Westminster Hall

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 22 July 2025

[Valerie Vaz in the Chair]

Black Country Day

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Black Country Day.

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz! As the Black Country MP for Walsall and Bloxwich, you know how important the subject of the debate is and will, I am sure, give it the respect that it deserves. I know that I speak for the whole Black Country, including your constituents and the constituents of MPs who cannot be present today, because we are one place—the Black Country is our region.

Sometimes people may say that we are part of the west midlands, but we have a pride and identity that are all our own. We are proud to wear the Black Country flag. There is some debate over the boundaries of the Black Country, but for the purposes of today I will treat it as our four boroughs of Sandwell, Wolverhampton, Walsall and Dudley, which means that 1.2 million people call our region their home.

Our region was the birthplace of the industrial revolution. If we look at the history books, that is clear: Thomas Newcomen’s steam engine hauled coal at the Bloomfield colliery, and James Watt improved it at the Coneygree colliery in Tipton. Both places are in my constituency. Whatever the Birmingham and Manchester MPs say, the birthplace of the industrial revolution was in the Black Country.

Our name comes from the comments made by the American ambassador who came to the Black Country and described us as

“black by day and red by night”.

The black from the steel mills and heavy industry is long gone, but our heavy industry is not. We commemorate those days in our Black Country flag: the red for the red at night, the black for industry, the white for the glass furnaces and the chains for the heavy industry of our ends.

The 14th of July was chosen as the day to commemorate our region because it coincides with the first day that Thomas Newcomen used that steam engine, in 1712. It is fitting that, unlike other regions, which may choose a saint’s day, the birthday of an eminent nobleman or the date of a battle as their regional day, we in the Black Country choose an industrial moment.

In the Black Country, we have had coal mining, steel fabrication, metal finishing, and nail, brick and chain making. Over the years, those industries have declined, but still the Black Country’s future is bright. It is still one of the UK’s most industrialised areas, thanks to iron foundries, and our haulage, automotive and metals industries. As we celebrate our heritage, we must remember the pivotal role that working people played in the creation of the modern Black Country.

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

I congratulate the hon. Lady not only on securing the debate, but on the magnificent job she is doing in selling the Black Country to Westminster Hall and the wider community. Does she agree that her celebrating Black Country Day and others celebrating other days demonstrates the diversity across the United Kingdom? In my patch last weekend, we had a sporting and cultural celebration, with the Open at Royal Portrush golf club and other events. Diversity across the United Kingdom ought to be celebrated in the very way that she is alluding to in this debate.

[Antonia Bance]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. It is so important that each of our areas is celebrated for what they are—what they are now, what they have been and what they could be—and that we take note of the diversity of each of our areas.

This United Kingdom is made up of places, regions, identities, cities, towns and communities. Each deserves its opportunity—its day in the sun and its things that it is special and unique at. Each place deserves its own local pride. It is so important that we come together today to talk about the Black Country. The key things I want to talk about are about the way that our industrial heritage shapes our future. Some people might talk about their regional identity day and offer the best place to get a pint, the best regional delicacies or the most beautiful vistas.

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

My hon. Friend may know that I bought my very first house on the edge of the Black Country, within hearing distance of the Baggies’ home ground. I want to celebrate the Black Country’s very own orange chips. The orange chips are said to date back to world war two, but who knows? The best orange chips are always fluffy on the inside and crispy on the outside, but they have a very secret ingredient. Would my hon. Friend like to share what that secret ingredient might be? Would she agree that chips on their own are fattening enough, bab, without making them the orange-battered kind we can only get in the Black Country?

[Antonia Bance]

Having recently run a competition for the best orange chips in Tipton and Wednesbury, I have great experience of sampling the double-battered delicacy—oh yes, we are talking about chips that then return to the batter and are deep-fried a second time. It was very hard to choose a winner for the contest; perhaps the Black Country Chippy or The Island House chippy, but I have not sampled them all yet. I will keep going until I have sampled every orange chip in the constituency.

The Black Country was built by working people. We remember the women chainmakers of Cradley Heath and their struggle for decent working conditions and pay. We are proud to commemorate their struggle every year at the chainmakers’ festival, which I was proud to speak at this year. We remember the workers of Tube Town—members of a union that was one of the forerunners of my union, Unite—who, in 1913, went on strike from their work metal forming and creating metal tubes, for decent wages. They were out for weeks on end. Somehow, they kept body and soul together. Somehow, those families prevailed and they won.

We remember those who, through no fault of their own, were caught up in the unsafe conditions of the industrial world in the Black Country of the early 20th century. I think particularly of the Tipton catastrophe, when 19 teenage girls working in an unlicensed munitions factory at Dudley Port, dismantling redundant world war one cartridges, were killed in an explosion. They were teenage girls in unsafe, unlicensed conditions. What happened to them changed the law and brought about some of our modern health and safety culture.

Although the Black Country is a proud and vibrant place, we do not always get our fair shakes. We do not always get what we are due. We are a proud place, we work hard and we want to do our best, but the legacy of deindustrialisation and 14 long years of austerity has meant that the people of the Black Country are less likely to be in work and more likely to be sick. Our children are more likely to live without enough money to live on. Forces bigger than any individual family or person hold us back.

I stand here today talking about Black Country Day and about our area to make the case for the two big changes that we need for the future of the Black Country. The first is a modern industrial strategy. I was proud to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade set out our modern industrial strategy a few weeks ago in the House. That industrial strategy named our West Midlands combined authority as one of the key locations for all eight of the industrial strategy priority sectors.

We were the only place in the country where all eight of those sectors were named as a priority, and our own Black Country was named as the priority for the clean energy industries. We are beginning to see that come true. In the last couple of months we have seen a £45 million investment from Eku Energy in a battery storage facility in my constituency at Ocker Hill on the site of a former power station. It is a lovely thought that modern, clean energy facilities can take over the space previously occupied by carbon-intensive polluting industries.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

The hon. Lady makes an important point about the history, landscape and geography of the Black Country and the fact that our roots are in industry. She makes a very good point about how we can reuse our brownfield sites—for example, for the battery and energy storage system. Does she agree with me that we should focus 100% on reusing brownfield industrial sites before we start damaging our precious greenbelt with things such as battery energy storage systems?

[Antonia Bance]

As a proud Black Country MP, it is good to see the right hon. Member in her place today. I thank her for the intervention, but I am afraid I cannot agree. Much of my constituency is brownfield land. It is right that we look to use brownfield land first of all, both for industrial uses and for housing, but the key problem is that brownfield land is expensive to remediate and that our need for industrial sites and housing is urgent.

I support the Government’s policy of a limited review of the greenbelt and using some of the greybelt to ensure that we can use low value land for housing. Some colleagues around the room might not agree, but when there are 21,000 people on the housing waiting list, as there are in Sandwell, and when we regularly encounter families living in temporary accommodation infested with rats and insects, who show us with shame—they should have no shame; the shame is not theirs—the arms of their children covered in bites, then perhaps we can have a conversation about which pieces of land should be used for what and about the best use of scarce public investment in land suitable for building.

The other investment that I want to talk about relates to a wonderful, timely announcement being made today by colleagues at the Department for Transport. They have announced the third round of the advanced fuels fund; I am delighted to say that Sumo Engineering in my constituency will get £4.5 million for its CLEARSKIES initiative, a demonstration project that will help to produce sustainable aviation fuel. I was so pleased to hear about that. Given that we will also have the battery storage facility in Ocker Hill, the Black Country could really become the hotbed and home of clean energy industries, which offer so much potential for the types of jobs that we need.

I should also say that I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary announced action on energy prices in the industrial strategy. We so urgently need to bring down the costs of industrial energy to ensure we carry on with advanced manufacturing and the types of clean energy infrastructure development that we know is the future for our ends.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the three trade deals that our Prime Minister secured earlier this year with India, the EU and America will benefit our region greatly and can really help to turbocharge manufacturing in the Black Country?

[Antonia Bance]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend, one of my constituency neighbours, for his intervention. It was a difficult day when we all stood here in Westminster Hall debating the future of the automotive industry under the tariffs from the United States. I thank my colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade and the Treasury, as well as the Prime Minister, for getting that deal, which secured 34,000 jobs at Jaguar Land Rover in the west midlands.

As I said, the Black Country needs the industrial strategy to bring good jobs back to our region, but the other thing it needs is our due. When I accepted the role of Member of Parliament for Tipton and Wednesbury, I spoke about the fact that we had for so long been an object of charity and about community self-defence. Our food banks and voluntary organisations had done everything they could, and now it was time to give us our due. I can see that beginning to happen in the local government finance review, which recognises the deprivation in Sandwell, the 12th most deprived local authority in the country, and will finally put back the money that is our due—the tax that we have paid—to reopen our Sure Starts and ensure that we have the local services we need.

I hope very much that when the trailblazer neighbourhoods are announced in the coming days, they will include the neighbourhoods in Princes End identified by the independent commission on neighbourhoods, and that when we see the child poverty strategy this autumn, it will put the resources into the children of Tipton and Wednesbury, where 50%—one in two; every second door; every second family; every second child—live in poverty. The number of siblings that you have should not determine whether you can have your tea tonight.

My speech has perhaps been more political than some other speeches about regional days. I have made a speech about the changes we want to see for the proud place that is the Black Country on this, Black Country Day. I thank everyone for turning up today and look forward to hearing about their experiences of and priorities for the Black Country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. I expect to call the first wind-up speech at 10.28 am.

09:47

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for securing this debate and giving us, as Black Country Members of Parliament, and you, Ms Vaz, the opportunity to highlight some of the lot that is the Black Country at its best. I do not think that 90 minutes is long enough to talk with the passion that we all would like to convey, or name-check all the wonderful organisations and individuals who make up the Black Country’s history, present and no doubt future, but I know that we will all give it our best shot. Held every year on 14 July for over a decade now, Black Country Day is a time to honour and celebrate the incredible spirit of our region, from our tight-knit communities to our thriving businesses and tourism and remarkable industrial heritage. Today gives us the opportunity to share a little bit of it with all the people who have decided to tune into Westminster Hall on Parliament TV.

My constituency of Aldridge-Brownhills was not historically part of the Black Country. Its incorporation came in April 1974 as part of the major reorganisation of local government in England. Its name originally comes from the urban district council, that class of local authorities that was abolished by the 1974 reforms. Having previously come under Staffordshire, we were absorbed into Walsall borough council and hence joined the Black Country. Although we have a Staffordshire past, the Black Country is very much our present and our future, though I acknowledge that many in parts of my constituency still look, and rightly so, to Staffordshire and enjoy the historical and familial connections, which I for one will never forget.

The Black Country is renowned for its contribution to the industrial revolution. From the late 18th century onwards, the region developed into a major centre for coalmining, iron smelting and steel production. During the 19th century, the Black Country became noted for its iron and steel industries. Wrought iron production, chain making and the manufacture of locks and nails were central to the region’s economy. Those industries became essential to Britain’s railway, maritime and construction sectors.

As you know well, Ms Vaz, as a Walsall MP yourself, in parts of Walsall our major contribution as a borough was the leather industry. The origins of Walsall’s leather industry lay in the middle ages, and it continued to grow in the 17th and 18th centuries. I will use this opportunity to speak about the lorinery trade, which is what it is known as.

Many of the town’s leather goods trade pioneers were bridle cutters; by settling in Walsall, they could call on the skills of local loriners for their bits and buckles. In the early 19th century, leatherworking became an important local trade, providing employment and manufacturing opportunities right across the borough, including in my constituency. After 1840, the development of the town’s leatherworking industry gained pace. The coming of the South Staffordshire railway to Walsall in 1847 gave a boost to the trade, and by 1851 there were 75 firms making bridles, saddles and harnesses.

Horses were an essential part of Victorian life. There were around 3.3 million horses in late-Victorian Britain, which provided a huge market for Walsall’s manufacturers. In the last decades of the 19th century, the Walsall leather trade entered a golden age of prosperity: exports boomed and Walsall firms sent their products all over the British empire—sadly, foreign wars were a particularly lucrative source of trade. At the turn of the 20th century, Walsall was home to nearly a third of Britain ’s saddlers and harness makers, and it remains best known today for making saddlery and harness, yet from 1900 those trades began a long decline as, one by one, the traditional roles of the horse were challenged and replaced by the engine. The great age of the horse had ended.

Walsall firms had to adapt to this changing world, or they would have disappeared. Some had been making light leather goods, such as travelling bags and hatboxes, since the 1870s, but from 1900 onwards they concentrated more on that type of work. Since the 1960s, the light leather goods trade has met with tough competition from overseas producers, and Walsall’s surviving leather goods firms have concentrated on the luxury end of the market.

Goods for some of the world’s most famous brand names are made in our borough. Indeed, one of Walsall’s most famous clients was Her Majesty the late Queen Elizabeth. The late Queen was rarely seen without her Launer handbag. I must share this little story, although most people have probably seen the sketch: in the famous platinum jubilee sketch with Paddington Bear, the Queen pulled a marmalade sandwich out of one of her bags, which was proudly made in Walsall—the bag, not the sandwich. I believe the Launer handbag is still a favourite of many royals.

Walsall is not known only for its handbags. Canals and waterways were critical to the Black Country’s industrial success, and they remain integral to our local communities today. We have regularly hosted the Inland Waterways festival of water in Pelsall in my constituency, and we have the Canalside festival each August in Brownhills. Our canals, rooted in our industrial heritage, play a key role today, providing wildlife corridors and opportunities for walking, cycling, and simply enjoying being outdoors.

Our canals are a good example of how the region has adapted to changes over the years. Canals were critical to the Black Country’s industrial heritage, enabling the transportation of raw materials like coal and iron to local furnaces and workshops. The Wyrley and Essington canal, which dates back to an Act of Parliament—the Birmingham Canal Navigation Act 1792—runs through a large part of my constituency. Originally built to transport coal from the mines near Wyrley and New Invention, it was later extended to Wolverhampton and Walsall, terminating at Ogley junction near Brownhills. The Wyrley and Essington canal is affectionately known locally as the “curly Wyrley”, which derives from the fact it is a contour canal, twisting and turning to avoid gradients, and thus the need for locks.

On the subject of transport, it would be remiss of me not to draw a link between the role canals played in our past and the role transport will play in our future. Transport connectivity is essential to our communities, unlocking opportunities and access to jobs and education. That is why it is vital that the Government honour the commitment of the previous Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, to deliver the train station in Aldridge, which I am always talking about, and will continue to do so. As we look to the future, improving transport links and, most important, delivering that train station, will unleash opportunities, enabling us to rediscover the vim and vigour of our industrial spirit, with access to good jobs, better connectivity and opportunity for the next generation as well as our own.

I will conclude by wishing everyone a happy Black Country Day, even though it was actually last week, but that is the way Westminster Hall debates work. I am so pleased that the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury was able to secure this day for the debate. It has been an absolute pleasure to participate and to have this really important opportunity as a Member of Parliament to celebrate the heritage of the area that I am deeply honoured to represent.

09:55

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Ms Vaz. ’Owamya, me babbies? It’s bostin’ to be here with my Black Country muckas to celebrate all the great things about our region, past and present.

Black Country Day was first celebrated in 2014, bringing together the boroughs of Dudley, Sandwell, Wolverhampton and Walsall to acknowledge our shared, rich cultural heritage and history. It is now an annual event, where we can reminisce about the past and look towards a prosperous future. The Black Country flag was designed by a local schoolgirl, Gracie Sheppard—she is not so young any more—and it has become a recognisable symbol of the region, flying atop flagpoles on our civic buildings, spotted at football matches across the world and even on display at the campsites of Glastonbury.

Elihu Burritt’s 1868 “Walks in the Black Country and its Green Border-land” opens with the words

“black by day and red by night”

because the local furnaces gave out smoke and grime during the day and glowed red at night. At the centre of the Black Country flag is the glass cone, a well-known shape on the Stourbridge horizon, flanked on either side by black and red skies. A chain flows across the flag, representing the region’s heavy industrial past: chain making was done by women in the back gardens of homes in Cradley, and larger chains and anchors were made at Hingley’s in Netherton. The Black Country area was originally made up of Worcestershire, Warwickshire and Staffordshire, but when the West Midlands county was established in 1974, some of our identity was lost. I have been lobbying to have the Black Country flag included in the historic county flags display currently outside Parliament—maybe next year.

I am Black Country through and through, growing up in Halesowen and later moving to Stourbridge; my family have roots in Smethwick and Langley. Us Black Country folk are fiercely proud of our area and its history, and rightly so. During the industrial revolution, it was known as the workshop of the world. My constituency takes in not only the town of Stourbridge but also Brierley Hill, Netherton, Wollaston, Lye and Amblecote, Norton and Pedmore. Since the 1600s, Stourbridge has given its name to glass production, and the rich local resources of coal and fireclay made it the perfect location for that industry.

One of my priorities in Parliament is to promote and protect our varied history, heritage and crafts. I am already working towards keeping our own glass festival at home in Stourbridge. Wollaston produced the Stourbridge Lion, the first locomotive to run on a commercial line in the USA. Round Oak steelworks in Brierley Hill provided employment for thousands of local people and was a world centre of iron making during the industrial revolution. Netherton was the home of Hingley’s, whose most famous product was the anchor for the RMS Titanic. Lye was famous for the manufacture of nails, anvils, crucibles and firebricks, and the Stourbridge name can still be found embossed on old bricks. Linking all these places are the many miles of waterways, once the highways for transporting goods, now the perfect place to walk ya wammel up the cut.

The Black Country is no longer the heavy industrial power it once was, but I believe that, with the right investment and the opportunities provided by this Government, it can thrive once more, with modern technology and green industries. It may be a bit black over Bill’s mother’s today, but I believe the future is bright. In fact, we have already seen groundbreaking innovation in Allister Malcolm Glass at Stourbridge Glass museum, which has transitioned fully to renewable energy and is working with another Black Country company to develop the country’s first high-power electric furnace.

Stourbridge is also home to the shortest railway in Europe, the Stourbridge Shuttle, which runs between the town and Stourbridge junction, where our most famous resident, George the station cat, can be found. Stourbridge has long produced sporting, musical and artistic talent, from England football star Jude Bellingham to Ned’s Atomic Dustbin, Pop Will Eat Itself and Robert Plant. Just last week, cyclist Ben Healy retained the yellow jersey, finishing in the top 10 in the Tour de France.

It would be remiss of me not to also mention the strong and diverse community and the friendly people across the Black Country. We also have our own community radio station, Black Country Radio, and brew our own beer at the famous Batham’s Brewery in Brierly Hill—

“Blessing of your heart, you brew good Ale”.

I even met my husband in a Batham’s pub. Hon. Members may not consider the Black Country as a destination this summer, but I am sure they will agree that there is plenty to see and do, and they would be welcomed with open arms. As we remember our fascinating past, there is much to look forward to in the future. I am not having a laugh—the Black Country really is bostin’.

10:00

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First of all, it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I suppose this is one of those occasions when you would love to be down here participating in the debate, but are unable to do so due to your responsibility as Chair—maybe it is a chance to listen and hear about all the good things. I am very fortunate to be able to participate in a small way, and I am really pleased that the three ladies who secured the debate, the hon. Members for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) and Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) and the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) are here. I was also pleased to hear the intervention from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor); I am not quite sure about orange chips, but there you are—that is by the by. I hope we can fly the flag. We have in the past had the flag of St Patrick flying for St Patrick’s Day. I was told that that was impossible; I hope they have better luck than me, but we will see how we get on.

I thank the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury for leading the debate—she really sold it well, as did everyone. The day is crucial for remembering the heritage, culture and industrial history of the Black Country, including places like Walsall, Sandwell and Wolverhampton. There are many areas across the UK rich in industrial heritage.

I will take a slightly different tangent to help us to understand cultural and historical links that make this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a better place—the culture from the Black Country and the culture from Strangford. I will tie the two together in a way that, hopefully, will honour what the hon. Lady is saying. I do it with appreciate and in support, so it is great to be here to celebrate the Black Country in its time of celebration.

The date of Black Country Day coincides with the anniversary of the invention of the world’s first steam engine by Thomas Newcomen in 1712. The occasion was considered the start of the industrial revolution, which was seen in my constituency of Strangford and across Northern Ireland. It was a pinnacle moment for Britain. The industrial base of the Black Country, which the hon. Lady referred to, is the industrial base of Strangford, too. While we see some similarities, we also see differences, such as some of the culture and history. However, we are united by the fact that we all serve under one flag, the Union flag, and that is important for all of us.

Historically in Northern Ireland, we are known for our flax and linen industry, in which we have a rich culture. Back in the 1900s we had Crepe Weavers on the Comber Road, which was part of our industrial base and history. It was established in 1949 by the Mladek family, who were Czech refugees. I remember them quite well—the father in particular, who previously ran the site as a Miles Aircraft factory. The Crepe Weavers plant produced nylon and rayon fabrics until its closure in 2005. At its peak, the factory employed some 400 workers.

At the same time, the industrial base in the Black Country that the hon. Lady referred to is very similar to ours. There are numerous businesses and factories, rich in industrial culture, just like in the Black Country. In Newtownards, the major town in my constituency, we were fortunate to have the Lee Jeans factory and Baird clothing, which was also known as Bairdwear. These were two major factories, one in Bangor and one in Ards. They exclusively supplied Marks and Spencer across this Great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—a connection that unites us—but in 1999 the contract ended, leading to hundreds of job losses and closures.

Strangford has changed incredibly—as has the Black country—but the illustration of its beauty by the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury and others has warmed my heart, because it has the same cultural activity that we have had in Strangford over the years. One pivotal issue is that there seems to be a decrease in the number of factories, and we are currently running a reliance on imports from other countries. Having an industrial base is important for the Black Country, as it is for Strangford and indeed for all of us.

What has happened in the Black Country has also happened in Strangford. The industrial base has declined, and where does it go from now? What is the vision for the future? That is what the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury has tried to outline. I look forward to hearing from the Minister as not only an interested person but the Minister with responsibility.

There has been a loss in local communities, which is sad to see given the history of the sector. We must all focus on upskilling those who have moved on from the jobs of the past to the jobs of the future. Life is changing, whether we like it or not. Job opportunities are changing. We once based our industrial prowess on the factory and that has changed as well, in the Black Country and in Strangford. I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that. We must upskill those who have a genuine interest in this industry, to take back skills from overseas and employ our own people again. There is such potential for the Black Country, for Strangford and Northern Ireland, and for the whole of the United Kingdom. We must do more to preserve and protect that.

What is it that makes this United Kingdom so great? It is the culture, the history and the attractions. It is the fun stories. It is the orange chips—I like the orange part in particular, but then I am from Northern Ireland, and that is one of the things I will hold on to with great fervour. What makes us great are all the things that make us different, but also the same. This is what I feel in my heart: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is better because of all the differences and all the things that unite us. We should not dwell on the differences, because they are not really important. We should dwell on the things that make us stronger—that is what we should be aiming for.

To conclude, it is great to celebrate this event and to remember the cultural and historical significance of the occasion. The transition through the industrial revolution is something to be remembered. I have hope that we can bring these local industries back, although perhaps in a different way, for the future. The Minister has the vision for his role in that, and the Labour Government have a vision for where they want to go. We should stand behind our Minister and our Government as they bring about the future for everyone by ensuring that our people have the necessary skills. I look to the Minister, as I always do—I see him as a friend and someone who has a heart for his job—to ensure that we will not fall behind, and that we will make more efforts, as a collective, to reinstate what was once a highly populated sector in our jobs industry, and could be again.

10:08

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for securing this debate. It is a pleasure to see fellow Black Country colleagues and others in the Chamber, on the last day before summer recess, to acknowledge an important celebration for our constituencies.

As a proud Wulfrunian, I have celebrated many Black Country Days and waved the Black Country flag over the years, but it feels particularly special and meaningful to do so today as the Member of Parliament for Wolverhampton West. Members across the House will agree that the heritage and culture of the Black Country are central to our communities. I welcome the opportunity to recognise Black Country Day within Parliament to honour our history, to celebrate our present and to look forward to a bright future.

Black Country Day is a fantastic occasion that brings people together from villages, towns and cities across the west midlands. In Wolverhampton, I am particularly proud of our rich heritage and the strong sense of community that shines through during these celebrations. Just over a week ago, I was pleased to attend a street party in my constituency, very close to where I live. I spent time with members of the Penn Residents Association, as well as meeting friends and constituents, and sharing the joy of celebrating the incredible place that we call home.

The Black Country is so called because of the region’s heavy industrialisation during the 19th century. Smoke was emitted from the iron foundries, forges and mines, giving the area a dark, blackened appearance. It is a region that made stuff—where iron and coal shaped the world, and proud and resilient communities were created. Innovation has given the area its fame.

My city of Wolverhampton, with its history of steel production, automotive engineering and lock-making, is known for playing a major role in the industrial revolution. Indeed, my constituency office is in the iconic grade II listed Chubb buildings in Wolverhampton city centre. The Chubb company in Wolverhampton is famous for manufacturing high-quality locks and safes.

Black Country Day is not just about the history of the region; it is about who we are now. We have a warm, diverse culture, and we celebrate our communities, schools, colleges, universities, businesses, musicians, creative artists and sportspeople.

Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention the wonderful and well-known Wolverhampton Wanderers football club, of which I am a proud season ticket holder. Cheering for my side at the Molineux stadium in my constituency has provided much enjoyment not just to my family and me but to the whole community. Wolves is yet another gem that the Black Country has to offer.

[Rachel Taylor]

I applaud my hon. Friend’s love of the Wolves. Does he agree that one of the best football players from the Black Country was Jeff Astle, and that it would not be right for Black Country Day to go by without us commemorating Jeff’s place in the world of football?

[Warinder Juss]

Yes, Jeff Astle was indeed a great player.

[Jim Shannon]

One of the greatest footballers that Wolverhampton has ever had was Derek Dougan. Where did he come from? Northern Ireland.

[Warinder Juss]

When I first came to Wolverhampton back in 1968, many years ago, one of the most memorable images that I saw plastered on gates and walls was of “the Doog”—Derek Dougan was well celebrated in Wolverhampton and he was affectionately known as “the Doog”. I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning Derek Dougan—one of the legends of Wolverhampton Wanderers.

10:12

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) for organising this debate. It is a pleasure to see so many Black Country MPs together to discuss our great region with such passion. It is also nice to hear Members from outside our region talking about the Black Country.

We heard about the anchor for the Titanic, which was built between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles). Then, of course, it went to Belfast to be constructed. In the past few weeks, I have been talking to businesses in my constituency that continue to export to Harland and Wolff, and it is great to hear that British shipbuilding is coming back to Northern Ireland.

I speak today with pride in the Black Country, in my constituency of Halesowen and in the generations of working people who built this country with their bare hands. The Black Country once powered the world. Its furnaces lit the skies; its tools forged the British Empire. In Halesowen, we forged the anchor for the Titanic—shaped by skill, forged in fire, and a symbol of what the region could achieve when it was backed, believed in and properly invested in.

However, our greatest legacy is not iron or steel but our people. It is people such as the women chainmakers of Cradley Heath—working-class women from my constituency who, over a century ago, toiled for long hours in blistering heat for poverty pay. In 1910, they stood together, went on strike, and won. They secured one of Britain’s first minimum wages, lifting not just themselves but a generation of working people out of poverty. They did not just make chains; they broke them. Their courage and clarity of purpose still echo through our region today.

Once again, our people are being held back not by a lack of determination but by a lack of investment and political will. Since the 1980s, successive Conservative Governments have allowed the foundations of our industrial economy to be chipped away, factory by factory and job by job. Apprenticeships have vanished, and young people have been told to aim lower. Today, youth unemployment in Dudley borough is 8.6%—nearly double the national average. That is not just a statistic; it is thousands of young lives stuck in limbo in our towns. We cannot talk about pride in our past if we are not prepared to fight for our future.

When I was in the Royal Marines, I saw how working in defence can be an excellent career. With defence spending now set to rise to 2.6% of GDP by 2030—more than £75 billion a year—young people in the Black Country have a real opportunity. The UK defence industry already supports more than 260,000 jobs and contributes £10 billion to our economy, but the benefits are not being felt equally across our country. That has to change. With targeted investment in defence manufacturing, we can bring jobs, apprenticeships and advanced engineering back to our region.

[Antonia Bance]

Was my hon. Friend, like me, pleased to see our West Midlands Mayor Richard Parker’s new growth strategy, which was published yesterday? It explicitly identifies a number of the industrial strategy sectors, particularly the defence sector, as areas of potential growth in the Black Country.

[Alex Ballinger]

It is fantastic to see the Mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker, promoting growth across our region. I am also delighted to see that the defence sector, which will be vital for jobs not just in our region but across the West Midlands combined authority, is front and centre among all the sectors that are being supported.

With targeted investment in defence manufacturing, we can bring jobs, apprenticeships and advanced engineering back to the Black Country. We can retool our factories, rebuild our pride and give our young people the skills, wages and future they deserve. This is how we honour the chainmakers of Cradley Heath—not with warm words, but with action. They fought for better pay and a better life. If they could look at us now, they would want to know that their fight still means something and that their spirit lives on, not in museums but in jobs, hope and communities that are building again.

Does the Minister agree that our industrial strategy should reflect the history and expertise in the Black Country? Will he join me in working to build up investment in defence, automotive and advanced manufacturing, so that we can get back to doing what we do best—building for Britain?

10:17

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. It is also a pleasure that someone else who is not from the Black Country, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), has contributed to this debate. Liberal Democrats get slightly uneasy talking about the Black Country, as I believe we have not had a Liberal MP there for more than 100 years—and more’s the pity, I am sure hon. Members would agree.

This year, communities across Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton—I correctly identified the boundaries —celebrated Black Country Day, which is a proud and growing tradition that celebrates not only the people and culture of the region, but its central place in Britain’s past, present and future. The Black Country’s origins lie in the dark coal seams and iron foundries that, from the 16th century, powered our nation’s transformation into a global superpower.

The Black Country was the engine room of the industrial revolution, where innovation and hard work went hand in hand. It was in Tipton that Thomas Newcomen’s steam engine was first put to practical use, draining mines and laying the groundwork for what became modern industry. The Black Country helped to build the ironwork for the Crystal Palace and forged the anchor for the Titanic. Its factories, furnaces and foundries not only built Britain, but exported British craftsmanship and engineering across the world.

This influence goes beyond industry. The industrial impact on the land inspired J. R. R. Tolkien’s vision of middle earth in “The Lord of the Rings”. Following the war—not in “The Lord of the Rings”, but the second world war—Black Country musicians took inspiration from the loud industrial processes to create heavy metal. Led Zeppelin, Slade and Black Sabbath all have members who hail from the region. These are typical of the world-leading cultural products that Britain and the Black Country have created. They have long helped to spread our unique culture and values, which we have exported across the world.

To ensure that the next generation of creative talent from the Black Country can succeed, we need to reverse the cuts to arts funding in schools. I am sure I will be forgiven for making a political comment in this debate, as others have: the previous Government downgraded the importance of creative subjects in education, and the Liberal Democrats would restore art subjects to the core of the curriculum, ensuring that every child has the opportunity to study music, drama and the visual arts. That means including arts in the English baccalaureate, providing funding for creative degrees and ensuring that high-quality apprenticeships are available in the creative industries.

The Black Country can also be proud of its strong footballing heritage. If I may be forgiven, I will mention one of the matches I attended at Wolverhampton Wanderers. I am a Southampton fan, and we do not often win games I attend—and I have attended many—but on that occasion we won 6-0, despite being significantly the worst side on the pitch that day. No one in the stands could quite understand how it happened. The Wolverhampton Wanderers supporters showed the classic Black Country spirit by chanting Mick McCarthy’s name throughout the second half, even as their team went down 6-0. That certainly shows the region’s spirit.

Two of the founding members of the Football League, West Bromwich Albion and Wolves, call the Black Country their home. It should be no surprise that the region has also produced footballing talent over the years. One of them, the Busby babe Duncan Edwards, grew up in Dudley and tragically died in the Munich air disaster. More recently, Jude Bellingham grew up in Stourbridge and played for its youth team—we all know about his meteoric rise since. I am told that the No. 9 derby between Halesowen and Stourbridge is one of the best attended non-league football matches in the country.

[Alex Ballinger]

One of the best matches in the country.

[Max Wilkinson]

And one of the best matches in the country, I am told. As a non-league groundhopper myself, I look forward to attending it at some point in the future. These are the kinds of clubs and fixtures that the Liberal Democrats have been fighting to protect through our support for, and amendments to, the Football Governance Bill. The need for that legislation to succeed can also be seen in the Black Country. We understand that Dudley football club has been without a home for some time, and Stourbridge football club needs major investment to keep its pitch open.

The principles of protecting the heritage of our national game, greater financial sustainability and greater fan involvement are crucial for ensuring that grassroots clubs can survive. That is why celebrations like Black Country Day matter, because they shine a light on the rich local cultures that define the region and the country, and the communities that deserve to be heard. We should celebrate Black Country Day, not just as a moment of looking back but as a promise to look forward and protect the ability of future generations to build on the region’s legacy.

By my reckoning, as I said, it is more than a century since a Liberal MP was elected in the Black Country, which is a shame. I will finish by stating my admiration for my favourite politician from the Black Country. Adrian Bailey, the former Labour MP for West Bromwich West, is a Cheltenham Town fan and an alumnus of Cheltenham grammar school. He was present, but not involved, when a fellow spectator at the Cheltenham cricket festival had a fit of giggles and poured a whole pint over me, and then helped tidy up the mess. He is a thoroughly decent bloke from the Black Country.

10:22

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I am sure that, for the rest of us, you are our favourite Black Country Member of Parliament, in contrast to what we have just heard from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) on securing today’s debate.

One of the pleasures of working on local government, which I am sure the Minister and I share, is hearing the passion with which Members speak for their local areas. We all recognise that patriotism is not just about wrapping ourselves in the Union Jack or speaking about our country or national football team; it starts at the level of a community, town, city and region. It is in the strength of those towns, cities, regions and communities that the strength and cohesion of the country as a whole lies. For me, as a proud outer-London MP, whose constituents like to celebrate Middlesex Day—which we have debated and heard a great deal about—it is a pleasure to be here to speak as we talk about the Black Country.

It was clear listening to the exchange just before the debate got going that there is some degree of competition, shall we say, among Black Country MPs about exactly whose constituency supplied the parts for the anchor that secured the Titanic, or manufactured the bits for Newcomen’s steam engine, and all the other things that have been spoken about so wonderfully by Members across the Chamber.

I was particularly struck by what my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) said. It is a good illustration not only of the things that pop up on Wikipedia—things that we would learn about a region we were thinking of visiting for the first time as a tourist—but of some of the detail of what is happening in the local economy, which other Members referenced. The region’s manufacturing heritage may have started 100 or 150 years ago, but the skills are still maintained today. Sometimes, those skills contribute to other brands—British and international—and to the ongoing success of our national economy.

It is good to see a region of the UK that is proud of its industrial heritage and whose representatives speak eloquently about how that heritage has continued into the modern age to support jobs, brands and identity, while moving away from the issues of pollution and industrial poor health and safety, which we know—I speak as somebody who grew up in south Wales—dogged many areas associated with industrial heritage. We are proud of that heritage, but we also know that many people who lived through and worked in that industrial past were quite keen that future generations did not experience such conditions. It is important to see how all that feeds through to the modern world.

The significance of the Black Country has been recognised for many years by Governments of all parties, but I will highlight a couple of the things about which Conservative colleagues in the last Parliament were very exercised, such as the Repowering the Black Country project. A number of Members have spoken about the impact of energy costs on businesses. We know the UK now has the highest industrial energy costs of any developed economy, and we understand why that is happening. None the less, it has been a concern for Governments for some years, and supporting those energy-intensive industries that are particularly prevalent in the Black Country and across the wider midlands with their energy costs was a high priority.

The West Midlands combined authority was allocated £1 billion of additional transport funding. As an outer London Member of Parliament, my constituents are mostly commuters—very large numbers of people move around our capital city—so I know the importance of effective, high-quality public transport. Andy Street, the former Mayor of the West Midlands, invested in the Wednesbury to Brierley Hill route to deliver rapid bus transport and open the opportunities being created across the region to a greater geographical area.

[Cat Eccles]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is Richard Parker and this Government who have fully funded the West Midlands Metro to Brierley Hill, and that, sadly, Andy Street left a big black hole in that budget and did not enable the link to be fully realised?

[David Simmonds]

Several Members mentioned the late Queen; as she was fond of saying, “Recollections may vary.” When Andy Street left office, he was particularly proud of the contribution made by his work, especially as somebody who was absolutely rooted in that local area. He was also proud that he had not levied a precept on residents, and I know the Minister may have something to say about the impact of local government funding on households across the west midlands.

Of course, the Black Country & Marches institute of technology is also often mentioned. There is a sense that, to sustain the region’s industrial heritage for the future, there is a need to invest in apprenticeships, education and opportunities so that the new jobs being created can go to local people who have the skills those jobs require. We know the world is changing, and people need to be able to adapt to meet those challenges. Of course, the Department took the decision in 2021 to open its first non-London headquarters in Wolverhampton.

I have gone through a list of initiatives, investments and positive points, but we all recognise that our country faces significant challenges. As this is a local government debate, we must consider the financial position of local authorities in the Black Country, whose work is important to supporting local heritage. For example, we have heard from City of Wolverhampton Council’s budget consultation that it has faced unprecedented financial challenges since this Government took office. Indeed, it has never previously experienced such serious financial concerns under any party in office.

[Antonia Bance]

Does the hon. Member recognise that a number of our Black Country local authorities have, over the past 15 years, lost hundreds of millions of pounds of local government funding, which has led to the diminution of local government services, the closure of libraries and Sure Starts, the creation of potholes across our road network and, frankly, the degradation of our public realm? That is not an occurrence of the last year, but of the last 15. One might hope that action will be taken in the review of local government finance to set that right.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. The motion is about Black Country day.

[David Simmonds]

The hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) did say in her introduction that she wanted to be a bit political.

It is important that we acknowledge—the Minister may wish to comment on this—that Sandwell council talked about a £19 million budget gap and the scrapping of weekly bin collections, which will have an impact on that subset of residents in the Black Country. That comes against a backdrop in which our economy is challenged and unemployment is rising. Jaguar Land Rover—mentioned by a number of hon. Members—has announced a further 500 redundancies because of the challenges that it faces.

We need to ensure that the momentum represented in some of the projects that I referred to, which has led to an improvement in the economic outlook and in the opportunities for people across the Black Country—the kind of economic opportunities that have been seized in the past and given rise to the proud industrial heritage that so many hon. Members have eloquently described—is not lost against the backdrop of a national picture of rising unemployment, increasing poverty and the loss of jobs in some of these key industries. That loss is gaining momentum. I am sure that the Minister will not just say a little about how he is proud of the heritage, but will want to tell us specifically what the Government are doing to address those issues.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Thank you, and thank you for your kind comments.

10:31

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. It is so apt that you are in the Chair for this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) on securing it. Her contribution was a love letter to her community and it gave us all great pleasure. It shaped this debate—a debate about what has been, but also about what might be. There is an awful lot to be excited about in what may be in the future, so I am pleased to have an opportunity to highlight the profound cultural, historic and economic significance of the Black Country. This is a community that was the beating heart of the industrial revolution, renowned for coal mining, for chains made in Cradley Heath, for glass produced in Wordsley, for the iron and steel foundries of Tipton and Wednesbury, and for the leather made in the community of the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton)—as she herself said. What pride it must give her constituents to see that global, indelible and historic link to the late Queen. What a wonderful calling card that is for them.

[Wendy Morton]

Both.

[Alex Norris]

Both for them and for other Walsall constituencies. I definitely would not want to be seen to favour one end of Walsall over the other—certainly not with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz.

I think also of the pride it must give my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and his constituents to see that Chubb branding everywhere they go in the world—what that says about their community and the contribution it has made.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury said in opening the debate, we could think of those industries in terms of their factories, their furnaces, their foundries and their tanneries, but actually it is people—the people of the Black Country—that were all those things: that showed all that creativity, that powered the nation, and that laid the groundwork for modern manufacturing and engineering. We also cannot decouple from our proud history as a movement, their struggle for recognition that the work they did was the magic there, and that they ought to have a share in its benefits, be treated properly, go to work—and come home again. I know that is of great importance to my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury, as it was in her previous work. We see that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) says, in that iconic chainmakers’ festival and what that says specifically about the strike in 1910, and in general the struggle of the labour movement throughout that period to get a fair shake.

That speaks also to the cultural impact of the Black Country, which is a treasure trove of unique food— I am not sure I am going to pull on that thread any further than colleagues have—and unique traditions. In sports, we have heard about Jeff Astle. It is impossible not to mention him, and the work of the Jeff Astle Foundation. I will, of course, say that Jeff Astle was a son of Nottinghamshire, not so far up the road from my own community. I think of my trip to the Hawthorns in 2001 to see Manchester City lose 4-nil to West Bromwich Albion—we have had success since, but not with me present.

In politics, I am really glad that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) mentioned Adrian Bailey. As a fellow Labour and Co-operative MP, he showed great kindness to me as a young parliamentarian. We have been well represented today by excellent Black Country politicians, and of course dialects—I cannot wait to see what the Official Report does with elements of the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), which, I have to say, I could not follow.

However, colleagues who are sat to the side of and behind me, who are in their first Parliament, have to some degree failed in the very important task of telling those of us who are not from the Black Country, and who perhaps do not have their familiarity with their region, where the best pint is. That is custom and practice although, as with many other customs and practices in this place, I am sure they will learn over the years.

The Black Country is also the birthplace of music legends like Led Zeppelin and home to the award-winning Black Country Museum, which keeps the area’s industrial and cultural heritage alive. But as in my community—and in Newtownards, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said—the deindustrialisation of the ’70s and ’80s led to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, and an economic legacy from which the area has still not fully recovered. Unemployment remains stubbornly high, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen said, productivity is below the national average, and healthy life expectancy is significantly lower than in more affluent parts of the country. The challenge for the region and for the Government is clear, and that is why we are so determined to partner with the region to change that by driving growth and unlocking investment.

The former strengths that we have talked about can be the heart of future prosperity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury said in opening, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge also said, the future is bright. I could not agree more. The hon. Member for Strangford talked about the importance of skilled work. I totally agree, because the share of manufacturing jobs in the Black Country is already significantly higher than the UK average, and the area has modern strengths, as a hub for advanced engineering, with global supply chains, a growing tech sector, and defence, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen.

This debate is well timed, coming eight days after the anniversary that the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills mentioned. Indeed, it is perfectly timed for the exciting announcement that my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury mentioned about sumo and the clear skies programme—another example of how the Black Country is going to shape the global economy in the future, through the brilliant innovation of its people.

The link to this from central Government starts with the industrial strategy. That is the defining and guiding document for this nation’s economic future. We were very excited to publish it last month, and we are very excited about our ambitious plans for eight high-growth sectors, present across the Black Country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) mentioned. It is right to say that the Black Country will be at the heart of that industrial strategy.

The west midlands more broadly will be getting a range of targeted support, including £150 million through the creative places growth fund to support creative businesses, £30 million for research investment through the local innovation partnership fund, and a pilot partnership to drive the development of a strong and resilient electric vehicle supply chain. What a great connection the region has through that industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury also mentioned the advanced manufacturing sector plan. That is an important part of the effort focused on innovation, upskilling the workforce and attracting investment to create strong supply chains and high-quality jobs.

As I often say in these debates, the industrial strategy talks about our nation’s place in the world. It talks about the industries in which we shall lead and the jobs that we shall create. It is big numbers; it is big-picture—it is the whole nation. But everything happens somewhere; everything is local somewhere. Even the biggest global success story, whether Chubb or anything else, is local to somewhere. That is the exciting bit that we do in our Department, and that I do as Minister for local growth. My commitment today is for a real cross-Government effort and a connection, through ourselves, to local growth.

That is an approach that I pitched in November to the Wolverhampton youth forum. I have to say, if those young people are the future of the region, and if the creativity with which those young people were tackling local problems or the scrutiny to which they subjected my ideas is anything to go by, I believe that the Black Country has a very good future indeed. Our approach, as I said to them, is about investment, devolution, reform and partnership with regional local leaders.

I recognise much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury said, from my own community and region, about the lack of support traditionally from central Government. What we offer in lieu of that now is not charity. It is not, “You are x pounds below the national average, so here are those pounds back to you.” It is about starting a new partnership and a theory of change that says, “We believe that the ideas, innovation and creativity exist in the Black Country and its leaders already; they exist in the west midlands and its leaders already.” It is the job of the Government to back that with power and resources to make sure that they are able to drive that forwards. As part of the spending review, we announced a number of things that I think will make good on that.

Before I discuss the spending review, I want to address local government finances; because for all the exciting things that we are doing, there is nothing more important than repairing local government finances. I cannot accept the shadow Minister’s characterisation of how we came to be in this situation. I think when he meets the people who have created it, he will be really furious. I give him a clue: they are not far away from him when he sits with his party colleagues.

We have a chance to make this right. We made significant commitments in the autumn Budget and the spending review, and there is now the fair funding review. I encourage hon. Members to take part in that. We are building on that, as we did at the spending review, with a new local growth fund and mayoral recyclable growth fund for specific mayoral regions in the north and the midlands, which identifies areas with productivity gaps and gives them the resources to close them; a £240 million growth mission fund to support directly job creation and economic regeneration of local communities; and our really exciting commitment to local growth plans, which will guide economic vision and foster productivity across mayoral strategic authorities. Yesterday, perfectly timed for this debate, the Mayor of the West Midlands became very the first to publish their growth plan as a strategic authority and set out their 10-year vision. Our commitment is to work with them to make that a reality.

Everything that happens, happens somewhere locally. I want the people of the Black Country to feel devolution not just in powers that go to a regional mayor across the west midlands, but in their towns and villages. When they say that they want to take back control of their future, we should give them the chance to do that. I am really proud to be leading efforts in our Department on the plan for neighbourhoods. We are in our first wave of that, with £1.5 billion of funding to 75 communities across the UK to help tackle deprivation and turbocharge growth. For the Black Country, that includes Dudley, Bilston, Darlaston, Smethwick—and Bedworth, although that is slightly outside the boundaries. Importantly, local people will be in the driving seat for how that funding is spent, with independently-chaired neighbourhood boards made up of residents, businesses and local leaders helping to decide what projects get funding. That will drive three goals: thriving places, stronger communities and taking back control over a 10-year period.

There is more to come, as was set out at the spending review. I note the timely submission that my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury made on behalf of her community. I can say only this: the criteria will be objective and fully transparent, because I know I will suddenly have a lot of friends and a lot of enemies on that day. Other lists may exist, but I would take them for indicative, rather than definitive, purposes, and ours will be coming shortly.

Before I finish, I want to address two important issues that came up in the debate. The first is housing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury said, there are 21,000 people on the waiting list. Those people, and all communities in the Black Country, must have housing. That is why we have pulled together our comprehensive investment strategy to help us deliver the target of 1.5 million homes in this Parliament. I am pleased that the Mayor himself has committed to the biggest social housing programme the west midlands has seen. As part of the investment, the combined authority is building the Friar Park urban village, which is one of the largest brownfield developments going. Those are really good signs of what is going on.

The shadow Minister mentioned transport, and I completely agreed with his point. As it is the end of the parliamentary year, I thank the shadow Minister for his characteristically excellent contributions. He is such a good shadow Minister that, as it seems it is reshuffle day on the Opposition Benches, I hope he will be shadowing a different Department from mine. I know that he will take that in the spirit in which it is intended, because it is not his company that I do not wish for. I echo his point about transport, which is why we were proud that in June, the Chancellor announced £2.4 billion being made available to the West Midlands combined authority for transport across the region, including in and around the Black Country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge said, it is great to see spades already in the ground on the £295 million West Midlands Metro extension to Brierley Hill, meaning faster and more reliable transport connections between Birmingham and the Black Country.

To conclude, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury for securing the debate, and all hon. Members for their excellent contributions. Black Country day is about pride in our past and in the real things that make us who we are as a nation, but it is also about confidence in our future. From what we have heard today and see in the Black Country, I think we have an awful lot to be confident about. I look forward to working in that partnership with colleagues from across the House and their constituents.

10:45

[Antonia Bance]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and put our brilliant region in the spotlight today. I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), for their contributions, and I thank all hon. Members who have spoken. We have done our region proud.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Black Country Day.

10:46

Sitting suspended.

Gene Editing

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of gene editing.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I secured this debate as gene editing provides immense opportunities to the United Kingdom in boosting growth in our agricultural sector, in supporting our world-leading life science industry and in better protecting our environment for future generations. Being able to diverge from the European Union on the regulation of gene editing is a genuine Brexit opportunity, but there is much concern that the Labour Government’s EU reset will pause or even reverse the progress made in the UK in setting out a new path to regulate that exciting technology and, in doing so, will sacrifice a key opportunity to help our farming community.

Almost all our domestic animals and plants are the result of thousands of years of selective breeding. Gene editing is best thought of as a modern enhancement of that technique. It is often referred to as precision breeding. It allows scientists to make changes to a plant or animal’s DNA, cutting the DNA strand and then adding, deleting or altering sequences to give beneficial traits, which make for things like disease and drought-resistant crops, or indeed more nutritious crops.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. This is an incredibly important issue to the farming community that I represent and those across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He is presenting some incredibly interesting facts. Does he agree, however, that we must be careful in any consideration of the future of gene editing to maintain a boundary between gene therapy and gene enhancement? We must ensure that we are not generating superhuman traits, as opposed to seeking to cure genetic traits, which is something we can all agree on. The key issue, as he says, is the issue of drought and disease-resistant crops, which are critical to the farming community.

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman is a champion of the farming community. He and I, in my previous role, often discussed farming issues, and we both hugely support the importance of food production as a key part of our food security. He is right to draw attention to the fact—I will come to this—that gene editing and gene modification are often confused, when they are very distinct. The crucial point to share with the House is that the changes in gene editing are limited to those that occur naturally or through conventional selective breeding. That is the distinction I will come on to with gene modification. By using gene editing, we can get to a desired trait more quickly. Science therefore accelerates something that could happen naturally, as opposed to being an artificial intervention.

Let me give an example of how gene editing can provide a win-win in practice in our farming community. I represent North East Cambridgeshire, which is the centre of UK sugar beet production. That crop has been severely impacted by virus yellows disease. At the moment, the only way to tackle it is by using a seed treatment, Cruiser SB, which is toxic to pollinators such as bees. Given the downsides for nature, the treatment needs to be granted emergency authorisation on a year-by-year basis. The last time that the authorisation was not made available was in 2020, and 25% of the national sugar beet crop was lost. Without authorisation of something that is accepted as damaging to nature, the crop fell by a quarter, which is a severe consequence.

That led to an economic loss of about £67 million, in an industry involving 10,000 jobs. After some years of approval the current Government have decided that authorisation will again not be available in 2025, which has left the sector with a lot of uncertainty. But instead of requiring us to choose between nature and crop yields, gene editing provides a better solution. Under the previous Conservative Government, a £660,000 grant was made jointly to British Sugar, the agricultural biotechnology company Tropic, and the world-leading plant science institute, the John Innes Centre, to fund gene editing research into sugar beet resistance to virus yellows disease.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point about the potential for gene editing or precision breeding. Does he agree that one of the clearest examples of its promise is the humble potato? During a recent visit that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee made to the John Innes Centre, which he mentioned, we met Tropic and saw at first hand how researchers are using precision breeding to develop a blight-resistant potato, a breakthrough that could dramatically reduce the need for fungicide use. It could cut costs for farmers and improve yield resilience in the face of climate change. Does he agree that public engagement and clear, science-led regulation will be key to ensuring that those advancements deliver for both farmers and consumers?

[Steve Barclay]

I very much agree. I will come on to public sentiment towards gene editing, which is extremely favourable, but it is helpful to have cross-party support because this is a win-win, as I have said. It boosts yields, helps farmers and reduces the cost of pesticide. It is also a huge benefit to nature. The hon. Member is right to praise the John Innes Institute, which is world leading. That is another reason why we should seize the opportunity that science offers.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. No one should underestimate the importance of gene editing and its advancement. Does he agree that there is a problem in the devolved regions? Because of the EU law that is applicable to Northern Ireland, we will be behind the curve and could see England advance with gene editing while the rest of the devolved nations lag behind, because of Europe.

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. By embracing innovation in the technology, we can lead and, by leading, show the benefits to farming and nature that the EU may wish to follow. The EU regulation is cumbersome. It brings gene editing within the fold of gene modification. The pace of change is slow and its scope more limited. It is better to move ahead and show the benefits, rather than wait for the back-marker to see if they eventually come to the table and make the changes, many years after elsewhere in the world has moved on. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the pace of regulatory change and the sluggish nature of the EU.

The opportunity of this technology is not far away. I mentioned a moment ago the grants that we had awarded for research into virus yellows disease. Researchers hope to have plants by the end of this decade that, if successful, will do away with the need for the harmful treatments and the dilemma that Ministers face as to whether to grant emergency authorisation. That would protect British sugar beet farmers from potentially catastrophic losses, while also increasing crop productivity and resilience, and at the same time increase sustainability and bring direct benefits to nature. I have long believed that there is an opportunity to see farming and nature not as opposites, but as complementary, and we can boost farming in ways that also are beneficial to nature.

The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) talked about the public response, and he is right to do so. I am pleased to note that the public at large support gene editing because of its environmental and economic benefits. A recent study found support among the public at 70% across the population as a whole. Interestingly, that rose to 80% among generation Z, so there is widespread support among the public. But if we are to realise the benefits and capitalise on that public support, we need to get the regulation right.

That brings me, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) mentioned a moment ago, to European regulation. Back in 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that gene-edited crops are subject to the same 2001 legislation as gene-modified organisms. Yet, as we touched on, the two techniques are very different and should not be confused. Gene editing speeds up changes that could occur naturally or through conventional selective breeding; it is unlike gene modification, which is where DNA from different species has been introduced to another, creating new types of plants and animals that could not have come about through natural methods. As a result, gene editing is a much lower and different risk, and should be treated in regulation differently from gene modification, but that is not the position of the European Union.

Even the European Commission has realised that its regulatory approach is not fit for purpose, but progress is remarkably slow in changing it. While it is working on its own legislation, it will come years later and be more limited in scope than what we have done in the United Kingdom. After Brexit, the UK was able to diverge, which is why the previous Conservative Government brought forward the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, which removed precision-bred plants and animals from the existing genetically modified organism regulatory system. The Act created a new framework for their oversight and provided the Secretary of State with powers of secondary legislation.

I commend the Government and the Minister on pressing ahead with the required secondary legislation to bring this new system in for plants, which is due to come into force in November. So why the need for this debate? This debate is needed because I fear that the current optimism is a high point in this journey and that we are about to see the UK surrender the advantage that will help our farmers and our nature, and that has been gained with the primary and secondary legislation in place. To prevent that, I am seeking assurances from the Minister in three key areas: implementation, further expansion, and funding.

First, on implementation, the Prime Minister’s EU reset at the UK-EU summit included plans for sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. To achieve that, the EU has suggested that dynamic alignment will be required of the UK, meaning that all relevant EU rules will apply to UK goods. As a result, some experts have suggested that there would need to be a pause on the UK’s progress in taking forward more effective regulation of gene editing, and that we would need to then wait while the EU spends potentially years putting in place its own more limited reforms.

Waiting would hold back centres such as the John Innes Centre, UK science and development, and give up our hard-won commercial competitive advantage in terms of the sector and the jobs it employs. I mentioned how important gene editing crops will be to areas such as my constituency, and to leading businesses such as British Sugar, which works with over 3,500 growers and is concerned about alignment on this matter. It would urge the Government not to sacrifice the UK bioscience sector’s progress on gene editing in the UK-EU trade negotiations and to recognise that delaying the use of the technology in the UK would put us at risk of falling behind other countries using it. I wholeheartedly agree with that analysis and assessment. Will the Minister confirm that the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 will come into force in November this year, and that there will be no delay?

Secondly, on further expansion, I note that only regulations on gene editing plants have been brought forward. It was always the intention that plants would be first, and that regulations relating to animals would come second. This will provide another opportunity compared with the European Union. Discussions at an EU level suggest that animals will be excluded from its regulations, whenever they eventually emerge. It is vital that we capitalise on that opportunity, too. Will the Minister confirm that it is still the Government’s intention to bring forward the required secondary legislation under the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2023 to remove precision-bred animals for the existing genetically modified organism regulatory system?

Finally, on funding, I know the challenge that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers will be facing when it comes to negotiations with the Treasury, having been within both DEFRA and the Treasury, and given that farming is seemingly not a priority for the Labour Government, with £100 million of cuts to farming and countryside programmes announced in the spending review. Given that spending backdrop, one might have thought the Minister would want to maximise opportunities to boost farming and nature, which do not come at a cost to the Treasury.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The right hon. Member raises a very important point: the Government may be cutting funding for farming, but they are very much pursuing climate change goals. Farming is facing periods of extreme weather—we have just had some of the driest and wettest months on record. One of the great successes of gene editing was dwarf wheat, which was drought resistant and allowed places such as Mexico and India to become net exporters of food. Would pursuing gene editing for British farmers not offer them protection against climate change and therefore protection against cuts to the farming budget?

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that builds on the earlier intervention on public support. One of the sweet spots of this area of policy is that it is beneficial to farming—because it cuts costs on things like pesticides and increases yield—but it is also hugely beneficial to nature, in terms of climate change. It is also beneficial for the public purse, because gene editing is a way of using science, in essence, to drive productivity and nature-beneficial schemes, rather than simply spending public money.

For context, I am sure the Minister will have seen the farming figures this morning. The Government borrowed £20.7 billion in June alone—the highest figure since records began, with the exception of June 2020, during peak covid. That is not an isolated figure. If we look at the previous month, the Government borrowed £17.7 billion in May. That was also the highest on record for May—again, with the exception of May 2020. So the Government are borrowing record sums, and the Department’s budget is under pressure—all the more reason not to sacrifice genuine scientific opportunities, particularly those that, as we have explored, have widespread public support.

Will the Minister recognise that gene editing jointly serves the goals of food production and protecting nature, and ensure that we do not give away our competitive advantage? Specifically, will he confirm that the £12.5 million from the recent farming futures research and development fund for the precision breeding competition—aimed at mid-stage precision breeding projects—will be paid in full? Will he also confirm that funding will be made available directly to farmers to take part in field trials, so that the science actually progresses?

In conclusion, gene editing is a genuine Brexit opportunity. It can boost economic growth, support food production, help protect our environment, and give us a competitive advantage over other countries. To sacrifice that as part of some UK-EU reset negotiations would be a serious mistake. It would be another example in a long list of decisions where the Department has been overridden by the Treasury.

There is still time. The legislation is in place; the regulations are there. Can the Minister confirm today that gene editing will continue to be a priority, and that the UK Government will secure the advantages that it offers?

11:19

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. Let me congratulate the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay)—my near neighbour and colleague—on securing today’s debate on such an important policy area. He is clearly deeply knowledgeable on issues relating to EU negotiation and, as we have heard this morning, on matters relating to precision breeding. I will be watching later today to see whether he is seamlessly edited back on to his party’s Front Bench; I wish him well with that.

I found myself being taken back to what was for me one of the most rewarding times in Parliament—sitting on the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill Committee. We had many of the discussions that the right hon. Gentleman has taken us through this morning. That Bill was a very good piece of cross-party work; there has been considerable cross-party consensus on this topic, although there are areas of disagreement.

This Government were elected just a year ago on a manifesto absolutely promising to kickstart economic growth. We want to work with industry to remove barriers to growth and to seize new opportunities. Key to achieving that is seizing the opportunities presented through harnessing innovative technologies. As the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, I genuinely want to realise the benefits of new technologies to help us address many of the challenges, set out today, that face our agricultural system: to meet our environmental goals, to support productive and profitable British farmers, and to meet the Department’s key priority of achieving food security. Food security, as we all acknowledge, is national security—but, in a world of many different challenges, it is becoming harder to achieve. Precision breeding can play an important role.

The right hon. Gentleman set out many of the opportunities associated with breakthrough precision breeding technologies and how they can help to transform and modernise our food system, making it fit for the future. I remember standing in fields near Bury St Edmunds with people from British Sugar and others, looking at varying degrees of decaying sugar beet plants attacked by virus yellows. We absolutely need to find ways of meeting that challenge. I was very struck by the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) about potatoes. Farmers face real challenges. We need to equip them to meet those challenges.

The Government have taken action in England by introducing a new science-based and enabling regulatory framework for precision breeding. With that cross-party support, we passed the secondary legislation needed to implement the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 for plants in England. It is absolutely vital that we support that work. It has also been recognised as a key part of engineering biology, a critical subsector within the Government’s recently unveiled industrial strategy. That is no surprise, because in our country we are renowned for scientific excellence.

I represent Cambridge. We are home to a world-leading fundamental plant science research base, with regional clusters of excellence across the UK. I pay particular tribute to the work that goes on in and around Norwich, particularly the John Innes Centre. I am very proud of the work that goes on in this area, including in and around Cambridge in my part of the world and including the work of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany.

The Government recognise the importance of unlocking the opportunities presented by precision breeding. I assure the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire that our commitment to financial investment is secure. In July 2024, we announced the latest round of crop genetic improvement network programmes—GINs—supported by up to £15 million in funding over five years to boost breeding research for key UK crops. The latest programme includes funding for research into precision breeding.

Earlier this year, under the farming innovation programme, the Department announced a £12.5 million competition focused specifically on precision breeding, which the right hon. Gentleman specifically asked me about. As part of the industrial strategy, at least £200 million was allocated to the programme up to 2030, which precision breeding will continue to be in scope for.

The right hon. Gentleman raised further concerns that I ought to address—in particular, the impact of the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement that we are working on with our European neighbours. He asked how precision breeding will fit into that. The new agreement will establish a common sanitary and phytosanitary zone between the UK and the EU, making agrifood trade with our biggest market cheaper and easier by cutting costs and red tape for businesses who export to and import from the European Union. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, on the day that was secured, many food businesses were very pleased, because of the problems they have had over the last few years.

On the precision breeding point, the EU has accepted that there will be a number of areas where we need to retain our own rules. With the principles and framework of a deal agreed, we will now need to negotiate the detail of an agreement. The Government have been absolutely clear about the importance of supporting new and innovative technologies, so we remain committed to moving forward with the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 and we have engaged with industry to help inform our approach to further discussions with the EU. We will continue to do so.

Although the final legislation has not yet been agreed among EU legislators, the European Commission, as the right hon. Gentleman explained, published a proposal for the regulation of plants by, to use the EU terminology, “new genomic techniques”. We are monitoring the EU’s position closely and will continue to do so as progress is made in trilogue discussions. Those proposals are similar to those that we brought forward in the 2023 Act, but I fully acknowledge that the EU is behind us. That has been the argument for some years—indeed, going back all the way to that 2018 court case. We therefore understand that it will be some time before new legislation is implemented in the EU.

However, that is a problem because this is a growing global sector and Europe is falling behind, so investment is going elsewhere—only 5% of venture capital investment in the sector currently comes to Europe. With the new regulations, we have the potential to be at the forefront across Europe and to be a major global competitor in this rapidly growing industry. We need to invest in this sector now, in order to realise the opportunities of precision breeding for tackling issues around climate change and food security. We do not have time to delay.

Let me say a little about the devolved Governments. We recognise the valid concerns that people have raised about the issues of divergence within the UK—there was an intervention to that effect today—including the concern that farmers and businesses in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will miss out on the opportunities presented by the implementation of the 2023 Act for plants in England. That is why we continue to engage regularly with the devolved Administrations to discuss potential impacts. That engagement builds on regular monthly meetings with counterparts at official level and will support future ministerial engagement at the interministerial group.

Input from the devolved Governments has been invaluable in shaping our approach and objectives to the agreement, ensuring that it will deliver tangible benefits for the whole of the UK. DEFRA has engaged closely with devolved Government officials and Ministers in the run-up to the UK-EU leaders summit, and will continue to do so as we prepare for detailed negotiations with the EU. The timing and format of negotiations will be subject to the outcome of further discussions, but we are committed to engaging closely throughout the negotiation phase to ensure access to timely and expert input from the devolved Governments.

The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire asked about the situation of animals in the 2023 Act, and many people are keen to know more about the Government’s plans and timelines. We are continuing the research that supports policy development of the animal welfare declaration. In keeping with the previous Government’s approach, which the right hon. Gentleman will remember from that time, while the research is continuing no decision has yet been made about bringing forward legislation to implement the 2023 Act in relation to animals.

In conclusion, I again thank the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire for securing this debate. It is so important that we send out a powerful message to investors across the world that this is the place to come and invest. Harnessing innovation in precision breeding can help us to achieve several priorities, including bolstering food security and championing British farming, helping to mitigate and adapt to climate pressures, and driving the Government’s missions on growth and health. The growth potential of this industry is evident; we have the opportunity to be at the forefront of it. I am absolutely determined that that will be the case, and the Government strongly recognise the importance of precision breeding. Let me reiterate our commitment to that technology and to securing its success in our country.

Question put and agreed to.

11:28

Sitting suspended.

Humanitarian Situation in Sudan

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rupa Huq in the Chair]

14:30

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the humanitarian situation in Sudan.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate, although I do so with a heavy heart because we meet at a moment of almost unimaginable suffering for the Sudanese people. The war in Sudan has created the largest humanitarian crisis in the world today, and the situation continues to deteriorate at a frightening pace. Investigators from the United Nations have found that war crimes have been committed by both the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese Armed Forces. Both sides continue to target civilians.

The SAF have used barrel bombs to target civilians and, in Kordofan, the RSF have eradicated entire villages. Hospitals and medical sites—places that should symbolise safety and healing—are becoming battlegrounds. This is a war on civilians. It shows no respect for international humanitarian law. This debate is about recognising that the scale of suffering in Sudan demands the full attention of the international community, and the targeted assistance that must follow.

Two years since the crisis began, nearly 13 million people—one in every three Sudanese—have been displaced from their homes.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The United Nations reports that Sudan now faces the world’s largest displacement crisis, with 14.3 million people—a third of the population—displaced in 2024. Does she agree that displacement at such a large scale poses not just a humanitarian crisis, but a direct threat to innocent civilians and the long-term prospects for peace? Our Government must do more to support diplomatic efforts to bring an end to those horrors.

[Harpreet Uppal]

I agree. The Government have taken some urgent action, which I will come to, but I agree with my hon. Friend’s call.

Half of Sudan’s population, about 25 million people, now need humanitarian assistance and protection. They face acute and extreme shortages of food, water, medicine and fuel. Famine is widespread and strikes first at the most vulnerable. Crucially, it is driven by the deliberate deprivation of livelihoods and the obstruction of aid. A cholera outbreak is also spreading across the country, compounding hardship that is already acute.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In addition to the cholera, there is also malaria, which kills thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of children every year. There is also mycetoma—a new, neglected disease that literally takes the skin, muscle and bone off people. A dedicated research centre in Khartoum was looted and destroyed, so the very people who need help and treatment are unable to get it. I wished to add that to the debate.

[Harpreet Uppal]

I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. That is an awful situation that the people of Sudan should not have to go through.

The impact on children is particularly brutal. In some famine-affected areas, as many as 29% of children show signs of acute malnutrition. At that level, children risk lifelong complications even if they survive the hunger that they face today.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The hon. Member is right to highlight the 25 million Sudanese people living in food insecurity. As she knows, Sudan is protected from the cuts to overseas development aid, but a further 600,000 Sudanese people live displaced in places such as Chad; those other countries in the region are not protected from the cuts to ODA. Is the Government’s decision to cut ODA seriously impacting our ability to help the Sudanese people?

[Harpreet Uppal]

I will come on to that issue later, but I am sure the Minister has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Previously, I have also raised in the House and with Ministers the terrible reality that rape and sexual violence are being used as weapons of war. Women and girls bear the brunt of the crisis: over 6.7 million of them are at risk of gender-based violence. Between December 2023 and December 2024, the UN found a 29% increase in the number of people seeking sexual and gender-based violence services. Reports of intimate partner violence, sexual exploitation and abuse, and the specific targeting of ethnic minority groups, are both widespread and on the rise.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I fully agree that this is a war being waged on the bodies of women and girls, but women are also women fighting back. I have met many brave women from women’s rights organisations, including my friend Emi Mahmoud, a UNHCR ambassador. Does my hon. Friend agree that when we are investing in our aid, we must ensure that a large percentage of it goes to women’s rights organisations that can lead the charge and find the solutions?

[Harpreet Uppal]

I agree with my hon. Friend and I will say more on those points later, but I thank her for everything that she is doing on this issue.

UNICEF’s report in March also highlighted a crisis of child rape and sexual violence. The #Women4Sudan campaign has tirelessly documented case studies of sexual violence in Sudan. The stories include that of a 14-year-old girl who suffered internal injuries after being brutally gang-raped; she was then let down by medical practitioners, who shamed the family. The young girl later died at home. In many cases, such stories never reach the outside world. The ongoing telecommunications blackout has made it extraordinarily difficult for survivors, families and organisations to communicate with journalists, humanitarian agencies and international bodies.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate, because this conflict is simply not getting the attention that it deserves. She has done more than most to raise awareness of it.

Just last week, my hon. Friend and I hosted a roundtable with Médecins Sans Frontières and the British Medical Association, among others, where we heard the kind of horrific details that she has been talking about. Regarding the sexual violence, we know that there are men assaulting women and girls on the road as they flee the conflict, seemingly with total impunity. Does she agree that the amount of parliamentary and political attention that the conflict receives, especially given what is happening to women and girls, is in no way proportionate to the scale of the humanitarian crisis that it is causing?

[Harpreet Uppal]

I agree, and I thank my hon. Friend, both for joining me at that roundtable and for the work that she is doing.

The blackout also hinders access to mobile money, which is used to buy essential goods. That enforced silence not only conceals the scale of the atrocities but actively impedes life-saving support and documentation of abuse. There are many courageous organisations and individuals working with survivors to protect them and to bear witness, but they cannot shoulder the burden alone. The sheer scale of the emergency requires a full humanitarian response.

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

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. It is often the innocent who get caught up in conflicts around the globe. We have heard today about some of the most harrowing offences, especially against women and girls, but also against minority communities and minority faith communities—especially the minority Christian community. We talk about diplomatic levers and how we should all apply political pressure. However, does she agree that we could also do something different—have an international military peace force, which could be deployed to help those residents and citizens?

[Harpreet Uppal]

I thank the hon. Member for his important point, which I am sure the Minister has heard.

Behind every number, there is a human being: a parent trying to find water for a child; a grandmother who has not eaten for days; a teenager who dreams of going to school but instead hears shellfire. As the rainy season approaches and worsening weather conditions make it increasingly difficult for aid to reach those most in need, the parties to the conflict continue to fight fiercely, heightening insecurity and disrupting critical trade and aid routes.

Hoy da, a member of the Sudanese diaspora community in my constituency of Huddersfield, has spoken of the

“colossal devastation and destruction of all aspects of normality of life in Sudan throughout the last two years”.

Hoy da also says that efforts by authorities to establish normality, and a return for those who have been internally or externally displaced, face severe challenges.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend not only for securing this debate, but for her leadership on these important issues and for ensuring that in this House we do not forget what is happening in many other parts of the world. She has spoken about the horrors that we see on our TV screens, which speaks to the experience of constituents she has met and those I have met in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Will she join me in urging the Minister to ensure that we do as much engagement with the Sudanese diaspora in this country as possible? The effects of the horrors that we see on our television screens are being felt big-time in communities up and down the United Kingdom.

[Harpreet Uppal]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which I will come to next.

Hoy da and the Sudanese diaspora community continue to play a pivotal role in assisting families, relatives and friends through financial remittances, but Hoy da told me that

“their needs are much bigger than the capacities of individuals”

and that international communities must come together to

“accelerate efforts and initiatives for de-escalation that may lead to a permanent end to the fighting.”

I thank Hoy da and all members of the Sudanese diaspora community. I know how much of an impact supporting loved ones stuck in danger will be having both emotionally and financially.

I am also aware that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has, under previous Administrations, committed to a diaspora engagement strategy, but that strategy has not been produced, which represents a missed opportunity. Without access to decision makers, diaspora and civil society groups cannot utilise their knowledge of the crisis to help shape policies. During the MSF roundtable that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) mentioned, we heard the stories of medical workers in El Fasher. They were performing a caesarean section when soldiers from the RSF burst in, killing the patient and her unborn child. That is the reality of a healthcare system that is being systematically attacked.

Recent publications by organisations working in Sudan document testimonials from people displaced from El Fasher and Zamzam in North Darfur, from which thousands fled to Chad after an RSF attack on the Zamzam camp. During that mass displacement, one mother told an aid worker that several of her children died of thirst on the road. Another spoke of pregnant women dying as they walked. One woman was raped during the attack. All left loved ones behind in El Fasher, a place they described simply as “hell”.

Those testimonies reflect just a fraction of the suffering taking place across the region, so let me turn to Darfur specifically. Its population of around half a million people is in dire humanitarian need. Following the April attacks on Zamzam internally displaced persons camp, half a million IDPs have been moved to Tawila, a small town in North Darfur. They face a catastrophic shortage of food, water, shelter, household items and healthcare. The wind and rains, which are due to start within weeks, will destroy shelters and contribute to the spread of disease.

The mass killings, rape, ethnic violence, starvation and humanitarian crisis that we are witnessing can no longer be tolerated by the international community, but frontline organisations are being pushed to breaking point. Agencies have told us that cuts to official development assistance have made it harder to maintain services; without urgent intervention, a major funding cliff edge is approaching in September. That is when multiple key humanitarian programmes are due to expire, with no confirmed renewal.

If the funding gap is not urgently addressed, the consequences for those relying on aid in places such as Darfur and Tawila will be devastating. The UK Government have made Sudan a stated foreign policy priority. I welcome the steps already taken, but the operational reality on the ground remains dire.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this really important debate; it is often said that Sudan is the forgotten conflict. Does she agree that we must urge the United Nations to enforce its resolution 2736, which mandates lifting the siege, particularly in the city of El Fasher, and facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid?

[Harpreet Uppal]

I was about to come on to that point, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for making it.

I know from conversations with organisations working in Sudan, and from previous discussions with Ministers, that the FCDO is trying to create a credible process for access and protection, and to exert influence in international forums, including in our role as the pen holder on Sudan at the UN Security Council. The UK introduced a Security Council resolution that called for protection of civilians and full, unimpeded aid access. The Foreign Secretary noted that he was appalled that Russia vetoed the resolution.

I know that the Foreign Secretary has a personal commitment to the crisis, having visited the Sudanese and Chad border earlier this year. Indeed, the Sudan conference hosted by the Foreign Secretary in April was another positive step, as was the commitment for an additional £120 million in aid from the UK, and the raising of €800 million from nations attending the conference.

However, despite the best efforts of UK Ministers and officials, the conference did not deliver on its primary aim of finding a diplomatic solution to the conflict.

[Uma Kumaran]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we must step up the international diplomatic effort? As the UN penholder, the United Kingdom both can and must lead the international community to help to bring an end to this awful conflict.

[Harpreet Uppal]

I agree, and I will come on to that.

We must build on the political capital generated by that conference and rejuvenate collective action. We need diplomatic strategies that achieve four things: the first is unimpeded humanitarian access across Sudan; the second is guaranteed and sustained access for UN agencies nationwide; the third is safe and open cross-border and cross-line routes for humanitarian workers and aid deliveries in Darfur; and the fourth is the strategic use of all points of leverage to encourage efforts to de-escalate the conflict. Those measures are urgently needed so that we can respond at scale and mitigate the suffering of countless Sudanese women, children and men against the backdrop of relentless violence.

I understand from conversations with organisations working in this space that, although the UN believes its current measures are easing the burden on civilians, the people on the ground tell a different story. Urgent action is needed to make the operational environment easier for humanitarian actors to navigate, so I shall be grateful if the Minister confirms what discussions she is having with the UN’s senior leadership to establish a meaningful strategy for expanding activities across Sudan. That strategy must go beyond the long-term goal of a ceasefire; it must also set out concrete support for non-governmental organisations, so that they can relieve suffering today.

The Government must also continue to scrutinise the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and its plans for Sudan. Rigorous oversight is essential if we are to ensure that the promises made in New York translate to aid delivered in North Darfur, Khartoum and beyond. As the penholder, the Government must lead and support a large-scale humanitarian response, and use every diplomatic, legal and multilateral channel available to prevent further mass atrocities and to protect civilians. We must work with international partners, including those whose actions are fuelling the conflict, to ensure that we act in concert to bring this war to an end, and we must keep Sudan at the top of our foreign policy agenda and sustain the momentum generated by the April conference.

The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have shown how their diplomacy can deliver positive outcomes for the most vulnerable people in the world. We must now leverage those diplomatic relationships, including and specifically our relationship with the US, to work alongside state departments to help to achieve lasting peace in the region.

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend is being very generous with her time. In addition to minority communities such as Sudanese Christians, women and girls are bearing the brunt of the crisis in Sudan, with widespread reports of indiscriminate and large-scale sexual violence. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very important that the specific impact of gender-based violence is placed at the heart of any future peace process, particularly in addressing the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war?

[Harpreet Uppal]

I absolutely agree. There is no doubt that rape and sexual violence has been used as a weapon of war, and we must consider that when deciding on our actions and priorities.

Solutions do exist. What is missing is the international political will to implement them with urgency. Members of this House, our international partners, the Sudanese diaspora community and the organisations labouring on the frontline are right to ask why the gap between promise and delivery remains.

I close with a reminder. Behind every statistic lies a face, a voice and a story. Behind every data point, there is an individual who dares to hope that the international community will help to alleviate their pain and suffering. Let us honour that hope by matching words with decisive action.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. I need to calculate how long everyone will get to speak. Is everyone standing who wishes to speak? Okay. In that case, I call Jim Shannon.

14:49

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I appreciate the opportunity to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for setting the scene so very well. She made an excellent speech that encapsulated all the ideas; I thank her very much for that. As always, it is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. We are very fortunate to have a Minister who is very responsive and who understands the issues of human rights and persecution. I very much look forward to her contribution.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I find the situation in Sudan to be of the utmost concern. I have spoken about this issue many times—indeed, there was an urgent question in the main Chamber just last week, to which the Minister replied. The hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) and others have referred to the Christians who are suffering unbelievable human rights abuses, persecution and unspeakable violence; the situation is incomprehensible. As a Christian, I pray for my brothers and sisters, as I have done every morning of my life; this morning before I left the hotel, I prayed for Sudan.

We must do more to support those being persecuted. It is great to be here to represent them and to get that point across. One of the things that disturbs me greatly, as it does us all—it is incomprehensible—is the sexual violence. I can never understand why that is done, but I think I can understand the horror that the women and girls are made to endure by those with guns and strength. I hope the Minister will tell us what can be done to help those women and girls who are subjected to the greatest of violence.

The recent events in Sudan are horrendous, most notably the bombing of three churches in El Fasher by the Rapid Support Forces last month. That resulted in the death of five people, including Father Luka Jomo, the parish priest of the Roman Catholic church, and left many more injured. The RSF also seized two major camps for internally displaced persons, Abu Shouk and Zamzam, which house more than 700,000 people and have now been militarised. I hope the Minister can tell us what is happening in those two camps seized by the military, where 700,000 people are subject to whatever the RSF want to do to them.

The RSF’s repeated attacks on places of worship and systematic pressure on Christians to convert to Islam during the ongoing conflict with the Sudanese Armed Forces are deeply troubling. Both parties have committed violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, including attacks on vulnerable civilians seeking refuge in churches.

While fighting between the SAF and RSF has intensified in Darfur and Omdurman, targeted attacks on churches have continued since the civil conflict began in April 2023. Both armed factions were accused of desecrating religious spaces during military operations. They show an absolute disregard for church buildings and the right of people to worship their God if they so wish; they attack the sacraments in some churches, particularly Roman Catholic ones. There is the destruction of houses, of the community, of economic opportunity and jobs. All those things are happening. Many of us think that Sudan is the place that the world has forgotten. It disturbs us greatly.

[Mr Dhesi]

The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. In August last year, the third official famine declaration of the 21st century was made in the Zamzam displacement camp in north Darfur. This year, it is projected that 65% of the Sudanese population will require humanitarian support. Does the hon. Member agree that the scale of human suffering in Sudan is unconscionable, and that ensuring access to aid should be a priority for the UK Government and international partners, to avert further death and suffering for the millions in Sudan?

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do, and I commend the hon. Gentleman on raising that issue. As I and others will reiterate, he is absolutely right that the priority is to reduce the level of suffering. As he rightly says, this is unconscionable, but our Minister and Government, in partnership with other countries, have an opportunity to do more.

Furthermore, Christian communities displaced by Sudan’s civil war have faced restrictions on worshipping in refugee areas. As both a Christian and the chair of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, that greatly disturbs me. In Wadi Halfa, a town in the Northern state, displaced Christians were blocked last year from holding a Christmas service in a public park, where they had taken shelter, as they had been internally displaced and moved away from the violence.

Pastor Mugadam Shraf Aldin Hassan of the United Church of Smyrna said at the time that officials told the congregation they needed written permission to conduct Christian activities in a Muslim area, despite prior verbal approval from national security officers. There had been an agreement, but radicals with extreme ideas decided that they would not let it happen. Again, perhaps the Minister can give us some idea of what can be done to help our brothers and sisters in the Christian communities out there who are subjected to this each and every day.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

There is no justification or excuse to prevent any human being from practising their faith, or no faith, wherever they live, in peace and without interruption or force. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that is a fundamental human right and should be protected wherever it can be?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. My APPG believes in the freedom of belief for those with Christian faith, another faith and no faith. We protect them all, we stand up for them all and we speak for them all. I want to live in a world where everyone has the autonomy to practise their individual belief, if they wish to do so.

Sudan ranks as the fifth worst country for Christian persecution on the Open Doors “World Watch List 2025”, which notes that over 100 churches, Christian buildings and homes have been forcibly occupied during the ongoing civil conflict. The situation is dire, and more has to be done to stop this. In his intervention, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) expressed the desperation that we all feel, and the hon. Member for Huddersfield set the scene so incredibly well.

I will conclude as I am conscious that others wish to speak. I urge the Minister and the UK Government to use their influence to call for an immediate ceasefire, and to press, with others, for increased national efforts to protect civilians and places of worship in Sudan. A sustainable peace in Sudan depends on the cessation of violence. The violence must stop; if it does not, this will never end for the good people of Sudan, and for the protection of freedom religious freedom in all its communities.

14:58

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for securing this debate. The crisis in Sudan is something that we should all be seeing on our TV screens and social media feeds, and we should be debating it here in Parliament every day, yet tragically it barely features, so my hon. Friend’s success in securing this debate is all the more commendable. As we have heard so powerfully, in just over two years 28,000 people have been killed, 12 million people, half of them children, have been forced to flee their homes, and there are 15 million children in need of humanitarian assistance. The human impact of this conflict is truly shocking.

We know that the situation is particularly dire in North Darfur. Al Fashir has been described as a “city under siege”. At Zamzam refugee camp, starving people have been attacked, and aid agencies tell me that an estimated 450,000 to 500,000 have fled from the camp to Tawila, where they now live out in the open in extreme heat, with barely any food or water, and with diseases such as cholera taking hold. With the fighting now escalating in the Kordofan region, it looks set to be the next area of acute humanitarian crisis. As we have heard from other Members, that is not an accident; it is the result of a strategy by warring parties, at best, to allow civilians to be collateral damage in a vicious fight and, at worst, to deliberately and directly target them.

Let me turn to what needs to be done. As I think about what needs to happen in Sudan, in many ways it feels like a test of how we act in response to humanitarian crises more broadly in these new times. Our humanitarian aid budget is reduced, but our deep expertise and leverage in humanitarian action remain. The first thing to say is that funding is important, as it is in any humanitarian crisis. The £120 million that the UK committed to Sudan at the London conference in April—part of the £810 million aid package—will support 650,000 people with basic lifesaving aid this year, which we should be proud of.

What we do with the funding matters. We are increasingly good at focusing on interventions that are proven to work, such as the use of ready-to-use therapeutic food to treat severe and acute malnutrition. Who we fund also matters. Sudan is an example of why we have to get funding to the local responders in any humanitarian crisis, but in this case particularly to the emergency response rooms where there are extraordinary networks of volunteers embedded in communities, running community kitchens, feeding hundreds of families, operating mobile clinics, restoring basic infrastructure, and doing the work that international and humanitarian aid agencies are unable to do in the context.

Beyond funding, there are three further ways in which our actions can have an important impact in the crisis in Sudan and beyond. The first is by pushing for expanded humanitarian access. Large parts of Sudan are completely out of reach of the UN and international aid agencies, which is completely unacceptable given the scale of the humanitarian needs, so we must keep up the pressure on the warring parties and their external backers in Russia, the UAE and elsewhere to allow aid to flow in.

Sudan also shows why we may need new tools, whether it is in Yemen, Myanmar or, of course, Gaza. The denial of access to humanitarian aid has become a routine part of warring parties’ playbooks. We urgently need to find ways to create more expectation and more pressure. I think, for example, of the recommendation of my former employer, the International Rescue Committee, which has suggested that we should set up a new international mechanism to monitor and protect humanitarian aid access. That is just one idea.

The second point is about how we use our diplomatic assets and tools to push for a ceasefire and a peaceful resolution to the conflict. As one of the emergency response room spokespeople recently said:

“We cannot continue to respond to the crisis while the guns keep firing. The people of Sudan need a ceasefire—now—to save lives and to rebuild our communities.”

We have the opportunity of being the penholder on Sudan in the UN Security Council. We are rightly working with the African Union, the EU-convened group and others to make progress. We are looking outside of the established groups. I suspect it will be increasingly necessary to find informal coalitions of interested countries to work together for peace. It is complex and sensitive diplomacy, but it could not be more urgent.

The third point is about how we drive more accountability in these contexts for breaches of international humanitarian law. Last month five aid workers were killed in an appalling attack on a UN convoy near El Fasher. I am glad that we called for accountability at the time, but we see a sustained pattern of attacks on aid workers in Sudan and elsewhere. In the case of Sudan, the International Criminal Court’s Office of the Prosecutor has now found reasonable grounds to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity may well have been and continue to be committed in Darfur. We have to be clear that that is absolutely unacceptable.

I see the crisis in Sudan as a test of our compassion, but also of our capability in responding to humanitarian crises in the world today.

[Alice Macdonald]

My hon. Friend will know that we said “never again” in Rwanda, in Srebrenica and after the Holocaust, but we are clearly not living up to that promise. Does she agree that we need a comprehensive atrocity prevention and response strategy? That has been lacking in the UK Government for a number of years now.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend that that is what is at stake here—I am sure the Minister will say more. I think that we are looking at that atrocity prevention strategy and we need to update it.

I will conclude by saying that for me Sudan is a test of whether we can successfully push to get aid into the most awful humanitarian crises in the world. It is a test of whether our diplomacy can play a stabilising role and help to be a force for peaceful solutions. It is also a test, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) said, of whether those who violate international humanitarian law will be held accountable for their actions. That matters for the victims of the conflict in Sudan, but it also determines what warring parties think they can or cannot get away with in future conflicts. I know the Minister is aware of a lot of this and feels the pressure. I look forward to hearing her thoughts.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

We are going to set the clock for speech duration. Everyone has to remain within 4 minutes and 30 seconds so that everyone can get in.

15:05

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) on securing this debate.

This war is both violent and catastrophic, entrenched in bitterness and brutality. It is backed by external actors feeding the atrocities enacted upon civilians, especially women and girls. We have heard graphically today of the levels of physical, sexual and psychological violence. We also see the tragedy of famine and disease, with floods expected to cause even further harm. While the world looks away and the political platforms are silent, today, as Back Benchers, we are calling Government to account over this humanitarian crisis.

The Sudanese need this Government and those around the world to step up. We need a strategy and relief to be met with opportunity and hope. The escalating suffering and brutality of war in Sudan since April 2023 exceeds that of all conflicts. As people move out, external actors are moving in, fuelling their interests and those of the warring parties, as are those with economic interests, particularly in gold. Darfur, as ever, is the focus of this conflict. We have heard today about the impact on El Fasher and the Zamzam camp for those already experiencing such tragedy. The scale of aid that is needed requires not only the UK Government, but those around the world, to step up. I plead again with the Government to move rapidly to restore the 0.7% ODA target, because our world is suffering and needs that replacement.

As we look at the strategic approach, we recognise that the three strands of defence, diplomacy and development need to be held in far better balance in order to achieve outcomes for people in Sudan and across our world. Therefore, as we look forward, we have to get the strategy and the financing right and, ultimately, diplomacy in the right place. It is essential that the African Union is empowered and strengthened through its regional efforts, but it is time for the Government to refresh a resolution at the UN, be mission-focused and ensure that the right measures are put in place for the next Security Council.

We know that time is not on our side and we have heard about the scale today. We need to focus on three strands. The first is the humanitarian response of food, healthcare and support for all those who are displaced, whether internally or externally, across the region and beyond.

The second strand is the protection of civilians. We need to develop strategies for sustained support, access for humanitarian and medical aid, aid at scale, better communications, the documentation of evidence of war crimes and adherence to international law. We need to ensure the creation of safe areas that are patrolled and protected. We also need to ensure that there is a trauma-based approach, and most of all that it is delivered on the ground through the experts who have developed the connections and reasons for it. We also need to move to disarmament, demobilisation, reintegration and, ultimately, rebuilding.

The third strand is a political process. We know how crucial it is at such times to establish good dialogue and systems that enable conversations about not only accountability but moving forward to take place. We need to take a human rights approach while upholding international law. Governance must be rebuilt through civil society. We need to ensure that civil society is leading the dialogue and invest in that heavily, so that this will never be a forgotten war, but one where peace prevails.

15:09

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for securing this important and timely debate.

The humanitarian crisis in Sudan is among the most acute and neglected emergencies in the world today. Since the outbreak of violence in April 2023, Sudan has become the site of the largest displacement crisis in the world. As of July 2025, more than 12 million people have been forcibly displaced due to the ongoing conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces. We are witnessing not just a conflict but hell on earth.

In 2024, Sudan’s humanitarian indicators collapsed even further. Famine looms large, cholera outbreaks have intensified, and more than 80% of hospitals have been destroyed or rendered unusable. In El Fasher and North Kordofan, civilians are trapped under relentless shelling. MSF withdrew after repeated attacks on health facilities, illustrating systematic violations of international humanitarian law. In its 2025 report, MSF warned:

“Mass atrocities are underway in Sudan’s North Darfur region”.

People are not only caught in indiscriminate heavy fighting but actively targeted by the RSF and its allies, notably on the basis of their ethnicity. The RSF has carried out massacres, torched villages and attacked refugee camps in Darfur, forcing hundreds of thousands to flee, including many who were originally displaced during the Darfur war in the 2000s. Sexual violence against women and girls from particular ethnic groups has been documented. Those atrocities, highlighted by the deputy prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, are war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Despite the UK’s £120 million pledge at the London conference on Sudan, the UN’s humanitarian response plan remains less than 50% funded. Aid is stranded in Port Sudan. Relief convoys are looted. People are starving, not because food is unavailable but because it cannot reach them.

The crisis demands a bold and principled response. Therefore, I call on the Government to address six points. First, they should release the remainder of the committed £120 million, to ensure that support reaches those in Sudan and neighbouring countries that host displaced people. Secondly, they should reconsider their wide cuts to the UK aid budget and safeguard long-term funding, especially for the post-conflict rebuilding phase.

Thirdly, the Government should use diplomatic levers to pressure countries, particularly the UAE, which has been credibly accused of arming the RSF with advanced Chinese weaponry, in violation of the UN arms embargo. Amnesty International has documented GB50A guided bombs and AH4 howitzer systems, previously exported only to the UAE, being used by the RSF forces in Khartoum and Darfur.

Fourthly, the Government should push for a fully monitored ceasefire and secure unhindered humanitarian access. Fifthly, they should expand resettlement schemes for Sudanese nationals, to ensure swift and compassionate protection. Sixthly, the Government should back accountability mechanisms, including the UN fact-finding mission and the International Criminal Court, to ensure that justice is served.

I honour the work of the Sudanese diaspora in the UK. Their advocacy, resilience and courage must be reflected in our foreign policy response. Sudan may feel distant to some, but the consequences of our silence are all too near—lost lives, fractured communities and a betrayal of our humanitarian commitments. Impunity is a threat to international security. If international law is to mean anything, there must be consequences. Let us be clear in this House today: the Sudanese people are not forgotten. We stand with them.

15:14

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal), who is my constituency neighbour, for securing this really important debate.

Unfortunately, we live in a world of competing crises and wars, one overshadowing the next. Depending on how horrifying we perceive the situation to be, how close it feels, or how much the cameras are rolling, unfortunately some conflicts get forgotten or neglected. Some horrors are met with silence, not outrage. Sudan, in the grand scheme of reactions, is one of them. This is a really important debate to highlight the atrocities that are happening there today, and have been happening there for several years.

Since April ’23, Sudan has spiralled into a living nightmare for those living there or watching their country from afar. As we have heard, over 14 million people have been displaced, with cities reduced to rubble, markets bombed, women and girls raped, and entire communities starved. In August ’24, famine was officially declared in Zamzam, with a displacement camp in Darfur now home to over 400,000 people. As we have heard, over 25 million people across Sudan are food insecure, which equates to half of the country starving. Just like in most conflicts, more than half of those affected are children.

Most recently, just this month on 10 July, reports confirmed that at least 60 civilians, including 35 children, were killed in attacks near Bara. On 14 July, over 200 people were killed in RSF raids. El Fasher saw RSF shelling on 12 July, which killed five people, including children, and on 16 July shelling killed five more civilians, again including children. As we have heard, MSF warns of ongoing ethnically targeted mass violence, looting, sexual assaults, abductions, destruction of health infrastructure and starvation. This is unacceptable and we must do everything that we can to stop these atrocities.

Let us be clear: many of these atrocities, including using famine and starvation as a weapon of war, are not a natural disaster. It is not a drought or a crop failure; this is famine as a weapon of war, and the supply of weapons by our allies to the forces that are killing civilians on the ground. Warring factions, the RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces, are deliberately blocking aid and attacking humanitarian workers, turning hunger into a method of control. The United Nations, the International Criminal Court, and the US and UK Governments have all confirmed that the atrocities are war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide. Still, the world barely watches.

This is not just about Sudan. We are seeing a terrifying pattern in Sudan, Palestine and beyond, where famine and genocide are becoming the tools of modern warfare. “Never again” cannot become a slogan; it must be a promise that we honour for as long as we walk this Earth. These crimes can be stopped. The perpetrators are not acting in a vacuum; they continue to act like this as they know the world turns a blind eye when the world keeps weapons flowing into the country and humanitarian aid is treated as optional, not urgent and necessary. Sudan’s partners must exert real pressure on the conflict to stop the targeting of civilians and to bring the perpetrators of international humanitarian and human rights law violations to justice.

Today, I ask the UK Government to do everything that they can to stop the atrocities, save lives, get food to starving babies, and support the women and girls who have been subject to sexual violence. We must demand immediate, unimpeded access to humanitarian aid. The people of Sudan are not nameless victims of a faraway war; they are mothers, students, teachers, children—human beings deserving of dignity, safety and hope. Let us not allow Sudan to become a forgotten catastrophe. Let us not accept famine and genocide as the cost of inaction from the international community. If the weapons of war of famine, sexual violence and genocide are allowed to continue, they will be normalised, they will be repeated—and as always, our silence will mean our complicity.

15:19

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this really important debate. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal), who was absolutely right to state that the war in Sudan is a war on civilians—that is what it is. She set out many of the truly grim statistics. I will try to put them in some perspective before building on the many calls to action that we have already heard.

My hon. Friend talked about the extent of displacement. I want Members to imagine that every single person living in this city of London had been forced to move, and then half again—every man, woman and child, whether frail or strong, ill or healthy, had been forced to move. That is the extent of the displacement that we have seen taking place in Sudan.

My hon. Friend talked about the extent of hunger—24 million people facing acute hunger. That is the same number of people as live in London, the south-east and the west midlands combined. It is only just less than the number of people who live in Australia. Can we imagine an Australia in which either people are already malnourished or they can stay nourished at the moment only by selling off livestock or other essential means of survival? That is the number of people we are talking about.

My hon. Friend talked about the 638,000 people who face catastrophic hunger—people who are living in famine. That is more than the population of Glasgow, Bristol or Cardiff. Can we imagine entering one of those cities and finding that one in three people is already acutely malnourished and there is an extreme shortage of calories per person per day? That is the extent of this catastrophe.

The numbers of those impacted by violence are staggering, and so is the depravity of the violence. Many Members have spoken incredibly powerfully about this. I have seen footage, particularly from Humanitarian Action for Sudan. I am very grateful for the work of that organisation, and to Zeinab Badawi and others who are so engaged. I have seen footage that I can never unsee. It is absolutely appalling. We have seen so many Rubicons being crossed. Sexual violence has already been referred to by colleagues. We have also seen camps for displaced people being purposely attacked, individuals being kidnapped and homes being burned.

So what to do? We have to maintain the political profile of Sudan. There is such a strong moral case; we all know that. There is also a strong security case, regionally and globally. We also know that, of the unaccompanied asylum-seeking children coming to our country, the highest number are from Sudan. We must maintain pressure for a ceasefire. We must work with the African Union. We must work with the EU-convened consultative group on Sudan. We must put pressure on those who deny famine, deny atrocities and refuse to engage with those processes. We must do more as the penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is committed to that, as are the broader ministerial team. We must ensure that perpetrators are held to account. Above all, we must act with urgency. We have already heard that Sudan is now moving to the rainy season. That, coupled with the appalling behaviour of all warring parties in restricting access to aid, will make the situation even worse.

I will end with a personal story—so many Members have told such stories about this situation. I met some of those who had fled from violence in Sudan when I was in South Sudan. At the camp of Bentiu, I met people who had fled. They were the only members of their family to have survived. Their siblings had died while trying to walk through floodwater. They had died because of exposure. They had died because of diarrhoea. They had died because they did not have enough food to eat. They had died because they had been killed by warring parties. They had been abducted by warring parties. That is happening time and again, and it is happening while the international community is failing to act.

15:23

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for securing time for this debate, and for her continued commitment to raising the humanitarian situation in Sudan through debates, questions in the House and briefing meetings for Members such as me and others in the room with people from the Sudanese diaspora community and those who have experienced at first hand the tragedy that is unfolding in Sudan.

As we have heard, with the conflict in Sudan now entering its third year, the country is facing one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises on record. The impact is wide-reaching. It includes mass displacement, shocking attacks on healthcare facilities and aid workers, a raging cholera outbreak and mass atrocities against civilians, including sexual violence and widespread gender-based violence. However, as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nutrition for development, I will concentrate my remarks on the unprecedented severity of levels of food insecurity and malnutrition in Sudan.

At the start of this month, together with the Minister for international development from the other place and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), I opened a photographic exhibition in Parliament on why nutrition is foundational to development aims in the UK. One of the images on display, taken by Peter Caton for Action Against Hunger, was of Nyibol; 27-years-old, six months pregnant and with a young daughter, she is one of up to 12 million people in Sudan forced from their homes.

Nyibol was forced from her livelihood as a peanut farmer, and had to endure an exhausting journey over four long days in search of safety because her village was attacked and her house burnt down. She was fortunate to be reunited with her husband and eldest daughter after being separated while running for survival, and to receive malnutrition screening on arrival at the border checkpoint, but many are not. This mass displacement, together with ongoing conflict, high food prices, a collapsing economy, disruption to supply chains, challenges in agricultural production, the breakdown of essential services, and severely limited access to healthcare, nutrition and humanitarian services is fuelling Sudan’s continuing slide into famine.

The most recent integrated food security phase classification report for Sudan, published in December, found widespread starvation and a significant surge in acute malnutrition, with half the population facing high levels of acute food insecurity. That includes more than 8 million people in the emergency phase, and at least 638,000 people in the catastrophe phase. The IPC’s latest alert, published 10 days ago, confirms that the situation will deteriorate over the coming months.

Despite the fairly favourable harvest season in parts of Sudan, major production gaps and supply barriers persist, exacerbating food insecurity. Constrained access to treatment services, worsening road access, and the increased threat of floods as the country enters its rainy season, raises serious concerns, especially for children, during the July to September lean season between harvests, which we are now entering. Levels of malnutrition are such that people are increasingly succumbing to treatable illnesses that would not normally be a threat to life, such as diarrhoea. This is a particular concern with cholera, which is already present and likely to spread in the rainy season.

We all know the importance of good nutrition to development. Without access to nutrition, the potential of each person, community, and country is held back. Entire economies are undermined, and poverty and suffering persist.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

As my hon. Friend knows, the issue of malnutrition for the Sudanese is not contained to Sudan. Many millions of displaced people are in neighbouring countries, and those countries are unfortunately also suffering from conflict, whether that is Uganda, South Sudan, Eritrea or Rwandan militias in the DRC. Do we not need to also take action to ensure that the Sudanese are getting adequate nutrition when they are displaced into neighbouring countries that are also seeing conflict?

[Steve Race]

I completely agree, and of course Chad is home to many of the displaced Sudanese too.

Poverty and suffering persist and provide fertile recruiting grounds for extremism. It is encouraging to see the UK continue to take a leadership role as the penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council, and through convening the London Sudan conference, committing £120 million of UK aid to support over 650,000 people in Sudan this year.

However, with ongoing famine in Zamzam, in camps in El Fasher, and in the western Nuba mountains, which the Famine Review Committee warns is extremely likely to spread to additional areas, can the Minister update us on additional UK efforts to ensure the sustained delivery of food, nutrition, water, and health assistance to prevent further loss of life—particularly nutrition-specific interventions including ready-to-use therapeutic food? Recovery rates of children with severe acute malnutrition who receive a full course of RUTF are over 90%.

Can the Minister also update us on progress towards ensuring unhindered access for humanitarian and commercial actors across borders and conflict lines, including through the Adre border crossing and El-Obeid corridors, and to communities under siege in El Fasher and surrounding areas? Those access routes need to be expanded and stabilised now before the height of the rainy season. Finally, how are we ensuring that lifesaving aid, including RUTF to treat severe acute malnutrition, will reach those children who desperately need it, and that aid workers are protected?

15:29

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) on securing this important debate and on putting Sudan in the spotlight, where it needs to be. This war is the greatest humanitarian catastrophe since the advent of the modern age, with 25 million people in acute hunger, famine abounding and a war on civilians and women and girls. It has displaced 13 million people. It directly affects us in Britain, too: about 10% of those arriving on small boats are Sudanese. I would like to focus on three questions: is our response to Sudan’s humanitarian need enough, are our diplomatic efforts enough, and is our work to support the establishment of a democratic civilian Government enough?

Across a world of proliferating conflicts, we are observing a growing disregard for international humanitarian law, with warring parties increasingly seeing access to humanitarian aid as a weapon to be wielded. The UK has attributed famine conditions in parts of Sudan to systematic aid obstruction by both the RSF and the SAF. We must continue to push for aid to get in and for warring parties to respect international humanitarian law, but we must also recognise that under these conditions, local groups are often best placed—and better equipped than international NGOs—to meet civilian needs.

Sudan’s emergency response rooms have become the international symbol of such groups. They are community kitchens, shelters and medical centres; they provide clean water; they treat and protect victims of sexual violence. Currently, they are reaching more than 4 million people. In response to my recent written question on the ERRs, the Government directed me to the £120 million spend announced by the Foreign Secretary at the London conference and said that a

“portion of this uplift”

would go

“to local responders…through the Sudan Humanitarian Fund”.

But so far this year, the Sudan Humanitarian Fund is just 23% funded. The total shortfall is over $3 billion, and a cliff edge looms because of cuts to USAID and other international donors. Our current contribution, although welcome, does not touch the sides of what is required.

I understand that the Government are still assessing how best to support ERRs and local actors, but I ask the Minister: since USAID has done the hard work of due diligence and bureaucracy, can we not step up now and do more? This Government have slashed Britain’s international development budget to its lowest level this century. Again, I urge the Government to reverse that. Ministers claim that Sudan will remain a priority, but it is unclear whether they will have the resources necessary to make a real impact.

The Government’s cuts now require us to rethink and reform. Localisation has risks, but we must acknowledge that when it comes to Sudan, the old ways may not work. The emergency response rooms may be an example of how to do it. Can the Minister please provide an update on how much of the £120 million pledged at the London conference has been allocated, and through which channels? Does that include support for displaced Sudanese in the region, particularly in Chad and South Sudan?

I turn to the subject of diplomacy. Before the International Development Committee, the Foreign Secretary told me that since the London conference he has had separate conversations on Sudan with the UAE, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. He did not elaborate, however, so perhaps the Minister can. Have these conversations produced any tangible progress? If not, should the Prime Minister become involved to drive action at a higher level?

The war in Sudan is being worsened by outside state actors offering diplomatic, financial and sometimes military support to the warring parties. I am pleased that Britain has consistently expressed opposition to such behaviour, but words are not enough. It has been consistently reported and alleged, most prominently by The New York Times, that the UAE has been funnelling weapons to the RSF. The UN’s panel of experts on Sudan told the Security Council that those allegations are credible.

The UAE is a significant buyer of British military exports, so its purported actions raise serious concerns in relation to the strategic export licensing criteria. Not only are they a material consideration in relation to the risk of diversion, but they violate the spirit of other criteria. The FCDO is vital to decisions made by the export control joint unit, so I ask the Minister what assessment she has made of the reports that the UAE is supplying weapons to the RSF. That is a question that I have asked of her and the Foreign Secretary, and I have since received an inadequate response from the Minister for Africa. I will be grateful if the Minister can say what view the Government take of the compatibility of such actions with the strategic export licensing criteria.

It is not only arms that are fuelling this war; it is also gold. In response to a written question in June, the Government told me that since the war began,

“the UK has frozen the assets of nine commercial entities linked to the Sudanese Armed Forces and Rapid Support Forces.”

With the exception of the November sanctions on two RSF commanders, all those measures were imposed under the last Government. It has been more than a year since this Government took office—a year in which famine conditions were confirmed, and in which almost nothing has been done to address Sudan’s war through further sanctions. Why? It is good that three Russian entities linked to Sudan’s illicit gold trade have been sanctioned, but Russia is not the only implicated nation. It is not even the most significant. By far the most important player in the global trade of Sudanese conflict gold is the UAE, so why have no steps been taken to impose consequences on the UAE for its role in that trade?

To make a dent on the global trade in Sudanese blood gold, Britain would have to use sanctions strategically with a view to dismantling entire systems, as opposed to merely punishing one or two offenders. We will have to work closely with willing partners, particularly the EU, Canada, the Nordic states and the United States. Can the Minister assure me that these conversations are ongoing?

Simultaneously, we must drive high-level initiatives to bring key commanders and external actors to the table. There are reports of a new peace framework taking shape in Washington—one built not on inclusion and democracy but, it seems, on power sharing, resource control and the legitimisation of the SAF and the RSF. A deal must not be made by outside states over the head of the Sudanese people, so I am glad to see the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to a Sudanese-led transition to civilian government and to extending the UN fact-finding mission to Sudan, investigating human rights abuses and crimes. However, the Government can and should be doing more to support Sudanese civil society and democratic groups, both in Sudan and in exile.

I am aware that the Government, through Global Partners Governance, help to fund the anti-war, pro-democracy coalition. How is the Government ensuring that these groups in exile remain representative and accountable to the Sudanese people? Can the Minister outline the recent work of the UK special envoy to Sudan? How is the special envoy engaging with pro-democracy organisations and diaspora groups, particularly those in exile throughout the region? We must work with as many like-minded partners as possible and with willing allies such as Canada, the Nordic states and others. Can the Minister share how Britain is building diplomatic support for an inclusive peace process, centred on the civilian democratic voices in Sudan for a sustainable peace?

15:37

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Dr Huq. It is appropriate that, as someone who has always stood up for humanitarian causes, self-determination and the rights of peoples around the world, you are chairing this important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall this afternoon, on the last day of term. She has been a principled voice on the issue in Parliament for a very long time; I commend her for it.

I also thank the all-party parliamentary group on Sudan and South Sudan—not least Glen Promnitz of its secretariat, who is here today—for keeping parliamentarians briefed and informed on the ongoing situation in the region, especially when so much of the world appears, regrettably, to have fallen silent. They have done an excellent job; I commend them for all their work.

I would like to refer to some, although not all, of the comments that have been made this afternoon. I have just said that the world is regrettably silent, but this House has not been silent this afternoon. I have heard some very passionate speeches and comments from all parts of the House. Considering how much is happening in the world today and how many issues we do talk about, we have not spoken as much as we should about Sudan. The nature of the conflict and the dreadful repercussions on the people of Sudan is absolutely horrendous, and we are right to debate it.

The hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) spoke about the health risks in the region. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and other colleagues spoke about the importance of the diaspora in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) spoke about the use of gender-based violence as a weapon of war; he was right to do so. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as chairman of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, spoke passionately about the issue and gave examples of where we need to highlight it.

The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) talked about the denial of humanitarian aid as a weapon, a point that was taken up by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed); I thank both Members for highlighting it. It seems that it is now common practice in conflicts that the withholding of humanitarian aid is being used as a weapon, which is dreadful and appalling. I was particularly struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Edmonton and Winchmore Hill (Kate Osamor), who spoke about war crimes and crimes against humanity, and about how justice is needed in such cases. She paid tribute to the diaspora here in the UK. She said that the Sudanese people are not forgotten and that we must stand with them. I agree. She summed up the mood of the House this afternoon.

The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who did a fine job in her time as Minister, spoke today with knowledge and experience of the topic. It is a shame that she is not still in her place as a Minister, but we thank her for continuing to take an interest in this very important subject.

Like other Members today, I wish to express my deep and growing concern for the people of Sudan, a nation in the grip of one of the most harrowing and shamefully overlooked humanitarian crises of our time. The conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces has torn this ancient country apart. According to the United Nations, more than 25 million people—over half of Sudan’s population—are now in need of humanitarian assistance. The World Food Programme warns that 18 million people face acute food insecurity, with 5 million in serious danger and over 750,000 children suffering from severe malnutrition. Hospitals and aid convoys have come under attack, entire communities have been displaced, and reports continue to emerge of ethnic cleansing, gender-based violence and mass killings, particularly in Darfur.

In April, as has been mentioned, the United Kingdom co-hosted an international humanitarian conference on Sudan. It announced that £120 million would be spent in humanitarian funding, supplementing the tens of millions provided by the last Government. However, nearly three months later, we must ask—and I hope the Minister will respond—what that money has been used for. Where has the money gone? Has the funding reached frontline organisations and local civil society actors working to deliver urgent assistance? Is it getting over the border at the scale required? Is there deconfliction to ensure that it is distributed to the innocent civilians who require that funding?

As the penholder on Sudan at the United Nations, the United Kingdom holds a unique and vital responsibility, but I must ask whether the UK is currently doing enough. Are we using our position at the Security Council to its fullest extent? What will the UK do through the United Nations Security Council in the time ahead to push for action on humanitarian corridors and for independent investigations into war crimes, and to hold the perpetrators to account?

More broadly, will the Minister tell us what new measures the Government are taking to compel the warring parties into a much-needed ceasefire? How is the UK supporting Sudanese civilian and political forces to engage in constructive dialogue processes such as the Cairo conference? What is the Minister’s assessment of the current effectiveness of such processes and of the Jeddah process? What action does she propose to take on external factors influencing the war?

The House would also welcome clarity on whether the Government are exploring replicating the approach of our American allies to sanctions. The United States recently imposed further targeted sanctions. The previous Government recognised that those measures send a clear message that those who commit appalling acts will be held accountable, which is why we implemented a number of sanctions on those supporting the activities of the Rapid Support Forces and of the Sudanese Armed Forces.

I welcome the appointment of the UK special envoy for Sudan, but that cannot be the sum of our response. It cannot be a substitute for a full and proper strategy, which I hope the Minister will outline later in her remarks. We, on this side of the House, call on His Majesty’s Government, first, to provide a full and transparent update on the disbursement and impact of the £120 million pledged in April; secondly, to clarify how the UK is supporting frontline humanitarian agencies and set out its diplomatic engagement with regional actors; thirdly, to push for stronger co-ordinated action at the UN and with our allies, including support for a ceasefire and accountability for atrocities committed; and finally, to clearly set out their position on where they could do more on the possibility of sanctions.

Finally, although this Westminster Hall debate is crucial for raising awareness and pressing for much-needed action, the gravity of the situation in Sudan demands the highest level of Government focus. I therefore urge the Foreign Secretary to come to the House at the earliest opportunity—probably not until September now—to make a comprehensive statement outlining the Government’s full and proper plan of action to address this ongoing catastrophe. We need to see a clear, unified strategy that matches the scale and urgency of this crisis.

Britain has long played a role in Sudan, with deep historical ties that stretch back centuries. From the days of General Gordon in Khartoum, and our administration of Sudan during the Anglo-Egyptian condominium, Britain has been intrinsically involved in the shaping of Sudan’s modern identity. A successful Sudan, then, is not distant from our national story; it is, in part, a reflection of ourselves. None of this happened in a vacuum; our knowledge of the region, long-standing diplomatic channels and moral voice on the world stage place the United Kingdom in a position to lead. We must honour that tradition in Sudan. The world may not be watching, but Britain must not look away.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Leaving time for Harpreet Uppal to conclude, I call the Minister.

15:48

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dr Huq; I acknowledge your interest in matters relating to human rights, humanitarian aid and Africa.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for securing this debate; I am sure that many of her diaspora in Huddersfield are listening carefully to the arguments she has made. Indeed, we have a number of active MPs who mentioned the diaspora today, including my hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith), for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). Our constituents care deeply about the welfare of Sudanese civilians. That is why it is so important that we have these debates and discussions.

I will try to answer Members’ points, but I specifically wanted to come to the question of our constituents to say that the Foreign Secretary has made a commitment—as part of our strategic diaspora engagement on Sudan—that the UK engages with civil society and diaspora at ministerial and official level. In December, the Minister for Africa, Lord Collins, attended a roundtable alongside representatives of the Sudanese diaspora and civil society, hosted by Dr Zeinab Badawi, president of SOAS University of London.

In the run-up to the London Sudan conference in April, we had an extensive engagement with civil society and NGOs, including at ministerial level, which provided valuable insights into Sudanese views on how to end this dreadful crisis. We complement that work with significant engagement with civilian groups inside and outside Sudan, and have supported civilian activists briefing the UN Security Council. As for any diaspora strategy, we are seeing it today in person through all the hon. Members from across the UK who have come to give voice to the concerns of their own constituents. We know that Sudan is enduring the most severe humanitarian crisis on record. As I outlined on 16 July in response to the urgent question, the situation is nothing short of catastrophic and the consequences of this brutal conflict are being felt. In terms of the numbers, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said they were equivalent to half the population of Australia. To put it another way, more Sudanese are affected by this crisis than the number of people in Afghanistan, Gaza, Mali and Bangladesh combined.

With the rainy season approaching, the threat of famine and cholera will only grow, putting even more lives at risk. That is why I was so pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) mention the neglected tropical disease mycetoma, and the rather more common disease malaria, which will flourish in those conditions. It is clear that the humanitarian situation is being exacerbated by how the war is being fought, with both sides showing complete disregard for human life. Reports of appalling atrocities are widespread, civilians are targeted on the basis of ethnicity, sexual violence is rampant, and aid is being weaponised as both sides continue to seek a military solution.

As with many other conflicts—and as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) so eloquently pointed out—it is women and children who are bearing the brunt. A shocking 25% of the population or 12 million people are estimated to be at risk of sexual and gender-based violence in Sudan—as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). Only last week in Sudan’s Kordofan region, more than 450 civilians were killed in brutal attacks, including pregnant women and at least 35 children. Over 3,000 people are reported to have fled recent fighting. The Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC—which was mentioned by several hon. Members this afternoon—stated that it has,

“reasonable grounds to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity have been and are continuing to be committed in Darfur”.

That is why it is so important that we deal with the issue of displacement—which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding).

In May, during her visit to the Sudan-Chad border, Minister Chapman announced that the UK would provide £36 million in funding for the financial year 2025-26 for Sudanese refugees in eastern Chad. The collapsing economy and acute food insecurity will hopefully be addressed by some of those funds. The Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC recently stated that it has reasonable grounds to believe that war crimes are being committed. We call on all parties to the conflict to comply with their obligations under international law. I include any external partners—as was raised by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton—regardless of which country they come from and their role, and ask that they put down their weapons and work together to find a peace process. That is why the Foreign Secretary led at the London Sudan conference this Easter.

As the humanitarian situation worsens, the very people trying to deliver aid to those most in need across Sudan have been continuously obstructed from conducting lifesaving work. More than 120 humanitarian workers have been killed since the beginning of the conflict. Just last month, the UNICEF-WFP convoy waiting to deliver lifesaving aid to those fleeing violence in El Fasher was attacked and five aid workers lost their lives, as was highlighted in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, who chairs the all-party parliamentary group for Sudan and South Sudan. Let me be clear: all parties must allow aid to reach those who need it most, and humanitarian workers must never be a target. I was very impressed by the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) and other colleagues from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in listening first hand to the accounts by doctors who have delivered medical aid in Sudan and the horrors of what they saw there.

The UK can, however, be proud of the fact that we are playing our part in addressing the worst consequences of this wholly unjustified war. Sudan has been a top priority for the UK Government since taking office, and indeed a personal priority for the Foreign Secretary, who in January became the first UK Foreign Secretary to visit Chad, when he saw first hand the devastating effect of war on refugee communities.

Our goals are clear: to secure more humanitarian aid, to ensure that it reaches those in need, to protect civilians and to stop the fighting and work with the Sudanese people to deliver long-term peace. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), speaking from the Conservative Front Bench, asked how exactly the funding would be spent. I can reassure him that the £120 million for this year will be spent on lifesaving aid, given the nutritional deficit there. The Mercy Corps-led cash consortium for Sudan, which is a multilateral group, will also receive UK funding to provide direct cash assistance to mutual aid groups on the ground, because we are aware that, with the banking situation in crisis, some multilateral organisations simply cannot provide the usual sorts of aid.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine West]

I apologise, but I only have three minutes.

We also want Sudan to be free of FGM—a priority that I know the hon. Member for Romford would be in agreement with—supporting the work of protection and prevention and providing care services in response to increasing rates of gender-based violence across Sudan. Of course, the funding also supports the Sudan Humanitarian Fund, which delivers lifesaving support to communities across Sudan and is now funding the emergency response rooms that provide essential services to communities affected by the conflict in Sudan.

The hon. Member also asked what we are doing politically. Mr Richard Crowder, our UK rep, travels extensively across the region, including to engage with Sudan’s neighbours, which have traditionally had closer ties to both the warring parties. He has engaged extensively with efforts by Egypt and the African Union to foster a platform for civilians to come together and debate the country’s future.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, the UK can be proud of our leadership on the humanitarian crisis. The support that we have provided builds on last year’s £235 million of aid, which reached over 1 million people with food and cash, as well as clean water provision. During her visit to the region in May, Baroness Chapman announced an additional £36 million specifically for those displaced by the refugee crisis. Following the Sudan conference, we are using all diplomatic tools at our disposal to ensure that aid can reach those facing famine across Sudan. As the penholder on Sudan at the UN Security Council, we continue to raise the alarm about reports of appalling violations of international humanitarian law, and to call on the warring parties to facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief.

I know very well that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield will wish to say a few words, so I will conclude by impressing upon Members the importance of our values. Indeed, the Government strongly condemn the lack of freedom of religion or belief in the current context. We strongly condemn the reported killing of the priest Father Luka Jomo in El Fasher, North Darfur, as well as the reported bombing of churches, which killed and injured multiple people. I can reassure the hon. Member for Strangford that we will continue to champion the right to freedom of religion or belief by promoting tolerance and mutual respect through our engagement in multilateral fora, our bilateral work and our programme funding. David Smith, the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, made a statement at the United Nations Human Rights Council in which he highlighted the UK Government’s concerns—I know he speaks for all of Parliament—about the coercion of non-Muslims in Sudan to change their beliefs through denial of work, food aid and education. In the absence of a ceasefire, the humanitarian situation will only worsen.

15:59

[Harpreet Uppal]

I thank all colleagues for their contributions to this debate and the Minister for her commitment and actions. At the heart of this are the people of Sudan, who need sustained, co-ordinated and courageous leadership from the international community. Let this House be part of delivering that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the humanitarian situation in Sudan.

Housing Provision in Stafford

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

14:30

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered housing provision in Stafford.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate.

To give some understanding of the local picture, Stafford borough is currently without an adopted local plan. A new draft plan was due to be approved just as the general election was called last year, but with that and the new housing targets, the process paused. While it is good that the work has restarted, getting a new plan in place for our area will take years, even in the best-case scenario. That matters because, in the meantime, communities such as Eccleshall are left exposed to speculative development without the protections that a local plan provides.

I attended a public meeting in Eccleshall two weeks ago, and the atmosphere was thoughtful, not hostile, and the message was clear. People understand that we are in a housing crisis, and they know we need more homes not just for this generation but for the next generation. People also want to stay close to their family. They want to contribute to their community and grow old where they have always lived, but they are also dealing with the consequences of past development in which infrastructure has not kept pace.

Those pressures are visible in Eccleshall’s drains, roads and local environment. Eccleshall’s sewage treatment works flooded 67 times in 2023 and has flooded 26 times so far in 2025. The aim is to have no more than 10 spillages a year by 2045—that is in 20 years’ time. It flooded again last Sunday, spilling sewage and waste water, which affected residents. That is the reality for people living there now, before a single additional home has been built.

I make my position absolutely clear: I know that we need more homes. Across Staffordshire and across the country, far too many people—including young families, pensioners and key workers—are being priced out of the areas in which they grew up, and that is true even in Eccleshall. That is the legacy of the previous Government, who made things worse.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Does she agree that housing must be provided for families, for single people and for elderly people? Newtownards in my constituency is providing a mix for everyone. Is that something she is trying to achieve for her constituents, in conjunction with the Minister?

[Leigh Ingham]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. My dad does not work any more, but he was a bricklayer. He always said to me that if he had owned his own business, he would have built bungalows because there is always a need for them—this country can never build enough bungalows. We need a mix of housing, but he always said, “If you want to sell houses, build bungalows.” That is my dad’s life tip, if anyone is interested.

That goes to the point that we have not built the right homes in the right places. Pensioners cannot find smaller homes to downsize into; families are not able to settle for the long term; and people are being pushed away from their support networks and lifelong communities. We need to build, but we have to do it responsibly and with infrastructure. In Eccleshall right now, that balance has not been found.

Residents are understandably alarmed, as there are 10 speculative development proposals on the table for potentially over 1,500 homes. Accounting for families, that is likely to be more than a 50% population increase for a town of 6,500 people. That would stretch the resources of any community, but it would be overwhelming for a very small market town. To be very clear, not a single application has yet been approved, but the sheer number of proposals coming in simultaneously is creating real anxiety and uncertainty, because people do not know what might be approved.

More broadly, we have already seen how this can go in another part of my constituency, in Loggerheads. There, development went ahead without an up-to-date local plan. Developers insisted that infrastructure was adequate, but in reality there were no buses, few community services and precious little investment in support to new residents. The building continues.

In Eccleshall, planning officers are doing everything they can, but without a local plan, they are working with one hand tied behind their backs. The default position of presumption in favour of sustainable development leaves them vulnerable. The Minister and his Department are committed to fixing this broken system, and I recognise wholeheartedly that the challenges are not new—they were building up for years under the previous Conservative Government—but Eccleshall provides a case study of why councils need more tools and more flexibility to get things right.

Today, I want to offer four practical suggestions that would make a real difference to Eccleshall and other communities like it. First, we need faster and more flexible processes for approving local plans. Right now, it can take up to three years, in ideal conditions, and during that time councils and communities are left in limbo. If we want to plan properly, we need the system to keep pace.

Secondly, infrastructure must come first, not years later. The flooding in Eccleshall is a red flag. The system has not caught up with past development, let alone proposed future growth. With respect to that, I ask the Minister: what specific support is available to towns such as Eccleshall to help building to happen sustainably, without overloading existing stretched services?

Thirdly, we need to let councils assess housing proposals in the round, not one by one. When multiple speculative bids are in play, applications cannot be treated as if they exist in isolation. Local authorities must have the power to consider the cumulative impact and align decisions with community priorities.

Fourthly, we need strong protections for our best agricultural land. In Eccleshall, the sites under threat are all grade 2 and 3a, some of the best and most versatile farmland in the country. If we lose it, we do not get it back. We cannot build over the land that feeds us and call that sustainable.

In conclusion, no one—residents or developers—wants to see 10 disconnected developments forced on a community with no plan and no infrastructure. I want to be clear: the people I represent are not opposed to growth. They want to be part of shaping it, and to build homes in a way that is planned, not piecemeal, with infrastructure first, communities and the environment protected, and fairness at its heart. I ask the Minister to meet me—after recess; I will not I will not make him do it today—specifically to speak about Eccleshall. We have a meeting coming up to talk about wider housing provision in Stafford borough, but I hope he will not mind me asking for a separate conversation about this specific and unique case. I believe that we can build the homes we need in a way that is fair, sustainable and community-led, and that this Government want to do that. I hope this debate will be a constructive step towards making sure that happens.

16:08

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing this debate. As you know, she always speaks with force and passion on behalf of her constituents, and has done so again today on this important matter.

I appreciate fully the concerns that my hon. Friend expresses on behalf of residents in Eccleshall. I assure her that the Government want to see more plan-led development, and development generally, to provide all the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities. Without doubt, much more remains to be done, but I trust she recognises that the Government have already taken decisive steps to deliver on those objectives.

My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am unable to comment on her local development plan or on individual planning applications within her constituency, due to the role of Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers in the planning system. I will seek to respond to the points she has made in general terms.

Let me start by addressing the concerns that my hon. Friend expressed about local development plans. She is absolutely right to highlight the importance of areas having up-to-date local plans, and the detrimental impact on individuals and communities where that is not the case. Local plans are the best ways for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development their areas need. We want more people involved in the development of local plans. The plan-led approach is, and must remain, the cornerstone of our planning system, but a locally led planning system only operates effectively if coverage is extensive.

As my hon. Friend will no doubt be aware, we inherited a system where less than a third of local plans were up to date. We are taking decisive steps to progress towards our ambition of universal local plan coverage, both in providing local planning authorities that are striving to do the right thing with financial support and intervening where necessary to drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the length of time that it takes to progress and adopt a local plan—on average, seven years. Slow progress in the preparation of local plans means that those areas are at greater risk of speculative development and that those local plans are out of date more quickly upon adoption, which creates uncertainty for communities and holds back development where it is needed. That is one of the many reasons why we intend to introduce a new, faster and clearer process for preparing plans. That new system will set a clear expectation that local plans, as well as mineral and waste plans, are routinely prepared and adopted in 30 months. Other aspects of our reforms will support that aim, such as the introduction of gateways, shorter, simpler and more standardised content focused on the core principles of plan making, and a series of digital transformation initiatives.

The new system will help us to deliver and maintain universal coverage across England, supporting the Government’s wider commitments to deliver the development the country needs. It is our intention that a package of plan-making reforms, enabled through provisions in the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023, will commence later this year. I understand that Stafford borough council has chosen to introduce its next local plan under the new local plan-making system that we intend to put in place, and my Department will continue to engage with it to that end.

Where plans are not up to date and local planning authorities are not delivering in line with the needs of their communities, it is right that development can come forward outside of the plan; the homes our country needs cannot be put on hold. However, we have been clear that that is not a passport to poor-quality housing. That is why we added new safeguards to the presumption in the revised national planning policy framework that we published in December last year. The absence of an up-to-date local plan does not remove the need for local planning authorities to consider the use of conditions or planning obligations to make otherwise unacceptable development acceptable. That can include the provision of necessary site-specific infrastructure at appropriate trigger points in the development, and local planning authorities have enforcement powers to ensure compliance with any such provisions.

My hon. Friend asked me, very reasonably, what can be done about multiple applications and whether they can be considered in the round. I again stress the point that local development plans are the most appropriate way to consider applications in the round, in terms of allocating appropriate sites to come forward, and local plans do have an element of sequencing to them in what development they expect to come forward during the whole life of the plan, but for specific applications, it might be worth stressing that other proposed developments can be a material consideration in the determination of an individual planning application, although that is always decided on a case-by-case basis.

As my hon. Friend made clear, communities across the country, including in Eccleshall, want to see infrastructure provision delivered as early in the development process as possible, rather than being an afterthought that comes right at the end. The national planning policy framework sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. The revised NPPF, which was published last year, will also support the increased provision and modernisation of various types of public infrastructure.

Local development plans should address needs and opportunities in relation to infrastructure, and identify what infrastructure is required and how it can be funded and brought forward. When preparing a local plan, planning practice guidance recommends that local planning authorities use available evidence of infrastructure requirements to prepare an infrastructure funding statement. Such statements can be used to demonstrate the delivery of infrastructure throughout the plan period. There is already detailed guidance and an infrastructure funding statement template on the planning advisory service website. However, the chief planner wrote to all local planning authorities recently to remind them of their statutory duty to prepare and publish an infrastructure funding statement where they receive developer contributions via section 106 and/or the community infrastructure levy.

The Government also provide financial support for essential infrastructure in areas of greatest housing demand through land and infrastructure funding programmes such as the housing infrastructure fund. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government are also committed to strengthening the existing system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide necessary affordable homes and infrastructure. We will set out further details about our proposals in that area in due course.

It is worth mentioning the provisions in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will provide for mandatory spatial development strategies in sub-regions across the country. That is a good example of how groups of local planning authorities can plan at higher than the local planning level for the effective delivery of new homes and infrastructure across a wider area, making smarter decisions in a framework that sees infrastructure and investment come forward.

Finally, my hon. Friend raised the issue of agricultural land. The Government place great importance upon our agricultural land and food production. The NPPF is clear that planning policies and decisions should recognise the benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land—namely, land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the agricultural land classification system. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of higher quality. That said, the Government recognise that the system used to grade agricultural land is currently not fit for purpose. The maps are outdated, not at a scale suitable for the assessment of individual fields or sites, and are not suited to the changing suitability of land. The Government are exploring what improvements are needed to the ALC system to support effective land use decisions.

To conclude, I commend my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I thank her for the clarity with which she expressed the concerns felt by her constituents and Eccleshall and beyond. I emphasise once again my agreement with her about the importance of plan-led development to provide the necessary infrastructure, amenities and services. I am more than happy to meet with her to have a separate conversation on Eccleshall specifically, as she requested, but in general terms, I look forward to continuing to engage with her to ensure that the changes that the Government have already made, along with those to come, are to the lasting benefit of her constituents and those of other hon. Members across the country.

Dr Huq, I wish you, my hon. Friend and other hon. Members an enjoyable and productive summer recess.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Reciprocated all round, I think.

Question put and agreed to.

16:17

Sitting suspended.

UK Internal Market

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered barriers to trade in the UK internal market.

I am pleased to have been granted this debate. I do not have much luck securing debates in Westminster Hall, but I thought that perhaps nobody else would apply for a debate at the end of the last day before recess. I think I guessed right, so we have a debate on this very important issue.

This debate is about the disruption to the UK internal market. My remarks are not based on the political stance that my party has taken against the Brexit arrangements agreed by the last Government and continued by the present Government; they are based on a report by the Federation of Small Businesses, an independent body interested only in the concerns of its members, that does not look exclusively at Northern Ireland. Indeed, the report is based mostly on responses from businesses in England, Scotland and Wales—only 14% of responses came from businesses in Northern Ireland. The impact on the internal market is a UK-wide concern.

The report found that the Windsor framework is not protecting the market. There are considerable barriers, whether customs paperwork, European Union rules and laws applying in Northern Ireland, physical checks, delays in the delivery of goods, the labelling of goods not for EU use, or business-to-business parcels now being subject to customs procedures. As a result, many businesses have abandoned Northern Ireland. Indeed, the report highlights that 34% of small businesses that previously traded with Northern Ireland have now stopped, saying that the regulation has made it far too expensive to trade with Northern Ireland.

Some of the regulations are ludicrous. One business wrote that some of the requirements are little short of farcical. They have to state that their goods have not been imported from Iraq, even though they were made in Great Britain. Others have been told to fill in forms to make it clear that canes imported for use in road construction are not being used to torture anybody. Businesses find themselves facing that kind of nonsense, and as a result they are abandoning Northern Ireland.

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

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Is not the real problem, as identified by the FSB and articulated by the right hon. Gentleman, that there is an unholy alliance of Eurocrats and bureaucrats, of separatists and globalist corporates, who are acting in a way that is injurious to the interests of small and medium-sized businesses that trade across our United Kingdom?

[Sammy Wilson]

The right hon. Member is absolutely correct. I will talk about some of that bureaucracy later in my speech.

Fifty-eight per cent of businesses have faced significant or moderate difficulties, including rising transport costs, significant disruption to supplies, stock shortfalls, shortages, loss of sales and increased bureaucracy and costs, as well as the drain on their finances because of the payment of taxes and duties that take a long time to be repaid.

Of the companies surveyed, 61% said that they had experienced negative consequences as a result of the Windsor framework. Significantly, despite what the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would try to tell the House, only 2% said there were any positive benefits. More worryingly, 56% either said that they are “not confident” or only “slightly confident” about what will happen with their trading relations with Northern Ireland, and 29% said that they are likely to have to stop supplying to Northern Ireland in the future. That is on top of those companies that have already stopped.

In fact, one company said that it was now more difficult to trade with Northern Ireland—that is, bring goods from GB into Northern Ireland—than it is to trade with Australia and the USA, which is why it would stop trading with Northern Ireland.

What has been the Government’s response to all this, as it is well known? I am pleased that the FSB has now independently verified what we have all known anecdotally, as constituency representatives. I suspect that the Minister will say, “Oh, but we are doing our best. We have put in support mechanisms. We have the trader support service, we have HMRC guidance.” I hate to tell the Minister that the survey shows that 78% of businesses say the support is either “poor” or “very poor”—in other words, useless. The report says,

“a similarly high proportion found access to the support difficult. Businesses frequently cited confusing or inconsistent guidance. As one NI manufacturer put it, navigating new customs paperwork via the Trader Support Service often feels like a ‘guessing game’.”

It is a joke of a system. The defence is, “We have put in support mechanisms.” Well, they are not working.

The second argument—and we have heard the Secretary of State make it repeatedly—is, “Oh, but you have other benefits. You have access to the dual market. You have the benefits of being able to sell into the EU, which companies in GB cannot do as freely, and to sell into the GB market.” We know now that the GB market is not accessible, and that supplies are not coming through.

As far as the dual market system is concerned, when businesses were surveyed, 88% said that the opportunities were not explained—they did not know what the opportunities were—and 64% said that they did not even understand what the opportunities were. They said that it seemed like the Government were making no effort to promote the great benefit that was meant to be the result of the Windsor framework. I suspect that the reason why the benefit has not been promoted is because, as many of the companies said, it is more in theory than in reality. There is no real benefit.

Of course, the latest argument is, “Well, the new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU will smooth it all out.” Every time I hear that argument, if I am at home, I look down into Larne harbour from my study window and see that, despite the promises that the SPS agreement will do away with a lot of these checks, there is a border post being built—I can see it clearly from my study window. £140 million is being spent on it, and only last night, the local council was asked to sign a memorandum of association to ensure that it supplies staff for that border post until March 2029.

Even if the SPS agreement were to do that, it covers only a very small part of the trade. All of the customs requirements, duty payments, checks, delays and parcel post will still be affected. EU regulations, affecting many businesses because the EU has different standards, will still apply.

The one thing I hope I do not get from the Minister today is the same complacency, disdain and “I couldn’t care less” attitude that Northern Ireland experiences from our Secretary of State, whose attitude has been little short of disgraceful. Pontius Pilate-like, he has washed his hands of it all. If anything, he acts more like an EU emissary to Northern Ireland than a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I can see that you are getting a bit uneasy, Dr Huq, but I notified the Secretary of State that I am angry at the way in which he has treated Northern Ireland, and he knew I was going to make these remarks this afternoon. In fact, I think I spelled them out to him.

Let us look at some of the Secretary of State’s comments. When my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) recently raised a statistic from the FSB survey in the House, his attitude was, “Well, if some of the businesses can trade with Northern Ireland, why can’t the rest of them? It is up to them to decide where they want to trade and where they don’t.” When someone who is meant to be standing up and fighting for Northern Ireland takes that kind of attitude, I despair about whether this issue is being taken seriously.

In a recent letter to me, the Secretary of State indicated that, as far as he is concerned, the main thing is to ensure that we “faithfully” pursue the Windsor framework because the EU is getting angry that some of the regulations may not be fully implemented. Here we have damaging regulations for Northern Ireland, and the Secretary of State’s response is, “Well, I have to stand up for the EU. Northern Ireland businesses? Let them paddle their own canoe.”

I know that others wish to speak, and I am pleased that so many have stayed on the last day. I do not want them to miss out, so this is the last thing. What do we need? I could go through many of the options that we have proposed and that the Government have dismissed, but I ask the Minister for one simple thing. All the paperwork, all the regulations, all the delays and all the checks are founded on one thing: that goods entering Northern Ireland from GB are regarded as at risk of going into the Irish Republic, contaminating its economy in some way and breaking EU rules.

Custard, the stuff we heat and pour over apple tarts or put into trifles, was deemed to be a dairy product, but it was not required to be labelled until phase 3 of the labelling requirements. However, the EU decided that perhaps custard should have been regarded as a product at risk, so it changed the labelling requirements. One of the big supermarkets had custard in its supply chain, and the EU bureaucrats decided that this custard must be hunted down—“We cannot have it coming into Northern Ireland and finding its way into the Irish Republic.” Lorries with mixed loads were stopped and searched. The offending custard was hunted down, discovered and exposed. That delayed the lorries, which did not reach the depot in time, so their goods could not be broken down and distributed to the various shops. It affected the supply chain and the supply of shops in Northern Ireland.

Here is the irony: the supermarket did not have any shops in the Irish Republic. The offending custard was okay one day, but not the next, because it did not have a label that it did not require the previous day. There was no evidence that anybody was dying from eating this custard in Northern Ireland or anywhere else, but the supply chains for a major supermarket in Northern Ireland were disrupted.

I am sure many Members could tell story after story about how the regulations are having an effect. What is it all down to? It is down to goods presenting a “risk”. What risk? We do not know. A simple change could be made so that goods are deemed at risk only once they leave Northern Ireland and go into the Irish Republic or elsewhere. The Road Haulage Association and Federation of Small Businesses have asked for that. It is not beyond the wit of man to ensure that happens. After all, all the companies that are selling these goods have VAT returns. HMRC trusts those companies at the end of the year to declare how much VAT they owe. If the goods have gone out of Northern Ireland, they do not have to pay VAT. Why can that VAT return not be used to follow the goods to where they eventually go? There is much disruption to trade, though not to all of it.

I am sure Members will talk about the inequity and constitutional implications of EU law applying to Northern Ireland, but one simple change can be made. Rather than kowtow to the EU, or be afraid that the reset with the EU might be disturbed if we ask for something simple, I ask the Minister to consider that one simple change, which many businesses have said would restore their ability to trade freely within our own market, selling goods that are not at risk. It would be of immense help to the small businesses that are the backbone of our economy.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

We will now divide up the time left. If Members keep their speeches to within four minutes, everyone will get in. I call Jim Allister.

16:47

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) on securing this debate, which cuts to the very heart of what it should mean to be part of the United Kingdom.

If we construct, at a foreign institution’s behest, an internal international border within our own country and require customs checks and declarations, and the payment of tariffs on the movement of goods, it should be no surprise that we will hugely upset our country’s internal market. That is exactly what has happened. I would go further and say that that is exactly what was intended, as it was notoriously said in Brussels that the price of Brexit would be Northern Ireland. What we have evolving before our very eyes is the dismembering of the United Kingdom, as an object lesson to any other member state of what happens if they dare to leave the EU.

We have created a situation where, because Northern Ireland is in the EU single market and under its customs code, GB is in law decreed to be, within EU terms, a foreign country whose goods must be checked when they move to within the EU, which is how Northern Ireland is regarded as far as the single market is concerned. It should be no surprise that there will be disruption to the market as a consequence. It was the intention of the EU to build an all-Ireland economy as a stepping stone. That was the design, and the protocol is working in that sense: it is delivering what it was intended to deliver.

When we hear from the FSB report that 34% of businesses that previously traded with Northern Ireland have stopped trading, that inevitably means that trade with the Irish Republic—it was the purpose of the protocol to build an all-Ireland economy—is increasing. We have statistics from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency to show that, over recent years, purchases from the Irish Republic have increased by 50% in comparison with those from GB, taking account of inflation. We therefore have the protocol in action illustrated for us, and its intention to build an all-Ireland economy.

All that is set against a background where the Minister present today is under a statutory obligation, under section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, to secure and maintain Northern Ireland’s internal place in the UK market. It is supposed to ensure that goods can travel freely, but it does not and never will, because that is impossible to achieve.

More than that, with all the spin that attended the Windsor framework, we were told that we were protected under article 16. If there was any diversion of trade, we were told that the Government would step in and take actions permitted under article 16. Well, there has been diversion of trade—lamentable, demonstrable and huge diversion of trade—and what have the Government done? Nothing. They have simply run away, taken a blind-eye approach and refused to act under article 16.

Indeed, only a few weeks ago in a Delegated Legislation Committee, I had a Minister tell me that article 16 specifies that there has to be

“a massive distortion to trade.”—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 23 June 2025; c. 9.]

No, it does not; it refers to any diversion of trade. There has been a diversion, but there has been no action, which makes the Government wholly complicit in the dismantling of this Union and the divorcing of Northern Ireland economically from the rest of the United Kingdom. Unless and until that is addressed, this issue will not be settled.

The Government talk much about their great reset—well, they had an opportunity, and they did not take it. If they are going to align SPS rules, why did they not say to Europe, “We’re taking back sovereignty and control of SPS in Northern Ireland.”? That is not what the reset does; it retains EU sovereignty of SPS in Northern Ireland, and then makes a separate deal for GB. We are on the road to dismantling this Union, courtesy of this protocol—and that is why, as a Unionist, I will always hold out against it.

16:52

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr Huq. This matter is crucial because it deeply affects British livelihoods, communities and the unity that we hold dear in the United Kingdom. To those who prematurely claimed or exaggerated that the Irish sea border was removed, I say, “You’re overlooking the harsh realities faced by many businesses in Northern Ireland.”

The numerous cases speak for themselves, and I will share several today. Only last week, four loads of food supplies were sent back in a 48-hour period from a port in Northern Ireland because of these regulations, affecting chilled and frozen foods. Recently, a lorry driver who owns a lorry-driving business mentioned that one sixth of his business is being negatively affected by the Windsor framework. The Secretary of State claimed that food supply and veterinary issues were resolved—that is clearly not the case. Why are food lorries being turned back from Northern Ireland ports?

I go shopping in a local supermarket in my constituency. In the last 10 days, I have been into that supermarket about half a dozen times. I have not even been able to get corned beef or doggy treats for my dog—my dog loves his doggy treats, and we have not been able to get them. Those are just basic items that face problems getting into Northern Ireland. That is why I stand firmly against any trade barriers between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It was unacceptable then and remains unacceptable now.

This debate transcends commerce; it is about the integrity and unity of the United Kingdom. First and foremost, these barriers disrupt a legacy of seamless trade, which we have enjoyed for decades. They place additional costs and burdens on businesses in Northern Ireland. We take pride in our small, family-run businesses, which form the backbone of our economy. I implore the Minister to empathise with these businesses as they face challenges in sourcing or sending products across the Irish sea and become entangled in complex regulations that hinder rather than help. He should see it from the perspective of these businesses and ask, “Is this truly fair to fellow citizens in Northern Ireland?”

We are not just discussing inconveniences; these barriers are a chokehold on progress, strangling the local businesses that drive our economic growth. Moreover, these trade barriers threaten consumer welfare. Market constraints lead to limited choices, empty shelves and rising prices. British families in Northern Ireland face restricted access to diverse goods and are suffering unnecessarily. That is not the future that we envisioned for UK citizens. We cannot accept a future market that is marked by economic hardship due to artificial barriers within our United Kingdom.

These trade barriers challenge the essence of what it means to be united. They drive a wedge between regions that throughout our rich history have stood shoulder to shoulder. The resulting divide contradicts the very principle upon which the UK was built. It must not fracture our shared identity and values. While the intentions behind the protocol may have been good, the reality necessitates a reassessment of its impacts. I am reminded of the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Solutions exist and we must pursue them. The bottom line for any resolution must be the integrity of the UK and its internal market. Let us not be passive in the face of these trade barriers; instead, we must be diligent in restoring seamless trade throughout the United Kingdom.

Finally, Minister, given that these trade barriers are part of some 300 EU laws with zero democratic accountability in Northern Ireland, what is the timescale for their removal? We were told that we would get the best of both worlds; that is just not the case. When will this get sorted out?

16:57

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) for securing this debate.

I am sure that we will hear in the Minister’s response what the Government have done to alleviate some of these issues, but it is the practicalities that Members from Northern Ireland are actually asking about. I am sure that we will hear about Lord Paul Murphy’s report. He was commissioned to conduct an independent review of the Windsor framework. I am now aware that his report was handed to the Government on 9 July, so we have to ask, “When will we see it? When will businesses see it? When will trade and industry actually see what Lord Murphy has said?” I am sure that the answer we will get is that under domestic law the Minister has up to six months to publish the report and its recommendations. Why not publish it now? Why not let businesses and politicians see the challenges that lie ahead?

Two bodies were created at the time: the independent monitoring panel and Intertrade UK. Those organisations were launched with much noise and furore, and good people—genuine people—were appointed to them, but we have seen no product. We have seen nothing come from them with regard to the challenges, and the opportunities that people keep talking about but that nobody is prepared to put in writing.

With regard to the challenge that we currently face, the introduction of “Not for EU” labelling on 1 July, which has been touched upon, applies even to goods that will never leave the UK’s internal market, and adds yet another layer of complexity and cost. Businesses have been told that these labels will eventually be phased out, but the requirement to have them now still stands. For a large retailer, that may be a frustration, but for a small supplier or producer it could be the final straw.

That was evident in the FSB’s independent report. As the right hon. Member for East Antrim pointed out, this is an independent report commissioned by the FSB from GB suppliers providing goods to Northern Ireland. Those suppliers said that trade disruption is widespread, with 58% of those trading between GB and NI reporting “moderate” to “significant” challenges. Over a third of respondents—34%—have already ceased trading rather than deal with these new compliance issues.

Even major retailers are pushing back. We will hear about all those businesses and companies that make it work, but in June Stuart Machin, the chief executive of Marks & Spencer, called the implementation of these labels

“bureaucratic madness, confusing for customers, and completely unnecessary given the UK has some of the highest food standards in the world.”

If the chief executive officer of one of the UK’s most established food retailers finds the system hugely bureaucratic, says it is

“adding yet another layer of unnecessary costs and red tape”,

how can we expect small firms, often with just a handful of staff, to cope?

I am sure that the Minister will talk about the coming SPS deal, which has been mentioned, but the real challenge that the Government have to answer is: why are they continuing to introduce further bureaucracy and further checks? If this promised deal—this new relationship with the EU—is so positive, so genuine, and if we are so much in partnership, why do we have to introduce this? Why can we not put in place the extended grace periods we have often seen in the past for those businesses and organisations?

The FSB’s work on the framework was undertaken before there were further restrictions—before the restrictions on business-to-business parcels came into force on 1 May, and before the phase 3 labelling requirements on SPS products came into force on 1 July and from 1 September. Small businesses are asking us to establish something that actually helps. A back office, knowledgeable and with expertise, should be made available through an accessible, business-friendly route, rather than this bureaucracy. Dr Huq, I respect your time limits and will allow another hon. Member to speak.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. We will move on to the first Front Bencher, Liberal Democrat spokesperson Clive Jones, at 5.8 pm, so the time limit is now three and a half minutes.

17:01

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) for his continued dedication to highlighting the absurdity of the Windsor framework and the need for an end to this disastrous mechanism. All hon. Members who speak in this debate have outlined and will outline the barriers that affect business across the whole of Northern Ireland. We are aware of the problems that we are raising, but I urge the Government to fully consider their impact. The Minister is a good man; he listens, and always tries to respond, so we look forward to his response on behalf of Government.

The Government will say that this is only a small additional bit of paperwork to do, and that businesses should be able to comply with the two-lane system and the administration, but the fact is that, while they could comply, it is more hassle, so at the system’s worst they are simply not complying.

I will give two examples that affect households throughout Northern Ireland. Morris & Son Ltd specialise in near-date sales and clearance lines that are cheaper and enable shops to pass on deals. Morris Ltd has said that the product margins on such products are too small to justify the time it takes to administer the additional protocols, when it can sell with no hassle on the GB mainland.

I do not say this to shame Morris Ltd, because that is not what this is about; the shame is on the current and the previous Governments for not rectifying the issue, but the losers are those on low incomes, who used to be able to get a good deal on short-dated stock. The constituents of every hon. Member in this House can take advantage of that, barring my constituents in Strangford and people in other constituencies of Northern Ireland. At a time when food inflation stands at 4.5%, and is predicted to be 5.1% by the end of this year, why should my constituents, and people across Northern Ireland, not be able to take advantage of those offers?

The hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) referred to dog treats: cheaper companies will not pay the vet fees to go through the shipments line by line. I heard Roger Pollen, from the Federation of Small Businesses, doing an interview at the end of June, in which he highlighted that 1,000 Marks & Sparks products have to be re-labelled, and 400 M&S items have been moved into the red lane—all that when Government had promised us that things would get easier, instead of getting worse. When M&S is struggling with the complexity, why would small retailers such as Morris & Son Ltd waste time and money? The fact is they will not, they are not, and my constituents are the losers. We were promised the rewards of a dual market, yet there has been no drive to entice business to come in and make the most of that supposed draw. The reason is that no one can actually quantify what the benefits are, and how we can assess them.

The Minister is a good man. We all know that. He always tries to be helpful. We have posed a lot of questions, and hopefully he can give us some answers. I urge him to go to the Cabinet to arrange a meeting with the EU to end this nonsense once and for all. Small businesses are crying out, and it is now affecting big business, which is where it gets even more difficult, but what is worst of all is that my constituents and all the other Northern Ireland constituents are paying more for their products than people on the mainland, and wondering why they are paying the price for Europe to maintain its death grip. End that death grip, Minister. Make the changes and end it soon, before small businesses are choked to death.

17:05

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The protocol and Windsor framework continue on a daily basis to fail the people of Northern Ireland. The failure is not anecdotal; it is measurable, documented and deeply felt. I say this with sincerity: it is a bureaucratic burden, a constitutional compromise, and for many of our people and businesses, an economic noose.

The Secretary of State and the Government cannot continue to keep their heads in the sand, thinking that the problems that we highlight are all exaggerated and unimportant. Businesses, farmers, hauliers and animal health professionals are affected. Every sector is engaging more and more in highlighting the daily struggles associated with the framework and calling for help from the Government they pay their taxes to.

The reality remains that Northern Ireland is subject to EU laws in more than 300 areas—laws that we have no democratic say over, no way of changing, and that are creating burdensome and costly checks that no other part of the UK endures. The Windsor framework was sold as a solution. It was never a solution. It was a glossed-up version of the protocol with a new name, but it was the same poison. It raised hope among businesses in Northern Ireland, but has delivered dismay, frustration and additional costly trading barriers.

I have always been critical of the Government’s approach to Northern Ireland when it comes to Brexit, be it under the previous or the current Government. I never believed the spin and promises, because at every turn promises have been broken and there has been no desire to resolve even the most simple problems created by the Windsor framework.

I commend the FSB for its courage in producing an exceptional report. Many so-called industry leaders are all too often caught up in the spin and do not actually reflect their membership’s concerns. Yet the FSB’s latest report lays bare the truth: 58% of businesses face moderate to significant challenges, and more than one third have stopped trading with GB altogether, rather than deal with the mountain of paperwork. This is not frictionless trade. It is not the “best of both worlds”. It is best only for the EU.

Let me spell that out with real examples. A forestry business in my constituency urgently needed machine parts. They were delayed coming from Scotland via next-day delivery, leaving workers idle and costly machines unused. A children’s boutique was hit with a £205 duty and VAT invoice for delivery of goods from GB. We have also seen used agricultural machinery, visually clean and only road driven —immaculate—being turned away at our ports unless scrubbed to EU standards and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate. One dealer has had to comply with four separate pieces of paperwork just to move a single tractor. Meanwhile, GB and Republic of Ireland dealers face none of that. An engineering firm supporting major Northern Ireland manufacturers said that its key selling point was rapid response. It is now impossible to say that, because of the delays and trade barriers.

In addition, we now have the blow to animal health. From January 2026, the Government are prepared to implement EU law in full on veterinary medicines, shutting out GB-based suppliers unless they jump through impossible hoops. Pet shops, farmers and even charities are now in the firing line.

This is death by a thousand cuts, and the Government are not even pretending to stop the bleeding. GB firms now say that it is easier to export to Japan than to Northern Ireland. The reality is that we have farmers who cannot move livestock; horticulturists who cannot bring in trees and seed potatoes; and families who no longer get parcels from GB retailers, because more than 90 major suppliers no longer deliver to Northern Ireland. There is every reason to act, the two main ones being that there are now economic implications, as per the FSB report, and there is clear diversion of trade. It is time for the Government to step up and act on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland and the businesses that are impacted.

17:09

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) for securing this debate.

The majority of people in Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU. The Conservatives’ botched withdrawal agreement has caused nothing but problems for the Northern Irish economy and has hit small businesses particularly badly. The Conservatives said that they had an “oven-ready” deal for leaving the EU, yet they left Northern Ireland in the deep freeze. The idea of dual market access under the Windsor framework was sold as a unique advantage for the people of Northern Ireland—businesses would be able to access both the EU single market and the UK internal market—but widespread dissatisfaction with the Windsor framework is becoming increasingly clear. Northern Ireland should be able to exploit dual access, but businesses are not being helped by the Northern Irish Executive, nor by the UK Government.

[Jim Allister]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Clive Jones]

I only have a few minutes, so I will not. Recent findings from the Federation of Small Businesses have highlighted severe challenges: despite Tory promises of “no more red tape”, many small businesses are finding trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland laborious and costly. The Chartered Institute of Export and International Trade found that, between 2021 and 2023, since the Brexit deal, 2 billion additional pieces of paperwork had to be completed by exporters. That is nearly enough paperwork to wrap around the Earth 14.7 times.

The FSB report also makes it clear that businesses are not aware of the benefits of the dual market access. It is the Government’s job to add some clarity here. According to the FSB, only 14% of Northern Ireland-based businesses responding to its survey said that they understand and are benefiting from dual market access. The rest either lack sufficient understanding to benefit from it or have not been able to leverage it. Some 51% of respondents believe this opportunity is not being adequately explained or promoted by Government authorities. We have to ask why.

Does the Minister not agree that further clarity, communication and support from the Government would benefit businesses across the whole of the UK, and trade with Northern Ireland? We are right to ask why the Northern Irish Government is not doing more to help local businesses, especially small and medium-sized businesses. It is clear that Labour must take a more pragmatic approach with the EU and foster a closer relationship for the benefit of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England.

A closer relationship with the EU will also help solve the UK’s skills shortages, especially in Northern Ireland. According to a report by Ulster University’s economic policy centre, Northern Ireland needs more than 5,000 additional workers to grow its economy. Does the Minister not agree that a closer relationship with the EU and introducing a youth mobility scheme would be the perfect way to help solve that issue?

Not only would a closer relationship with the EU benefit Northern Irish jobs and its economy, but a new trade deal would boost the entire UK economy and provide revenue for our public services. A customs union with the EU would add up to £25 billion to the Government coffers. Labour say it wants growth, yet the Government shy away from a new deal with the EU that would cut the costly red tape that is holding so many small businesses back.

I am running out of time, so I will move to the end of my speech. Growth is possible for the UK, and, whether that is through a new deal with the EU or a fairer deal for our SMEs and industries, Northern Ireland deserves economic prosperity after years of economic neglect. The Good Friday agreement brought peace, but it did not bring prosperity, and the Conservatives’ Brexit deal has clearly not brought prosperity either.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I call the shadow Minister in His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, Andrew Griffith.

17:13

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Thank you, Dr Huq. It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) on securing this last debate before the summer recess on this important topic. The UK’s internal market, forged over centuries through the Acts of Union, is the bedrock of economic prosperity. We are indeed stronger together, and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 has provided what should be a robust foundation for economic cohesion and non-discrimination.

I accept that challenges remain, and we have heard about them today. I thought the example—the illustration —of custard, visual metaphor though that was, was important. I regret the imperfections of the Windsor framework, and this Government with their reset have the potential to use their equities to significantly improve some of those arrangements in the UK internal market, should they so wish. The right hon. Member for East Antrim drew attention to the work done by the excellent Federation of Small Businesses, highlighting the very real problems and concerns.

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend, with typical generosity, says that we are all trying to get this right. I established that that is largely true, with the possible exception of the EU itself. There are those in the European Union, stung by the wise decision of the British people to leave that awful body, who have never really accepted that decision and have made life as difficult as possible—both for this country and for the businesses described by right hon. and hon. Members in this debate.

[Andrew Griffith]

As ever, drawing on his extensive experience in this place, my right hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. We do not have time to revisit all the imperfections of the Brexit deal imposed upon us by a recalcitrant European Union, which turned out to be a very false friend.

We should hear from the Minister, and I want to afford him as much time as possible. But my party will of course support anything that removes frictions and reunites the territorial integrity of the whole United Kingdom. We want every small business to benefit from that frictionless relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom. Our Union depends on that single indivisible approach and the sort of practical solutions that we heard about, such as trusted trader schemes and utilising HMRC’s already extensive data collection and reporting framework to improve the operation of our internal market. That should be something that every Member of this House seeks to do. The Government have given up things like British fishing for 12 years; I hope that we continue to see in return some real progress on this issue.

I thank all hon. Members, and congratulate the right hon. Member for East Antrim on highlighting the issue. With your permission, Dr Huq, I will give the rest of the available time to the Minister.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

We are going to leave a couple of minutes at the end for the Member in charge to conclude.

17:17

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), for giving me ample time to respond to the many issues that have been raised. He may be keen to take a phone call as a result of the shadow Cabinet reshuffle; maybe there is a promotion or relegation in the offing. I know that he has been keenly checking his messages all afternoon.

[Andrew Griffith]

You’re stuck with me.

[Justin Madders]

He is staying in place.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) on securing this debate. He referred to not having a great deal of luck in applying for debates; perhaps he is right that he has not faced as much competition because this is the last day before recess. But he is also right that this is an important issue. Given the number of Members here today, there are clearly things that people wished to raise. I want to address as many of the points as I can in the time that I have. If I do not get around to all of them, I will ensure that the relevant Minister responds.

I start by stating the current position. In January, we announced that we were reviewing the UK internal market, a move that would be quicker and broader than was required in statute. We published a public consultation on the operation of the UK Internal Market Act 2020, and at the outset of the consultation the Government made it clear that they would not repeal any part of the Act, as it contains important provisions relating to the Windsor framework and the unfettered access of qualifying Northern Ireland goods to Great Britain. It is important that we have that in the back of our minds when debating these issues.

Upholding Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market was a key manifesto commitment, and we are determined to fulfil it. At the time, the Government stated that they were not minded to weaken the protections offered by the market access principles in the Act. Those protections facilitate the free movement of goods, provision of services and recognition of professional qualifications, resulting in real benefits for businesses and people across the whole of the UK.

We recognise, however, the concerns—and hear them again today—about how the UK internal market has been operating in practice, particularly for businesses. The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lothian East (Mr Alexander), made a written ministerial statement to the House last week with the Government’s response to the review and the public consultation. The review made clear that businesses across all sectors strongly support the UK Internal Market Act’s market access principles to avoid unnecessary barriers to trade.

[Jim Allister]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justin Madders]

If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not mind, I have an awful lot of responses to get into, so I will not eat into that time with interventions.

The Department has been very much guided by businesses in developing the response to the review and the consultation, and in designing the changes and improvements we will make. We also believe that growth and prosperity are supported by devolution—a belief no doubt shared by hon. Members here. The outcome of the UK Internal Market Act review has been carefully crafted to ensure that unnecessary barriers to trade do not arise within the UK, while maximising the scope to realise the benefits of devolved decision making.

We want to work with the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure that businesses and the Office for the Internal Market are more involved in discussions about the management of the UK internal market. We are confident that the changes we announced in our response to the review represent a more balanced and proportionate approach to managing the UK internal market than that pursued by the previous Government.

Our approach seeks to avoid the imposition of unnecessary new costs on businesses, while respecting devolved competence. Those reforms are part of our broader plan for change, which has shaped both the UK’s trade strategy and industrial strategy to make the UK the best place to do business, while respecting devolved powers and delivering prosperity across the nations. We are keen to work with devolved Government Ministers to implement those improvements as soon as possible and put in place the necessary changes to the UK internal market in an effective way for the benefit of all our citizens.

Hon. Members have spoken passionately, as we would expect, about the Windsor framework. I hope it goes without saying that this Government are wholly committed to the Windsor framework. It forms part of the withdrawal agreement between the UK and the European Union, and it supports the peace and prosperity brought about by the Good Friday agreement—one of the proudest achievements of the previous Labour Government. It also plays a vital role in ensuring the smooth flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is why we supported the Windsor framework in opposition, and we continue to support it in government.

I recognise that the framework does not operate perfectly for everyone. Concerns raised by hon. Members today show that there is more to do in this area, but more than 10,000 traders have now signed up to the UK internal market scheme, and more than 1,100 operators are registered for the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme and Northern Ireland plant health label. Indeed, Northern Ireland is now one of the UK’s fastest-growing regions.

We also recognise the importance of ensuring that the right advice and guidance is available to businesses when they need it. We will continue to work on those issues. I heard what was said about the Federation of Small Businesses survey. We will speak to the federation and work with it moving forward—there were some pretty damning critiques from hon. Members today about what that survey found.

Our own surveys have found that customer satisfaction with the trader support service is running at 90%, so there is a significant disconnect between what our surveys are finding and what the survey from the Federation of Small Businesses has discovered. HMRC trade statistics published on 17 July showed that 11,400 businesses were associated with Great Britain and Northern Ireland customs processes in 2024. That was actually up 200 on the number for the previous year. I therefore suggest that the picture is not quite as apocalyptic as has been suggested by Members today, but we want to understand some more detail about why that survey showed such dissatisfaction with the current arrangements.

In taking forward commitments made in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper last year, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has established the new body Intertrade UK. That body is independently looking at promoting trade across the whole of the UK, and at how we can guide and encourage businesses to trade more, invest more and grow more.

It is also important that we take the opportunity to look ahead at the broader benefits that businesses across the UK will yield from the common understanding that we are taking forward with the EU. This new partnership in agrifood, emissions trading, electricity and other issues, will remove barriers for businesses trading with our nearest neighbours. We hope it will also help smooth the flow of trade to the advantage of Northern Ireland, reflecting our commitment to the UK internal market.

On our commitments, I take issue with the comments made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim about the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who I believe is an honourable man. He is committed to Northern Ireland, and I do not accept at all the characterisation that he is disdainful or could not are less about Northern Ireland. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The right hon. Member for East Antrim also raised the issue of the duty reimbursement scheme. I understand there have been issues with that. We are seeing increased use of the scheme. HMRC processes claims quicker now than it previously did, with an average processing time of 14 days, but clearly there is more to do in that regard.

The right hon. Gentleman also raised the example of custard—clearly not a trifling matter, Dr Huq, if you will pardon the pun. The Northern Ireland retail movement scheme simplifies the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, based on UK food safety standards. In return, it was agreed that the “Not for EU” labels would be applied to some retail goods eligible to be moved by the scheme, but through the SPS agreement with the EU we will ensure that there is a consistent regulatory framework for SPS, and therefore expect “Not for EU” labels and checks to diminish significantly.

DEFRA is working closely with traders to ensure they are clear about where goods need to be labelled to be eligible for the scheme and has published detailed guidance to support that. Where possible, enforcement is proportionate, with only non-compliant goods removed, the rest of the consignment continuing on to its destination. The majority of NIRMS shipments pass into the Northern Ireland area without any issue or delay, but if there are specific examples of where things have gone wrong we would certainly be grateful to hear more detail and whether we can do anything more. However, we are making progress.

In terms of other issues raised, the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) asked about Lord Murphy’s report. I can pass on to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the eagerness of Members to see that; I am sure he will be hearing those messages already. There is a commitment to publish the report in the UK Parliament and in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am sure the Secretary of State will be keen to deliver that as soon as is practical.

I need to give the right hon. Member for East Antrim a moment to respond. I apologise for not having covered every issue that has been raised. To conclude, the Government are committed to protecting the UK’s internal market and delivering for all UK citizens and businesses. We need to work together to understand where the issues are so that there are no unnecessary barriers to the flows of goods and services. Like all members of this Government, I am committed to working with hon. Members from across the House to ensure that that is the case.

17:28

[Sammy Wilson]

I appreciate that the Minister has stepped in at short notice and is probably reading from the Government brief, but I am really disappointed. He talked about the review of the internal market and how the legislation was designed to uphold Northern Ireland’s position and ensure the free movement of goods.

I do not know whether the Minister has listened to what Members have said here today, but the free movement of goods is not happening. The internal market is being disrupted. He talks about ensuring that no more unnecessary barriers arise, but we have the labelling coming through now and the EU export control system coming through in September. We also have all the new EU legislation, which will impact on businesses and create different standards in Northern Ireland.

The Minister then put the cream in the cake by saying that the Government are committed to the Windsor framework, but the Windsor framework has been the cause of the issues raised in this report. All I can say is that this Government are going down the road of making sure they do not upset the EU—

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. We now adjourn until September.

17:30

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