure that every pound allocated is spent wisely, that every opportunity is seized and that every Scot has the opportunity to thrive in future.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on a thorough and well thought-out speech.
Before I go any further, I should state my credentials as a devolutionist. My name is on the claim of right for Scotland, signed all those years ago in Edinburgh. I was a founding member of the Scottish Parliament and served on the Scottish Constitutional Convention before that. I believe in devolution and had the honour to serve as a Member of the Scottish Parliament for much of my present constituency for some 12 years. Looking back on those days—my goodness me—what would we have done with £9.1 billion? It would have been an absolute godsend.
What my constituents have great trouble understanding is how the money seems to go in one end of the pipe but not come out the other. I have probably bored this place endlessly about maternity services in the far north of Scotland but, for old times’ sake, I am going to do it again. We used to enjoy a consultant-led maternity service based in Wick, in Caithness, and mums could give birth locally. It was then proposed, during my time in the Scottish Parliament, that that would be taken away and done from Inverness. We saw that one off, however; the then Labour-Liberal Scottish Executive changed their mind and left the service local.
As everyone knows, because I have said it so many times, more recently that change has come to pass and we no longer have a maternity service based in Caithness, in the north of Scotland. Mothers have to take a more than 200-mile round trip to give birth, even in the middle of winter, when the A9 blocks at the Ord of Caithness. You have to be joking! In one harrowing case a mother bearing twins was on her way from Caithness to Inverness and gave birth to the first child in Golspie and the second in Inverness.
During my time in the Scottish Parliament, we made the argument to Ministers and there was a change of heart. No matter what I and the people of Caithness say now, we cannot get the Scottish Government to change their mind, yet we see all the money going in. As soon as I heard about the £9.1 billion, I said on the record that I sincerely hoped some of the money would go in the direction it ought to, to give mums and babies the same rights as in other parts of Scotland.
Another grouse is that Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the successor body to the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which was set up by Harold Wilson’s Government in the 1960s, is financially a shadow of what it was. At the end of the day, that body, notwithstanding its change of name, is about securing investment and high-quality employment in some of the more remote parts of Scotland. In its day it was highly successful and helped not just halt but reverse depopulation—the new highland clearances—which has been the curse of the highlands for far too long. Again, we see the £9.1 billion coming in and ask where it is going.
I also want to make a wider point. I remind colleagues that I am a convinced devolutionist. However, I suggest that where there is a failure to understand where the money goes or a belief that it is not being delivered fairly, that is corrosive to that cherished notion of devolution. That is a dangerous path to tread.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
The hon. Member, as usual, makes a powerful case for his constituency, but I am surprised that he is repeating the Labour figure of £9.1 billion, which has already been heavily criticised by the Fraser of Allander Institute. Did Labour get it wrong or did the Fraser of Allander Institute get it wrong? I just want clarification on that point of fact. I would hate for the hon. Member to be using dodgy Labour figures.
Jamie Stone
I would hate to mislead hon. Members, but nevertheless, the perception remains that lots of money is going in one end and not coming out the other in different parts of Scotland. That is a dangerous perception, to say the least.
The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) is known to be fair-minded. I hope that he will take back to Holyrood what I think will be the nature of this debate and reflect it there in an honourable and fair way. These are genuine worries. I did not sign the claim of right for Scotland on a whim; I signed it because I believed it back then. I really do want to see the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government thrive, and I hope that in years to come we will see things being done rather differently.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for securing this important debate and for his speech highlighting what a Labour Government in Westminster can mean for our constituents in Scotland.
The spending review delivers a major boost to Scotland. Over the next three years, the Scottish Government will receive £9.1 billion of funding. That marks the largest real-terms settlement since devolution began. Labour has ended austerity in Scotland. These are not just numbers; this funding is an opportunity for real change. It must be used to strengthen the services people rely on every day: our NHS, schools, police and housing. It is now down to the Scottish Government to deliver on those matters with this funding from the UK Labour Government.
I also welcome the spending review’s creation of and support for four investment zones and green freeports, in the north-east, in Inverness and Cromarty Firth, at Forth Green and, most importantly to me, in the Glasgow city region. That includes £160 million each over 10 years. The Glasgow investment zone will focus on advanced manufacturing, a future growth sector that the city is well placed to lead, with its world-class universities and a strong pool of talent in the region. The investment zone will be focused on sites in Renfrewshire, alongside existing innovation districts and underdeveloped sites near critical infrastructure around Glasgow airport. Local partners expect it to generate at least £1.7 billion of investment and up to 18,000 full-time equivalent jobs over 10 years, and boost the region’s research and innovation economy.
In recent years, we have seen the benefits of further devolving power and funding to city regions across the UK, with the ability at local level to create and tailor policies to better serve our communities. In Scotland, however, devolution appears to have stalled at Holyrood. There is little appetite to pass power and more funding to the Glasgow city region and other communities across Scotland. I hope that the Minister will indicate that the UK Government would support further devolution to the Glasgow city region, and I hope that the Scottish Government move quickly to achieve that.
The UK Labour Government have provided the Scottish Government with a huge and historic opportunity to make progress with the commitments in the spending review to empower our city regions with more powers and funding to better deliver for our communities. In 2026, Scotland will have the chance to choose a Government who not just talk but deliver: a Scottish Labour Government who turn record funding into real results for all of our communities.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to be with you this morning, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing the debate and on making the points that he made.
The hon. Member, like other Labour Members, in particular, seems to like talking about the Scottish Government, who are not answerable to this place, rather than the UK Government, who are. To be fair, I am not surprised. We saw after last night’s debacle that they would rather talk about anything but the Labour Government, who have delivered very little over the past year apart from chaos and a continuation of failed Conservative policies—not much change there.
The fact is that this place still has a profound impact on the Scottish Parliament. It is where the majority of its budget comes from and it has a huge impact on the policies that can be pursued in the Scottish Parliament, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) will be well aware as a founding member of that institution, which he rightly highlighted. Scotland is still hampered by migration policies and the hostile environment, as we have witnessed recently at the University of Dundee, whose losses are overwhelmingly attributable to the drop in international students as a direct result of those policies.
Harriet Cross
I thank the hon. Member so much for giving way so gladly. I have visited universities recently, too, and they also point to the real-terms cut in funding from the Scottish Government having a real impact on their budgets. In the interests of fairness, will he reflect on that too?
Stephen Gethins
I will gladly reflect on that, but I make the point to the hon. Lady—let us take universities as an example—that at the University of Dundee, the difference between Scottish and English fee income would not even have covered the national insurance increase, and that increase was further dwarfed by the reduction in international student income. Under the Conservative Government, universities had been encouraged to go out and recruit internationally, and they were joined in that venture by Ministers before the Conservatives changed their mind.
I am sure that we will all agree that the internationalisation of our universities has been a positive thing. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: it has been a privilege to work at the University of St Andrews, where internationalisation enhances both the learning process and the research, making us all better off in the process. However, the changes to migration policy had so great an impact—I am sure that the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) will agree with me about this—that I asked the Home Secretary to come to Dundee and visit the institution, just to see and learn. She refused. Perhaps the Minister could encourage another Home Office Minister to visit.
I touched earlier on national insurance increases, which are hobbling businesses and therefore growth. Those have a particular impact on small businesses, which cannot expand or recruit. That has been raised not just by me and my SNP colleagues, but by other colleagues in the House. Even though Labour MPs want to do anything but talk about a Labour Government —that is quite telling in its own right—the increases have an impact, and the Labour Government deserve to be held to account.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I used to run a small business. Does the hon. Member acknowledge that interest rates and inflation also have a huge impact on small businesses?
Stephen Gethins
I absolutely acknowledge the impact that inflation and interest rates have had, and the Liz Truss Budget had a huge impact on small businesses as well as mortgage holders—again, a direct consequence of policies that were made here. I would have thought, and the hon. Lady would surely concede, that one would therefore abandon Conservative spending rules, but we have yet to see that.
Another huge consequence of Conservative rule that Labour has taken over, and that is having a huge impact on small businesses, is leaving the European Union. I want to tackle this head on. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar talk about foreign embassies, when he knows fine well that the Welsh, the Northern Irish and the Scots have overseas representative offices. I was astonished to hear him seek to embrace the insularity that I associate with the Conservative party and Reform. Scotland has one of the highest rates of foreign direct investment anywhere in the UK, and we can all encourage and be happy about that.
I agree with the hon. Member about ferry connections, and he was right to highlight the work done on that by his predecessor, Douglas Chapman. Surely, we should encourage connectivity with the rest of the European Union, but Labour continues to follow the Conservatives’ mantra of a hard Brexit.
Stephen Gethins
Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan says that Brexit is costing the Exchequer £40 billion, so before I bring the hon. Member in—I will do so, because he was very fair—I want to ask the Minister this: if it is costing the Exchequer £40 billion, what impact is it having on the devolution settlement?
Graeme Downie
Just to clarify, there was a ferry from Rosyth to Europe when the SNP was in power. The SNP failed to support it previously, and has taken no action to investigate the legal issues around border control, which are believed by many to be a problem that the Scottish Government could solve. Once again, they have been content to blame the UK Government, without even investigating the problem themselves, when in fact they could have worked constructively either with the previous Conservative Government or with this Government to overcome it.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Member talks about border control. Obviously, I am not in the Scottish Government.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Member is very kind in apparently conceding next year’s election already. I am quite surprised by that; he may have given up on it, but I think we should all be competing.
The hon. Member talks about the Scottish border. The border is obviously devolved to Westminster, so because we are holding Westminster to account, I ask the Minister to tackle the border issue as well. We are right to have greater connectivity and to be bringing down barriers with our European partners, so why on earth are we not going back into the single market and the customs union? After all, that was the compromise that Scottish Labour itself backed in the Scottish Parliament in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum. What on earth has gone so right that Labour has abandoned that policy and embraced the Conservative policy? I would be astonished to find out, and I wonder whether the Minister can tell us. Some thought and analysis would be helpful.
The real-terms increase in the budget looks like 0.8%—lower than the UK departmental average of 1.5%. That does not sound like much but would mean £1.1 billion less to spend by 2028-29. As I have mentioned to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, the Fraser of Allendar Institute has called out Labour MPs’ claims as “neither transparent nor helpful”.
This place matters. As I said, we know that the Scottish Government have a national insurance shortfall as a consequence of the policies being brought in by Westminster, and we have not even got round to last night’s welfare changes, which left the Scottish Labour party high and dry. With the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker), who, as I understand it, signed the original motion but did not follow through in the debate, Scottish Labour was marched up to the top of the hill by the Prime Minister to be left high and dry.
We were told that the welfare reforms proposed before all the changes yesterday would push 150,000 more people into poverty. A Labour Government pushing more people into poverty—astonishing. Although there have been changes, because of the profound impact on the job of the Scottish Government, whose Scottish child payment is helping to reduce poverty, they are still hampered by what goes on here. If the Minister prioritises nothing else that I have said, I ask her to prioritise this: where are we with the welfare changes and how many people does she now expect to be pushed into poverty?
Stephen Gethins
As I mentioned the hon. Member, it is only fair to give way.
Richard Baker
I might say that Labour Members have had rather more impact on Government policy than SNP Members. The hon. Gentleman makes important points about welfare and the importance of having the right system to get people back into work. Why, then, did his Government in Holyrood, of which he aspires to be a member, cut investment in employability funding?
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. This debate is not really about welfare in Scotland; it is about the spending review. [Interruption.] I take the point, but I would like the remarks to be tailored to the subject at hand.
Stephen Gethins
You are quite right, Sir John. It surprises me that the Labour party does not want to talk about a Labour Government, but then the fact that they lost, or nearly lost, that kind of vote after less than a year gives us some idea of the impact of what has happened over the past year.
This is my appeal to the Labour party: why not do some of the things it actually believes in and try to bring about real change, be that on Brexit or the fiscal rules, rather than just being a continuation of the Conservative party? The Government cannot continue to ask the Scottish Government to offset the damage done by Westminster on Women Against State Pension Inequality, as was called for, winter fuel, the two-child cap, the bedroom tax and so on. The Scottish Labour leader said that he would not bring in any of last night’s welfare changes, once again expecting Scotland to offset the damage that has been done here.
Whether I like it or not, this place still matters to what goes on in Scotland. I ask the Minister to look at these areas. Can she give us answers on the Acorn project, which I will chuck in as well—we know how much money is going south of the border, so does she know how much will go north of the border, and in particular on the welfare changes, given the significant impact on the Scottish Government’s budget?
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and to speak in today’s debate; I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing it. This spending review marks a turning point for Scotland. After years of stagnation under two failing Governments—the Tories in Westminster and the SNP in Holyrood—this UK Labour Government are delivering the change that Scotland so desperately needs. This is the most generous funding settlement for Scotland in the history of devolution. Over the next three years, the Scottish Government will receive an extra £9.1 billion for public services in Scotland. That is not rhetoric—that is real investment. Labour is ending austerity and restoring fairness.
That record money is a powerful opportunity to rebuild Scotland’s NHS, our schools, our transport system and our housing stock. The problem is that we cannot trust the SNP Government to use that money wisely. For too long, Scotland has seen taxpayers’ money squandered by a Government with no strategy and no clue what they are doing. After almost two decades in power, the SNP have lost their way and have now failed to deliver on the basic promise of competent government. They declared a housing emergency then slashed the housing budget. They promised 130,000 green jobs by 2020 and delivered almost none. They pledged £80 million for the Acorn carbon capture and storage project in 2022, and that money remains unpaid. Locally, residents, the local NHS and clinicians have all said that the East Calder medical centre needs to be replaced. The SNP Government have given warm words to that community, but they have nowhere near delivered anything. They have the money now to deliver a new medical centre in East Calder. They should get on and do it.
Meanwhile, the UK Labour Government are investing in our clean energy future, with £2.3 billion for nuclear energy and SMRs, but the SNP’s ideological block to new nuclear power means Scotland is missing out on jobs and investment.
Harriet Cross
The hon. Gentleman talks about ideological blocks. The oil and gas sector, as he well knows, is crucial to Scotland, especially to the north-east of Scotland. Allowing it to flourish and to be supported into the future will have just as much of an economic benefit. Will he reflect on that and perhaps have a word with his Front Benchers, to try to persuade them that supporting the oil and gas sector has benefits for the whole of Scotland and the UK, particularly at the moment, when we are suffering so much with economic growth?
Gregor Poynton
I agree with the hon. Lady on that point; I think the oil and gas sector is vital. I am on the record saying that I support Rosebank and Jackdaw, and I think we should get on and do it. We need to invest in that sector, because ultimately, those are the people with the skills and supply chains that will allow us to transition to the green jobs of the future, at the same time as securing jobs now. I agree with much of what she said.
The SNP Government have presided over an NHS in crisis, with one in six Scots on a waiting list and a generation of young people growing up in temporary accommodation. They have no plan and no urgency, and we have seen absolutely no progress. That is why next year’s Scottish Parliament election is so important. If Scotland is to make the most of this historic Labour investment, we need a Scottish Government we can trust, and that means voting for change. It means voting for a Scottish Labour Government. When Labour governs, we do not just talk about fairness; we fund it and deliver it.
Let me turn to what the spending review means for my Livingston constituency. I am proud to represent a community with ambition and innovation at its core. Now, thanks to Labour’s investment, that potential has been matched by real support. The Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal, with £100 million in joint funding for both the UK and Scottish Governments, is a huge vote of confidence in our region’s industrial future. Grangemouth, just down the road, is key to Scotland’s energy transition, and the Labour Government are stepping up where others have failed.
The spending review also confirms £750 million for a new national supercomputer in Edinburgh, which places Scotland at the forefront of high-performance computing. That is not abstract. It means new opportunities for medtech, life sciences and clean tech industries in my constituency. These are well-paid, high-skill, high-quality jobs for my constituents. Scotland is also now benefiting from £8.3 billion for Great British Energy, headquartered in Aberdeen, ensuring that we lead the world in clean, affordable and home-grown energy. For our communities, the spending review has delivered £234 million in new local investment funds, empowering towns and local councils to invest in what really matters to people: revitalising high streets, upgrading infrastructure and supporting jobs and investment.
Let us not forget our role in global trade, too. Thanks to the Government’s leadership, new trade deals are opening doors for iconic Scottish products. In India, Scotch whisky, our largest export, is getting a tariff cut, boosting a £180 million market. US steel tariffs have come down, helping manufacturing jobs across the UK, including in Scotland.
That is what serious government looks like: ambition backed by delivery, and investment guided by our values. The spending review represents a huge opportunity for Scotland, but only if we have a Government in Holyrood who can rise to the moment, and that means change. The SNP Government have had their chance, and after nearly two decades, frankly, if they were going to fix our NHS, deliver green jobs or improve education, they would have done it by now. They did not, they cannot and they will not. It is time for a Scottish Labour Government who will.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this important debate. His constituents could not have a more doughty and effective champion in this place.
As a fellow Fife MP, I was particularly pleased to hear my hon. Friend address how the people of the kingdom will reap the rewards of the Government’s investment in Scotland and in their potential. That is in sharp contrast to the litany of failures they have had to endure under the barely managed decline, for which the Scottish National party is culpable, in Holyrood. I will return to these points later, while maintaining a laser focus on the spending review. But being in good spirits and savouring the cooler weather, for which we Scots are rather better equipped, let me focus first on the sunny uplands of the spending review and its great potential for Scotland.
I know we will hear more from the Minister on its importance for our country and how it will support the excellent work that she is taking forward in Government for Scotland. She does this along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has shown what a brilliant champion he is for Scotland in Cabinet. I will focus on the opportunities the spending review creates in my constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar outlined the scale of the overall investment that the Chancellor announced in the spending review for Scotland and how vital that is for public services and growing our economy across the country. Specific areas of investment are of particular importance for Glenrothes and Mid Fife. We have a thriving and growing renewables sector in the constituency, and the confirmation of the full £8.3 billion for GB Energy is great news for renewable energy businesses in our area and will create opportunities and employment.
At Earlseat wind farm, apprenticeships are being created in local renewables businesses through community benefit funding provided by its operator Renewable Energy Systems and a pioneering collaboration with Fife college. It was great to meet some of the apprentices at the wind farm, who will have great opportunities in the future as a result of that funding. Investing in renewables is also fantastic news for the Methil shipyard, which was saved by this Government. Its facilities and skilled workforce are ideally placed for contracts in renewables infrastructure and to deliver key programmes set out in the strategic defence review, which presents great opportunities for Scotland, as my hon. Friend said.
I am also particularly delighted that the Chancellor has confirmed development funding for the Acorn project. I agree with the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) that it is a very important scheme for Scotland, for which many of us across the Chamber campaigned. It will not only be vital for our renewables targets, but create and sustain thousands of jobs throughout Scotland. It is also a brilliant opportunity for two biomass plants in my constituency to maximise their contribution to carbon reduction in the future.
All that comes along with additional funding for investment zones and in our communities. With an extra £9.1 billion for public services in Scotland over the next three years, there can no longer be any excuses for SNP Ministers failing to deliver the public services our constituents need and deserve. Unfortunately, where we need to see delivery and improvements, all we seem to see are excuses. We have record funding for housing provided by this Government, but a housing emergency has been declared in Fife after funding cuts by the Scottish Government.
We have record funding provided for our NHS by this Government, and falling waiting lists in England for the first time in many years, but in Fife, my constituents face some of the longest waiting times for surgery anywhere in Scotland. In the NHS in England, we see investment in 700,000 additional urgent appointments for dental patients, but in Fife, we have a dental desert, where, too often, my constituents cannot find any dentist to register with, let alone an NHS one.
We have record spending set out in the spending review for NHS infrastructure, yet after more than a decade of broken promises to the people of Lochgelly by SNP Ministers, they still do not have the new health centre that their community desperately needs. No wonder so many people in Scotland want a change of direction in Holyrood. This is the prospectus that Anas Sarwar will set out in the Scottish elections next year, and why our country desperately needs his leadership as our next First Minister.
The spending review shows the ambition that Governments can and should have for Scotland. One of our Governments—this Government—is delivering for Scotland; it is time the other one stepped up to the plate and started delivering the effective leadership our country needs as well.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for bringing us such a worthwhile debate.
The spending review confirmed what we in Scottish Labour have known for a long time—the UK Government can be a positive force for good in Scotland. Soon after the general election, the Labour Government provided the largest real-terms block grant in the history of devolution to the Government in Scotland. The spring statement built on that by increasing direct funding to the Scottish Government and providing a substantial direct investment amounting to more than £9 billion extra for public services over the next three years. In my constituency, the Glasgow city region will see substantial investment in Renfrewshire, and in particular in the innovation district around Glasgow airport. I regularly meet innovative companies in my constituency, and they are ready to make use of that investment to create jobs and opportunities across the city region.
Hard on the heels of the spring statement came the publication of the Government’s industrial strategy, which identifies a key growth opportunity for UK aerospace in securing a British engine position on the next generation of single-aisle aircraft. The Rolls-Royce factory in my constituency is set to play an important role in manufacturing the components for the engines, and that will secure high-value skills and jobs. The spending review delivered on the Government’s commitment to economic growth by tackling the long-term effects of low pay and low growth that have stymied Scotland’s ambitions for far too long. Is it too much to hope that the national Government in Edinburgh will take the opportunity of their final year in power to wake up to the opportunity that lies ahead?
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Member mentioned low growth. We know that growth has been hampered by our being outside the single market and the customs union—that is not just my analysis but that of most economists—so can she tell me why Scottish Labour has abandoned the policy it adopted after the Brexit referendum of rejoining the single market and the customs union?
Alison Taylor
I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In my view, low growth in Scotland has been related to the threat of a second independence referendum, and I would put the blame for the low growth firmly in the hon. Gentleman’s hands.
I sincerely hope that the Scottish National party will wake up to that opportunity in its last year in government, but the last 18 years have offered little evidence that it will. A former Member of this House and a former First Minister, the right hon. Alex Salmond, was very fond of repeating these lines of Burns, although Members will excuse me if I do not deliver them as well as he did:
“But facts are chiels that winna ding,
An’ downa be disputed”
These are the facts: 10,000 children live in temporary accommodation in Scotland; one in six Scots is on NHS waiting lists; Scottish GDP is trailing behind the rest of the UK by nearly £3,000 per person; and the SNP Scottish Government have overseen an unacceptable fall in educational attainment. In fact, their report card is a fail.
The spending review puts an end to the excuses. With my apologies to John F Kennedy, the nationalists need to stop asking, “What can my country do for me?” and start asking, “What can I do for my country?” They need to stop asking, “How can we blame someone else?” and start asking, “How can we build a better life for the people of Scotland?” They need to stop calculating what they think will be best for the cause of separation, and start calculating how to use the opportunity of the spending review to get people the jobs they need and the future they deserve.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the chair, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate. I apologise to you, Sir John, because I appreciate that it is frustrating that every debate about Scotland, and about this or the previous Government’s spending in Scotland, comes back to the Scottish Government. The debate is rarely about the Scottish people—about my constituents in Edinburgh West, or our constituents across Scotland. It always comes back to the Scottish Government. That is not necessarily the fault of the Labour party, the Conservative party or the SNP, but it does not seem to matter how much money the UK Government invest in Scotland, what projects they undertake, what the spending review promises or how much money there is in Barnett consequentials—it gets squandered. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said, it never seems to reach the people of Scotland. It never seems to do anything about our crumbling NHS, our schools, which are in trouble, and the housing crisis that we face.
Although the specific subject under discussion is the spending review announced by the Labour Government, for us in Scotland the debate is about the frustration that we may not get the benefit that any UK Government intend for Scotland, with any policy, because it gets blocked in Holyrood. I hate to mention that again, but £9.1 billion, however one might contest it—it might not be quite £9.1 billion—is a lot of money for the SNP Government to squander, because squander it they will. We have only to look at the evidence of the infamous and now even later ferries, which seem to fail at every turn. The money wasted by the SNP on that fiasco could have paid for around 11,000 nurses or 3,000 GPs in our NHS. That is why we are so frustrated, and why we turn again and again to the Scottish Government, and their failure to use the resources given them by Westminster.
The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) says that this place continues to have a huge impact—so it should, but that impact is undermined at every turn by the Scottish Government.
Stephen Gethins
Given that we sit in the UK Parliament, does the hon. Member concede that the numbers she mentions are absolutely dwarfed by the billions on Brexit, the hundreds of millions on Rwanda, and the billions blown by the Truss Budget, all of which will have had a material impact on the amount of money that the UK Government have to give up to Scotland? Furthermore, does she agree that the Scottish Government offsetting welfare cuts, the bedroom tax, and child poverty, as they have done—and I believe the Liberal Democrats backed that—was a good use of money?
Christine Jardine
No, I do not, actually. I agree fundamentally that the UK Government, whether Conservative or Labour, have not got everything right. But the Scottish Government have done nothing to mitigate any of the, if you like, failings of Westminster. They have done nothing to mitigate them, and have exacerbated every problem in Scotland. There is not a single area of the Scottish economy, or of Scottish education, health, or public services that one can look at, over the past two decades, and say, “Wow, didn’t the Scottish Government make a good job of that? Didn’t they spend the money well?” Just ask the constituents who I spoke to on Sunday night in Edinburgh West, who told me that they are sick to the back teeth of the SNP wasting their money—two decades they have had of it.
Christine Jardine
No, sorry. I am running out of time.
It would be churlish of me not to recognise that there have been benefits from the spending review for my constituents. I welcome the £750 million investment in the exascale supercomputer, because a lot of my constituents work at the University of Edinburgh. The investment in defence spending will help my constituents who work in the defence industries in Edinburgh. I hope that the £9.1 billion—or however much—that will be invested in Scotland over the next few years helps by investing in the projects that the Liberal Democrats in Scotland have managed to get into the budget for the coming years. The investment in the Princess Alexandra eye pavilion in Edinburgh is one that is particularly close to my heart, because my constituents have suffered from the SNP’s lack of investment there.
In brief, we welcome a lot of the aspects of the spending review in Scotland. We welcome the extra funding, but we view with frustration and some trepidation how the Scottish Government might waste it.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir John, and I thank you for your patience and indulgence in chairing this debate.
It is almost a through-the-looking-glass moment this morning, listening to the Labour party criticising the Scottish Government for their decisions and the Scottish National party representative, the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins), criticising the Labour Government for the SNP’s decisions. For all of us, it has been an interesting morning after the night before.
Scotland is struggling with the consequences of the Labour Government’s economic incompetence: taxes for businesses up, growth down, unemployment up and business confidence down. Scottish Financial Enterprise has warned:
“The current inflationary pressures, coupled with stagnant productivity and increasing levels of tax, pose significant headwinds to business investment.”
And that was before the charade—the farcical scenes—that we saw yesterday, which will inevitably mean more tax rises coming down the tracks in the autumn.
Richard Baker
Is it not the reality that economic growth is increasing under this Labour Government, in rather sharp contrast to the experiences of hon. Members under Liz Truss, which I think were somewhat different for the whole country, including Scotland?
Andrew Bowie
The hon. Member will recall that when the Conservative Government left office in July 2024, we had the fastest growing economy in the G7. He will also surely acknowledge that as a direct result of decisions taken by his Chancellor and his Government, growth has halved since Labour got into power. That is not a record of which he should be proud. Labour is growing the economy by far less than we had expected to grow the economy by when we left office. Surely he can acknowledge, because his name was on an amendment yesterday, that some of the decisions taken by his Government have been to the detriment of this country and its economic growth.
Hon. Members should not take my word for it. Unite the Union has said that this Government have placed the oil and gas industry on a “cliff edge”. The Scotch Whisky Association said the increase in spirits duty was a “hammer blow”. The Scottish Hospitality Group called the Budget last year
“a blow to businesses across the country”.
The National Farmers Union of Scotland has made it clear that this Government’s decisions will cause “huge difficulties” to the agricultural sector in Scotland, because the family farms tax is devastating farms in Scotland. This is a Government who do not understand rural Scotland, and they clearly do not care to.
National insurance contributions are up, increasing costs to businesses across the country. In my constituency of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, the conversations that I have had since the Chancellor’s disastrous Budget last October have revolved around reducing headcount and reducing ambition for expansion, which I know is an experience shared by just about every Member of this Parliament. With the Government’s Employment Rights Bill coming down the tracks, we will see the burden on businesses increase still further and growth shrink.
Business confidence across the entire United Kingdom is falling dramatically, and that is especially the case in Scotland. This Labour Government do not understand business and they have decided not to prioritise growth or prosperity. The chief executive of Scottish Financial Enterprise was right to urge recognition that the UK Government cannot tax their way to economic growth and sustainable growth.
As for the Scottish Government, the SNP has presided over 17 years of mismanagement during its tenure. Economic growth in Scotland has been consistently lower than it has been south of the border. There is no excuse. Higher income tax rates are driving away talent, there is a failure to pass on the savings from business rates, and there have been madcap schemes that undermine the UK internal market, such as the ill-conceived deposit return scheme. At every turn, the Scottish Government seek to make business in Scotland less profitable, less productive and less competitive.
Now, on top of all that, we have to add the spending review from this UK Government, which, the Scottish Hospitality Group declared does “absolutely nothing” to support its sector. The Federation of Small Businesses said that the spending review
“was not the business-focused day”
that it had hoped for. Unite the Union said that the spending review
“lacks the vision to deliver the fundamental change needed for everyday people”
and that it was a
“missed opportunity to lay out the funding to tackle key issues, including the energy costs crippling British industry”.
It is clear that this Chancellor’s spending review does not deliver for Scots, Scotland or Scottish business.
Although we welcome the Government’s commitment to defence and spending on new nuclear, it is evident that rural Scotland—aspirational Scotland—is being ignored, overlooked and left behind by the socialist Government in London and wilfully driven into the ground by a nationalist Government in Edinburgh. The Fraser of Allander Institute has described the spending review as a “rollercoaster”, with short-term boosts followed by real-terms cuts in later years.
We welcome the Government’s commitment to increase defence spending. In a time of increasing uncertainty, it is essential that we have the domestic capacity, supply chain, resources and skilled personnel to defend this country. The continued investment in the Dreadnought-class submarines is essential, and I am incredibly proud that this fleet is hosted in Scotland, at HM Naval Base Clyde. Just last week I was in Rosyth, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), to see the missile tubes for the Dreadnought-class submarines and the Columbia-class submarines for the United States being constructed by the incredibly skilled workforce at that Babcock yard. This programme is expected to support thousands of jobs in Scotland.
However, serious questions about defence spending remain unanswered. The Government have still not clarified whether the Chagos deal moneys will be classified as defence spending, and they have given no indication of how they will reach the 3% and now 5% commitment to defence spending overall. After yesterday’s farcical scenes, which failed to save the Government any money whatsoever, we have no idea how they will meet the commitments signed up to at NATO just last week.
The oil and gas industry, which is incredibly important to my part of the country, has been let down year after year by the Scottish nationalists, who had a policy of presumption against new oil and gas. If left to the SNP Government, they would have shut down the industry yesterday—and it looks like, with the Labour party in charge, they will get their way. By increasing the energy profits levy, removing investment allowances and abolishing new exploration licences, this Government have signalled that the North sea is uninvestable and the oil and gas industry in Scotland is closed for business.
This industry is vital to the economy of Scotland and the United Kingdom, with a supply chain spanning the entire country and with roots in every single constituency. But this Government’s total ignorance of the oil and gas industry and the north-east of Scotland, their incompetence on the economy and their disregard for the hundreds of thousands of workers in the North sea, as well as their dangerous ineptitude when it comes to our energy security, are deeply damaging.
I turn to the trumpeted invention of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Great British Energy. I find it difficult to muster any enthusiasm or optimism. With the ongoing ambiguity over the company’s purpose and scope, the Government still cannot answer the basic question of what on earth this organisation is going to achieve, how many people it will employ and what it will do in the long run. While we welcome the announcement of an award to Rolls-Royce for the delivery of small modular reactors following the down-selection process that I proudly launched when in government, we regret deeply that the Scottish nationalists’ luddite opposition to new nuclear—to clean power and to opportunity for Scotland—means that those benefits will not be seen north of the border.
There are some positive notes. Confirmation that Edinburgh University will host the UK’s most powerful supercomputer, paving the way for leadership in artificial intelligence and computing, is welcome, but this followed a delay of almost a year, after the Labour Government announced the cancellation of the project, which was unveiled by the Conservative Government just last year.
Thank you, Sir John, for your patience and indulgence this morning. I, along with many Scots, am bitterly disappointed. Scotland has been let down for 17 years by a failing nationalist Government in Edinburgh, and now it is being severely let down by a Labour Government here in London as well.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate on the impact of the spending review on Scotland, on all his advocacy on behalf of his constituents and on gifting us his deep experience, expertise and commitment to defence and national security.
This was, indeed, a historic spending review for Scotland. The UK has faced a decade and a half of poor productivity, weak economic growth and deteriorating outcomes in public services. The first job of this Government was to stabilise the British economy and clear up the public finances. The decisions this Government have taken since taking office have been tough but have been proven to be the right ones. Now that the economy is on a more stable footing, the task of the Government is to ensure that the British economy delivers for working people once again, and the spending review continues this renewal.
The Chancellor has unleashed a new era of growth for Scotland. Our economy is integral to unlocking growth across the whole UK, with Scotland’s economy already worth £204 billion per year. The spending review announced targeted investment in Scotland’s most promising sectors to grow the economy and put more money in working people’s pockets.
In the first instance, I will focus on the areas that Members have asked direct questions about today. The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) asked whether we can bring a Home Office Minister to Scotland to hear directly from higher education. Newsflash: we already have. The immigration Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), came earlier this year at my invitation and met Universities Scotland and representatives of our farming communities, which led very quickly to changes in the seasonal agricultural workers visa. That is what happens when Scottish Labour MPs are at the beating heart of Government and are able to issue invitations to a Government who are entirely committed to delivering for Scotland.
Stephen Gethins
I know the Minister was asked a lot of questions, and I thank her for that answer, but what I asked was whether she would come to the University of Dundee to see for herself the profound impact of these policies. There has been a good Scottish bail-out from the Scottish Government, which is welcome, but will a Home Office Minister come to Dundee?
Kirsty McNeill
I would be delighted to come to Dundee and hear from people directly, but I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that problems at the University of Dundee are a function of the decision making of a number of people, not least the university itself and the Scottish Government. I would of course be delighted to be in ongoing dialogue with it.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) is a welcome new convert to the trade union cause. I would be delighted to pass on his best wishes to Sharon Graham and my fellow members of Unite, and I look forward to his backing for the new deal for working people. As he knows, the job of trade unionists and all those who are pro-trade union in the Government is to make sure the economy delivers for working people. That is exactly what we intend to do.
The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that we live in challenging times. The Prime Minister has said that we will up our game on defence, and the Chancellor reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to increase defence spending to 2.6% of GDP by April 2027. We are backing our armed forces, creating British jobs in British industries and prioritising the security of Britain when it is most needed.
Scotland is playing a leading role at the beating heart of the UK defence policy. The long-term future of the Clyde has been secured through an initial £250 million investment over three years, which will begin a multi-decade, multi-billion-pound redevelopment of HM Naval Base Clyde through the Clyde 2070 programme. HM Naval Base Clyde will play a crucial role for decades to come as we restore Britain’s readiness, deter our adversaries and help drive economic growth across the UK, including in Scotland, as part of our plan for change. As Members know, Scotland is already a centre of excellence for shipbuilding. The increased defence spending will see investment in UK sovereign capability, including in shipbuilding and naval technology. Further details will be set out in the defence investment plan later in the year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar made an important point about a defence growth deal. The forthcoming defence sector plan will outline how we will reform, grow and innovate to build our defence industrial base, scale small and medium-sized companies and create industrial leaders. The Secretary of State and I are of course working closely with colleagues across Government and in the Cabinet to maximise the benefits for Scotland.
I received a number of questions and representations about local growth. I assure hon. Members that the UK Government intend to ensure that every single part of Scotland benefits from the spending review. We are investing £1.7 billion in local communities over 10 years. The Government are investing £160 million over 10 years in investment zones in the north-east of Scotland and the Glasgow city region. At the spending review, the Chancellor confirmed £452 million over four years for city region and growth deals across Scotland, including a £100 million joint investment for the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal with the Scottish Government —£50 million from the UK Government and £50 million from the Scottish Government. That demonstrates the UK Government’s continued commitment to the Grangemouth industrial area.
The growth deal for Argyll and Bute was signed on 10 March, which means that every part of Scotland is now benefiting from our city, region and growth deal programme. A new local growth fund and investments in up to 350 deprived communities across the UK will maintain the same cash levels as in 2025-26, under the shared prosperity fund.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Scotland Office will work with local partners and the Scottish Government to ensure that money goes to projects that matter to local people. That investment will help drive growth and improve communities across Scotland. I am delighted that the spending review also confirmed in-flight commitments, including for Drumchapel town centre regeneration, and as well as funding for the Tour de France and Tour de France Femmes in 2027, when the Grand Départ will take place in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked whether we will ensure that areas that have been historically underinvested in will get their fair share. I assure him that we are looking at both need and potential in allocations. I also repeat an undertaking that I gave on the Floor of the House: we are looking at increasing trade between Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I am delighted to be looking at that in the coming weeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) asked what is to be done about devolution not to Scotland, but inside Scotland. I say to him that devolution is a habit of mind—one that the Scottish Government never acquired. They have been a hugely centralising Government, to the detriment of the Scottish people. I am delighted to reconfirm Scottish Labour’s commitment to further devolution inside Scotland today.
This spending review delivers support for Scottish businesses. The National Wealth Fund is trialling a strategic partnership with Glasgow city region, providing enhanced, hands-on support to help it develop and finance long-term investment opportunities. I was delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) about how people are taking advantage of that in her constituency.
The settlement for investment in the spending review allocated £750,000 each year to champion Brand Scotland trade missions to make sure that we are getting inward investment and exporting. Last year, the Secretary of State for Scotland made successful trips to Norway and south-east Asia; in April, he travelled to Washington DC and New York. In the United States, he met with business leaders and investors, promoted our world-class culture and took part in Tartan Week with members of the Scottish diaspora. In May, the Secretary of State launched the Brand Scotland fund, offering the UK’s international network grants of up to £20,000 for innovative and creative activities to market Scotland overseas.
It was my privilege to be in Spain at the start of June with 16 Scottish female entrepreneurs to maximise the benefits of the recent UK-EU deal, tackle the Scottish gender export gap, promote Brand Scotland’s iconic goods and services, and encourage Spanish investment into Scotland. The Scotland Office director also recently supported a Glasgow chamber of commerce trade mission to Shanghai and over the next financial year will deliver a number of overseas trade missions and collaborations with the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and other key industry stakeholders.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar asked about US immigration pre-clearance at Edinburgh airport. The Scotland Office is aware of that issue and has supported Edinburgh airport in discussions with the Home Office, Department for Business and Trade and US authorities. We have also engaged directly with the US Government officials on this issue. Although I agree it would be a welcome development for Edinburgh airport, it is not currently US policy to extend pre-clearance arrangements in this way—but we will continue to engage with them going forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar also raised Rosyth and Dunkirk shipping routes. My officials are in touch with the company behind the new proposed route and relevant Scottish Government and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials. They are looking to arrange a meeting as early as next week to look at possible solutions that would allow the project to go ahead. Scotland is playing a key role as part of our industrial strategy. We have demonstrable strength in eight of the key sectors. The accompanying industrial strategy sector plans will promote Scotland’s wide-ranging strength to investors.
I turn to energy. Working people from across Scotland will benefit from significant investments in clean energy and innovation, creating thousands of highly skilled jobs and strengthening Scotland’s position as the home of the United Kingdom’s clean energy revolution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) pointed out, the UK Government have confirmed £8.3 billion in funding for GB Energy in Aberdeen. That is alongside an increased commitment to the Acorn carbon capture usage and storage project, which—I am pleased to confirm for the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry—will receive £200 million in development funding, and the wider funding will be announced in due course. We believe that carbon capture and storage is critical for the UK’s future energy security and industrial ambitions, and recognise the importance of the role that it can play in securing growth and our clean power future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) and the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) asked about the future of oil and gas. This Government have been clear that that will be part of the mix for decades to come, but that we have to invest in the transition so that people can get renewable jobs of the future. That is why I was pleased earlier this year to launch the energy skills passport when I was in Aberdeen.
The spending review also allocated significant investment in Scotland’s trailblazing innovation, research and development sectors, including—say it with me— £750 million for the supercomputing facility at Edinburgh University. To clear up any confusion for the record, what happened last year was not that this UK Labour Government cancelled the project; they put it on pause, because the previous Conservative Government had announced the project and not allocated a single penny to its realisation. Taking the responsible course, we took a year to make sure that it could be funded in full, and I believe Edinburgh University is delighted that we have now secured that funding.
Like the hon. Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), I am a committed devolutionist, and I share their despair that the Scottish Government are absolutely addicted to wasting money. That notwithstanding, this Government are responsibly committed to resetting the relationship, so that we can make representations to ensure the best results for the people of Scotland.
Stephen Gethins
I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being generous with her time. She talks about resetting the relationship, but I have one thing in particular to ask. I am sure that she and her colleagues think that last night was a triumph with the welfare reforms, but they will have a direct impact on the Scottish Government by pushing people into poverty. What assessment has the Minister made of last night’s vote and its impact on the devolution settlement?
Kirsty McNeill
We are in ongoing conversation with the Scottish Government on all manner of policies where there is an interplay between reserved and devolved matters. The Scottish Government have been offered all manner of briefings, including—I repeat my disappointment about this—a briefing for the First Minister on the strategic defence review, which he refused because he wanted to go campaigning in Hamilton—and a fat lot of good that did him.
The UK Government’s plan for change has delivered a record settlement for the Scottish Government. There is more money than ever before for them to invest in Scottish public services such as our NHS, police, housing and schools. The Scottish Government will continue to get more than 20% more funding per head than the equivalent UK Government spending in the rest of the UK. The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry cited a phrase from the Fraser of Allander Institute, but I note that he did not cite it saying that “you’d be hard pressed” to say that Scotland has been short-changed compared with
“UK Government departments with comparable responsibilities”.
The Fraser of Allander Institute recognises a record settlement when it sees one.
While I am responding to the hon. Member, I almost felt that there was a dare when he said that we do not want to talk about Labour’s record. I would be delighted to do that. As we approach the first anniversary of this Labour Government, I am proud of the new deal for working people, GB Energy, three trade deals, four interest rate cuts, record investment in Scotland’s devolution era into the Scottish Government and the protection of jobs for which this Government have been responsible, including at the behest of our colleagues in Arnish and Methil. I am proud that this is a Government with Scotland at its beating heart.
In conclusion, the UK Government are delivering for people and communities in Scotland. This is a truly historic spending review for Scotland, choosing investment over decline and delivering on the promise that there would be no return to austerity with Labour. It puts Scotland at the heart of our growth missions, creates huge opportunities for us in the industries of the future and helps us to rebuild Britain. It invests in Britain’s renewal and prioritises the UK’s security, health and economic growth. This spending review delivered investment in Scotland’s communities and industries that the Conservatives never would, and the SNP never could.
Graeme Downie
As others have said, Sir John, I thank you very much for your patience this morning. After a previous, similar Westminster Hall debate a number of months ago, a colleague said that chairing it was like being a stranger walking in and trying to moderate a fight at a Scottish wedding. I suspect that is how someone sitting in that Chair feels when these debates happen. I thank everyone for their participation this morning; it has been quite an encouraging debate, and there were even, occasionally, moments of agreement—something that in my experience rarely happens at a Scottish wedding. Occasionally, they agree on “I do”, and not very much more.
I will respond briefly to some of the contributions that were made. I have heard the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) describe the maternity services in his constituency a number of times, and I hope he continues to do so until we finally see a solution there. It is utterly unacceptable that women find themselves in that very dangerous position, and I hope that there is good feeling and good will from the Scottish Government to solve those real problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) discussed Glasgow’s potential. As someone who was born in Edinburgh and now lives in Fife, I have to say that the east coast obviously has much greater potential, but I am happy for Glasgow to come a close second.
As ever, it was good to hear the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins), whom I have known for a number of years. It is always interesting to listen to him, and it was good to hear the latest stump speech for his campaign in Dundee next year.
My hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) and for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) highlighted problems around GP surgeries—again, a failure of the SNP. As I mentioned in my speech, we have seen the same in Kincardine in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) shared an interest in the potential of aviation to create economic growth.
I was delighted to hear from the Minister that more will be done on the defence growth deal. I ask her in particular to consider the potential of Fife in those discussions, so that we are providing opportunities for young people around skills, which Fife can provide in defence and related sectors, such as renewable energy and other technical skills. Again, the Scottish Government have not really established their credentials on providing the right technical skills, which people in many of our communities want in order to fulfil their potential.
Finally, I was particularly pleased to hear about the meeting that could take place as soon as next week about the Rosyth to Dunkirk ferry. I genuinely believe that there is good will to find a solution. It is frustrating that it has taken so long and that previous Governments were unable to get together; that harks back to the need to reset the relationship. We can build solutions, and there should not be barriers.
I thank everyone for participating, and thank you again, Sir John.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of the Spending Review 2025 on Scotland.
ECO4 Scheme Redress
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of redress under the ECO 4 scheme.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Sir John. This debate is about a lot of things. It is about the need to retrofit UK homes to improve their fuel efficiency, training the future workforce and the consumer protection landscape, but it is also about the Government taking responsibility for policy failures. Most importantly, it is about people. Therefore, before I cover the issues with the ECO4—energy company obligation 4—scheme and the wider consumer protection landscape, I want to set out the experience of my constituent, Jackie.
Jackie and her husband live in a gable end cottage. They have worked hard and done well, and are meant to be enjoying their retirement, but they are not. It all started to go wrong just more than a year ago, when, out of curiosity, they filled in a small quiz about rural homeowners without central heating on the Energy Advice Helpline website. They were contacted by a representative by phone and email very quickly, and found themselves put into a pipeline for works to be carried out. They described that period to my team as dizzying and said that they felt under pressure.
Jackie and her husband had checked that the Energy Advice Helpline seemed to be a genuine not-for-profit advice service, but they had not been advised that the project had been given to a company called Central Eco Solutions. Now, some 12 months later, we have just found out that there was a further middle company—a surveyor based in Leeds, who my constituents had never spoken to until yesterday. The workflow that he described was that the Energy Advice Helpline adviser supplied work to him, and then he supplied work to installers.
The work was carried out hurriedly in three weeks at the end of July and start of August last year. Alarmed at the poor quality of work being done in their property, Jackie and her husband started questioning the contractors about who was employing them and what instructions they had been given. It was only at that stage that they found out that Central Eco Solutions was involved. There was no project management, contract or design proposals, and when they asked for technical surveys, they were carried out by someone who was not a surveyor.
Problems became obvious with the works immediately. No care was taken with the preparation. Floors were taken up and cupboards removed without notice. They described a small bookcase being ripped out with a crowbar, and the promises of it being replaced transpired to be completely false. The insulation and plastering had to be redone three times. The team attempted to insulate around a radiator, until they were stopped, but they did manage to insulate over a double socket, making it unusable. One insulation wall was put in at a very non-vertical angle. A joiner was sent to repair the woodwork, but he was instructed only to use MDF in place of pre-existing solid wood, and clearly, did not have the skillset to do the job in hand.
Those are just the snags. The air source heat pump was originally installed on the outside of the gable wall, causing such bad noise and vibration in two bedrooms that they became unusable. Jackie investigated and found it had been bolted directly to the wall, whereas others she had seen were bedded on insulation. When she suggested that as a remedy, the heat pump was removed and placed apart from the building, but pipework was left running at waist height over the pathway to the garden. Most of the snags have still not been resolved. There are uncovered pipes, ruined woodwork, excess pipes creating energy waste, and a slanting kitchen wall.
My constituents have had a terrible year dealing with these issues: chasing Central Eco Solutions for the work to be finished properly, trying to find some sort of guarantee scheme, making complaints, and escalating those complaints with no clear route for doing so. They are not alone. I am telling Jackie’s story, but there are many others in North East Fife and around the country. It is not a problem with just one installation company, because I have heard cases with others; I have been contacted by people all around Great Britain since my debate went on to the Order Paper, who have named different companies that have ruined their homes and left.
This is a Government problem that must be solved. I have questioned the Minister in the House about it previously, and I think she knows that it is a Government problem because she announced in January that she would review the consumer protection landscape, particularly in relation to solid wall insulations under ECO4. However, I have had sight of a letter sent by her team in response to a complaint by a company outwith North East Fife. I was disappointed that the letter makes it clear that, as the Government do not directly fund ECO4, they do not get involved in private and contractual decisions between the parties involved.
That somewhat misses the point. ECO4 may not be taxpayer funded, but it is a Government-backed scheme. For consumers that is the same thing, because that gives the scheme a stamp of Government approval. The Government surely would not, and should not, be backing something that allows traders to carry out unreliable and unsuitable work on somebody’s property. The Government would not be backing something unless they were really sure of what it was—right? In any case, ECO4 is taxpayer funded in some ways, because it is funded by a Government-backed levy on energy customers’ bills. Just because those public funds do not go through the Treasury’s coffers does not mean that there is not a public interest in getting their use right.
I am happy to put on the record that I support ECO schemes: it is incredibly important to upgrade properties so that they are energy efficient. Our constituents need to do that to save money on their bills, and energy efficiency is a must-have in the face of a climate crisis.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an important speech. One in six properties in Cumbria is more than 100 years old. Almost all of them will be single-walled properties, which are incredibly hard to insulate. Yet the award of grants through ECO4 always tends to favour large companies, not the smaller businesses that are better able to retrofit heritage buildings. Should the Government change that so that my constituents can have warmer homes that are also cheaper to heat?
Wendy Chamberlain
I will go on to mention the particular challenge with older properties, but my hon. Friend’s example illustrates exactly what the issue is. This scheme is under the auspices of Ofgem and is funded through the Government levy on energy bills, but does not have any real oversight, so consumers end up being let down.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. She always brings applicable issues to Westminster Hall, and today is as an example of that, with the horrific example of the almost inconceivable standard of work done to her constituent’s house.
The ECO4 scheme does not apply in Northern Ireland, where we have a fuel assistance scheme. Eligibility can be very tight and residents with more than a certain amount in their savings accounts find that they may not qualify. Does the hon. Lady agree that more could be done to loosen the rules for our elderly generation, particularly in boiler replacement or energy schemes?
Wendy Chamberlain
It would not be a Westminster Hall debate without an intervention from the hon. Member. He illustrates that, although this is a GB scheme and not applicable in Northern Ireland, consumers and more vulnerable residents in Northern Ireland face the same challenges regarding energy efficiency. The Government have a responsibility, working with the Northern Ireland Assembly, to improve the situation there.
We need to get this right, not just so there is faith in the schemes—although that is vital—but so works under them do not end up costing people even more in lost energy costs. It is clear that some things are going badly wrong under the ECO schemes as they stand. The Government need to address them for the remainder of properties that might do upgrades under ECO4 and for future iterations of the scheme.
First, there is a complete lack of transparency in how households are driven to the scheme and, as far as I can tell, there is no regulation either. I have talked about how Jackie and her husband felt railroaded from wondering if they would be entitled to anything for upgrades, to their home being pulled apart. She is not a vulnerable person, but she thinks that the company she dealt with was totally unprepared for being challenged over what was happening. Another constituent who had a terrible outcome under the scheme has described themselves as vulnerable and feels that the system was set up to target people like them.
As my team and I have gone further into such cases, I was surprised that more MPs are not shouting about this issue. Clearly, it is not limited just to one company or to North East Fife. When I spoke to Fuel Poverty Action this week, it told me that it is seeing only the most determined victims complaining—the rest are highly vulnerable people. From what I have seen, if companies offer to pay any compensation at all after months of fighting—even if it will not cover the cost of the remedial works—it is on the condition that all complaints be withdrawn. I therefore cannot help but wonder how many people have felt that they had to accept, and now are not in a position to tell us about their experiences.
Secondly, the funding model for ECO4 places incentives on companies to upgrade rural homes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) referred to. I understand the logic of that, but rural homes, as he said, tend to be a lot older and less uniform than urban ones, so we would ideally want a proper survey to be not only done, but carried out by a specialist retrofit co-ordinator. The fact is, however, is that we do not have anywhere near enough of them.
TrustMark data indicates that although more than 2,000 individuals have completed the retrofit co-ordinator qualification, just 612 are registered with the quality mark and only 230 are actively lodging work in the data warehouse. Of the 230 active co-ordinators, around 30% are lodging the majority of those projects. That means around 66 specialists are overseeing the vast majority of retrofit works. We clearly need more, and the Government need to worry about that skills shortage.
According to Ashden, the UK will need up to 50,000 retrofit co-ordinators in coming years if we are going to reach our goals for making homes energy efficient. In the meantime, what requirements are there for works to be properly overseen by a specialist? Do contractors have to employ one and risk cutting into their margins? Are there requirements for co-ordinators to actually visit a property, provide plans, speak with the owners and review works as they go? I wonder if the mysterious middle man I mentioned earlier was a retrofit co-ordinator—it is just not clear. What is clear is that none of these steps took place in that case.
Similarly, the short-term nature of the scheme means that we are not skilling up the workforce—the plasterers, electricians and plumbers—that we need to do these works. ECO4 is the longest iteration of the schemes and has been running for almost four years, but it is due to close next spring, and we still do not know what will replace it. Short schemes with short-notice changes do not allow businesses to invest in training or properly plan for the future. Even for the best-intentioned companies and tradespeople, that is not commercially viable. That was all underlined by evidence from across the sector in the recent Energy Security and Net Zero Committee report. The industry needs a 10-year plan so that it can invest in upskilling, take on apprenticeships knowing there will be work for them after their training, and be prepared to take on the challenge of making our homes future-proof.
Finally on ECO4, there desperately needs to be some clarity over how works are certified and payments are made. These are not just individual contractual disputes; the fact that Ofgem is administering the scheme tells a very different story. As I understand it, to get paid, an installer needs to register the works with TrustMark, providing photos, energy performance certificate ratings and so on. That is then validated before Ofgem releases the funds.
Considering the hundreds, if not thousands, of homes being damaged around the country, what precise validation is happening? Is money being released for those ruined homes? What requirements are there on traders not just to say, “Sure, we installed a heat pump,” but to actually prove they have put a home back to the way it was? Where else is the money going in the supply line of referrals that I talked about earlier? Who is getting paid, by whom and for what?
I have talked a lot about ECO4, but I want to touch briefly on the wider consumer protection landscape because, now that things have gone wrong, that is where my constituents and many others are battling. I do not think it is controversial to say that it is a bit of a mess. The Competition and Markets Authority confirmed that in its 2023 report on consumer protection in green heating and insulation sector. It was reiterated by Citizens Advice in its “Hitting a Wall” report last year, and again by the ESNZ Committee in its “Retrofitting homes for net zero” report in spring.
I am aware—as I am sure the Minister will reference—that the Government are currently considering responses to a consultation on requiring the microgeneration certification scheme to be the sole certification scheme for clean heat installations. Having seen constituents, and my caseworkers on their behalf, battle through a maze of different accreditation and oversight bodies to try to find someone to take responsibility for this work, a single body seems incredibly sensible, but I still have some questions.
How would that one body sit alongside TrustMark and Ofgem? Would it replace TrustMark and, if so, how would it be better equipped to accredit and oversee retrofit contractors? Would it solve the problem of traders being able to say they are accredited, and showing that they are accredited, when complaints have already started coming in? At the moment, it is far too easy for them to chop and change logos, or to continue to display a logo that they should not be able to. How do we make that new, single body sufficiently powerful and reactive so that it can be trusted by consumers?
Policy specialists recently suggested to me that local authorities could be trusted to keep a list of accredited local traders. I had to tell them that some already do. Indeed, in North East Fife, a contractor just told constituents that they were not displayed yet due to a delay in the application process. That is very believable, given how stretched local government is.
What happens to consumers when their homes are left ruined, with works poorly carried out, and the companies have lied about being certified or have now dissolved and vanished? What will happen to people stuck in the original system, whose works were carried out under the current failing scheme, who are being pushed from pillar to post with no end point in sight? Those are the experiences of my constituents and many others. To keep fighting for someone to be on their side is breaking them. Where is their solution?
Failures in consumer protection clearly go beyond the ECO4 scheme, but there are particular problems for consumers funded via ECO4. So many people, often vulnerable, are pushed into having work done, and the nature of the schemes increases the chances of being allocated an unskilled or rogue trader. Some of the people I have spoken to in the run-up to today have said that this is a scandal that no one takes responsibility for, and they are very concerned about speaking out about it. I hope that the Minister will address my concerns this morning.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that the Member in charge does not have the opportunity to wind up the debate. I call the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing this important debate and shining a light on the problem, which I agree is systemic, and also for sharing the case of her constituent, Jackie, which is both worrying and heartbreaking. I want to reaffirm the Government’s unwavering commitment to driving up standards—we know we must do this—and to strengthening consumer protection and rebuilding public trust in home upgrades.
On 23 January I informed the House of the discovery of widespread non-compliance in the insulation of solid wall insulation under the ECO4 and Great British insulation scheme. I am clear that blameless families have fallen victim to work that is not up to standard and which, if untreated, could lead to chronic issues of damp and mould spoiling their homes. This, for me, was a wake-up call and clearly shows that the system needs reform. Since then, we have taken clear and co-ordinated action to address the issues and protect affected households. I will set out the steps we have taken.
As I set out in my statement to the House in January, as soon as my Department was made aware of the issues we worked at pace to establish an expanded programme of checks, which we have asked Ofgem to oversee. I am pleased to report that those checks have progressed quickly; where issues have been identified they are already being resolved. I encourage all households who are contacted to have an audit on their property to take up those checks, even if they do not think there is a problem. We are building up a comprehensive picture of the scale and size of the problem and I will update the House in due course.
Our immediate priority was to protect consumers. Alongside the ongoing checks, we are implementing a comprehensive plan to remedy poor quality installations in accordance with the required standards. Where substandard work is identified, we have been clear that it is the installer’s responsibility to put it right at no cost to the household. Some 90% of the installations identified as not being up to standard have already been remediated, I am glad to say. We will continue to apply pressure on installers to take responsibility to fix the issues and not put the burden on individual consumers. If Jackie is struggling to get the system to respond in the way that it should, I will be happy for her to meet me and for us to take up that specific case.
Beyond energy efficiency measures, we are also verifying the quality of installations of two microgeneration technologies—heat pumps and solar panels—that were installed under ECO4. Installers use the publicly available specification standard for energy efficiency, and a standard set by the microgeneration certification scheme for heat pumps and solar. The MCS has been carrying out additional site audits of the microgeneration installations. So far, we have not seen concerning evidence of consumer detriment, but we are completing further checks before we can be assured that there are no systemic problems in the installation of microgeneration technologies. If substandard work is found, the MCS makes installers put it right. It is very important that the people who get this wrong are not allowed to walk away. They must be the ones to remediate the problems.
We were clear that we need further oversight of the system while we bring in bigger reforms, which I will come on to. The National Audit Office is undertaking an investigation into the issues with ECO4 scheme. We welcome that investigation and the insights it will bring. We have also taken steps to strengthen oversight of the wider consumer protection system, so that in the short term, while we bring in wider reforms, we stop problems happening. That includes the UK Accreditation Service increasing rates of inspection of certification bodies, and agreement with TrustMark that a senior Department for Energy Security and Net Zero official will attend its board in an advisory capacity, so that we keep a firm grip on issues as they arise.
Certification bodies have agreed that installers will only be PAS 2030 certified for each measure by one certification body. The latest iteration of PAS 2035/2030 standards, which came into force on 30 March, introduced strengthened requirements to ensure high-quality installations. Energy suppliers have also strengthened their oversight of solid-wall insulation measures, so that there are additional audits and oversight of any measures brought forward.
Those are all important, necessary short-term steps, but it is clear to me that there is a systemic problem. We recognise that and are very clear that we need to put it right. We inherited a situation of many organisations with different roles and responsibilities involved in ensuring the quality of retrofit activity, resulting in a fragmented and confusing system of consumer protections. To address that and to create a clear, more comprehensive set of standards for consumers, we are moving forward with reforms, which we will announce in our warm homes plan to be published in October.
That plan will look at the entire of spectrum, including the training and the capacity building of installers, who are key. It will look at how installers who work in people’s homes are certified and monitored, and the quality assurance regime that we put in place. One insight we found was that capital schemes that tend to be overseen by local authorities and devolved Administrations have far fewer issues because of the level of quality assurance.
The plan will also inform people where to turn for redress when things go wrong, making that as simple as possible. The situation where consumers have to jump through multiple hoops just to get things sorted cannot be allowed to continue. Guarantees must be in place to ensure that, when things do go wrong, consumers do not foot the bill, and work is remediated by the system.
Wendy Chamberlain
I am grateful to the Minister for her response. It appears the Government do recognise the scale of the problem. Does she have anything to say about the worrying reports I received when preparing for this debate of people being forced to withdraw complaints before remedial work is carried out by companies? Is there anything we can do there?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for raising that. We will take that away because that is unacceptable. We have been in regular touch with every part of the system since this issue came to light. We are talking to installers, certification bodies, TrustMark, the MCS and Ofgem. I will take that issue away and write to her.
My final point on the reform agenda is that we clearly need a guiding mind overseeing the system. One reason we are in this bind is because we do not have that guiding mind. Let me reassure the hon. Member, who has spoken eloquently, passionately and with great insight about this issue time and again. the Government will take the decisive action that is necessary to protect the interests of consumers. It is essential to restore consumer trust, because we must take people on this journey of upgrading their homes, not just for our clean power mission but because that is the route to drive down bills and tackle the cost of living crisis.
If people do not trust the system, do not trust that upgrades will be of the utmost standards and that, if things go wrong, they will be fixed, they will not come with us on that journey. I am clear that we take these issues seriously. We inherited them but they are ours to fix. We will put in place a reform agenda and, critically, for people who have been affected by ECO4, we are working hard to ensure that the system does what it needs to do—that is, when issues are identified, installers go in and certification bodies TrustMark and MCS do their job to ensure that it is remediated at no cost. In the short term, we are trying to fix the problem we inherited. Then we will draw a line and put in place a system that is fit for purpose so that we can build consumer trust.
Question put and agreed to.
Whistleblowers
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the contribution of whistleblowers.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Last week we marked World Whistleblower Day, so it is only right that we come together in this place to recognise the contribution that whistleblowers make to our society. Time and again, whistleblowers bravely expose wrongdoing, often at great personal and professional risk. Whistleblowers are key to alerting law enforcement agencies about criminal activity, and they play a crucial role in delivering successful prosecutions.
We all know that whistleblowers on the inside are often the most valuable sources of information, notably when it concerns illicit financial activities. Indeed, 43% of fraud was detected by tip-offs last year. The Serious Fraud Office frequently cites whistleblowers as a vital source of information for its investigations, and over half of whistleblowing reports received by the Financial Conduct Authority led to regulatory action by the watchdog last year.
With all that in mind, to open the debate, I would like to focus on one particular whistleblower: Raphaël Halet. That case shows the real impact that whistleblowers can have, bringing about positive change in society by shining a spotlight on issues of public concern—in this instance, aggressive tax avoidance. Ten years ago, Mr Halet, then a PricewaterhouseCoopers employee, revealed documents to the press that exposed a major global network of tax avoidance schemes based out of the tax haven of Luxembourg. These shocking revelations captured headlines around the world and quickly grew into a bigger scandal known as the LuxLeaks.
The documents that Mr Halet leaked exposed the secret deals used by hundreds of the world’s largest companies—firms like Pepsi, IKEA, Amazon and Disney—to reduce their tax bills to next to nothing. These leaks helped to set the stage for ongoing efforts to impose a minimum global tax on corporations and, eventually, for a ruling last year by the European Court of Justice, which ordered the corporate giant Apple to return about $14 billion of unpaid taxes in Ireland.
However, those documents became the subject of criminal charges in Luxembourg against Mr Halet. Thankfully, 10 years later, he was exonerated, alongside the other two LuxLeaks whistleblowers. I firmly believe that those leaks have helped the European Union to improve whistleblower protections and ensure that future whistleblowers do not unjustly face criminal charges.
Here in the UK, despite the important contribution of whistleblowers, individuals often lose their job when they come forward, simply because the existing legal framework lacks sufficient protections. As it stands, just 4% of whistleblowers in the UK win their cases if they are unfairly dismissed by their employer. I am quite sure that this deters any would-be whistleblower from ever speaking up and speaking truth to power. Our current framework also fails to adequately respond to whistleblowing. Employers are not duty-bound to have whistleblowing arrangements or to investigate when a whistleblower reports. Over 40% of the whistleblowers that Protect, which is the UK’s leading whistleblowing charity, spoke to in 2024 reported that they had been ignored.
To ensure that whistleblowers are better listened to, the Government should consider introducing a legal duty for companies to hold investigations into legitimate whistleblower concerns. This proposal has strong cross-party support, including from Sir Robert Buckland, the former Conservative Justice Secretary; Baroness Hodge of Barking, a former Labour Minister; and a former Liberal Democrat Cabinet Minister, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who joins us today. I expect there will also be support from Members who speak later in the debate.
Ignoring or failing to protect whistleblowers carries not just a human cost but a financial one. The Protect charity found that ignoring whistleblowers in just three scandals—the Post Office Horizon scandal, the Countess of Chester scandal and the Carillion scandal—cost the taxpayer a combined £423 million in the long run, which is a staggering figure. That could have funded the construction of 14 new schools, or even run a prison for some 20 years.
As I have said, speaking up can have career-ending and life-altering consequences. Whistleblowers often suffer immense professional, personal and psychological harm. The contribution of whistleblowers is huge, so we should offer fairness in return. That is why I support creating a whistleblower award initiative, as part of a comprehensive set of reforms to better protect and listen to whistleblowers.
The Royal United Services Institute has found that the United States and Canadian whistleblower award programmes, accompanied by safeguards and protections, as well as well-resourced regulators, have successfully increased the number of whistleblowers coming forward, enhanced law enforcement outcomes and improved the rates of financial recovery. This Government have already indicated that they recognise the potential benefits of introducing such rewards here in the UK. Just over a year ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), the shadow Foreign Secretary at the time, said that he would launch a new whistleblower award scheme to incentivise and encourage sources to step forward.
That is a commitment that we all want to see, and it is exactly where we should open today’s debate. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on current thinking on whistleblower awards nearly one year into government. It is clear from all the evidence—I expect that we will hear much more today—that we need to do far more to collectively support, protect, reward and, most importantly, listen to whistleblowers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that if they wish to catch my eye to speak in the debate, they must bob. That would help me enormously. I call Mr Jim Shannon. [Interruption.]
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for setting the scene so well, as he often does on these issues. I have spoken in previous debates on this topic, and it is an important issue for me.
The Minister and I were talking as we walked up to vote, and he reminded me of the story I am going to tell—a true story of a friend who was a whistleblower, and the effect it had on him personally, physically, emotionally and financially. Ultimately, it affected all his family. I will tell the story without mentioning his last name, but I will use his first name for the purposes of the debate.
Whistleblowing is a risk internally in any organisation in the public, private or voluntary sectors—it can affect us all. We probably all have many examples to give, and that is the point. The idea is to expose problems that may arise, such as fraud, violations, discrimination or downright corruption. There are provisions in place, and I believe in the protection of whistleblowers, so I very much look forward to discussing this issue. We just left the Chamber to vote on Lords amendments—a different focus in respect of a different Bill, obviously, but whistleblowing was the central theme of the discussions.
In a previous debate on this matter, I went into detail about a close friend of mine. His name was Brian, and that is all I will say, other than that we were friends from childhood the whole way through. He is sadly no longer with us. To give a brief reminder, Brian was a childhood friend who had suffered greatly due to his experience as a whistleblower. I fought a whole campaign for him, right through to meeting the companies that were involved. I knew the stress that Brian had. I also knew the physical impact it had on him.
Brian was a wonderful person. I use his story as an example of how people can be penalised for doing the right thing. I know the Minister knows the story well and that he will respond, as he always does, with help and compassion on the issues that we try to expound in Westminster Hall and in the Chamber. The right thing may not always be a natural choice for some, but for Brian it was never in dispute. He was committed to doing the right thing when he became aware of what was happening at that time.
I stand proud of Brian for the sacrifice he made in doing things properly and by the book, and for sticking rigidly to opposing what he knew was wrong the whole way through the system. Brian was a strapping big guy— six foot, and a rugby player at school, he was physically strong—and I would have thought he was mentally strong too. Unfortunately, the whistleblowing weakened him not only physically but emotionally.
I stand here as a supporter of protection for those who, like Brian, dare to speak truth to higher authority and take it the whole way through the system. When something is wrong, they have the guts, the courage and the commitment to do what is right, even when adversity stares them in the eye. Trust is earned, but protection is an entitlement for those who raise issues that could be of detriment to the greater good.
It is also a reality that many feel they cannot bring to superiors the issues of concern they wish to bring, in order to use the process as it is laid out. That is where the legislation must be strengthened, which is why I welcome what the Government are doing to ensure that protections are in place and that people do not feel intimidated or frightened to speak the truth. That should never happen in this world. We should protect people in every way from what can overtake them, as it did in Brian’s case. He got justice in the end, but it took its toll.
For Northern Ireland specifically, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 is the primary legislation used for protecting whistleblowers. It makes it unlawful for employers to dismiss workers or subject them to detriment because they have made a protected disclosure. A protected disclosure should be exactly what it says: there should be no feedback and no comeback, and they should be able to do something that, legally, they are able to do under the law, to highlight something that is wrong in a company. That legislation applies to both the private and public sector.
A UK legal study found that 73% of whistleblowers reported feeling victimised or, indeed, felt forced to resign, with many suffering significant anxiety and depression. That is what happened to Brian. Furthermore, there is no doubt about the mental toll that whistleblowing can take in terms of post-traumatic stress disorder and trauma. Nobody should have to feel that way about raising concerns that they feel need to be looked at or addressed.
I think of the experiences that my friend went through—the health issues he experienced and the downward trend in health. He was under emotional pressure and the anxiety levels were incredibly high. He also suffered financially. He was a high-flyer in a well-known company. His earnings back in the ’80s were at a level that I could only have dreamed about at that age. He suffered financially and his farm suffered financially, and the outcome was a smaller house. He was a family man, and his family were growing up at the time.
I think of the exceptional financial and physical problems that he suffered because he took an exceptional stand. Nobody should have to face losing everything for doing what they believe is right. I see it as a brave thing to question potential wrongdoing, and I know the Minister does as well. We need more protections in place. I look to the Minister, as I always do, for his commitment, which I know is forthcoming.
As always, I also ask whether the Minister has had the opportunity to speak to the relevant Ministers in the devolved Administrations, to ensure that the commitment of Ministers here will be the same as the ones made in Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as in Scotland and Wales. Will the Minister engage with the devolved institutions to ensure that we have strong legislation surrounding this issue across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? That is the reason why I am here—I am here because of Brian.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing this debate. As is well known, I worked as a solicitor prior to coming to this place, and I advised a significant number of clients on whistleblowing matters. Based on that experience, I think my hon. Friend is quite right that whistleblowers make an immense contribution to society and that their protection is extremely important.
I will take this opportunity to highlight two gaps in the law as I saw them in practice. The first relates to who is covered by the existing law. The EU whistleblowing directive would have introduced in this country coverage for self-employed people under the purview of the whistleblowing Act, but of course we have left the EU, so I assume we will not be implementing it. That is a terrible shame, because self-employed people are really important in this picture.
I have some casework relevant to this matter that I cannot refer to because it is going through tribunal, but in 2022 Inside Housing magazine found that, post Grenfell, fire risk assessors were coming under pressure from their employers or, if they were self-employed, their commissioners to downgrade their assessment of fire risk in social housing, because it is so expensive to remediate. In other words, fire risk assessors were whistleblowing that they were concerned that, when they had to make a professional judgment about danger, they were being put under pressure to assess things as being less dangerous than they actually were.
A lot of fire risk assessors are self-employed and are incredibly vulnerable, particularly if they have a major social housing client, as many do. They have all the vulnerability of being a whistleblower but none of the protection of employment legislation. They also work for other people, so they are not an employee and may not meet the definition of worker, so they are currently completely excluded. Protect has been campaigning for us to introduce protection into the law, and the EU has recognised that we need protection in law for self-employed people who whistleblow. I would very much like to see the law changed. It would be in the best interests of the whole country and everybody’s safety if we did so.
The second problem with whistleblowing law is that it is hard to advise a client that it is worth their taking the risk to bring a case because it is very difficult to prove reliably that what caused the breakdown of the relationship with their employer is the fact that they whistleblew. Employers understandably do not want to admit that their employee was mistreated because they whistleblew, to the extent that they systematically delude themselves about why that person was excluded and subsequently dismissed.
There are two ways in which that happens. In a financial services context, I have seen a person’s performance being heavily criticised as “non-commercial”. What that actually means is that the person is not giving the advice that people want to hear, which is quite different from not being commercial; it means that the person actually has regard for the law, and that is unpopular. We have seen examples of that. It is well known that the in-house counsel for the Post Office stopped being invited to meetings because she was not providing the advice on the law that people wanted to hear, so the board and the chief exec just started shutting her out.
It definitely happens in legal contexts and financial services contexts. People’s performance starts to be criticised very heavily, but to the person advising them there will be a systematic set of evidence that shows that they were being performance managed. The person advising the client has to tell them, “This is high risk. Your employer is going to say that you were underperforming. I am going to say, on your behalf, that you were being penalised for whistleblowing, but some of this will depend on what the tribunal finds on the day.” That is quite a difficult environment in which to advise people to continue to whistleblow.
The second line of case law that is really problematic in a whistleblowing context is about the irreconcilable breakdown of relationships. There is a whole line of case law about how badly people fall out with their colleagues when they start whistleblowing. I have seen that in an NHS context—in fact, the line of case law comes from an NHS context. The employer says, “Oh, no—you haven’t been penalised for whistleblowing. You’re an impossible human being. You are impossible to work with. You have fallen out with all your colleagues and you have been dismissed completely legitimately for another substantial reason: you cannot work with anyone, and that is compromising patient safety.”
I have watched an NHS trust systematically trying to line up a member of staff—it is clear from reading the papers—to say that they absolutely cannot get on with their colleagues any more. It carried out independent investigations to find that the person cannot get on with their colleagues. The reason why the person cannot get on with their colleagues is that they are repeatedly raising concerns about their clinical practice, which those people do not want to hear, so they all round on the whistleblower. The case law on the irreconcilable breakdown of relationships is hugely problematic for whistleblowers, and we need clarity in the law such that employers cannot hide behind—or frankly, construct—an irreconcilable breakdown of the relationship to hide, and make potentially lawful, a dismissal that in any other circumstance would clearly be a whistleblowing dismissal.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset for securing the debate, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister. There is a significant need for legal change in this area.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this important debate, during which I wish to talk about the contribution of whistleblowers through the specific lens of tackling economic crime—an endeavour to which I dedicated almost 15 years of my life.
Economic crime costs this country an eye-watering £350 billion a year. That is the equivalent of 15% of our GDP, siphoned away by fraudsters, the corrupt, bribe takers, and the organised crime gangs that thrive off illicit finance, and yet the UK allocates a meagre 0.05% of its GDP to law enforcement agencies that are tasked with combating this national threat. Our public finances are in a very challenging position, so we need to give those agencies cost-effective tools to catch the criminals, recover stolen assets and hold corporations to account. That is why we must empower one of our most powerful underutilised resources: whistleblowers.
Whistleblowers are the eyes and ears inside organisations where economic crime is committed. They are our frontline allies. Often, they are the only ones who can see fraud taking place or corruption being buried, and yet all too often they are ignored, unsupported or, regrettably, even punished for speaking out. Let me be clear: if we are serious about tackling economic crime, we must also be serious about supporting whistleblowers.
The evidence is compelling. Research by the campaign group Spotlight on Corruption found that in the United States from 1986 to 2022, whistleblowers were responsible for 69% of all the proceeds that the Department of Justice recovered through civil fraud cases involving Government funds. That it not a trickle; it amounts to an incredible $50.4 billion out of the $72.6 billion recovered by the US DOJ in that period. That is a flood of stolen public money returned to taxpayers because someone had the courage to speak up. The UK should learn from that example.
Our system does not work as well as it could for whistleblowers. Speaking up about wrongdoing can lead to the end of someone’s career, and it can mean personal, psychological and financial ruin, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) admirably spoke about. As researchers at the Centre for Finance and Security at RUSI have made clear, moral motivation alone is not enough to sustain a whistleblowing culture. We need a systemic shift and a new approach that recognises whistleblowers as vital sources of intelligence, not just idealists acting out of principle.
The Post Office Horizon scandal came to light not because of Government oversight, but because brave individuals took it upon themselves to blow the whistle. The Danske Bank money laundering affair, which involved €200 billion in illicit funds flowing through Estonia, unravelled thanks to an insider who refused to look away. Those are not isolated examples; they are warnings of what happens when systems fail and people are silenced. We must do better.
What can be done? The all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, of which I am a member, has put forward two measures in its economic crime manifesto that could make the UK a leader, not a laggard, when it comes to whistleblower protection and impact.
First, the manifesto proposes that companies must be required to investigate whistleblower concerns relating to economic crime, with independent oversight of those investigations. Too many companies currently treat whistleblowing as a reputational threat to manage, not a red flag to act on. I know that myself having spent more than a decade tackling economic crime and bribery in the financial services sector. Employees raise concerns, but they can be swiftly buried or dismissed, and there is no statutory duty to take the disclosures seriously and no independent body to check whether an investigation was conducted fairly, or even at all. That must change. We should compel companies to treat whistleblowing disclosures with the seriousness they deserve and ensure oversight to prevent cover-ups; otherwise, the very people who know what is happening are driven into silence or despair.
Secondly, the Government should look at the merits of establishing a central, easily accessible, secure and responsive whistleblowing body that can offer advice, support and a safe route to report wrongdoing. Currently, potential whistleblowers are left navigating a bureaucratic maze. They often do not know who to turn to and, when they do, they might be met with silence, confusion or—worse—retaliation. We must take this out of the shadows. A central body would not only simplify the process for blowing the whistle, but build trust, ensure consistency and act as a much-needed conduit between whistleblowers and law enforcement.
I welcome the leadership shown by the Serious Fraud Office under its director Nick Ephgrave. The SFO has rightly identified whistleblower incentivisation reform as a key strategic priority for 2025-26. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset mentioned, it is vital that we have a framework for rewarding and supporting those who blow the whistle. I accept that that marks a critical shift in thinking, from viewing whistleblowers as risks to seeing them as assets. Strengthening our whistleblowing framework would help law enforcement gather evidence earlier, reduce investigative delays and save public funds.
With the withdrawal of US leadership on this front internationally, has the Minister considered that strengthening our own whistleblowing framework and incentivisation schemes could prompt more whistleblowers from other jurisdictions to view the UK as a jurisdiction of choice in which to blow the whistle? That could have economic benefits for our agencies and the Exchequer.
Ultimately, we need to engender a cultural shift—one that reframes whistleblowing not as betrayal, but as public service, and says to financial professionals, civil servants and corporate employees alike, “If you see wrongdoing, we’ve got your back.” That is why I pay tribute to the whistleblowing charity Protect, which for decades has supported individuals who took the hardest step of all: to tell the truth in the face of adversity. Its work is so important, because economic crime is not victimless. It robs pensioners, rips off taxpayers and funds everything from kleptocracy abroad to serious organised criminals peddling drugs or firearms at home.
Whistleblowers help us see the unseen, name the unnamed and hold the untouchable to account. I call on the Minister to look at giving whistleblowers the legal backing and institutional support they deserve; learn from the United States, where whistleblowing incentives drive billions in recoveries; and, above all, let us create a system that protects those who protect the public interest.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on obtaining this extremely important debate. We have heard quality information from colleagues around the Chamber on how this matter needs to be tackled for the common good of the United Kingdom. Clearly, the law is not strong enough on whistleblowing. People leave themselves open to harm if they do the right thing. As colleagues have said, the Government should have their backs, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Colleagues have highlighted that there needs to be a change of culture. Some parts of the aviation industry are very good on their culture: among air traffic controllers, there is openness and transparency. Things are shared not just when there are crashes, but when near misses happen and lessons can be learned. We need exactly that openness and transparency in industry and in society more generally. Whistleblowers cast a light into dark corners.
I want to reflect on the occasions during my time as a servant of Torbay that I have come across whistleblowers who have had a positive impact. I sat on a tribunal in respect of a social worker; whistleblowers had played a significant role in the local authority’s parting ways with him, and he was struck off because of the issues that whistleblowers raised. Waste management in Torbay is another area where a whistleblower stepped out from among his colleagues and shared some challenges. That was some years ago, and matters were taken in hand and positive changes made.
On the international scene, one has only to look at Boeing and a gentleman called John Barnett, who had worked for the company for more than 30 years as a quality control manager. He blew the whistle about serious concerns, yet sadly he was not protected and he ended up committing suicide a little over a year ago. Those are some of the real challenges that we see, both close to home for me in Torbay and internationally, and examples of how whistleblowers act in the best interests of our communities.
Non-disclosure arrangements often play a part in this world. They are meant to be purely about intellectual property rights, but they are often used to silence people. I experienced a situation a few years ago in which, due to my disability, there was wrongdoing that could have been taken to the law. Compensation was paid, which I passed on to charities of my choice, but I still had to sign a non-disclosure agreement, even though the company in question had picked up better ways and should have been sharing that.
Liberal Democrats want an office of the whistleblower to be created, and we want laws on whistleblowing to be strengthened so that people are protected, but most of all we need a culture change, with a culture of belief and support for whistleblowers. As colleagues have said throughout the debate, they do so much good for our society as a whole.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this important debate. We have had a short but good debate with well-informed contributions from all right hon. and hon. Members. I am pleased to speak about the contribution of whistleblowers —the men and women who often, at great personal cost, speak truth to power and expose wrongdoing that threatens the public interest.
Whistleblowers are a vital component of any transparent and accountable society. From exposing financial misconduct in public contracts to raising the alarm about unsafe practices in hospitals, schools and the criminal justice system, they are often the first line of defence against systemic failure. They help protect taxpayer money, uphold ethical standards and, in some cases, save lives. Under the previous Conservative Government, we took their contribution seriously. We recognised that whistleblowers must be supported, not silenced. That is why we commissioned a comprehensive review of the UK’s whistleblowing framework. That review, launched in 2023, aimed to modernise the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, reflecting the changing nature of workplaces, technology and organisational cultures.
We took concrete steps. The last Government expanded the list of prescribed persons—independent bodies to whom whistleblowers can safely report wrongdoing. We introduced new protections for whistleblowers in health and social care, ensuring that staff who spoke up about abuse or unsafe conditions could not be victimised or dismissed. We supported the establishment of confidential reporting channels across Government Departments, particularly in defence procurement and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, where vast sums of public money are at stake.
We also supported the Office of the Whistleblower Bill, championed in the other place by Baroness Kramer and others—a cross-party effort that recognised that current enforcement is fragmented and that an independent body with real teeth is essential if we are to protect whistleblowers and punish retaliation effectively. I regret to say that the current Government are undoing much of that progress.
Sarah Russell
My recollection of the development of the law during that time is that the cap on unfair dismissal awards applied to whistleblowing, which made it much more difficult for me to get adequate compensation for my clients, particularly if they were high earners in the financial services sector.
Greg Smith
The hon. Lady clearly has a great deal of experience as a solicitor before her election to this place. I am not trying to make the case that everything is as it should be—in fact, I just said that the system clearly needs reform—but I think the last Conservative Government should be proud of concrete steps they took, which I hope will be built on by the new Government, but at the moment, the evidence is pointing the other way.
Despite warm words about transparency and ethics in public life, Labour has shown a concerning reluctance to strengthen whistleblower protections. The much anticipated response to the 2023 review has been repeatedly delayed. In the meantime, those brave enough to speak up remain exposed to career-ending retaliation, blacklisting or legal threats.
Worse still, Labour has quietly watered down safeguards in some of the very sectors where whistleblowers are most needed. I point, for example, to the recent decision to roll back reforms on anonymous reporting in the national health service. In the name of organisational cohesion, Labour is silencing dissent and discouraging staff from flagging issues that could directly impact patient safety.
Sarah Russell
I need to apologise to the shadow Minister—I was inaccurate on that last point, so I just want to correct the record.
Greg Smith
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s correction. This House would be a far better place if everyone corrected their errors in a much timelier manner. We all make mistakes, and it is good when we stand up and admit to them.
This same attitude is evident in the Government’s approach to transparency in the armed forces. Those on the Conservative Front Bench in the other place have been pressing the Government to include a whistleblowing function in the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. The noble Baroness Goldie’s amendments would give armed forces personnel the ability to raise a whistleblowing complaint to the commissioner, with the commissioner required to investigate and ensure complete anonymity. The Government have repeatedly opposed adding a whistleblowing function to that Bill. Labour peers and MPs have voted against the noble Baroness Goldie’s amendments three times to date, arguing that they are unnecessary.
The Government have claimed these amendments could make it less likely for someone to come forward purely by including the terms “whistleblower” and “whistleblowing”, yet that language is already widely used in such schemes. The NHS has a whistleblowing scheme known as the freedom to speak up policy, which directly uses the term “whistleblowing”. The Children’s Commissioner issues an annual whistleblowing report. To say that those terms would discourage people from raising issues is a fallacy and is not consistent with Government policy. If Labour was serious about this, it would have backed our amendment that would allow whistleblowers to come forward to the commissioner.
We have also seen worrying reports that Labour’s planned overhaul of procurement oversight may remove mandatory reporting requirements that flag up the fraud or conflicts of interest that are often brought to light by whistleblowers working inside those systems. That is not the direction we should be travelling in. A Government who are truly confident in their integrity should not fear whistleblowers; they should welcome them. They are not saboteurs, and they are not disloyal—they are patriots who put principle before personal gain, and they deserve better.
The Opposition remain committed to championing whistleblower protections. We believe in robust and enforceable safeguards. We believe in the need for an independent body to investigate whistleblower complaints and to protect those who speak up, and we will continue to hold the Government to account for any failure to protect those who protect the public interest.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate on the contribution of whistleblowers. I thank all the Members who have contributed to it. I join my hon. Friend’s tribute to those who blow the whistle, and I acknowledge the comments from various Members that the whistleblowing framework may not be operating as effectively as it could be. I welcome the many views expressed on potential reforms.
Whistleblowers play a valuable role in shining a light on wrongdoing. Workers who blow the whistle deserve to be taken seriously and not treated poorly by their employers for doing the right thing. The Public Interest Disclosure Act was considered world leading in 1998, when it amended the Employment Rights Act 1996 to introduce protections for whistleblowers. Those protections ensure that workers who blow the whistle on certain types of wrongdoing are protected from dismissal or detriment if certain conditions are met. That is known as a protected disclosure.
For a worker to receive protection, they must reasonably believe that a disclosure is in the public interest; the disclosure must concern one or more of the types of wrongdoing listed in the Act, such as a criminal offence or a danger to health and safety, and the worker must make the disclosure to their employer, another responsible person or one of the organisations prescribed in legislation. There are more than 90 prescribed persons that a worker may make a protective disclosure to, including many regulators that we are familiar with, such as the Financial Conduct Authority and the Health and Safety Executive. The list of prescribed persons is regularly updated and has been updated in the past 12 months. I hope that allays the concern of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who said that we are rolling back on these issues.
Our protections are strong, but it is fair to say that, after a quarter of a century, there is work to be done to modernise the framework. A whole range of issues have been raised about how we may improve things. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset asked whether there should be a duty on employers to investigate when a disclosure is made. Currently, there is no legal requirement for employers to investigate protected disclosures, which sadly enables some employers to ignore a disclosure or to fail to take the necessary corrective actions to address whistleblowing reports, although, as I have mentioned, there are a great number of external bodies that whistleblowers can report matters to, should their employer not take action.
We should acknowledge that many employers have policies and procedures in place that they follow in good faith to ensure that action is taken. That is particularly the case in some of the sectors that are heavily regulated. A general duty to investigate does raise questions about what that would actually entail: what would a good duty look like? Disclosures can be made on a wide range of issues, so we need to think carefully about how such a duty would work in practice. One of the structural issues with the legislation is that a disclosure can be made and investigated, but that does not prevent detrimental treatment or dismissal for the individual. The protections are effectively retrospective in their application, but that is an important point that we will consider further.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset proposed adopting the US model of financial incentives, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) raised a similar issue. We will certainly consider those matters. Hon. Members may be aware from the autumn Budget, as reaffirmed at the spring statement by the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray), that the Government will strengthen HMRC’s scheme for rewarding informants to encourage reporting of high-value tax fraud and tax avoidance. A new scheme will launch later this year, which will look to target serious non-compliance by large companies, wealthy individuals, and offshore avoidance schemes. It will take some inspiration from successful US and Canadian models, which were referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West. He mentioned that $50.4 billion had been recovered thanks to whistleblowers in the US. I am sure that the Chancellor would be very receptive to that kind of figure finding its way into her coffers.
I will look at the recommendations made by the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West mentioned. Importantly, he pointed out that companies facing a disclosure often look at it as a reputational threat rather than a wrong to be corrected. That is a very wise observation about the current deficiencies in the scheme. Actually, that issue is often about the culture in organisations rather than the legal framework. The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) referred to the profound and effective cultural shift in the airline safety sector, which has helped people to feel empowered to speak up.
As always, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a strong contribution. He mentioned his friend Brian, as he has done previously. He said that for Brian, doing the right thing was the natural thing to do, but that does not mean it was any less courageous. I pay tribute to Brian and the hon. Member for Strangford for raising his issues. He astutely observed that the clue is in the name—these are protected disclosures, and at the moment, protection does not always follow disclosure.
The contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell), as we would expect, drew heavily on her legal experience, for which I am always grateful. She mentioned a recent EU directive about expanding the definition of those covered by whistleblowing. A number of arguments are being put forward to expand the current legal definition beyond workers, including calls to include the self-employed—as we know, there are a whole range of employment protections for which the self-employed do not have parity with workers or directly employed individuals—but also non-executive directors and charity trustees. I recognise that Protect has been working and campaigning on this issue for a good period of time. I met representatives of Protect earlier this year, and my officials will continue to engage with them on these important issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton also mentioned the question of legal tests. There is awareness in government that employers sometimes rely on reasons that are not, on the face of it, directly related to protected disclosure but are, as my hon. Friend articulately set out, very much related to that when we get underneath into the detail. That particularly relates to the idea that providing unwelcome advice is being classed as a performance issue. I recognise the characterisation of irretrievable breakdowns in the workplace, which can happen for a number of reasons, including when a whistleblower does not feel that their voice is being heard. I recognise those concerns.
Another point we need to reflect on is that there is not enough public awareness and knowledge of how whistleblowing legislation works. Many workers are unsure of their rights or how to make disclosures within the current framework. Indeed, when I was in practice, I recall telling individuals who had talked to me about their situation at work that they had probably made a protected disclosure. They had never thought about what they did in those terms, but the law was there to protect them.
The framework entitles people to bring employment tribunal cases to seek a remedy following dismissal or detrimental treatment, but that is often a slow, costly and complex method of redress. I was concerned to hear the statistics my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset gave about the success rates for those claims. If an individual is in an employment tribunal having made a protected disclosure, it is almost certain that that employment relationship has come to an end anyway. I also recognise that the framework does not actually require confidentiality or anonymity for whistleblowers, which can sometimes deter people for fear of retribution.
A number of Members asked whether we should have an office of the whistleblower. As the shadow Minister says, proposals have been made in the other place. My understanding is that such an office would not only protect whistleblowers, oversee whistleblowing processes and enforce compliance and reporting standards, but establish new criminal sanctions for non-compliance. It would be a significant change to the existing framework. There are a number of different suggestions about how it would operate in practice, but it is something we are taking an interest in.
The shadow Minister asked about the Grant Thornton review, which began under the Conservative Government. I can commit to that report being realised very shortly. It does not make recommendations for reform, but it provides some observations and insights into how the current framework operates. As one would expect, it has obtained stakeholder feedback and there has been a literature review. We will be able to build on it moving forward.
The shadow Minister also characterised—I think unfairly—our approach as regressive. He will know that the Employment Rights Bill includes additional protections for whistleblowers and those who speak up about sexual harassment. I do not expect he will support the Bill, even though it includes those measures. He mentioned the changes in the NHS framework. The freedom to speak up process still applies in the NHS. On the armed forces suggestions, the whole purpose of the Bill is to give a framework for people to be able to speak up about their treatment, including families of those in the armed forces.
The protections in the Bill, which is now in the other place, will signal to employers that workers who make protected disclosures about sexual harassment in particular must be treated fairly. Workers will have legal recourse if their employer subjects them to detriment for speaking up about sexual harassment. We have also committed to implementing professional standards for NHS managers to hold them accountable for silencing whistleblowers or endangering patients through misconduct. As we heard from the Prime Minister earlier today, we remain fully committed to introducing a Hillsborough law, which will include a legal duty of candour for public servants and sanctions for those who refuse to comply.
The recent Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) (Amendment) Order 2025 allows workers to make protected disclosures to relevant Government Departments or on suspected breaches of sanctions. These changes will help workers to qualify for employment protections when disclosing to Government information relating to financial, transport and certain trade sanctions, and seek redress should they suffer detriment or dismissal at work due to making a protected disclosure.
I appreciate that we need to consider many issues. A range of ideas has been put forward, and it is important that we take the opportunity to explore them further, so that we find the right solutions that work for everyone in the economy, and give whistleblowers the protection that everyone agrees they need.
Lloyd Hatton
I would like to conclude today’s debate by summarising some of the helpful and constructive contributions of hon. Members. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for outlining the bravery of his constituent Brian. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) for describing the high-risk culture around whistleblowers and the fear that it creates for many.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), who has been a tireless champion on this issue, for highlighting, first, the scale of the economic crime epidemic that we face in the UK, and secondly, the critical role of whistleblowers in tackling the problem head on. I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) for making it clear that we are a stronger society because of whistleblowers, and that when they come forward in the public interest, we all benefit.
Finally, I thank the Minister for his remarks. He was right to outline that the current framework is in need of modernisation and does not deal with the challenges that we face. I look forward to further action from the Government. I also welcome his looking at the US model and seeing how it works to adequately reward and protect whistleblowers. I hope that we can learn from that example. I welcome what he said about HMRC, and urge him and the whole Government to be bold in properly empowering and equipping HMRC to work more effectively with whistleblowers and to tackle the scandal of aggressive tax avoidance and evasion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the contribution of whistleblowers.
Space Weather
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of space weather on the UK.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. There are debates in this House that deal with the visible challenges of our time, such as conflict, inflation and public services, and then every so often, there are those that deal with the dangers not yet on our doorstep, but hurtling towards us all the same. This is such a debate. The threat that I raise today does not wear a uniform, cross borders or sail across oceans. It travels from the heart of our solar system, faster than sound, silent and invisible. It is called space weather, and it poses one of the gravest risks to our modern way of life.
I will start with a simple truth: the sun, for all its warmth and majesty, can also be a menace. It gives us energy, light and life, but without warning it can unleash waves of electromagnetic fury so powerful and indiscriminate that they can bring nations to a standstill in a matter of minutes. This is not speculation or science fiction; it is based on history and science, and it is an urgent question of national resilience.
In 1859, a solar storm known as the Carrington event ignited telegraph wires, shocked operators and lit up the skies from Canada to the Caribbean. In the 21st century, such a storm would do more than send sparks down copper wires. It would knock out GPS, disable satellites, crash the grid, blind radar systems and paralyse entire regions. In 1989, Quebec’s power grid collapsed in under two minutes; schools shut, hospitals faltered and 6 million people were left in the dark. In 2012, a storm of Carrington magnitude missed Earth by just a matter of days. After that, NASA estimated that the global cost would have exceeded $2.6 trillion.
In short, we are not speculating about what might happen; we are merely observing what has already happened, just not to us—or at least not yet. In effect, we are living between bullets: one already fired, another having just missed, and a third, we must assume, now chambered.
We live in a nation defined by connection. Our power grid, transport system, banks, hospitals and military platforms are all linked, all digital and all dependent on space-borne technology. It is one of the great marvels of modern Britain. But it is also, if we are frank, one of our greatest vulnerabilities. A severe solar storm would not simply inconvenience us; it would disrupt the essential machinery of civilised life. High-frequency radios used by pilots and the armed forces fail. Satellites are disabled. Navigation systems go dark. Power lines are overloaded by geomagnetic surges, and cascading failures begin.
The Met Office, supported by the Royal Academy of Engineering, has warned that a major event could leave parts of the UK without electricity for days or even weeks. When the power goes, everything else follows: the supermarket tills, the mobile networks, the ventilators and the pumps that keep our water flowing. The digital backbone of our modern state is silenced. It is not just a problem for astronomers or scientists in their white coats, but a matter of national security, public health, financial stability and strategic foresight.
The United Kingdom does not enter this debate empty-handed. In 2021, the Cabinet Office and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy produced the severe space weather preparedness strategy, which was a forward-looking and well-considered document. It identified three pillars: first, assessment to improve forecasting and monitoring; secondly, preparation to support resilience planning in key sectors; and thirdly, response and recovery to co-ordinate emergency action across Government, industry and services. Those are the right foundations, but as we all know, strategies do not defend countries; implementation does, and in that sense we are not yet where we need to be.
Let me identify four urgent areas for action. First, preparedness must become mandatory, not voluntary. We rightly legislate to ensure that our infrastructure can cope with floods, so why not do the same for solar storms? We have the regulators—Ofcom, Ofgem and the Civil Aviation Authority—and we need them to require, not merely recommend, that resilience plans are in place. When the warning comes, it will not arrive with some sort of grace period.
Secondly, we must harden our defence capability. Our armed forces are increasingly reliant on satellite-enabled systems, whether that is for communication, targeting or navigation. Every major platform, from Type 26 frigates to F-35 jets, integrates space-dependent systems. We must invest in hardened equipment and train to operate in degraded space conditions. We must fund research into back-up navigation systems and sovereign capabilities. The reality is that our adversaries are already preparing for such an environment and we must not be found lagging behind.
Thirdly, we must strengthen civil contingency planning. Local resilience forums are charged with keeping our communities safe. They plan for floods, pandemics and cyber-attacks, but in many areas, they do not yet plan for solar storms. They must be given the data, the scenarios and the authority to act.
Fourthly, we must lead international co-ordination. This threat does not respect borders; the response must be global. The United Kingdom should press for a framework through NATO, the G7, the UN or the European Space Agency to share data, align early-warning systems and co-ordinate national preparedness. We have led the world in tackling threats before. Let us now do the same in the case of space weather. This is not a matter of national pride; it is a matter of global necessity.
Let me bring the reality home to this House. Imagine that it is mid-January. The temperatures are freezing and the skies are dark. The sun erupts and a geomagnetic storm is en route. Local hospitals are now running on back-up power, ambulances are offline, phones are down and the grid is being rationed. Supermarkets are unable to take card payments, petrol pumps do not work, water pressure drops and air traffic is grounded. Our farmers cannot access the satellite data they need, small businesses grind to a halt, trains are suspended and mobile coverage is patchy or lost. The elderly, who are already vulnerable, are now cut off, isolated and invariably frightened. That is not fiction or dramatic exaggeration; it is foreseeable and preventable. All of that happens not because we lack the knowledge, but because we failed to act on it.
Governments are judged not only on whether they see crises coming, but on how they respond to them. There are threats we cannot foresee, but there are others, like this one, where the science is established, the risk is understood and the warning is clear. This is precisely the kind of threat that distinguishes those Governments that react from those that prepare. The storm may come next year or not for a generation but, when it does, it will be too late to start preparing then. This is not the moment for drift or delay; it is the moment for decisive leadership.
With that in mind, I ask the Minister to address six critical questions; they are not intended to catch anyone out but to encourage action. First, will the Government publish a delivery plan with clear targets and funding to give force to the 2021 strategy? Secondly, will Ministers bring forward statutory requirements for critical infrastructure operators to mitigate this risk? Thirdly, are the Government satisfied that our armed forces are equipped and trained to operate in the event of a space weather blackout?
Fourthly, what investment is being made in forecasting capabilities, including support of the ESA Vigil mission and co-ordination with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA and others? Fifthly, will the Cabinet Office require local resilience forums to prepare for this threat, as they do for other category 1 emergencies? Finally, will Britain now lead efforts to build an international framework for preparedness, starting with NATO or the G7?
The case is clear, the risk is real and the time to act is now. Let us not be the generation that read the reports, saw the warnings, nodded thoughtfully and then did nothing. Let us instead be the generation that looked beyond the horizon, recognised the scale of the threat and acted with the seriousness it demands. The sun may well be 93 million miles away, but its reach is far closer than we think. When the next storm comes, let it not find us asleep at the wheel. Let it find us ready and prepared. Let it find a country that saw the storm and stood firm in the face of it.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner, and I thank the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) for securing this important debate. Space weather has profound effects on our planet, particularly now that we rely so heavily on technology that can be affected by radiation or changes to the magnetosphere. What is space weather? Basically, it is the sun chucking out gas and particles into space. It varies over time, and has peaks and troughs. We are currently just past the highest peak, but we are still in a very active period.
Three main types of solar weather events affect us on Earth: solar flares, solar energetic particles and coronal mass ejections. Those travel at different speeds, have different make-ups and have different impacts. Essentially, they all sneak past our normal protections—the magnetosphere and our atmosphere—and cause problems for us on Earth. The extra radiation and geomagnetic storms from the events can cause high-frequency radio blackouts and affect all sorts of electronic systems, both in space and on the ground. I also wanted to discuss the Carrington event in 1859, but time is short, so those watching at home will have to google it.
What can we do about the risks of space weather? First, I support the calls of the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley. I asked my friend, astrophysicist Dr Alfredo Carpineti—I always keep a tame astrophysicist on hand—what he thought Parliament needed to know about space weather. He agreed with me that we must continue to invest in the Met Office space weather operations centre, which monitors and forecasts space weather, and promote its work. It has done a great job in reaching the public with its aurora forecasts, and I would love people to know more about the rest of its work.
I have very much enjoyed educating my colleagues about space weather this week. Dr Carpineti told me that we need more research on how the UK would cope with a Carrington-level event and work out how to mitigate the potential impact. Another key research topic is around the degradation of technologies from the continuous stream of particles from space. I am told that that is particularly relevant for British territories and facilities at higher latitudes.
I am very pleased that this debate is taking place, and pleased that I could contribute.
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
It is a delight to see you in your place, Mr Turner, and to take part in this debate.
Given the weather we have been having, it is somewhat ironic that we are worrying about space weather. People sometimes think the sun is a wonderful thing and a delight when it comes out in the UK. It also helps ice cream sales, with the best ice cream in Britain coming from Subzero, made in the Rhondda—I note no contest on that. But having suffered from stage 4 melanoma, I am also conscious that the sun can cause enormous damage through normal exposure. One of the fastest growing forms of cancer in the UK is skin cancer, as a direct result of people being over-exposed to the sun. My advice is that people should avoid the sun between 10 o’clock and 3 o’clock and, if they are out in the sun, that they should cover up or use high-quality sunscreen.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) for securing the debate, which relates to an important part of the resilience we need in this country. Of course, it is something we need to do not on our own but with our allies. As he said, we are intimately involved with the European Space Agency, and we will address some of these issues with allies in other countries.
The hon. Member is right to highlight the importance of space weather. He referred to the 1989 Quebec incident, and there are many others, although some have not been quite as severe. He did not mention what happened in May 2024 when, to the great delight of many people, the aurora borealis was visible all the way down to Kent, which antagonised my husband, who has on many occasions gone to Norway, Iceland and all sorts of other places, where he has sat in car parks to try to watch it without ever seeing it. At the same time, 5,000 Starlink satellites had to perform autocorrection manoeuvres to make sure they were safe. The system survived, but it shows that severe space weather can have a profound effect on our satellites.
The Royal Academy of Engineering has reported on some of the potential impacts if we were to have a repeat of the Carrington event. We might be talking about the grid carrying 13 times its normal voltage, which would damage transformers. Two coastal nodes could experience disconnection. Blackouts of a few hours could occur in major urban areas across the United Kingdom. As for our satellites, 10% of the operational fleet could experience temporary outages lasting hours to days, and all satellites would experience rapid ageing due to damage to their solar arrays. There would be an effect on space-based PNT—positioning, navigation and timing—and a loss of lower-frequency Satcom and HF radio communications for between one and three days.
People often think that space does not really matter to how we live our lives, but I would defy anybody in this country to live a whole day without engaging with something that is affected by satellites or by space, whether it is going shopping, navigating by car or on foot—exiting a tube station and knowing whether to go left or right—using the internet or knowing that the supermarket is ordering the right things. So many aspects of our lives are determined by such things, including forecasting the weather so we know whether to take an umbrella to Wimbledon. All those things are affected by space, which is why it is all the more important that we take it extremely seriously.
The UK is a world leader in forecasting space weather. The Met Office space weather operations centre in Exeter, which my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) mentioned, makes a high-quality contribution not just to our own country but to other countries across the world. The Met Office is currently evaluating a five-year £20 million research programme sponsored by UK Research and Innovation.
The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley was right to mention monitoring and observation of the sun, which is essential to understanding and predicting space weather. That is why we are the leading funder of the European Space Agency’s Vigil mission, which he referred to. This will be Europe’s first dedicated space weather mission, it will provide data and imagery 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and it is expected to launch in 2031. Vigil will work in tandem with United States spacecraft to improve the provision of solar observations. These will provide critical data, enabling forecasters to predict when solar eruptions will impact the Earth. The mission demonstrates that the UK and Europe are committed to space weather monitoring, and it holds equal importance for the US, the UK and European partners. That combination is important for all of us.
The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley was also right to mention the issues that apply to the Ministry of Defence, as this is not just about space weather; it is about potential damage to satellite constellations. It is a simple fact that if we wanted to dominate a terrain or a domain on the Earth in a conflict situation, we would want to dominate the satellites in space as well. That is why, if there were to be any kind of major conflict, it would almost certainly start in space before it started on Earth. That is why it is so important that the UK has a joint operation between the civil side, through the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and the military side, through the Ministry of Defence, to track everything that is happening in the several layers of space so that we know the potential dangers.
Some of those dangers might be a result of space weather, but they might also be a result of the amount of debris up there. I am glad to say that the UK has some of the leading companies in developing space debris removal to make space sustainable. A chunk of a satellite inadvertently crashing into another is problematic, and a hostile state actor taking out UK satellites, or satellites on which we rely, would be equally significant. That is why I am proud that, for the last year, we have had a joint team working in High Wycombe—which I visited a couple of weeks ago with the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle)—to make sure that everything in space on which we rely here on Earth is secure.
The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley is right that we must not lag behind, but I would argue that we are ahead. We know there are potential hostile actors. The obvious two that have been mentioned in previous public debates are Russia and China. He is absolutely right, so we need to make sure we are at the forefront of securing our defence operations.
The previous Government published the UK’s first severe space weather preparedness strategy in 2015. The current strategy was published in 2021 and supports the aims of the national space strategy. It ensures that severe space weather is appropriately managed, enabling the UK to pursue its wider ambitions in space, and sets out a five-year road map to improve the UK’s preparedness for a severe space weather event. Anybody who can add up will have noticed that five years after 2021 is 2026. I am confident that, now DSIT and the MOD have their spending review settlements, we will publish a full space strategy and lay it before the House. Part of that will undoubtedly respond to some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley today.
The hon. Gentleman asked me six questions, but he asked them so quickly that the first point in my notes is just “a plan”—I was not writing fast enough. I am absolutely certain that we will produce a plan, because we will produce a plan for the whole sector, and this issue will undoubtedly be part of it. Secondly, he asked whether we will introduce statutory requirements. We will obviously have to keep that under review to see whether it is necessary, and it is part of what we would include in a plan. If we were to do that, we would have to consult, which takes time.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about armed forces preparedness, which I assure him we take very seriously. One of our recent innovations is to gather all the Ministers with responsibility for space-related issues in different Departments—the MOD, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Transport, the Foreign Office, other parts of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero—because we need to make sure that we act as a whole Government in this area. The next meeting is next Monday. I am very hopeful that we can spot areas where we can secure efficiencies because we are working as a whole Government. We can also make sure that none of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised are forgotten.
I think the hon. Gentleman’s fourth question was about broadcasting. In my mind, we have Mr Schafernaker giving us a televised weekly update on space weather. My message to the broadcasters is that it would be good if they gave people in the UK a better understanding of the significance of space and the space sector—not just that it is an industrial powerhouse, which we are good at, but of our engagement and involvement in space and how important it is to us. We also need more people in the UK to think of it as a potential career, so perhaps Mr Schafernaker should produce a regular space weather broadcast. I cannot remember whether the hon. Member asked five or six questions, but I wrote down five, the fifth of which concerned whether the Cabinet Office should require local authorities and others to have measures in place to deal with potential space weather threats.
Some of these issues are for DESNZ. We must ensure the security and resilience of our energy and telecoms, as without a functioning power grid, mobile and other telecoms operations are unlikely to function, and they are absolutely essential to public services, particularly the emergency services. We must weave all of that into our resilience measures, which is why this issue has been on the national risk register since 2012.
If I have got any of the hon. Gentleman’s questions wrong, I am happy to write to him. I thank him for the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale on having a tame astrophysicist. I am not sure whether we have any in the Department, but I am sure we can have access to her tame astrophysicist when necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
West Bank: Forced Displacement
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the forced displacement of Palestinians in the West Bank.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. The Palestinian people face intolerable hardship, suffering and misery. In Gaza, the world witnesses the killing of civilians, the blocking of aid, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, attacks on aid workers and forced displacement. Israel, like any sovereign state, has the right to defend itself and seek the return of its hostages, and Hamas should be held accountable for the attacks on 7 October, but that is not a justification for what is happening now to the Palestinian people.
While international attention remains fixed on Gaza and the recent escalation of tension between Israel and Iran, we must not ignore the deepening injustice in the west bank. According to Amnesty International, Israel’s military operations in the occupied west bank over the past four months have led to the largest displacement of Palestinians since the 1967 war. Furthermore, Save the Children reports that almost half of all Palestinian children killed by Israeli forces or settlers in the occupied west bank since records began were killed in the past two years.
We need to uphold international law and promote a just peace. This debate provides a small opportunity to highlight the injustice facing Palestinians in the west bank today. There is so much that could be said to fully represent the difficulties that face the lives of Palestinians in the west bank every day in everything from accessing healthcare to having a peaceful existence without harassment or degrading treatment. That is one reason I believe the UK should formally recognise the state of Palestine as soon as possible. I hope the Minister in his response can agree that recognition is not only a matter of justice, but a necessary step to help rebalance negotiations and support the long-term viability of a two-state solution.
The situation on the ground continues to deteriorate. The recent increase in the forced displacement of Palestinians in the west bank seems to reflect a growing sense of impunity for increased settlement activities.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
I completely agree that what we are seeing on the ground in the west bank and in Gaza is horrendous. Does my hon. Friend agree that with the ultimate goal in mind of a lasting peace via a two-state solution, it is crucial that Palestinians are able to return to and rebuild their homes and lives? Does he also agree that to secure that future, there must not be any attempt to annex land in Gaza?
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Order. Can I just say that interventions are supposed to be short?
Martin Rhodes
I agree. We need to make sure that there is a Palestine to first be recognised and then be part of that two-state solution.
In May 2025, Israeli Ministers approved 22 new illegal settlements in the west bank—the biggest expansion in decades. Defence Minister Israel Katz, as reported by the BBC, said the move
“prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger Israel”.
I hope the Minister can address that issue in his remarks. How can we hope for a negotiated two-state solution when the very existence of a Palestinian state is framed as a danger by Israeli Ministers?
Since the ’67 war, Israel has occupied the west bank and East Jerusalem, which has led to 160 settlements housing 700,000 Israelis. Those settlements exist alongside an estimated 3.3 million Palestinians under occupation and are widely seen as illegal under international law. Last year, the UN International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion that Israel’s continued presence in Palestinian territory was unlawful. Furthermore, the court said that all settlements should be evacuated due to their establishment and maintenance being in violation of international law.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
On my hon. Friend’s point, what is happening in the west bank has legally been defined as a war crime by the International Criminal Court. As a supporter of the rule of law, should the UK not therefore condemn these actions as horrific war crimes committed by the Israeli Government, and encourage the wider international community to do the same?
Martin Rhodes
It is important to note that the International Court of Justice has indeed given the advisory opinion that Israel’s continued presence in Palestinian territory is unlawful. I hope the Minister will refer to that in his remarks.
There have long been concerns that the illegal settler movement has aligned with Israeli state policy goals that could not be openly pursued due to international scrutiny. Under the current Israeli Government, the open support for and increase in state-sanctioned illegal settlements give the perception of a political strategy that undermines a two-state solution and risks de facto annexation of the west bank.
This debate is not only about illegal settlements, however; it is also about the human cost of the forced displacement of Palestinians. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, 905 people, including 181 children, have been killed in the west bank, and a further 7,370 people have been injured. The UN Human Rights Office has reported rising settler violence, forced displacements and arbitrary detention against Palestinians. Over the last couple of years, 6,400 Palestinians have been forcibly displaced following the demolition of their homes, and a further 2,200 have been uprooted because of settler violence and access limitations. That does not include the approximately 40,000 Palestinians displaced from three refugee camps in the northern west bank because of increased Israeli militarised operations there since January.
That is deeply troubling. Those are not just numbers, but daily lived injustices that undermine the prospects for peace and must be addressed with the seriousness they deserve. I continue to believe that the UK should use its voice on the international stage to call for accountability and the protection of civilians in all parts of the occupied territories. I hope the Minister can address that today.
Forced displacement in the west bank not just strips Palestinians of their homes, but involves the destruction of vital public services. A recent report from a coalition including UNICEF and Save the Children found that 84 schools across the west bank, including East Jerusalem, are currently subject to pending demolition orders issued by the Israeli authorities. That puts the right to education at risk for some 12,655 students, of whom more than half are girls. In parallel, the World Health Organisation reported more than 500 attacks on healthcare facilities, leading to numerous deaths and injuries, in just under a year after the 7 October 2023 attacks.
All children have the right to safely access education and all people have the right to access medical care as enshrined in international and humanitarian law. The attacks on or destruction of those services sends a message that neither health nor the prospects of opportunity are safe under occupation. That is best encapsulated by a quote shared with me by Save the Children. Marah, an eight-year-old girl who lives in the Jenin refugee camp in the west bank, says:
“We are scared…There’s a lot of mud, bullets, and they shoot tear gas. Our school isn’t safe. It’s close to the army…I was sitting here, this window shook, and the glass fell. Every day, there is the sound of drones. We’ve kind of gotten used to it a little.”
What can be done? In recent months, the UK Government have taken action. I welcome the recent sanctions on individual outposts, settlements and now two far-right Israeli Ministers in an effort by the UK Government to help to secure the west bank for Palestinians and not illegal settlements, but those settlements are now state sanctioned, state funded and state protected. We must go further. There must be a ban on the import of goods to the UK from illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Those settlements remain a significant obstacle to peace—one that the UK must not be responsible for supporting.
Ultimately, we need to see the withdrawal of Israel from the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the final negotiation towards the recognition of a democratic Palestinian state, including a rebuilt Gaza, in peaceful co-existence with a democratic Israel. I ask the Minister what more the UK Government can do to prevent the west bank from becoming like Gaza, given the escalating violence, increased military operations and forced displacement of Palestinians there in recent months.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I want to add to the hon. Gentleman’s list something that the Government could do. In the main Chamber we are busy proscribing two Russian supremacist organisations. Does he think it would be appropriate for the Government to proscribe settler organisations who, as President Biden said, are perpetrating terrorism upon a defenceless Palestinian people?
Martin Rhodes
I certainly think that the Government should look at that. There is obviously a process to go through in terms of proscribing, but it is something that should be looked at.
With regard to the plight of the Palestinian people in Gaza, the UK Government must redouble their efforts to pressure Israel to reopen crossings and lift restrictions on movement and fuel. The UN co-ordination of humanitarian aid must be restored and a permanent ceasefire agreed. That will once again allow professional and experienced humanitarian aid agencies to reach people in need at scale, with meaningful assistance.
Finally, for there to be a peaceful two-state solution between a safe and democratic Israel and a safe, democratic and viable Palestinian state, there must be a people and a land called Palestine left to recognise. As the UK, let us work to ensure that.
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
There are a couple of housekeeping matters that I need to mention. The debate can go on until 5.44 pm because of injury time in previous debates, so I want the wind-up speeches to begin at 5:20 pm. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to catch my eye to speak in the debate. There will be a three-minute time limit on speeches.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for outlining the key issues of the situation in the west bank. While the genocide continues in Gaza, the west bank is in an ongoing campaign of ethnic cleansing. In the last 18 months, at least 1,000 Palestinians in the west bank have been murdered or killed by Israeli forces or illegal settlers. In Jenin, Nur Shams and Tulkarm refugee camps, 40,000 residents have been displaced due to Israeli military actions. Nearly 6,500 Palestinians have been forcibly displaced following the demolition of their homes, and 2,200 have been forced from their homes due to settler violence.
Let us make no mistake: that is all with the direct involvement, assistance and encouragement of the Israeli Government. The Israeli military has taken part in those attacks, protecting illegal settlers and not protecting Palestinians. In recent months, the Israeli Government, as we heard, have announced the approval of 22 new illegal settlements—the biggest expansion in decades—and provided illegal settlers with weapons. Illegal settlers have in turn sent leaflets and threats on social media to Palestinians in the west bank with warnings to flee to Jordan or be “exterminated”. If the UK Government are in any doubt, Defence Minister Israel Katz stated that settlement expansion was a
“strategic move that prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state”.
In short, Israel is systematically dominating and oppressing Palestinians and undermining the territorial integrity of Palestine. It is, therefore, preventing a viable Palestinian state and a two-state solution to the conflict. That is at odds with the UK’s international responsibilities and its belief in a two-state solution. Although successive Ministers have spoken disapprovingly in debates such as this about Israel’s behaviour, they have failed to take serious action. They have failed to recognise Palestine as a state and that is why Israel continues to act with impunity.
The ICJ’s advisory opinion declared that Israel’s occupation is unlawful and made clear demands of third states, so I have some questions for the Minister. When will the UK follow the directions of that competent court? When will the UK respond and set out how it will fully comply? Will the UK stop all trade with illegal settlements to ensure that it is not facilitating an illegal occupation? For example, if the UK Government can ban the import of goods from illegally occupied Crimea, why not settlements in illegally occupied Palestinian territory?
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
It is actually worse than just importing goods from the settlements. We are receiving tariffs from their import, so the British Government are making money from that import of goods. Would the Minister speak to that in his closing remarks?
Chris Law
I thank the hon. Member for raising an important point about tariffs. I was going to come on to that, but thankfully it has now been covered, which I appreciate.
The bottom line is that, surely the rights and lives of Palestinians—as I have just stated—are of equal value to those of Ukrainians. The Minister has recognised that what the Israeli Government are doing is
“a deliberate obstacle to Palestinian statehood.”
I agree, yet the UK Government continue to refuse to recognise a Palestinian state while Israel continues to breach international law.
Talk is cheap; it is deeds that matter. Human rights and the application of international law are equal—they are not transactional. They cannot be bargained with or traded away. The UK’s policy of condemnation has completely failed, so it must now act. Failure to do so is complicity and cowardice.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I will try to be as brief as I can in making some points that are not new, but perhaps bear repetition.
The west bank is occupied territory, something that puts it in a different class from many overseas disputes on which the Government have to take a view. That it is occupied is contrary to international law, and the UK is clear in recognising that it is occupied territory. Yet we have heard about the double standards: for instance, our outright—and rightful—condemnation of what is happening in Crimea and the sanctions action taken as a consequence, but just warm words in relation to Palestine.
Gaza has undoubtedly given cover, in a brutal way, to the atrocities happening in the west bank. Tens of thousands of people have been killed, and are currently being killed, in the most obscene way: by being lured to food stations and then executed by snipers or heavy arms fire. Of course, the focus is on Gaza, but thousands of people—Palestinian civilians, including children—have been killed or injured in the west bank over the same period.
That requires a separate response, because what makes the west bank different from Gaza is not only—if one includes East Jerusalem—the 700,000 illegal settlers there, but the biggest settlement expansion programme in many years. We see the increasingly violent actions of heavily armed—by the Israeli state—settlers, who now seem at every opportunity to be creating pogroms in Palestinian villages, killing people and burning their homes. If that does not provoke the British Government to act, I am not sure what will.
As is reflected in the ICJ advisory opinion, we should obviously have active steps now taken to try to control what is happening in the west bank. It is now a year since the opinion was delivered, and I can no longer accept that the Government are still looking at it. The only reason for not publishing a response is that doing so would require not just the stating of a policy or the condemnation of what is happening, but action. That action should obviously include banning trade in settlement goods, looking at our trading relationship with Israel and much more widespread sanctions.
The ICJ opinion also found that the crime of apartheid is being committed in the west bank. I have been to the west bank on a number of occasions. I defy anybody to visit and not see that apartheid is the daily effect on the ground.
We are watching, in real time, the destruction of a country—a country that we do not even have the decency to recognise as such, despite the UK’s long history of fomenting problems in the middle east, from Balfour through to the mandate. I ask the Minister: can we have a positive response?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I commend the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing the debate.
I am immensely grateful for the opportunity to speak about the struggles faced by many, and the responsibility, which we all share, to respond with courage and care. I will not judge anybody else or predict what they will say, but I am going to speak about the displacement of Christians in the west bank. They are little talked about, but I have met the bishop from the west bank on a couple of occasions in this House, and he told me and others what is happening. The ongoing displacement of Christians in the west bank, and particularly the impact on Christian bishops and their congregations, who have long been custodians of faith and heritage in the region, is deeply troubling.
The United Kingdom has a long-lasting interest in the middle east, rooted not just in diplomatic relations, but in a commitment to peace, justice and the protection of vulnerable populations. Recent debates in this House have rightly highlighted the complex challenges in Israel and Gaza. War is hard, and it is right that we never lose sight of the human cost, especially when the most vulnerable of all are the children. I often think of the children and disabled, who are facing a life that I would not want for my grandchildren—one without a hope or a future. That is why it is important that we strive for an end, for lasting peace and for a brighter hope for the future.
I have met the Christian bishops on a couple of occasions. Christian bishops in the west bank have been displaced from their historical seats, forced to leave behind not only their physical buildings, but their spiritual leadership that nourishes the faithful. That loss is a matter not only of property, but of heritage and religious freedom. The right to worship and live in peace is fundamental, enshrined in international law and moral principle alike.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I believe it is our duty to raise these issues with compassion and clarity. We must urge all parties to respect the rights of all communities, Muslim, Christian and Jewish alike, and to work towards peace—a peace that lasts.
I am reminded of a scripture text that I will share, as I often do. Isaiah 1:17 says:
“Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.”
This verse calls on us all to stand up for all the vulnerable and displaced, to seek justice and to protect those who have no voice. The United Kingdom has a unique role on the international stage to advocate for peace and religious freedom. We must continue to support efforts that promote dialogue, protect minority communities and uphold the rights of all people in that troubled area.
Let us stand firm in our commitment to justice and mercy, working together across parties to ensure that the plight of those displaced, including Christian bishops and their communities, is not forgotten, but is addressed with the urgency and care it deserves in today’s debate.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing this debate on an issue that we simply cannot ignore or put in the “too difficult” pile.
This is a tragedy on so many levels—morally, politically, strategically, but above all personally for the people of the west bank. I went to the west bank with Caabu and Medical Aid for Palestinians in February 2023. Unlike some colleagues, I did not have a background in the middle east, but I promised my constituents that I would visit the region, as I knew the plight of the Palestinian people was an issue of huge significance to many in my Batley and Spen constituency, as it was then. The trip had a deep and profound impact on me. I saw and heard things I will never forget.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we hear a lot of facts and figures about what happens in the west bank and Gaza, but what really matters is the human stories, which bring it right home to us?
Kim Leadbeater
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and will tell some of those stories now.
I spent time with some of the kindest, most resilient people I have met. Even back then it was deemed too dangerous for us to go to Gaza, but in the west bank we spent time with many amazing people under the most difficult of circumstances. If things were bad then, and if the prospect of the desperately needed two-state solution seemed then like a distant hope, now—following the unforgivable, murderous attack by Hamas on 7 October and the ensuing catastrophic level of death and destruction that has rained down on Gaza—it feels further away than ever.
While much of the media coverage and conversation has rightly focused on the tens of thousands of people who have been killed and injured, along with the desperate need to see the release of all remaining hostages to give those heartbroken families some sort of closure, we cannot and must not ignore the ongoing forced displacement of Palestinians in the west bank and the increase in settler violence.
I saw that for myself. The villagers I met in the hills surrounding Nablus told me they lived in constant fear because of the ever-present risk of violence from settlers, who appeared to act with impunity. On the outskirts of one hamlet, a 27-year-old father of three young children had been shot dead just a few days earlier, after a group of settlers had descended on the area. We stood on the exact spot where he was killed and heard that, while the police had attended the incident, there had been no attempt to identify or track down the killer. The devastated family took us into their home and gave us tea, desperate for the world to hear their story amid their shock and grief.
I visited Masafer Yatta, which the Israeli Government is determined to clear to make way for a military zone, and met families living in constant fear that their homes will be subject to the demolition orders that can be imposed on any structure. We saw abandoned homes with smashed windows where families had fled in desperation to escape settler violence.
I also saw hope for the future, however fragile. At the Shuafat refugee camp I met brilliant young schoolchildren who told me of their ambitions to be engineers, lawyers and teachers—even poets and boxing champions. One girl told me, “We want to live like other children all over the world. We fight the occupation by studying.” Those children were living in overcrowded conditions, with unreliable access to basic essentials such as electricity and clean water, but they still had dreams of better days to come. It seemed to me then that the situation could not get any worse. How wrong I was.
Many of those I spoke with accused the Israeli Government of complicity in the violence perpetrated by settlers. They denied it—but three years later, the mask has not just slipped; it has been ripped off, and forced displacement of Palestinians is Government policy, with Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich calling for Palestinian towns to be wiped off the map. It was for comments such as those that the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway quite rightly imposed sanctions on Smotrich and his fellow Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir last month.
I hope those young children still have hope in their hearts. There are times when we may feel that there is nothing we can do to restrain the Israeli Government’s expansion of illegal settlements and the violence that goes with it; but if we can keep a flicker of that hope alive, that is not nothing, and by reasserting our commitment to a viable Palestinian state, alongside a safe and secure Israel, we can do that.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for organising this important debate.
The catastrophic situation in Gaza has meant that much of the media’s attention has been on the death and destruction there, but the situation in the west bank continues to deteriorate. I was there with the Foreign Affairs Committee a couple of months ago, and we visited Bedouin communities and families in the Jordan valley, not far away from the Dead sea. The situation was dire. We saw with our own eyes a mosque that had recently been burned and videos of their schools being attacked by extremist Israeli settlers, and we heard stories of their livestock being stolen and taken away by people from settler outposts. It was a deliberate attempt to intimidate and force people from their land.
Shortly before we arrived, we heard, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North mentioned, about the situation in Jenin, where Israeli used tanks for the first time in the west bank to forcibly displace the population there. Thousands are still yet to return to their homes. I heard stories of a two-year-old girl and a 73-year-old man who were killed by the Israel Defence Forces in Jenin; just as in Gaza, the most vulnerable are the victims of these attempts.
Other hon. Members have mentioned Defence Minister Israel Katz’s statement that the legalisation of settlements is a deliberate policy to prevent the formation of a Palestinian state. One of the 22 settlements that was legalised only a couple of months ago was the illegal outpost that we saw overlooking the village that we visited. The one settler based there was the man who had been stealing livestock from villages. His clearly illegal actions incurred no consequences from the Israeli security forces; indeed, they have now been rewarded by Israel through the legalisation of that settlement.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Alongside the UK condemning these actions, does the hon. Gentleman consider it appropriate for practical measures, such as banning trade in settlement goods, to be introduced?
Alex Ballinger
Yes—there are a number of things we should be doing. Others have spoken about the issues I meant to cover, so I will come straight to the point: I think is appropriate to have a response from the Government to the ICJ ruling. We have been waiting more than a year for that. It would be great to hear from the Minister when that will be coming. We should absolutely ban trade with the settlements. It is great that we have marking and labelling of goods, but it does not go far enough. We have heard directly from the Israeli Government that the settlements are being used as a tool to ensure that there is no Palestinian state in the future. A two-state solution is the UK Government’s goal, so we need to respond to that.
Finally, President Macron will visit the UK next week on a state visit. That is an excellent opportunity for our two countries to get together. I know the King has been to Bethlehem, and he has spoken about his sympathy for the Palestinian people. Maybe that visit is an opportunity, given Macron’s aspirations, to discuss the issue and see how we can work together to ensure a two-state solution.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing this important debate.
The international community has been failing Palestinians for many months. That has been demonstrated during the last 21 months, and it has been heart-wrenching. At least 62,000 Palestinians are now dead. Malnutrition has reached alarming levels, as civilians are constantly deprived of food, water and humanitarian aid because of the Israeli blockade. The Israeli authorities have now ramped up home demolitions in the west bank and built more illegal settlements, displacing more and more Palestinians.
The surge in settler violence by Israeli authorities has left civilians in the west bank subject to daily attacks and harassment, and unable to access the services they desperately need to survive. The Palestinians who have lived in these areas have lived there for decades. It is their home. Communities are being uprooted, families are being stripped of their homes and lives are being shattered as we speak.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not good enough that children are growing up without the basics that they should expect? They are no longer able to access education, many have lost their lives, access to water is being restricted and there is absolute devastation. We must stand up against that and do all we can to support the Palestinian people.
Tahir Ali
I could not agree more.
The actions of Israel’s forces constitute forcible transfer, which is a violation of yet another international law by Israel. What more does Israel need to do before the United Kingdom decides to step up and take real action? That question is being asked not only in this House but throughout the country. Statements and warnings are no longer good enough. A joint statement with France and Canada on 19 May said that “concrete actions” will be taken if Israel does not back off, but we are yet to see what those concrete actions are. Homes have been demolished, hospitals have been destroyed, schools have been obliterated and Israel has forcibly displaced more than 6,000 Palestinians between October 2023 and May 2025. The Government must take all possible action to stop the constant and ongoing suffering.
Today, the violence is even worse than before, and tensions between Israel and Iran have escalated over the past couple of weeks, putting the region on the brink of a bloody war. A weakened Iran is desperate and dangerous, and an emboldened Netanyahu is also desperate and dangerous. Fighting fire with fire will be disastrous for the Palestinians and will put the whole region at risk of further harm.
The ceasefire was ineffective and sanctions have proved to be less than threatening. Now more than ever, it is time that the Government realised that the only way towards true and lasting peace is to end any complicity, to work towards a long-lasting two-state solution and to recognise the sovereign state of Palestine.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing this timely debate.
We must be crystal clear about what is going on in the west bank. The forcible displacement of Palestinians there is an act of grave immorality and a breach of international law. Bodies such as the UN, Amnesty International and Oxfam are clear about what is going on. The UN has confirmed that since 7 October 2023, more than 6,463 Palestinians have been forcibly displaced in the west bank, including East Jerusalem, following the demolition of their homes. That figure does not include around 40,000 Palestinians who were displaced from three refugee camps in Jenin and Tulkarem.
Oxfam is clear that we are witnessing the
“largest forced displacement in West Bank since…1967”.
About 8,000 Israeli military checkpoints, barriers and gates have been constructed, causing unprecedented movement restrictions. Aid deliveries to the west bank face impenetrable obstacles. The Israeli military are conducting an unrelenting campaign in the west bank. They have deployed tanks, carried out air strikes and destroyed buildings and other civilian infrastructure. We have heard eyewitness testimony to that effect from Members present. On 21 May, a diplomatic delegation of representatives from over 20 countries, including the United Kingdom, came under fire from Israeli soldiers while visiting Jenin refugee camp.
Mr Turner, 5 June is an important day for Palestinians: Naksa Day, when they remember the forced displacement of approximately 300,000 Palestinians during the war of 1967, when Israel occupied the west bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza strip. We must learn the lessons from history and not repeat tragic mistakes.
This Government’s approach is markedly different from what has come before. They were right to sanction the two Israeli Government Ministers, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who have championed illegal settlements; right to support the independence of our international courts; and right to take an internationalist, multilateral approach, collaborating closely with our allies France, Germany and Canada to call out the Netanyahu Government.
We must have as strict a sanctions regime as possible against the illegal settler outposts and organisations in the west bank. We must sanction any Israeli politician or organisation that incites violence in the occupied west bank, as we already have. We must stop trade with the settlements. All that is required because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) said, we are under positive legal obligations to take steps to prevent violations of international law, as the ICJ advisory opinion made clear in July 2024.
We must recognise the state of Palestine, along with the 147 other UN member states that already do. Doing this is about our country acting with moral authority and showing the moral leadership that we ought to show.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) on securing this important debate.
For decades, Palestinians living in the west bank have faced increasing pressure from settlement expansion, home demolitions and military restrictions. Entire communities, such as those in Masafer Yatta and the Jordan valley, are being pushed off their ancestral lands under the pretext of those places being military zones or sites of illegal construction. Yet many of these people have lived there for generations.
Recent weeks have seen intensified actions in Masafer Yatta and Silwan. On 18 June, the Israeli Civil Administration barred all Palestinian building permits in Masafer Yatta, prompting fears of enforced evacuation for roughly 1,200 people—a move that UN experts have called tantamount to forcible transfer, which often violates international law, particularly the fourth Geneva convention, which prohibits the forced transfer of protected populations under occupation.
Beyond the military campaigns, area C in the west bank has seen a notable rise in home demolitions. Between January and April 2025, Israeli authorities razed over 450 structures, displacing at least 445 people, including 112 children. That is a fivefold increase compared with the previous year.
This is not just a political issue: it is a human one. Families are losing their homes, access to water, farmland, education and healthcare, and children are growing up amid trauma and instability. Every demolished home is not just bricks and mortar; it is a life uprooted—a future disrupted. If we are to stand for justice and human dignity, we cannot ignore this reality. The international community must uphold human rights for all, without exception, and demand accountability where those rights are denied.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing this gravely urgent and important debate.
Last month, we welcomed the Government sanctions on Israeli Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. These two men, at the heart of the Israeli Government, have celebrated violence, ethnic cleansing and the forced displacement of Palestinians who have already lost so much; of Palestinians who have seen their family and friends murdered; of Palestinians who have seen their homes destroyed; of Palestinians who have seen the lives they once knew and loved turned into rubble. These vile men have not just celebrated such violations of international law: they are part of the Israeli authorities orchestrating the bombing, the killing and the destruction.
Some 40,000 Palestinians have been forcibly displaced from the three refugee camps in Jenin and Tulkarem. These refugee camps are not homes, but a last resort, yet Palestinians have faced violence and brutality in them, too. The scale of suffering is unimaginable—40,000 Palestinians. Israeli authorities have been not just targeting refugee camps but demolishing homes. In the last two years, over 6,000 Palestinians have had to flee their homes as they were demolished, with the memories, the comforts and the safety of their homes cruelly turned to rubble.
Palestinians are being killed, starved into submission and stripped of every basic human necessity—left without even a sip of water or a scrap of bread to survive. Yet there is more rubble, more land grabs and more forced displacement, all celebrated by politicians in the Israeli Government. The Israeli Government’s end goal is, it would seem, to exterminate Gazans, destroy their land and wipe out any trace of Palestinian people’s existence.
When does this end? How does it end? I strongly urge the Government to go further and faster in pushing the pressure on Israel. I urge them to consider further sanctions on Israel, pressure Israel to end its denial of aid and recognise the state of Palestine immediately. We must keep the pressure on for an immediate and lasting ceasefire. This is how we start to end the brutality, how we give some respite and hope to the Palestinians who are still alive, and how we stand up for those who have nothing left.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Thanks go to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing this vital debate.
Sixty-one years ago, Tony Benn wrote:
“Of all the weaknesses that beset those in authority, blindness to reality is always the most crippling and usually the most inexcusable.”
In that article, Mr Benn was calling for international sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa. The weakness he wrote of back then is applicable to those in authority in the UK today, because words of condemnation have not stopped the displacement, segregation and apartheid being suffered by Palestinians.
Mr Turner, imagine soldiers, tanks and bulldozers rolling into your constituency, destroying buildings, essential infrastructure, schools and medical facilities. Imagine being forced out of the house you call home and fences going up around what was your community. For Palestinians in the west bank, who live under occupation and are seeing their community seized by state-backed Israeli settlers, that is their reality.
Since 7 October 2023, the west bank has experienced an average of four documented incidents of settler violence per day. Settler expansion and violence is, I repeat, a state-backed initiative, the goal of which is the erasure of Palestinian land from the map. It is total absorption—does the Minister not see that as being Netanyahu’s ultimate aim and driving force? I hope the Minister answers that question, because all the evidence points to it being the systematic removal of Palestinians from their land. It is not just hamlets, villages and towns that have been destroyed; even the refugee camps at Jenin, Nur Shams and Tulkarem have been attacked, as mentioned by other hon. Members.
I say to the Minister and other Members: when it comes to displacement, death and the building of 22 new illegal settlements in the west bank, do not be blind to reality, as Tony Benn said. Netanyahu and his murderous regime are not stopping. They will not stop—not when the international community are allowing war crimes to happen.
Will the Government agree to an independent public inquiry, as per the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), which will come back to the House on Friday and has widespread political and public support? The British public, Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza, and the wider Palestinian diaspora all deserve answers.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing time for Members to consider this important matter.
Before coming to this place, I was an engineer and senior lecturer at Anniesland College in Glasgow. While there, I had the privilege of undertaking British Council work in Hebron, Nablus and Ramallah, and I have seen at first hand the challenges facing the Palestinian people. I have always supported the right of Israel to exist as a democratic, free and peaceful state. However, illegal settlement in the west bank and the associated forced displacement of Palestinians. The rights of Palestinian people to live and travel freely and not have their land occupied by often violent settlers must be central to any long-lasting route towards peace.
I commend the UK Government for sanctioning Israeli Ministers who have repeatedly incited violence against Palestinians. The Foreign Secretary was absolutely correct to say that severe acts of violence by extremist Israeli settlers threaten a future Palestinian state. We must redouble our efforts to highlight a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live peacefully side by side.
More widely, while focus has turned recently to the conflict between Israel and Iran, it must not be forgotten that Palestinians are being bombed in Gaza. They are dying in pain. They are being starved—thousands have lost their lives as a result of malnourishment. The treatment of the Palestinian people has rightly been called out by the UK Labour Government and we remain fully supportive of a two-state solution where Palestinians and Israelis can live freely and peacefully. I believe that recognition of Palestinian statehood is critical to achieving that.
Illegal settlement in the west bank has been a serious issue for a long time. According to UN figures, the issue is as challenging now as it ever has been. Tens of thousands have been displaced from refugee camps as a result of intense Israeli operations and thousands more Palestinians have been displaced in recent months and years as a consequence of settler violence and demolition of housing. Ignorance will never be an acceptable response. Having been in the region and met Palestinian men and women who live with a genuine fear of settler violence, I will always be of the view that we must be unequivocal in our support for a free and secure Palestinian state.
I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North for securing this debate and look forward to the Minister’s update on the Government’s work to end illegal and violent settlement in the west bank.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing the debate. It is entirely unacceptable that in the west bank—territory long recognised as occupied under international law—Palestinian families continue to be forcibly displaced from their land, homes and schools, ripped from their livelihoods, and everything else.
The roots of the crisis stretch back to 1948, when an estimated 750,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes. During the six-day war, close to 325,000 Palestinians were displaced from the west bank and Gaza. Today’s displacement is part of a continuing cycle of land seizure, settlement expansion and state-backed dispossession that United Nations and Oxfam reports describe as the largest forced displacement in the west bank since 1967. UN figures show that since late 2024 over 40,000 Palestinians have been uprooted, particularly in Jenin and Tulkarm, due to IDF raids and the bulldozing of homes. In 2023 alone, more than 4,000 Palestinians were displaced, with settler violence and access restrictions being the principal causes.
Alarmingly, settler-instigated violence is intensifying. In June, 100 armed settlers attacked Kafr Malik, throwing petrol bombs and setting homes ablaze. Three Palestinians were killed and several others were injured, not only at the hands of settlers, but in confrontations involving the IDF. Of course, that has been encouraged by some within the Israeli Government hierarchy. These actions have long been condemned by the United Nations, critical charities and other organisations, including Amnesty International.
As parliamentarians, we must fight to uphold international law. Forced displacement and its consequences are not just a violation, but a crime against humanity. We must fully condemn the forced displacement of Palestinians, advocate for the enforcement of ICJ rulings and UN resolutions, support humanitarian access in affected areas, press for the immediate cessation of settler violence and forcible evictions, and ultimately bring an end to these illegal settlements.
Displacing Palestinians from their land is not collateral damage; it is a deliberate policy. From 1948 to today, these forced removals continue, sanctioned by settlement expansion and protectionism. There will be no peace in the region until the Palestinian people are protected under international law.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing this important debate.
For the almost six decades that the west bank has been occupied by Israel, the UN Security Council has been calling for Israel to withdraw, but instead it has expanded, with now more than 500,000 settlers living in the west bank and a further 200,000 in East Jerusalem—a physical barrier obstructing the realisation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders.
Palestinians are often required to seek permits to travel through the west bank; they are subjected to a combination of bureaucratic and physical barriers that consume their time and attack their dignity. Indeed, those movement restrictions constitute just one element of a patchwork of policies and laws that, taken together, have been described by the ICJ as “systemic discrimination” against Palestinians.
Liberal Democrats are profoundly concerned that the deteriorating situation in the west bank, in particular during the last two years, poses a fundamental threat to a two-state solution that could finally deliver the dignity and security that both Palestinians and Israelis deserve. The UK must recognise a Palestinian state now—immediately. Will the Minister update the House on UK plans to recognise Palestine? What discussions are taking place with Canadian and French leaders regarding a possible joint recognition?
There is an urgency here: from the beginning of 2024 to April 2025, more than 41,000 Palestinians were displaced in the west bank and 616 were killed. On almost 2,000 separate occasions, attacks by violent Israeli settlers resulted in Palestinian casualties or property damage. There has long been a culture of impunity around settler violence; few crimes result in indictments, and fewer still in convictions.
The most recent activity has been fuelled by the far-right extremists in Netanyahu’s Cabinet, who have emboldened the most brutal settlers. It is right that two such inciters, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, have been sanctioned, but, frankly, that took far too long. The Government have not moved quickly or strongly enough to disrupt settler violence in the west bank, so will they now clamp down on settler violence and will the Minister listen to the Liberal Democrat calls for an import ban on goods from illegal settlements?
The Israeli Government have also mounted a systematic campaign against the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in the west bank. Since its banning, UNRWA has been unable to co-ordinate aid deliveries, and its delivery of health and education has been disrupted. Palestinian education has come under attack.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
My hon. Friend will remember that on our trip to the west bank late last year, some of us witnessed a girls’ school that had been tear-gassed just the day before; in fact, it still had smouldering shells in the roof. Does she agree that UNRWA schools and their children must be protected?
Monica Harding
Palestinian children have a right to education and to the chance of a decent future, as all children do. A total of 84 west bank schools are under threat from pending demolition orders. Will the Minister update us on steps being taken to support UNRWA and ensure education provision in the west bank?
Israel’s actions in the west bank are illegal under international law. That was made clear in the ICJ’s advisory opinion published last July. The Court held that Israel is in breach of its obligations under international law with respect to failing to prevent or punish settler violence against Palestinians, confiscating or requisitioning areas of land for settlement expansion, and the forcible displacement of the Palestinian people and the transfer and maintenance of Israeli settlers, both of which violate the fourth Geneva convention.
Almost one year after that 2024 ICJ ruling was issued, the Government still have not provided a formal response. Can the Minister tell us when, finally, we can expect it? In the interim, what steps have the Government taken to meet their obligations to support Palestinian self-determination as outlined in the ICJ advisory ruling? The Liberal Democrats’ position is iron-clad: we want the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state and a halt to the settlement activity in the west bank. The Government must affirm their commitment to that path.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) on securing the debate.
The Conservatives are clear in our support for a two-state solution delivered in the right way at the right time. The only way forward is a solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. We must give the people of the west bank and Gaza the political perspective of a credible route to a Palestinian state and a new future.
There are several factors making progress towards a two-state solution more difficult. First, on Israeli settlements in the west bank, our position is as it was in government and is well understood: settlements are not helpful for achieving long-term peace. We urge Israel not to take steps that could make a two-state solution more difficult and to use its legal system to clamp down on settler violence.
In February last year, we took action in government by sanctioning extremist Israeli settlers who violently attacked Palestinians in the occupied west bank. We raised the matter of settlements with Prime Minister Netanyahu on a number of occasions, and in December 2023 the UK and 13 partners released a statement calling on Israel
“to take immediate and concrete steps to tackle…settler violence in the occupied West Bank.”
I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the latest conversations he has had with his Israeli counterparts and other partners.
I turn to the Palestinian Authority, where reform and credible governance are essential requirements for peace. The Palestinian Authority must prove that they are capable of governing. That should start with key reforms, including on elections, education and ensuring broader freedoms. In April, the Government signed a memorandum of understanding—[Interruption.]
Wendy Morton
In April, the Government signed a memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority, but we were left with more questions than answers. On elections, can the Minister confirm the “shortest feasible timeframe” referenced in the MOU for the Palestinian Authority to hold presidential and parliamentary elections? Does he believe that they are currently capable of holding free and fair elections? If not, what steps is he taking with allies to build that capacity?
Andy Slaughter
What is the practicality of holding elections when the Israelis will not recognise the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem as being able to vote? Given the situation in the west bank, let alone that in Gaza, how are they supposed to organise elections? Is that not just utopian?
Wendy Morton
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am making reference to the points in the MOU.
I turn to other elements of the MOU. On education, we need to see the plans for educating a new generation of Palestinians in a way that nurtures peaceful co-existence with their Israeli neighbours. Will the Minister commit to laying out in greater detail his Government’s expectations on education reforms from the Palestinian Authority?
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s 2002 “Human Rights and Democracy” report cited human rights abuses by the Palestinian Authority, and in February, Reporters Without Borders raised press freedom violations in the west bank. The MOU committed to advancing freedom of expression, media freedom and civil liberties. Can the Minister outline what specific steps are being taken on those issues? Progress by the Palestinian Authority on a reform agenda is vital for peace, and the Government must do all they can do support that.
Iran has been committed to the destruction of Israel for decades, and behaves in a way that damages any prospect of peace in the region. Last month’s International Atomic Energy Agency report showed that Iran was in breach of its obligations with respect to its nuclear programme. It is an authoritarian regime that represses and tortures its own people and sows instability and suffering through its sponsorship of terrorist proxies. For that reason and others, Iran must never be allowed to have nuclear weapons, and we stand with our allies who are working to stop it. We all want to see peace and stability in the region.
The humanitarian situation in Gaza is desperate. We must see the return of the remaining hostages from Hamas captivity. I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on his efforts to get new aid routes opened, and more aid getting in and going to where it is needed. I would also be grateful for confirmation of the bilateral humanitarian aid spend that will be provided this financial year, following the spending review.
Finally, I want to touch on the FCDO’s assistance to British nationals in the region, which has been raised in the House. I acknowledge the recent loosening of FCDO travel advice. It is my understanding that the sixth and final evacuation flight left Tel Aviv on Sunday 29 June, but it would be helpful if the Minister could provide an update and reassure us that all the British nationals who requested evacuation have been helped.
We all want to build a better future for the people of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That must be centred on a credible two-state solution, and we want our Government to do all they can to proactively pursue that goal and deal with the challenges impeding progress.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing the debate, particularly as it provides an opportunity to give a slightly more detailed commentary on the circumstances in the west bank. I recognise the many contributions from hon. Members. I hope that they will forgive me if I start and make some progress on the west bank specifically. I am then happy to come back to some broader points.
In that spirit, I will answer the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), on consular assistance before making further headway. The flight from Israel on Sunday is expected to be our last. It was not full. We believe that we have assisted all those seeking our help in Israel. There are obviously different circumstances in Iran, where there are British nationals also affected by developments in the region. We hope to see airspace open up in Iran, but for reasons that all hon. Members would appreciate, the extent of consular assistance available there is quite different from that in Israel. However, those in either Iran or Israel should not hesitate to continue to be in touch with the Foreign Office if further things are required.
I am happy to provide some commentary on Gaza and East Jerusalem as I go, but I really want to talk about the west bank. Alongside Gaza and East Jerusalem, it is a core component of any future Palestinian state. It is a key component of any two-state solution, and it is in the light of that that we should consider developments, some of which have been referenced by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North referenced the 22 further planned settlements that the Israeli Government have announced. It is worth dwelling briefly on the extent of expansion of settler outposts. Between 1996 and 2023, an average of seven new outposts were established in any given year. In 2024, that went up to 59. There is a step change in the degree of settlement, as has been described by many. There are plans for over 19,000 more housing units and counting. That is an all-time record in 2025.
That is territory that must form the heart of a sovereign, viable and free Palestine. Violence in those territories is rife. We welcomed that Prime Minister Netanyahu condemned settler attacks on Friday. Those were settler attacks conducted against the IDF. The Israeli Government need to do much more to clamp down on violence and hold perpetrators to account; not only when IDF soldiers are attacked, but when Palestinians are.
Many of my hon. Friends and colleagues have described the difficulty of bringing to life the horror of what is happening to many in the west bank. I have received reports recently of one child shot by Israeli security forces 11 times. What need could there be for one bullet, let alone 11, to stop a child from throwing stones? It is a monstrously disproportionate use of force, and one that I know the whole House will join me in condemning in the strongest possible terms. Given those developments, I remain seriously concerned by Israel’s Operation Iron Wall, which has targeted Palestinian militants in the west bank and has been running for over 150 days. Any operations must be proportionate to the threat posed. The House will understand my hesitation on those points, given the story that I have just relayed.
Palestinians must be allowed home. Civilians must be protected and the destruction of civilian infrastructure must be minimised. Our position remains consistent: I have condemned it, the Foreign Secretary has condemned it, and the Prime Minister has condemned it. Israeli settlements are not just unhelpful; they are illegal under international law and harm prospects for a two-state solution. In all our engagements with Israeli Ministers we continue to call for a halt to expansion. We have taken action to hold violence to account, including three rounds of sanctions. They are sanctions against individuals, outposts and organisations that have supported and incited devastating and deadly violence, including through extremist rhetoric. On 10 June I announced measures against extremist Israeli Government Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich in their personal capacity for those very reasons.
Warinder Juss
Does the Minister agree that the UK Government recognising a sovereign state of Palestine now would add more weight to the pressure we are trying to exert on Israel?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend asks an important question, which has been discussed much in the House. The questions of recognition are vexed. We want to do it; we want to make a contribution to improving the lives of the Palestinian people. In the short period I have been Minister, circumstances in the west bank have been particularly susceptible to decisions by the Israeli Government. I will come on to those shortly. It is those consequences that we must weigh in the timing and the manner of our decision making.
As the situation in the west bank continues to deteriorate, we remain alive to the dreadful impact on Palestinians being forced to flee their homes. Many colleagues have spoken of some of the residential areas. In Jenin, Tulkarm and other northern towns, 40,000 people have been displaced by Israeli military operations. In East Jerusalem and area C, 800 structures have been demolished, displacing 960 Palestinians. Entire neighbourhoods have been reshaped, with the destruction of people’s homes, for which there can be no justification. The Israeli Government have said that the demolitions were because residents did not have building permits. Permits are near impossible for Palestinians to obtain.
As we speak, thousands more Palestinians and their communities face the prospect of demolitions and evictions. That includes more than 1,000 people in Masafer Yatta alone, which many hon. Members have referred to, hundreds in East Jerusalem, and 84 schools in the west bank, including East Jerusalem. That threatens the education of thousands of children determined to keep learning in spite of facing unfathomable trauma. Even schools funded by the UK have been demolished. That may be under the mistaken assumption that that sort of intimidation will do anything other than strengthen our resolve to help those who bear the brunt of it on a daily basis.
My officials in Jerusalem will continue to meet communities at risk of demolition and displacement, including communities of Masafer Yatta. We will continue to provide practical support to Palestinians and Bedouin communities facing demolitions and evictions to increase residents’ resilience and access to legal aid programmes, so that residents can stay on their land. In all but the most exceptional cases, it is clear that demolitions by an occupying power are contrary to international law. We are urging the Israeli Government to halt demolitions and evictions of Palestinian communities as a priority.
There are, sadly, many other factors undermining security in the west bank. Not least of those is the ongoing damage to the Palestinian economy. The economy of the west bank contracted by 21.7% last year, while that of Gaza contracted by 79.7%. All the while, closures across the west bank have prevented the free movement of Palestinian people and goods. Restrictions on access to Israel have left hundreds of thousands of Palestinians out of work. As of the end of 2024, unemployment reached 29% in the west bank.
Israel has not transferred Palestinian tax clearance revenues to the Palestinian Authority since May. Officials and security forces have been paid only a fraction of their salaries. Taken together, those pressures threaten the viability of the Palestinian Authority, and risk overall collapse of the Palestinian economy, as well as the stability of the west bank. We are calling now on Israel to release clearance revenues to the Palestinian Authority immediately.
We value deeply our continued friendship with the Palestinian Authority. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills referenced the landmark memorandum of understanding that the Foreign Secretary signed with Prime Minister Mustafa, when our Prime Minister welcomed him to the UK earlier this year. An effective Palestinian Authority has a vital role to play in achieving a lasting peace and progress towards a two-state solution. That is why we will continue to work with them on their vital reform agenda. Many hon. Members set out some of the challenges facing the Palestinian Authority. We will continue, through the work of the special envoy for Palestinian Authority governance, Sir Michael Barber, to support them in their vital efforts.
This year, we have pledged £101 million of additional support to the Palestinian people. That is both for humanitarian aid and for support with economic development. We will continue to work to strengthen and reform the Palestinian Authority; they are the vital alternative to Hamas, who must have no role in Palestinian governance.
We remain committed to supporting the Palestinian people. The situation we face is not only an affront to the rights of Palestinians but runs counter to Israel’s long-term security and democracy, as many colleagues have pointed out this afternoon. It is an assault on the fundamentals of a two-state solution. That is the only viable framework available for a just and lasting peace. It is supported on every side of this House.
Chris Law
I appreciate—as I am sure everybody in this room does—the update the Minister is giving. I asked a very specific question, and I think it would be helpful to get an answer to it. Goods from illegal settlements regularly flow into this country. The UK Government previously banned goods coming from another illegally occupied area—Crimea in Ukraine. Is there any impediment to the UK Government doing the same and banning goods that come from illegal settlements in the west bank entering the UK, and to start to put some serious action beyond the words the Minister has just said?
Mr Falconer
The UK does not recognise the Occupied Palestinian Territories as part of Israel, so no goods should be sold in the UK as though they were Israeli or under Israeli privileges if they emanate from the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I know the hon. Gentleman pays close attention to these issues. There are complexities in trying to ensure that goods from the Occupied Palestinian Territories are fully illegal—not least because, where they are produced by Palestinians, we would want to continue to enable their sale.
Those complexities are one reason why there is no European nation that has taken that step, but it is something we keep under close review. We encourage British businesses directly to take careful note of the difference between green line Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the labelling of their goods.
I know that a two-state solution is supported right across this House. We all want to see Israelis safe within their borders, living alongside their neighbours in peace, with Palestinians enjoying the dignity, stability and security of their own sovereign state. That is an enduring vision for a better future, and one that the UK will continue to pursue alongside our friends and partners in the weeks and months ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the forced displacement of Palestinians in the West Bank.