Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Equality Act 2010: Impact on British Society
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of the Equality Act 2010 on British society.
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I welcome the opportunity to bring to the Floor of the House the issue of the impact on British society of the Equality Act 2010, a topic that I believe is increasingly being raised not only by my constituents in Romford, but more widely across the United Kingdom by people whose lives are affected on a daily basis because of this legislation. It has also been the subject of detailed research in the recent report from the think-tank Don’t Divide Us, which was co-authored by Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert and Dr Anna Loutfi, and which I commend to Members of all parties and to the wider public.
For centuries, our common-law tradition has been at the vanguard in the defence of what we consider our liberties as Britons. Ushered in 900 years ago and emboldened by Magna Carta in 1215, common law enshrined the once revolutionary principle that all individuals are equal before the law, judged not as members of groups, but as subjects of the Crown, with inherent rights. From that tradition came trial by jury, which has its origins in Anglo-Saxon England, habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence. Were those gifts from Brussels or Strasbourg? Of course not. They are the hard-won fruits of our own history and the innovative quality of our forebears and the generations that have come before us.
When the Equality Act was passed in 2010, we were told by the now Baroness Harman that it would end discrimination, give everyone a fair chance in life and bring transparency. Those are fine words indeed, yet they give the impression that Parliament can, through sheer willpower, eliminate some of the more damaging and derisive aspects of human nature. Fifteen years on, the reality is, I am sad to say, very different. The Act has not united our country; it has divided it. It has not reduced discrimination; it has fuelled grievance. It has not strengthened our traditions of fairness; it has undermined them. In fact, it has fanned the very flames that it sought to extinguish.
In the first instance, the Act is woefully drafted. Let us take as an example the alleged definition of race. Section 9 defines that as including, but not limited to, “colour; nationality; ethnic or national origins.” That is imprecise and confusing and has generated a grey area in law. Simply put, it is a poor expression of parliamentary intention, whatever that was at the time. We are also seeing absurd contradictions. Section 13(5) bans racial segregation, yet guidance under the Equality Act allows organisations to create separate spaces based on combinations of protected characteristics. In practice, that could mean the state sanctioning racial segregation in Britain in 2025, all in the name of equality.
The Act and the imported ideology that underpins it have created a culture of division and victimhood. It is the legislative foundation of what today is called DEI—diversity, equity and inclusion—and the ever-expanding industry of woke training sessions and quotas.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
As bad as that situation is, it is in fact accentuated and worsened by the prevailing situation in Northern Ireland, where not only have we equality legislation, but, pursuant to article 2 of the protocol governing post-Brexit arrangements, there are applied additional so-called rights that have been used by activist judges to strike down already two pieces of legislation from this Parliament—the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Whether one agrees with the content or not, is it not quite appalling that within one part of the United Kingdom there are foreign jurisdictions imported through the protocol that give different so-called rights from elsewhere in the United Kingdom?
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
Before I call Andrew Rosindell again, I remind Members that if they would like to make a significant contribution today, they should bob, and I will get them in for the debate. I call Andrew Rosindell.
Andrew Rosindell
The hon. and learned Member is absolutely right that in this country, sadly, we have divided our own nation by treating Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the kingdom. That was a huge error by, I am afraid to say, the last Conservative Government, which agreed to the Northern Ireland protocol and then the Windsor framework. I am against both, and I look forward to a future Government repealing them so that we have one United Kingdom, where all people in these islands are treated equally and the same.
As set out clearly by Don’t Divide Us, the truth is that the Equality Act should really be called the inequality Act. Instead of treating every citizen as an individual equal before the law, the Equality Act elevates certain so-called protected characteristics and encourages people to see themselves not as fellow Britons, but as members of competing groups. Far from promoting individual merit, the Equality Act is simply state-sponsored identity politics.
What has been the result? Our English legal system has sadly been Americanised through the introduction of a corrosive culture of litigation in the workplace. Since 2017, race discrimination claims in employment tribunals have tripled, with more than 200,000 cases. Yet only 5% have been upheld, which tells us something very important: either Britain is riddled with invisible discrimination that even our judges cannot detect, which, given the richness of our legal traditions, I simply do not accept, or the law is unfit for purpose. In practice, it has turned the workplace into a battleground of claims and counterclaims. Despite the small number of successful claims, the statistics demonstrate the damage caused in places of work. Victim culture has not only been allowed to dominate the workplace, but been actively encouraged by the legislation.
To take one example, in the case of Williams v. Nottingham, the judge noted:
“the claimant thinks the existence of a ‘racial disparity’ is in…itself proof of racism”.
However, the damage goes much deeper. The Equality Act is not simply a tidying-up of previous anti-discrimination laws; as hinted earlier, it represents a wholesale shift away from our common-law tradition where everyone is equal before the law towards a continental EU-style system based on substantive equality, group rights and bureaucratic enforcement. It was inspired by EU directives, in direct contradiction of our legal heritage. It hands enormous power to quangos, activist lawyers and DEI consultants, while eroding the space for free thought, free speech and personal judgment.
Some right hon. and hon. Members suggest that repealing the Equality Act would mean enabling inequality, but that is simply wrong. Just as repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 would not abolish human rights, repealing the Equality Act would not abolish equality. Human rights and equality existed long before these Blairite statutes. In fact, equality as we would define it today finds its roots here in these islands of the United Kingdom.
The underlying ideology of diversity is not neutral, as many on the left of politics suggest. It treats diversity as an unqualified good and, by implication, majority identity—whether English, Scots, Christian or British—as a problem to be managed. That is why so many of our constituents feel that these laws are not written for them and certainly not in their interests. The majority who simply want to live by the law, pay their taxes and contribute to society feel increasingly alienated by a system that tells them they have privilege that must be checked, while others are encouraged to claim special treatment. That does not sound like equality to me.
The Equality Act has given rise to a sprawling industry, made up of an army of bureaucrats, consultants, trainers and lawyers, all feeding off the taxpayer. Repealing it, as I am advocating today, would mean considerable savings, as vast sums of public money are poured into funding this circus. Repealing the legislation would both restore common sense to our institutions and deliver real value for money to the taxpayer. Estimates suggest substantial savings, with annual reductions in compliance costs running into tens or probably thousands of millions—it is very hard to quantify, but it is a huge sum of money when we consider all the public institutions that spend money on promoting the DEI agenda, money that should be going to our frontline public services instead.
The NHS Confederation has indicated that DEI roles alone are costing the taxpayer nearly £40 million, and I am sure that is an underestimate of what is really being spent. That is just one sector; goodness only knows what the total bill is across the public sector, in local government, the police and educational institutions—and let us not forget the BBC. It is time to put the taxpayer first and end this costly charade.
The private sector and the corporate world have also been sucked into this dangerous ideology, spending vast sums of money in ticking every woke box while engaging in constant virtue signalling. None of this is cost-free to the public either: ultimately, it all must be paid for out of the pockets of their customers. Some will say, “But you had 14 years in government—why didn’t you repeal it?” to which I say that I, the Member of Parliament for Romford, have opposed the Equality Act from the very beginning. I never believed it would deliver what was promised, and I have consistently warned of the dangers of this ideological agenda. Sadly, too many in my party doubled down on it; some even wanted to extend it. I know that the shadow Minister here today, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), is not of that view, but sadly, over the last 14 years, many in my party sucked it all up, carried on with it and wanted to extend it. That was a grave mistake, and Britain is suffering as a result.
The Labour Government talk of introducing a new race equality Act—another bright idea from the same failed mindset. The Equality Act has caused so much harm; adding another layer of identity politics into the law will make matters even worse, and I urge the Government to rethink that idea.
Likewise, we increasingly hear calls to adopt a legal definition of Islamophobia. What kind of society do we want to live in? One where these proposed definitions conflate criticism of an ideology or a religion with hatred of people? Criticising Islam as a religion is not the same as hating people of the Muslim faith. Indeed, freedom of thought and freedom of speech require the ability to critique religious ideas, no matter what the religion may be. To criminalise such critique would be wholly inconsistent with the liberal, democratic principles that have evolved in this country over centuries.
It is more important than ever that we as Members of Parliament, in the mother of all Parliaments, do not cower from taking decisions that, at face value, may seem unpopular. Trust me: the residents of my constituency of Romford, and in every corner of the United Kingdom, would wholeheartedly endorse the reversal of these laws, as the problems we face lie at the heart of the legislation itself.
In my opinion, we should repeal the Equality Act root and branch, we should repeal the Human Rights Act, and the United Kingdom should withdraw from the European convention on human rights. Indeed, we should dismantle the Blairite constitutional reforms that have corroded our democracy and wedged our politics between a long-standing tradition of parliamentary sovereignty on the one hand, where power rests in this place—the Crown in Parliament—and an attempt at an American-style separation of powers on the other hand that has led to the outsourcing of Parliament’s ability to govern to so-called experts.
Those systems are mutually exclusive, and we must pick one. As a Conservative and Unionist, I see the intrinsic value of defending the constitutional traditions that have embedded themselves in these islands for 1,000 years and that have been exported successfully around the world, to the Commonwealth nations in particular. We must return to the great principle that has served this country well for centuries: equality before the law for all citizens, regardless of race, religion, gender or background. That is the British way. That is our common law tradition. That is the true way to guarantee equality.
The Equality Act is not bringing our people together; rather, it is driving them apart. It is fuelling an imported woke culture, an unmeritocratic DEI bureaucracy and a corrosive culture of grievance. We must therefore challenge the equality law house of cards constructed over previous decades and topple it to the ground—or face the prospect of an ever more divided society. We should be proud to identify ourselves as British first and foremost and be truly glad to live in a society where all are treated equally under the ancient laws and customs that have made these cherished islands the great nation that it is and must continue to be.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for securing the debate, although I have to say that I disagree with everything he said.
The Equality Act represented a pivotal change in our society and in our law, to create a kinder, more inclusive and equal Britain. I am grateful that, by and large, our society continues to uphold those values 15 years after the Act’s initial creation. However, I am here today to speak about a form of discrimination that is only partially covered by the Equality Act: caste discrimination, which certainly should not exist in British society. In 2010, the Labour Government included the legal power in section 9(5)(a) of the Equality Act, as amended, to outlaw caste-based discrimination in the UK. In 2013, Parliament changed that to a legal duty on Ministers to outlaw caste discrimination. Five years later, the Tory Government decided to get rid of that provision, but successive Governments did nothing about it.
Despite calls from authorities such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, and organisations such as the National Secular Society and the Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance, there has been no move to implement section 9(5)(a). Indeed, the Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance found that nearly one in 10 respondents in Britain say that they have experienced verbal abuse on the basis of caste discrimination, and that the same number report that they have missed out on promotion at work because of their caste.
Despite its good provisions, the Equality Act does not explicitly list caste as a protected characteristic, despite the amendments made back in 2013, which would mean that caste discrimination is recognised as a form of race discrimination in the same way as discrimination based on colour, ethnic or national origin, and nationality. It is time for the Government to introduce the recommended secondary legislation to make caste an aspect of race—contrary to what the hon. Member for Romford said, I believe that the Equality Act should be expanded.
We need to make caste discrimination illegal when it comes to employment and public services, including education. The provision is already in section 9(5)(a) of the Equality Act, but it needs to be implemented. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response so that I can reassure my constituents in Wolverhampton West that we are doing something for them, as they have suffered from caste-based discrimination.
Since 2013, numerous caste-based discrimination cases have been pursued in employment tribunals, and there have been other cases in which caste discrimination has been alleged—for example, in the NHS and, in one case, in a bakery—but the employers decided to settle out of court. The courts should not have to rely on case law to address caste-based discrimination, because that leaves the issue inconsistent and uncertain.
I ask that the Government take initiative now, further to section 9(5)(a) of the Equality Act, to provide clarity to our courts. They should implement a clear structure of redress for those impacted and stand alongside other countries, businesses and trade unions in confronting caste-based discrimination, so that we send a clear message to everyone in this country that hatred and discrimination in any form have no place in Britain.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I commend the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell)—he and I have been friends for many years. Like me and many others, he holds a love for Britain, so I look forward to working with him.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) clearly illustrated his concerns about the Britain we live in, some of which I share, and he set out what he wishes to achieve. I will make some comments about that in a wee minute.
It is encouraging—indeed, wonderful—that we have legislation to protect minorities across the UK. I believe that we must do that, and the hon. Member for Romford did not say that we should not. We must protect all minorities and discourage direct and indirect discrimination. Of course, there is always more work to be done. We need to perfect all of that and do it right, so it is good to be here to say that.
I always give a Northern Ireland perspective, and the legislation in Northern Ireland is different from the legislation in England and Wales. I want to illustrate that, and then set out where I would hope to be. Northern Ireland does not use the Equality Act legislation that England and Wales use. Back home, the legislation is separate and more complex, as the Minister is well aware from her discussions with the relevant Minister back home. That framework of equality laws developed over a period of time, and the Equality Act, in conversation, does not directly apply to Northern Ireland.
For example, we have separate pieces of legislation relating to sex discrimination, race relations, disability discrimination and employment treatment. I suspect that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West, if he had the time to check what we do in Northern Ireland, would find that he was more at home with our legislation, based on his comments just now.
The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland is the main body overseeing equality laws and protections, and has long advocated for a single piece of legislation. I raise concerns around certain legislation, such as the Equality Act, which does the opposite of what it intends—it intends to do something but, in fact, springs back in the opposite direction.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On the issue of the opposite to what is intended happening in practice, does my hon. Friend agree that, particularly with DEI-related matters, although legislative changes seek to protect those who have genuinely been affected and feel they must seek redress, they often attract people who will maliciously use them to further a political agenda and then derive more capital, rather than having a genuine grievance that has to be addressed?
Jim Shannon
I am going to outline the society that I would like to see, and which I think everyone in this Chamber would probably want; it is not a perfect world, because the world is never perfect, but it is the society that I would like to see. My hon. Friend outlined how legislation can sometimes be used to discriminate against a majority, rather than to help a minority, and I will give some examples of that.
The intention of the Equality Act is to harmonise discrimination law to create a fairer and more equal society—that is us back home. To take the example of employment, so many jobs nowadays promote equality and good in careers and hiring new starts. However, on the application form for the civil service, for example, candidates are not even able to put their educational achievements or their employment history, often leaving qualified people behind. That is equality, but is it? I pose that question.
Perhaps I am old-fashioned in my approach; indeed, my wife and children tell me I am old-fashioned, so I probably am. I hope hon. Members will forgive me for being old-fashioned and for being from that generation that perhaps sees things in a slightly different way. Years mature you, and they have definitely matured me. I do not see things the same way as I did 20 or 40 years ago; I see things very differently today in the society we live in. The society I want to see is a pluralistic society where we can all have our differences but still live together side by side, and where we can hold on to our beliefs, strengths and convictions but at the same time respect others. That is the place I want to be.
However, we do not legislation to tell us how to treat people; we need to look individually at how we treat people. It is common sense to me that we do not discriminate against people because of their skin colour or disability. That should never happen. I know that society is making sure that that does not happen, and I welcome that. My issue lies when the majority—I think this is the issue referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell)—becomes a minority because of the legislation, for example, on equal opportunity employment. That just cannot be right. By the way, I am pleased to see the Minister in her place. She and I have been friends for many years. I know she encapsulates the thoughts and concerns we have, and I look forward to her response.
House of Commons Library research highlights the fact that the Women and Equalities Unit leads work in policy, and one of its priorities is tackling violence against women and girls. You will know this, Dr Allin-Khan, and I suspect that everybody will: the violence against women and girls in Northern Ireland is horrendous. The number of ladies who have died over the last number of years, percentage-wise, is phenomenally greater in Northern Ireland than anywhere else. The legislation that we have does not really address that, but it needs to.
It is a growing issue. In the past 10 weeks, I think 10 people have been murdered. My goodness! I do not know what is happening in society. Sometimes I despair, to be perfectly honest. This Chamber will be all too familiar with the devastation that Northern Ireland has witnessed as a result of female homicides and the shocking and unbelievable figures on domestic abuse. Those are issues on which we all want and require action.
I put on record my thanks to my DUP colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), for her tremendous work in speaking out against the Equality Commission’s intervention on the Supreme Court ruling on what a woman is. She has been and continues to be a vocal advocate for the protection of women’s rights and for ensuring that people do not lose sight of the importance of the issue.
Although it is great, and it is pivotal, that we have guidance and legislation in place to protect people, we must never let other groups potentially fall behind as a result. If that is what happens, it is not achieving its goal. I want, as I think we all do, to live in a world where we accept others for what they are and where we do not fall out because they have a different culture or history, come from a different part of the world or have a different religion. That should not matter. It does not matter to me, personally. We do not have to agree with every choice that an individual makes, but we can agree to differ.
As you and others will know, Dr Allin-Khan, I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I believe emphatically, as a Christian. I will speak up for those with a Christian faith, I will speak up for those with other faiths and I will speak up for those with no faith, because I believe that it is my job to do so. That is how I feel in my heart, and I believe that that is the right way. That is the society that I wish to have: a pluralistic society where we can live together.
Many years ago in Northern Ireland—I have had many years in Northern Ireland, probably more than most—I was brought up in a society in which violence, conflict and difference were the way things were. But today they are not, and that is the society I want. That is what we should be seeking through this debate, and I think it is what the hon. Member for Romford wants to achieve. He has highlighted some of the issues that have to be addressed.
We can live in a world where discrimination is not prevalent and where respect is given. That is the utopia that I want to live in, where we can all have friendships and relationships and be on speaking terms. In this Chamber I am no better than anybody else—far from it—but I make it a point to engage with Members of all political views. It is no secret that my politics lie left of centre, but I try to respect people. There are things that we might disagree on—the past six months have probably been the most difficult of my life on the issues that we have had to face in the Chamber, as they it may have been for some others—we will sometimes also agree.
I have had great concerns over the abortion legislation, the assisted dying legislation, welfare reform and family inheritance tax. Those are massive issues for my constituents; I have received thousands of emails about them. But even though we may not win the votes all the time, we have to respect others. I have learned that the House can fairly well be split into a majority and a minority on some of these things.
I look to the Minister to recognise people’s concerns and, potentially, to engage further with her counterparts in Northern Ireland to ensuring that legislation is in place to protect people. It is always good to swap ideas, to exchange and to learn. I hope and pray that we can have a society where we can live better together. That is my ultimate goal in the Chamber. I do not think any MP will ever find me chastising them or shouting across the Chamber; it is just not my form, although I will agree to differ. Perhaps sometimes we need to do just that.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving Surrey county councillor.
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for securing today’s debate. For all the reasons that he so ably laid out, it is now well overdue that we honestly assess the impact of the Equality Act on people in the workplace and wider society and consider whether there is need for change. It is best practice to always reassess and measure outcomes, rather than assuming that something is working as intended.
I wish to focus on the public sector equality duty in the Act and on its broader impact on our public institutions. It was undoubtedly a well-meaning clause. However, as is often the case, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The public sector equality duty in section 149 imposes a legal burden on public bodies to
“have due regard to the need to…eliminate discrimination…advance equality of opportunity…and…foster good relations”
between people with different protected characteristics. That all sounds rather wonderful, but the reality is that it has become a powerful, often unaccountable force that we see distorting public priorities and fuelling ideological dogma. We see local councils that are more concerned with ensuring that residents are anti-racist than with ensuring that bus services to schools and colleges are adequate. We see them painting rainbows on our roads rather than fixing them, and speaking warm words about the importance of accessibility for disabled people while failing to cut hedges back or adjust bus stops.
We all undoubtedly support the ambition that everyone—no matter their protected, or indeed unprotected, characteristics—be given the same opportunities, be treated fairly and have the chance to thrive and prosper through hard work and talent. However, looking at the impact that the public sector duty has had, I believe that it was a mistake to think that that was the answer. If anything, it has highlighted difference, undermined meritocracy and, in some cases, pitted groups against each other. It is now often helpful to someone’s career or studies to be oppressed in some shape or form, leading to the absurd situation in which some of the most talented people are blocked. That does no one any favours, and certainly not our country.
EDI, or DEI as some people call it, has become a lucrative industry. Every public body, from local district councils and hospitals to police forces and schools, is now required to evidence, audit, review and revise policies in the light of how they impact protected groups, regardless of the outcomes that those policies deliver. A 2022 Policy Exchange report found that major public institutions are spending tens of millions of pounds annually on equality, diversity and inclusion roles, as well as training and compliance measures, all to ensure that they tick the right boxes against the public sector equality duty.
The issue is not just the cost. What makes the public sector equality duty potentially damaging is the way in which it enables particular ideologies to seep into institutions and spaces that ought to be wholly neutral on such issues. Because the duty is so broadly framed, and because it requires anticipatory rather than reactive compliance, it has given rise to a culture of pre-emptive overreach. Public bodies feel compelled to insert themselves into questions of speech, behaviour and belief that ought to lie outside their remit. More and more, we see a move away from facts and evidence towards fashionable beliefs within institutions that should be impartial. We see that in councils demanding that their staff include pronouns in their signatures, in police forces being trained to detect unconscious bias, and even in the Welsh Government, where they have pledged to make the country anti-racist.
There is nothing neutral or impartial about such choices. They reflect specific world views, and by embedding them in policy and practice, the public sector equality duty is demanding adherence to such ideas as a precondition for working in the public sector or using its services. That cannot be right. It is little wonder that public confidence has been eroded. More in Common’s “Shattered Britain” report tells of swathes of the public who now view public institutions with mistrust, partly because within such institutions a narrow set of values now dominates, and any dissent is smacked down as bigotry or even dismissed as far-right.
Like all Members present, no doubt, I have heard accounts from my constituents of what that looks like in practice. I have heard from people who feel baffled and confused by all the focus on diversity, unconscious bias and pronouns, rather than on things that actually affect their day-to-day life in a meaningful way, such as fly-tipping and potholes.
My central point is that the public sector equality duty does not just waste taxpayer money; it actively distorts how services are delivered and allows ideology to permeate them. We have seen NHS trusts wasting fortunes on a parade of diversity-focused roles. In the case of NHS Fife, the bureaucratic machinery was brought to bear against a nurse for objecting to a biological man entering her changing room. Meanwhile, West Yorkshire police felt that it would be a valid use of £4.5 million to send their entire workforce away to be lectured for two days on the slave trade. We can only wonder if that time would have been better spent trying to solve some crimes.
I am of the view that we should reconsider whether the public sector equality duty is fit for purpose, and whether a return to a model under which equality means equal treatment for all would have better outcomes.
Warinder Juss
I accept that we should not have tick-box exercises, but does the hon. Member not agree that legislation should reflect changing social values? Were it not for the fact that we have equality legislation, we might still be suffering the social ills that we suffered back in the ’60s and ’70s, which I remember from growing up in Wolverhampton. We have moved on. Does the hon. Member not agree that that is partly because of the legislation that has been passed to highlight to people what is and is not acceptable?
Rebecca Paul
I think the hon. Member and I will just have to disagree, because I do not believe that legislation is the solution to these things. What is much more powerful is societal attitudes and norms, and education. That is how we get the change that we want. That is also how to ensure that the spirit of the ambition is met. As soon as we try to legislate, there will be loopholes and grey areas where it is not quite clear what something means. We have got ourselves mixed up in a whole host of issues and trouble as a result of trying to define something that is common sense.
All of us in this Chamber undoubtedly share the same ambition. We want everyone to be treated fairly; we just disagree on the way to do it. I do not think that it is possible to prescribe in legislation how people should act decently. There will always be some loophole or difference in interpretation that means that the law can be misused. I believe that it is absolutely right to move away from thinking that legislation is the silver bullet to all our ills. We should actually put faith in the behaviour of the people of this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford says, we dealt with these things before and we have the mechanisms to do this.
Most people in this country are well-intended and trying to do the right thing. Let us have some faith in this country and not just tie ourselves up in knots. Let us get back to delivering for our constituents and residents. They do not want us tying ourselves up in knots, effectively looking for social injustice the whole time rather than cracking on and sorting out our NHS so that everyone gets the treatment they need, and ensuring that our schools are giving the best education for our children. Let us get back to the priorities of the British people and stop wasting our time with all this stuff.
Right: back to my speech. I think I have summed it up in my response to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), so I will finish by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Romford again for securing the debate. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. It has been a good use of our time to debate how effective the Equality Act and its various provisions have been. I hope that we will continue this important conversation.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for bringing this debate, although I do not think it will surprise him to know that the Liberal Democrats do not agree with most of what he has said either, I am sorry.
The Equality Act was a landmark in our legal and social history. It consolidated decades of anti-discrimination laws into one clear piece of legislation and gave expression to values that I think most of us share: fairness, dignity and equal opportunity. Since it came into force, the Act has had a real impact. It has given workers stronger tools to challenge discrimination in the workplace. It has supported equal pay claims and required organisations to make accessibility a priority. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) produced an absolutely brilliant video on Instagram yesterday, showing the BBC around this place and, in the process, demonstrating how absolutely inaccessible it is for people like her.
Just as importantly, the Act has helped to normalise the idea that equality is not optional but the baseline that we expect in a modern society. But legislation is only ever as strong as the means of enforcing it. The cuts to both the Equality and Human Rights Commission and to legal aid have made it much harder in practice for people to challenge discrimination. We can pass the most ambitious laws in the world, but if people cannot access justice, rights remain theoretical.
There is also more to do. Although the Act has been vital in tackling workplace discrimination, carers still face significant barriers at work. Too many people—often women—find themselves having to choose between their job and their caring responsibilities. At the last election, the Liberal Democrats called for caring to be recognised as a protected characteristic under the Act, which would place a duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments for those with caring responsibilities, so that people can balance work and care more effectively. This would be a practical reform and it is long overdue.
We must also acknowledge where the Act has gaps. It does not explicitly address intersectionality, whereby people can face multiple and overlapping forms of discrimination. For example, someone might be disabled and from an ethnic minority background, but the way that those disadvantages interact is not always recognised by the current framework. We need to consider that more carefully.
Also, new challenges are emerging. Much of our daily life now takes place online—at work, in education and in our social lives. Digital exclusion and online discrimination and abuse are real and growing problems. If equality is to mean anything in the 21st century, the protections that we offer must evolve to meet new realities.
The Equality Act should provide a framework that protects all groups. It should not be used to stoke so-called culture wars or to set the rights of one community against those of another, for example by pitting the majority population—whoever they are—against the diverse. Our approach should be evidence-based, respectful and rooted in the belief that upholding the rights of one group strengthens the rights of all.
The Equality Act was a landmark. Our task now is to defend it, to strengthen it and to ensure that it continues to live up to its original promise of fairness, dignity and equal opportunity for everyone.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on securing this debate. This issue is having a fundamental impact on our society but is not discussed enough. I associate myself with his remarks about Don’t Divide Us and its excellent report, which I urge everybody to read.
We are not a country that divides ourselves into tribe, clan or creed. We do not believe that one sex is more intelligent or more modest than the other. We do not persecute people for their religion or sexuality. At our heart, we are a country built on Christian and enlightenment values and common law. The desire for reason and the belief that we should want for our neighbour what we want for ourselves and that we should be equal before the law have steered us towards being a more meritocratic society than almost any other in the world.
I believe in making sure that opportunity can reach people no matter their background, class or circumstances, and I do think that we have some way to go in that regard. However, deep in our national psyche, we believe in judging someone by their character and not by their characteristics.
There is a proud legacy of laws passed by Parliament that shows this tendency of ours to protect the few from discrimination or harassment by the many. As many Members have said, the Equality Act 2010 brought together many existing laws on discrimination, including rights for pregnant women and disabled people. Those were certainly important pieces of legislation, but they serve as a reminder that just as human rights were not created by the Human Rights Act in 1998, equality was not created by the Equality Act in 2010.
The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), talked about being evidence-based; the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights conducted a review of the public sector equality duty in Scotland and found that
“there was virtually no robust evidence of positive change in the lives of people with protected characteristics”.
We should not fall into the trap of treating this piece of legislation as flawless or beyond scrutiny just because it speaks to values that we hold dear.
The Equality Act did not just bring together discrimination and harassment laws, but went much further. It imposed a legal duty on public bodies and private institutions to promote equality based on nine specific characteristics. In turn, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romford pointed out, that has created an industry that wants to force a statistically perfect division on the basis of sex and race in all parts of society, even though that is impossible to achieve. It encourages us to presume that every disparity is a result of prejudice and to turn even minor workplace differences into legal grievances. Worst of all, unelected officials in our institutions have worked behind closed doors with radical activists, who prescribe social engineering to get equal outcomes, even when it takes a hammer to the British people’s sense of fairness and is against the law.
In seeking to progress equality, these aspects of the Act have changed our culture and taken us backwards. We do not believe that people should be held back from progression because of their protected characteristics, but in the RAF, white male recruits were deliberately blocked from training and given fewer opportunities because of their race and sex. We do not believe that women should be paid less than men for the same work, but in the Department for Education, they are using the Equality Act to justify paying men a thousand pounds more than women for the same jobs in childcare.
We do not believe in employing people just because of their race, but senior officers at West Yorkshire police rigged the recruitment process to hire an ethnic minority candidate, who had failed their interview, just to meet a diversity target. Thanks to the Labour Government, a young person’s opportunity to take their first steps serving this country in the civil service is based not on how hard they work but on what job their parents did when their child was 14 years old. If you are the child of a nurse, cabbie or shopkeeper, I am sorry, but you are just not working class enough—the door is shut to you. In internships up and down the country, including at MI6, young white people have been told they cannot even apply.
Here is the problem: the Equality Act has created a hierarchy of diversity. Women are told that their rights are not as important as trans rights. If a white boy grew up in care, had parents were alcoholics or had recovered from a life-changing disease, tough luck—he is not as deserving as an ethnic minority. Who is to say whose adversity has been more of a challenge? How can we fit the whole of human experience into these tidy little boxes? When rights clash, as they do, who gets to choose which group is deemed more worthy? When it came to gender ideology, it was bureaucrats behind closed doors, often working hand in glove with extreme activist groups. When women lost their jobs or were forced to share changing rooms with men, it was HR departments citing the Equality Act who held the pitchforks. Across the NHS, police forces, local councils and Government Departments, it was unelected officials who were using the Equality Act as a weapon to undermine meritocracy.
In the cases of Birmingham and Next, it was unaccountable, independent experts who decided that manual shift work was equal to retail and office work. In the case of Next, when employees were given the chance, they refused to move to warehouses. The work was deemed of equal value, even when it was clearly not thought to be so by the workers themselves. That is simply absurd. One ruling bankrupted a council, and the other will push up costs for consumers, all because of decisions made by people who are unaccountable. More such cases are on the way.
This hierarchy of diversity does not reflect the values upon which this country was built: fairness and merit, judging individuals by their actions and their character, not by their immutable characteristics. We cannot assign innocence or guilt, merit or privilege, by characteristic, placing some groups on a pedestal while others are pushed aside. The public see a society where protection is selective, and where the playing field tilts towards those who can claim special status. We heard today calls from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) to have yet more special statuses, but surely, the answer is this: the law that protects me from discrimination should protect my hon. Friend the Member for Romford and his constituents from discrimination, when we are all equal before the law.
It is about to get worse, because the Government are set on introducing an Islamophobia definition, which they have tried to do behind closed doors. That will have a chilling effect on the ability of our public services to grasp difficult and sensitive issues, such as grooming gangs, gender inequality or Islamist extremism. They are doing this under the pretence of combating hatred and violence, which are already against the law.
Instead of doing the hard graft of breaking down barriers and creating opportunity, Ministers want to hand yet more powers to consultants and HR officials in a undefined race and equality Bill to further shape the world according to who they deem worthy. It is easier, after all, to talk about quotas at diversity conferences than it is to fix entrenched problems in education, geography, family structures and culture. Because it is easier to judge physical characteristics, it risks creating a system that overlooks each individual’s personal circumstances and what they may have overcome.
Giving pen pushers more authority to dictate who is privileged does not create more opportunity or make Britain more fair or prosperous, so we should ask: what message does this send to our children? Do we want them to believe that their future is determined by tick boxes on a form? Do we want them to grow up thinking that fairness means that some doors are closed to them because of their race or sex, or do we want them to live in a country where the law guarantees equal treatment and opportunity for all?
It is time to put an end to the social experiment and return to first principles: equal treatment under the law, equal opportunity in life and the belief that the people of this country can rise as far as their talent and determination can take them. That is what genuine equality looks like, and that is what the British people believe in.
Warinder Juss
I take the right hon. Lady’s point about everyone being equal under the law, but what happens if somebody is not made equal under the law? What redress would that person have, were it not for legislation that is currently in place?
Claire Coutinho
I believe that the hon. Gentleman is talking about discrimination. The point of being equal under the law is that the same protections from discrimination can protect his constituents, the hon. Member for Romford and me. The whole point of our common-law system is that we must all face the same law, whether that is for penalty or in the case of discrimination and harassment. He refers to many of the examples of discrimination and harassment that are in the Equality Act, but they were not created by that Act; they were created decades and decades earlier.
The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan, and to respond to the debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for securing it. It is important that we discuss these issues in this place and have a debate about what evidence we use in these debates, whether some evidence should be challenged and what opportunities there are to look at other pieces of evidence differently. It is important to continue to have an evidence-based discussion, be respectful when we challenge the premises on which we choose to build our opinions and come back to what we all want to see: equality of opportunity for all.
On the first point on which I gently—or perhaps not so gently—disagree with the hon. Gentleman, I fundamentally believe that equality enables freedom for people to be able to live their lives, to rent and to work, without fear of discrimination or prejudice holding them back.
An important point was raised in this debate: we all want and believe that everybody should be equal under the law. They should be and I hope that they are, but there is a fundamental question about what happens when somebody is discriminated against and how our legal framework can bring redress. We are talking not about whether we believe in equality, but whether we believe that the law should defend people’s equality, and whether that is a value we all subscribe to.
Let me say something about how this has become about identifying whether someone is British. Let me tell the hon. Member for Romford that I am proud to identify as British before anything else, as somebody who was born in Hammersmith. He may also want to challenge those who, on my appointment as a Foreign Office Minister this week—perhaps he did not get the same on his appointment as a shadow Foreign Office Minister—told me that I was another foreigner and should go home. This is my home. This is my country. This is my Parliament. It is important that everything we say in this House defends our democracy and people’s right to live their lives in this country equally.
It is important that we understand our responsibility as legislators to ensure that we have a legal framework that defends people’s rights, particularly against a rising climate of hate and racism. I am sure that all Members across the House, whatever their background, will want to ensure that all their constituents—many of whom will have lived here for decades, bringing up their families, being law-abiding citizens, paying their taxes, contributing to our public services, starting and growing their businesses—are protected under the law. It is extremely important that we do not go backwards on the rights and freedoms that we protect under our legislation.
I welcome this opportunity to champion the positive impact of Labour’s Equality Act 2010. This year is the 15th anniversary, which is an important chance to recognise the other side of the argument: the achievements of that historic, landmark legislation. The Act was passed by giants of our movement, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Baroness Harman for her work on it. With a vision of bringing legislation together to simplify it and avoid different parts competing against one another, Britain’s equalities provisions were consolidated into one Act of Parliament, cementing rights in Britain for generations to come, empowering people who experience discrimination with the knowledge that they have the law and systems on their side and, importantly, giving them redress when it is needed.
Claire Coutinho
I thank the Minister for her speech. Labour Members always try to equate protections against discrimination and harassment with the entirety of the Equality Act but, as many have said, protections against discrimination and harassment existed before the Act. They also exist in many other pieces of legislation, such as the Public Order Act 1986 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988. What answer does the Minister have to my questions about the public sector equality duty, which talks about advancing equality by taking specific action to address disproportionate participation? That is where we have seen some internships excluding young white people, for example.
Seema Malhotra
Let me make a couple of remarks in response to the right hon. Lady’s challenge. It is important that our legislation is used in a way that follows the letter and spirit of the law. I do not want to see debates like this become culture wars. We want to be led by the evidence.
The right hon. Lady raised the issue of white working-class males. We have seen in the data that there is an underperformance among that group, which is really important. It is unacceptable that any young person is either not given the opportunity to succeed or not supported. Over the next year, it is our priority to tackle head-on the gap facing white working-class pupils, which the right hon. Lady will know because she is an avid follower of what the Government are doing. It is important that we look at where there is underperformance statistically and whether there are systemic issues in relation to that. This autumn, our schools White Paper will set out an ambitious and practical plan for tackling generational challenges; that is important, and I am sure the right hon. Lady will want to contribute to the Government’s work in that respect.
I will come back to a couple of other points should time permit, including about positive action provisions, which relate to the right hon. Lady’s own Government’s guidance. The positive action provisions in the Act allow limited exceptions to the general position that one group should not be treated better or worse than another. Lawful positive action is always voluntary and must relate to one or more of three conditions: addressing a disadvantage associated with a protected characteristic; providing for a protected characteristic group’s specific needs; or tackling disproportionately low participation by a group. The previous guidance, published in 2023, makes it clear that that is very different from positive discrimination. The right hon. Lady knows that mandatory quotas to recruit or promote people from a particular group irrespective of merit would be unlawful.
I want to make some points about the progress we have seen under the Equality Act and equality legislation, from ending child labour through to votes for women and the Race Relations Act—Labour’s first equality legislation around 60 years ago. Social progress often means that what was once controversial becomes a new normal—a new baseline. Indeed, legislation can change culture, just as culture can change legislation. I am proud that we are in what I hope is a more equal society—one that is more tolerant and believes in respect for each other—compared with the environment that my parents found when they first came to Britain to work, to contribute and to be in business. My mum was a teacher. What they experienced was dramatically changed by the legislation that was brought in, and that gave me opportunities. I remember being spat at when I walked down the street in Feltham and other places, but we are now in an environment where everyone should be able to grow up proud of who they are and able to play their part equally in British society.
Our landmark legislation was a triumph for how the whole nation, including business and unions, came together. I am incredibly proud that we have seen progress, from the implementation of the minimum wage to scrapping section 28 and bringing in same-sex marriage. If we were to scrap all our equality legislation, we might want to answer the questions that would be raised by Members of Parliament who are in same-sex relationships and who have married their partners. I could draw on the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Alan Gemmell) and others. If we rolled back all our equality legislation, what would we be saying to them about how they have been able to come together, marry their loved ones and live their life in Britain, just as we should allow anybody to marry the person they love?
A handful of people in this House would like to take us backwards, to a time before our values were underscored in law and before fairness was put at the heart of our legal framework, but I believe it is important to be proud of the rights we are afforded by the Equality Act. I am a little unsure of the time I have remaining.
Seema Malhotra
I have a few additional remarks. Our Equality Act had a number of objectives: first, to bring together myriad pieces of primary and secondary legislation that had built up, so that we could have one clear, coherent framework that the British people could feel confident in; secondly, to modernise some of the language and concepts used, to make them clearer and more accessible, such as the fact that discrimination linked to breastfeeding is sex discrimination; and thirdly, to strengthen the law by, for example, introducing protection from discrimination by association across various protected characteristics. ACAS guidance gives as an example of the latter a parent being unfairly dismissed from work because of time taken off at short notice to care for their disabled child.
It is important to recognise the progress we have made and where we want to go further. Building on the success of gender pay gap reporting, we committed in our manifesto to introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for large employers, and to make the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people. The hon. Member for Romford might be interested to know that we have been working on that with business, and that many large businesses already follow such practice. We had a consultation and call for evidence, which we are looking at before coming back to the House. Leaders of successful international businesses have told me that more transparency and awareness enables a shift to a more inclusive culture, raising awareness and improving transparency. It also improves staff morale and satisfaction, respect for others and their backgrounds, and understanding—all things that I believe the hon. Member would be keen to see for his constituents and for others across the country.
Let me address some of the other points made in the debate, starting with addressing head-on the point about the definition of Islamophobia and the ongoing working group. Members will have heard it said in Parliament before that, should the Government accept the recommendations of the working group, the definition used will be non-statutory. It will enable the Government and other relevant bodies to have a greater understanding of the unacceptable treatment and prejudice against Muslim communities.
We have seen a massive rise in hate crime against the Muslim and Jewish communities, which accounts for about 71% of hate crime in the past year. As the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) knows, the working group’s proposed definition must be compatible with the unchanging right of British citizens to exercise freedom of belief and expression, which includes the right to criticise, express dislike of or insult religions and/or the beliefs and practices of adherence. We fundamentally believe in freedom of speech but we do not believe in hate. It is important to have a legal framework that supports people’s rights to have their own freedom of religion and belief, without fear of what could happen to them.
We see our work on equality and tackling barriers to opportunity as being at the heart of how we support positive and inclusive growth for our economy and communities. The strong equalities framework drafted by the previous Labour Administration, further enhanced by the commitments of this Government, is ultimately about fairness for all, and will see us boost productivity and household income, getting more money in people’s pockets and raising living standards for all as we deliver the next phase in our programme of government renewal.
Let me come back on the comment about rainbows on roads and pavements. I remember that during the pandemic rainbows were everywhere, for what they symbolise in so many ways, including a commitment to equality. Perhaps the issue of road repairs is less about rainbows drawn on pavements and roads and much more about the cuts made under the previous Government. My local authority saw a 60% cut in income in the first 10 years of the Conservative Government. That had a massive impact on how we were able to renew and maintain infrastructure in our community. The hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) should know that dealing with roads and potholes is a priority not just for central Government but for my local government in Hounslow.
In conclusion, I want to be clear that the Government are very proud of the Equality Act 2010 and remain committed to improving equality and fairness for all through our Employment Rights Bill and other legislation. I look forward to seeing that come forward in our legislative programme.
Andrew Rosindell
Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, for chairing today’s debate, which has been extremely valuable. We have heard excellent contributions. There have been different opinions, but we have debated this issue in a respectful way. There are issues to be addressed, and all Members who spoke today have made extremely valid points, coming from different angles. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) for his remarks. I took on board the point he made about caste discrimination, which is rarely spoken about. I thank him for drawing that to our attention.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always makes incredibly valid points in all the debates in which he speaks. He made the point that we may have differences—we all do, as we are all individuals; none of us are the same—but we have to live side by side, and legislation should empower the British people to live side by side in a free society, not pit them against one another and accentuate division by emphasising differences between us. We should be united as British people, rather than looking at how we can be more divided and act like we are victims. Too many in our society today are doing that because the Equality Act has created that culture.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) made extremely powerful comments, and I agree with everything she said, particularly about the public sector—especially local government—and how diversity culture has taken over, wasting so much money, causing so many divisions and ignoring issues. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) made the point about focusing on what matters to real people in the real world, rather than looking inwards. Let us focus on providing good, efficient public services rather than draining resources with the diversity agenda.
I thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). They also made extremely valid points, particularly about the division of Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom, which I have always opposed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey got absolutely to the point of where this has all gone wrong. All of us want to see people treated fairly and decently in a society in which freedom is cherished, but it does not all have to be legislated for. Often things evolve; society changes in a natural way. If we try to legislate for everything, that is just a gift to the lawyers, judges and consultants, and all the people who will monetise legislation that gives them the opportunity to.
I have always respected the Minister, and she spoke brilliantly today. She made points that I did not agree with, but many that I did agree with. I think we have all been subjected to hateful language—as Members of Parliament, we get that probably more than most people—and hatred is wrong in any context. We should always treat people with respect, kindness and generosity, but at the same time prevent those with bad intentions from causing more divisions, so our legislation needs to be minimal rather than opening up more opportunities for division in society.
Ultimately, I believe in freedom—freedom with responsibility. I do not believe that diversity is always the right answer. It can cause division, and I think equality can sometimes be the opposite of freedom, so let us get back to basics. Let us be proud of our British heritage, which has always been based on fairness and equality under the law of these islands.
I thank all Members for participating in this important debate and I say to those who have not had the chance: please get a copy of the Don’t Divide Us report, because it explains a lot of things that we as Members of Parliament should be addressing today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of the Equality Act 2010 on British society.
Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
I will call Jim Allister to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make speeches only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Windsor Framework Internal Market Guarantee.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. In bringing this matter to the House again, the intention is to retain a focus on the egregious and anti-business situation that continues to prevail in respect of internal trade to Northern Ireland within this United Kingdom.
However one dresses this matter up—the Government excel in their attempts in that regard—the fundamental reality is this: courtesy of the post-Brexit arrangements that were first enunciated in the protocol and then, by change of name, in the Windsor framework, we have the absurd situation whereby a part of this United Kingdom is governed by the trade laws of a foreign jurisdiction, namely the EU. The very essence of being part of the United Kingdom should surely be the unfettered nature of trade: the fact that people can trade as freely from Cardiff to Carlisle or from Gloucester to Glasgow as they should be able to trade from Birmingham to Belfast. That is the essence of being in a United Kingdom, where unfettered trade lies at the heart of that economic union. Of course, that is already specified in article 6 of our Act of Union.
The current arrangements are based on the fact that when Brexit occurred, Northern Ireland, instead of getting Brexit, was left behind under the EU’s customs code. That means that Northern Ireland is treated for these purposes as EU territory, and that GB is treated in that context as a third, or foreign, country. Hence, under the purview of the EU customs code, there is a need for the Irish sea border—an Irish sea border that is not established directly under United Kingdom law but that is provided for by various EU provisions.
We have the most astounding position that the regulation of goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland comes under EU legislation. EU regulations 2023/1128 and 2023/1231 specify the “customs formalities” for trade from GB to Northern Ireland and the
“rules relating to the entry into Northern Ireland from other parts of the United Kingdom of certain consignments of…goods”.
Even in the title of that EU legislation we see how wrong and absurd it is that trade within this United Kingdom, which is supposed to be a free internal market, is governed by laws that we do not make anywhere in this United Kingdom—laws that we cannot change anywhere within this United Kingdom, but that are made by 27 other countries. That is not just an economic outrage but a democratic outrage.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not find it astounding not only that the laws on the border were made by the European Union, but that when it comes to those laws being applied, EU officials are actually directing officials from Northern Ireland as to which lorry should be searched, which goods should be looked for and which actions should be taken? We have foreign laws and foreign officials dictating the terms of trade between GB and Northern Ireland.
Jim Allister
It invariably amounts to Northern Ireland being treated as an EU colony, and it has all those characteristics. Into this comes some of these magical phrases, such as the internal market guarantee—that sounds very reassuring. Listening to that terminology, we would think that the protection of our internal trade is guaranteed. It is then further ensconced by the deceptive language of the UK internal market system. It is nothing of the sort; it is not a UK internal market system.
The genesis of this is very interesting. We had the protocol, and we then had the Windsor framework. That change of name introduced this concept of a UK internal market system, which is really the green lane, as it was previously called. We then had the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper, which was supposed to bring in groundbreaking innovations, but its only innovation was giving cover to the DUP to get back into government with Sinn Féin, and to help implement the protocol. Within that Command Paper, we then had the internal market guarantee, but let us look at this UK internal market system.
It is not a system that allows free and unfettered trade from GB to Northern Ireland; it is a system that brings the operation of the international customs border down one peg. We have the red lane—a full-blown international customs border enforced by the EU—that partitions the United Kingdom with a border down the Irish sea. With this deceptive language, we then have the so-called UK internal market system, or the green lane. However, it still requires customs declarations, an export number and a percentage of checks, so it is anything but a free internal market. It is the encapsulation of the enforcement of EU requirements on our internal trade within the United Kingdom—under their control, not UK control. The depths of attempts to find deceptive language only compounds the insult involved.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. and learned Gentleman on securing this debate. Of course, the issue goes further than that; it has escalated for businesses and delivery services in my constituency of Strangford and further afield in Northern Ireland because of so-called changes in the internal market, as there always is a cost factor now. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Minister and the Government must do what they promised years ago and sort out the mess? Further, does he agree that they must initiate their withdrawal from the agreement that has been put forward?
Jim Allister
Of course, it was the last Government who, in their folly, brought this upon us. However, this Government, with maybe greater enthusiasm, are implementing the partitioning and dividing of the United Kingdom. The economic consequence of that is the diversion of trade; most of our raw materials come from GB, and we had a very integrated UK economy in which Northern Ireland was heavily dependent on its trade to and from GB. However, we are saying to a business supplier in GB, “If you want to send goods to Northern Ireland, or even if you want to send a parcel to Northern Ireland, you must have an export number and fill in a customs declaration, and we will carry out a percentage of checks on the goods.” That is on the supposed internal market system, never mind the red lane.
The Government are deliberately and consciously closing their eyes to this, but its natural consequence is diversion of trade, which has been self-evident in recent years. The Government do not want to observe it or take account of it, because they should be under a duty to act under article 16 of the protocol. But this is a Government that have so kowtowed to the EU that they are never going to act on the issues that they should do.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for securing this debate and for continuing to raise what is an important issue. He mentioned the manufacturers, but would he also agree about the impact on the Road Haulage Association? We have seen not only the implementation of additional bureaucracy and costs but the recent introduction of the import control system 2—ICS2—which the Government said would go live in September. They then told hauliers that it would be live in December of this year, but they actually put the system live in August without engagement or interaction with the Road Haulage Association and hauliers in Northern Ireland, increasing bureaucracy and costs.
Jim Allister
Yes, and when it comes to spending money on partitioning the United Kingdom, this Government have no qualms. We have seen expenditure of £190 million to build border posts. Where are there border posts other than at an international border? That is the reality of the United Kingdom today; it is partitioned by an international customs border. When someone goes from GB to Northern Ireland, they are effectively leaving one customs territory, governed by the laws of the United Kingdom, and entering a customs territory governed by the laws of the EU—laws, I say again, that we do not make and cannot change. It is such a fundamental assault on not just our constitutional position but our businesses and trade, that it is causing increasing difficulties.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Northern Ireland remains subject to over 300 areas of EU law, meaning that our businesses face checks, paperwork and ongoing diversions that no other firms or businesses in England, Scotland or Wales have to contend with. Even recently, there have been numerous lorries turned back at the ports for transporting food, which we were told was sorted out. Is this not a clear breach of the principles of unfettered access, and a fundamental weakening of our place within the Union?
Jim Allister
Of course it is, but that is the intent of the protocol. No one should be under any illusion: the Windsor framework is designed to set the scene to usher Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom by the mechanism of creating an all-Ireland economy. That mechanism works in this way: it makes it increasingly difficult to trade from GB, therefore forcing business to look elsewhere for supplies; it then maximises the north-south dimension and builds an all-Ireland economy—that is the purpose of the protocol—as a stepping stone of taking Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. That is the very clear, iniquitous political purpose of the protocol. It is that that this Government and the last were facilitating with some enthusiasm.
Now, the Government told us, “Oh, we are going to take all sorts of steps to make sure that trade is not diverted. We even passed the Internal Market Act—that must be good. Section 46—doesn’t that guarantee you all sorts of wonderful things?” The Government then said, “We are going to set aside a lot of money. We are going to introduce the mutual assistance scheme.” Let me talk about the mutual assistance scheme: it was brought in to assist businesses that were having difficulties with the costs imposed at the border. It was extended, but finally ran out on 30 June this year. This Government did not extend it. What does that mean? I will tell you, Dr Allin-Khan.
I have a potato wholesale business in my constituency that relies on bringing potatoes from GB to Northern Ireland. Since 30 June, the cost of a veterinary inspection for those potatoes has been £127.60, and the cost of the phytosanitary certificate has been £25.52. That was previously covered by the movement assistance scheme, but now it is put upon the supplier in GB. And what does he do? Surprise, surprise, he puts it upon the recipient in Northern Ireland. If that is not guaranteed to dissuade trade and force trade diversion, I cannot imagine what is.
Here is the question for the Government: in the plethora of assurances that they gave when they said that they were not trying to drive Northern Ireland trade and business out of the United Kingdom, why did they not renew the movement assistance scheme? I trust that the Minister, who knows more about these things than anyone else in this Government, will explain why they did not renew it.
Will the same thing happen with the Trader Support Service? Will it run out, too? Will our businesses increasingly be left marooned and alone to bear unconscionable financial burdens? The Government need to answer those questions, but the fundamental thing they need to address is this: when will they recover their dignity and pride—they are supposedly the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—by controlling the borders of the United Kingdom and expelling the internal, partitionist international trade border that has been imposed on Northern Ireland? Unless and until they do that, this issue is not and cannot be settled. They cannot go on brushing it under the carpet and increasing the pressure by abandoning issues such as the movement assistance scheme.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Government, in their own words in the framework document, have accepted that without smooth trading there will be economic and constitutional impacts? They not only owe it to the economy of Northern Ireland to sort out these issues; if they do not, they are accepting that they are happy enough to see the constitutional position of Northern Ireland affected.
Jim Allister
Sadly, the only conclusion one can make is that they are happy enough about that.
What is this internal market guarantee guaranteeing? That 80% of goods from Northern Ireland, instead of passing through the full-blown international customs border, will pass through the international customs border that we misname the “internal market system”, but they will still require a customs number, customs declarations and checks. The guarantee is 80%. You cannot be 80% pregnant, and you cannot be 80% part of the United Kingdom. We need to be completely part of the United Kingdom, and that requires the restoration of where this United Kingdom started, under article 6 of the Acts of Union: free and unfettered trade, equal for all parts of this kingdom.
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, I think for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing this debate, and I thank the other Members for their interventions. He has also asked me questions in the main Chamber a number of times, and he always makes his case powerfully. He and I share a background in law—we were barristers before becoming Members of Parliament—so I recognise how he structures his argument effectively.
I begin with the things on which we agree, and I will leave it to the hon. and learned Gentleman to judge at the end of the debate whether my language is “dressing up”. We agree on the importance of protecting Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK’s internal market, and I repeat my commitment to that endeavour today. That is every bit as sincere as the commitment I made to stakeholders across Northern Ireland when I visited. I have great affection for Northern Ireland. When I came into this job, an early priority of mine was to visit Belfast to speak to politicians, visit the Assembly and speak to businesses and people across Northern Ireland.
Yes, of course I speak today as a Minister in the Government, but it is also my great privilege to serve as Member of Parliament for Torfaen. Serving as a Welsh Member of Parliament only adds to my conviction that our nations of this United Kingdom stand to achieve far more economically, socially and culturally by working together than we would ever achieve alone.
I say directly to the hon. and learned Member, and indeed to all those who have intervened today, that this Government’s commitment to the UK internal market is not a vague concept or an aspiration; it is real.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Member for giving way and for his engagement on this issue. I wrote to him at the beginning of the year, asking him to come to hear directly from businesses in Upper Bann. The offer was declined, but he kindly sent officials along.
The impact was laid bare at the meeting with those officials last week by used agricultural machinery folks, by small retailers who are impacted by the parcels border, and by agrifood businesses. Each business around the table noted the diversion of trade. Today, we are alerting the Minister to the diversion of trade. What is he doing about it? There is anecdotal evidence from each of those businesses, but there is also evidence from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency that the proportion of GB manufacturing selling to Northern Ireland has reduced from 20.1% to 12.9%. We need action, and we need it now.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will certainly be visiting Northern Ireland again. However, on the diversion of trade, that is precisely what the independent monitoring panel is currently looking at. The panel is looking at it for the earlier part of this year, and I expect it to report shortly. Of course, when the panel makes recommendations, where there are issues, the Government will consider them very carefully.
The Government’s commitment to the UK internal market is in our manifesto. It is set out in law, in section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which, to respond to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, also explicitly provides that Northern Ireland is part of the UK’s customs territory. As I say, this issue is not just about the guarantee, important though that is; it is also important that the independent monitoring panel does its work.
I also have to say that the position of Northern Ireland has always been at the forefront of my mind when I have negotiated with the European Union. The hon. and learned Member talks about checks on the Irish sea. Of course, it is the case that this Government will implement the Windsor framework in good faith. Indeed, I give credit to the previous Government for negotiating the Windsor framework. We supported it in opposition, and we have implemented it.
Of course, the purpose of what I have been doing is, far from increasing checks on the Irish sea, to reduce them. That is what a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement will do, once we are able to implement it. In a speech I made in recent weeks, I said that I want to see the SPS agreement in place by early 2027. That will have the effect of reducing precisely the kind of checks that the hon. and learned Member has been referring to.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have only about seven minutes left. I will give way to both Members, but I will have to do so quickly.
Mr Campbell
I thank the Minister for giving way. Things have improved only marginally, and not at sufficient speed. I suppose that those of us who live in the real world will say that things would have been much worse if Stormont had not been back up and running. However, I will give an example of the issues.
A constituent who visited me just this week said that they had ordered a product from the Natural History Museum, here in the centre of London, but they got this reply:
“Unfortunately, we are currently unable to ship to any EU countries.”
That is a reply from the Natural History Museum in London to a resident of Northern Ireland who was trying to order a product. Is that not an example of how much distance we have yet to travel?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I would certainly be interested in learning more about that specific case. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about it, I will happily look into it.
Sammy Wilson
I thank the Minister for giving way. Having issued that invitation to my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), Members in this Chamber will probably raise a whole lot more cases.
The Minister has indicated that, as a result of the SPS agreement and so on, checks will be reduced even further. Could he explain why a £140 million border post is being erected in my constituency, with work being frantically carried out to make sure it is operational by October this year? If fewer checks will be needed, why are we spending all this money on building state-of-the-art border posts?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Quite simply it is because, to secure further agreements, the United Kingdom has to show good faith with the agreements it has already signed. The Windsor framework had cross-party support. We voted for it in opposition, so we have to show good faith in implementing it. However, there will come a point when we can reduce the checks—and it is not a point in the distant future, as we will be implementing the SPS agreement by 2027. At that stage, I will be more than happy to visit the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency to see the reduction of checks.
The internal market guarantee mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim is hugely important to the Government. Alongside independent scrutiny, it is there to deal with precisely the concern about trade flows. He talks about “Safeguarding the Union”, which is on my desk as I am looking at this issue.
An exercise has been carried out to see whether the guarantee was being met in the first scrutiny period during the first part of the year—from January to June 2025. As I have indicated, that will report shortly. If the report recommends further action that the Government need to take, we will look at that.
More generally, and the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to this, I have a role not only to supervise the Windsor framework in the Cabinet Office, but to negotiate with the EU. In that endeavour, which I have led and will continue to lead in the months ahead, I have always had Northern Ireland at the forefront of my mind.
There have been a lot of references to businesses, as well as to a number of businesses benefiting from dual market access, such as PRM group, which is investing £15 million in new premises and jobs distributing chilled and frozen foods. The chief executive of Denroy, a manufacturer, said it really has
“the best of both worlds.”
Manufacturing supplier Crushing Screening Parts has described dual market access as giving it
“a huge potential customer basis”
and enabling it to
“fulfil orders quicker than competitors.”
Food supplier Deli-Lites Ireland has described Northern Ireland’s trading arrangement as “very positive” for its businesses, and as having enhanced its competitiveness.
Jim Allister
The spin was that dual market access would make Northern Ireland the Singapore of the west, but the fact is that Invest Northern Ireland has had to say that there has not been a single inward investment because of dual market access. The reason for that is very simple: it is all very well to have access to the EU, but there is no advantage whatsoever if access to raw materials from GB is fettered. Inward investment is not happening because they do not want to have to bring their goods through an international border.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The four businesses I have just quoted evidently do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He and I both want to see an economically successful and prosperous Northern Ireland, and I have no doubt that dual market access will provide that.
I am conscious of the time, but I repeat not just this Government’s commitment, but my personal commitment to the UK internal market. As I negotiate with the European Union, Northern Ireland will be at the forefront of my mind.
Question put and agreed to.
Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Before I call Melanie Ward to move the motion, it is self-evident that this debate is well subscribed. At the moment, just based on the numbers who have put in to speak—there are some hon. Members who have turned up who have not put in to speak, which does not mean they cannot be called—it looks as though the speech limit will be around one minute 30 seconds. If there are more interventions, that may have to be reduced.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered humanitarian access to the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. We meet today almost two years in to the devastating war on Gaza. Over 63,000 Palestinians have been directly killed—44% of them women and children.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
The United Nations estimates that more than 28,000 women and girls have been killed in Gaza over the last two years. We know from recent events that international pressure is not working. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must go further to ensure that aid is allowed to flow in freely and lasting peace is reached?
Melanie Ward
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will have much more to say about that.
Thousands more are likely dead under the rubble as well. There is man-made famine. Schools, hospitals, mosques, homes—the very fabric of life is being destroyed by the Israeli Government. Almost 1,000 Palestinians have been killed in the west bank in the last two years also. I am sure that all of us here will agree that the 7 October 2023 attacks by Hamas were an outrage, and the Israeli hostages must be released. Attacking civilians is never justified. I know there is so much to say about the situation in Gaza in particular, which global experts increasingly assess as a genocide, and that will especially be the case given the Israeli President’s visit, and Israel’s unacceptable attack on Qatar yesterday, clearly designed to scupper any chance of a ceasefire.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Israel’s attack on our friend Qatar—indeed, against the very negotiators that were supposed to be discussing this ceasefire—shows that it has no interest in securing peace, and that there must be consequences for that action?
Melanie Ward
I agree on both points. We have to remember that Qatar was asked by the international community to undertake the hugely important role that it plays in trying to bring about peace and a ceasefire through negotiations. The focus of today’s debate, however, is humanitarian access to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and the ways that aid workers are increasingly being prevented from doing their job, which is to serve civilians in need.
Aid workers serve humanity. When they are prevented from doing their jobs, it is humanity that suffers. In the aftermath of the atrocities of world war two, the main bodies of international humanitarian law were drawn up—what are often called the “laws of war”. Part of their purpose is to ensure that humanitarian aid can reach those in need, and that aid workers can do their jobs safely, in line with humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I apologise for cutting my hon. Friend short; I am due to be meeting the director of the World Food Programme in Palestine shortly. Yesterday I met the ambassador for Jordan; he and his delegates told us that aid is sitting on the border in Jordan, but Israel is preventing aid that could help thousands of people from getting in. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK Government need to do all they can to put pressure on our United States counterparts to force Israel into allowing this aid in?
Melanie Ward
My hon. Friend knows exactly what she is talking about. I agree completely, and I ask her to convey our solidarity to the Palestine director of the World Food Programme when they meet shortly.
To state the obvious: to alleviate the suffering of a population in humanitarian need, aid workers need to be able to reach them. Too often across the world today we see aid workers being restricted from reaching people in need, something that is in violation of the laws of war. Gaza is ground zero for that.
We are all familiar with the barriers that Israel has put in place to stop aid entering Gaza. Indeed, the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), has said that creative solutions, such as floating piers, are needed to get aid into Gaza. We also know that aid drops are deeply flawed. However, the solution to getting aid into Gaza is simple—Israel must open the gates and let it in.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
On that point, it is quite clear, as we have seen, that the number of deaths we have seen at the food distribution centres run by Gaza Humanitarian Foundation—something like 3% of the total number of deaths—is an outrage. Does my hon. Friend agree that restoring an orderly supply of humanitarian aid is critical?
Melanie Ward
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I will come on to say more about that issue.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will be aware of the Global Sumud Flotilla, which is the largest maritime mission to Gaza and includes civilians from across the globe, two of whom are constituents of mine. This aid mission is entirely legal, non-violent and presents no threat to the Israeli Government or Israeli citizens. However, we have already seen attacks on it, and we know from past experience that it may face further attacks. Does she agree that it should be the primary duty of this Government to protect British citizens, including those participating in the flotilla? If so, will she join me in calling on the Minister to outline exactly what the Government will do to secure the safety of our citizens?
Melanie Ward
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am sure that the Minister has heard what she said, and I have a lot more to say about how we can protect civilians and aid workers, too.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is being very generous with her time. Just before this debate, I met Antoine Renard, who made a point to me about the disinformation that is being spread about rotten food, and emphasised the importance of having trusted NGOs, a point my hon. Friend made earlier in her speech. Does she agree that we must compel the President of the United States to recognise those points when he comes to the UK on a state visit next week?
Melanie Ward
My hon. Friend makes an important intervention. Indeed, this topic is riddled with misinformation and errant nonsense, put out there for political reasons; I am sure that we will hear some more of it later on.
The issue of access for aid workers has received much less attention than that of aid not being allowed into Gaza in the first place, but, to state the obvious, it is no use getting malnutrition treatment into a warzone without the skilled staff—whether local or international aid workers —who know how to use it. Being able to reach starving children is obviously essential to saving their lives.
There are many ways of denying humanitarian access: visa and permit restrictions that deny entry; failing to grant movement permission, which means not agreeing to give safe passage to humanitarian workers; putting in place requirements to hand over sensitive information about local staff and clients; threatening to close down banking; and making it simply too dangerous to work in an area. The Israeli Government are using every one of these tactics to shut down legitimate humanitarian operations in Gaza today. It is not Hamas that pay the price for that; it is starving children.
The Israeli Government have a new front in their war. It is against NGOs, including humanitarian aid charities, some of them British. As of yesterday, the Israeli Government have introduced new restrictions on NGO registration, which require international NGOs to share sensitive personal information about Palestinian employees or face termination of their humanitarian operations across the OPT. NGOs such as Medical Aid for Palestinians have made clear that such data-sharing would put lives at risk in such a dangerous context for aid workers, especially given the fact that 98% of aid workers killed have been Palestinian nationals.
One month ago, on 6 August, UN agencies and others issued a warning that, without immediate action, most international NGOs faced deregistration, which would force them to withdraw all international staff and prevent them from providing critical lifesaving aid to Palestinians. The deadline of 9 September passed yesterday; the evidence so far suggests that the staff of aid agencies that speak out about what they witness are being particularly targeted. As a former aid worker who has worked in a range of war zones, including Gaza, I know that advocacy about what we see is vital in trying to bring change.
The move to block international NGOs from operating in Gaza has been compounded since the chilling arrival of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation in May. Let us call it what it is: a bunch of mercenaries, and a disgrace. Since the GHF was set up, more than 2,000 people have been killed in Gaza while seeking aid, in what has been described by Médecins Sans Frontières as “orchestrated killing”. A recent MSF report says that the majority of people attending their clinics after being shot at GHF hubs are
“covered in sand and dust from time spent lying on the ground while taking cover from bullets.”
It quotes one man as saying of the site:
“You find what seems like two million people gathered around five pallets of food. They tell you to enter, you go in, you grab what you can—maybe a can of fava beans, a can of hummus. Then a minute later, gunfire comes from every direction. Shells, gunfire—you can’t even hold onto your can of hummus. You don’t know where the gunfire is coming from.”
Three months after the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation began its operations to supposedly provide humanitarian relief in Gaza, the integrated food security phase classification confirmed that Gaza was in famine for the first time. That is the grim reality of a situation where Israel attacks independent aid workers while its own so-called aid workers attack civilians. At least 531 aid workers and 1,590 health workers, overwhelmingly Palestinian nationals, have been killed in Gaza in the past two years.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Last night I co-hosted an event in Parliament for Wael al-Dahdouh, the former bureau chief of Al Jazeera in Gaza, whose family members have been killed, and five of whose colleagues were killed during a double strike on a hospital only a few weeks ago that also killed four healthcare workers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK Government should stand up for journalists and healthcare workers in Gaza and make sure that their deaths are properly investigated?
Melanie Ward
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who does hugely important work on this topic. Journalists, aid workers and others being able to see and report on what is taking place is massively important, and there are undoubtedly horrific attempts to stop that. Bombing a hospital to kill a journalist is absolutely disgraceful.
There were 940 incidents of attacks on healthcare in Gaza in 2024, more than the total number of health attacks in Ukraine and Sudan put together for that same year. The corresponding figure for the west bank and East Jerusalem is 418 in one year.
I want to give an example of what we mean when we talk about aid workers being attacked. On 18 January 2024, an Israeli F-16 fired a 1,000-lb smart bomb that struck a Medical Aid for Palestinians and International Rescue Committee compound housing aid workers in Gaza’s supposed safe zone of al-Mawasi. It almost killed my then colleagues, including four British doctors. We had to evacuate the doctors, disrupting a lifesaving emergency medical programme, and Palestinian colleagues were traumatised and terrified.
The Israeli military knew who that compound belonged to. I know that because it was personally confirmed to me, as the then chief executive officer of Medical Aid for Palestinians, on 22 December 2023 by the British Embassy in Israel that the IDF knew of our location and had marked it as a humanitarian site. That should have protected us. The IDF knew, too, that our staff were there, having come back to rest from the hospital the previous evening, their movement having been logged properly through the supposed deconfliction system.
After bombing us, the Israeli regime provided six different explanations to the then US and UK Governments and to me for why they had bombed our compound. Those explanations, sometimes provided by and to the very highest levels of Government, ranged from the Israeli military being unaware of what had happened to denying involvement; accepting responsibility for the strike, which had been attempting to hit a target adjacent to our compound, despite the fact that the compound was not close to any other building, which was one of the reasons we selected it; accepting responsibility for the strike and asserting that it was a mistake caused by a defective tail fin on the missile that was fired; and accepting responsibility and advising that what hit the MAP-IRC compound was a piece of aircraft fuselage that had been discharged by the pilot of the Israeli fighter jet. The variety of responses was both farcical and frightening. I think it is reasonable to assume that someone cannot just get in an Israeli fighter jet, take it for a fly and fire at whatever they like. The targets, as we are often told, are very carefully selected.
I highlight, too, the targeted drone attack on the World Central Kitchen convoy—also in a supposedly deconflicted zone—that killed seven aid workers on 1 April last year, the week before I was last in Gaza. That concluded with a hurried internal Israeli investigation where no one was held accountable for murdering humanitarians. On 3 August, just last month, the Israeli military attacked the headquarters of the Palestine Red Crescent Society in Gaza, killing one of its staff in a building that also was known to the Israelis and clearly marked. Their military told the BBC that they were “reviewing the claim” of the PRCS.
Evidence shows that United Nations Relief and Works Agency staff have been killed, faced abuse and been detained on a regular basis, and subjected to sleep deprivation, beatings and attacks by dogs. Time and again, the Israeli military attack aid workers then refuse to properly investigate what happened. The only conclusion we can reach is that they are doing this deliberately—these are war crimes.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case about the catalogue of atrocities being committed. In July, the Prime Minister announced that
“the UK will recognise the state of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza”.
Those steps have not been taken, and the situation has got worse; we saw what happened yesterday in Qatar. Does she agree that the UK must now recognise a Palestinian state as part of a broader push for peace and urgent humanitarian relief?
Melanie Ward
I absolutely agree that it is time to take the historic step of recognising a state of Palestine.
I have some questions for the Minister, but first I want to put one more thing on the record; it points to one of the reasons why the Israeli Government do not want people to see what is taking place. An aid worker who I know very well—a very experienced aid worker in Gaza—told me about a situation that he witnessed in the north of Gaza, in Gaza City, after an Israeli siege of the main hospital there. After the siege, he was one of the first people to enter the compound of the hospital. He told me that what they saw were the remains of many half-buried bodies. In all but one case, it was impossible even to identify the sex of the dead body. The only person they could identify was an old man who had his wrists bound.
This aid worker told me, too, that there was a huge pile of clothes in the compound of the hospital and that when the aid workers entered the compound, many of the people who lived around about the hospital came in and began sifting through the pile of clothes. Because they could not identify the bodies of any of the dead people, the relatives were looking through the pile of clothes to see whether they could identify any of the clothes that had belonged to their loved ones, which would mean their loved ones might be among the dead. This is why we need proper justice, investigations and accountability for what is happening in Gaza.
Does the Minister agree that it is time for an independent investigation into these incidents and others like them? Will the Government support full accountability for these and other war crimes against aid workers, and will he personally take up the case of the MAP-IRC compound bombing with the Israeli Government? Can he share what the Government have done to stop the new restrictions on aid agencies? Will the Government make it clear to Israel that if it proceeds and aid agencies are denied access, it will pay a price for doing this?
Finally, I know that the Minister will not commit to this today, but will he agree to go away and examine expanding the UK sanctions regime to cover all those involved in violations of IHL? The Government have rightly sanctioned violent settlers in the west bank, but they should also target those instructing the blockade of aid and involved in the targeting of aid workers in Gaza, for example. Will the Minister agree to look into that and write to me about it?
What happens in Gaza does not stay in Gaza. In June, a British aid worker was killed in a drone strike in Ukraine. In Sudan, refugee camps are being continuously targeted, with children and aid workers being killed. Only 10 days ago, the Houthis in Yemen arrested 19 UN staff, adding to dozens of UN staff already arbitrarily detained since 2024. Last year was the worst year on record for attacks on healthcare, and this trend is worsening. Such attacks violate international law, and the more they are allowed to continue with impunity, the more they incentivise malign actors in other conflicts to do the same. Accountability is essential.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. Will Members remain bobbed for a second so that we can calculate the time for speeches? I remind Members to bob after every speech. The speech time will be one minute and 30 seconds.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer.
Nine children lie in bloodstained, torn clothes. They were not fighters, militants, extremists or terrorists; they were simply queuing for water in what Israel itself has declared a safe zone, and yet the so-called most moral army in the world unleashed death upon them. Their small bodies now bear witness to a horror that no child should ever know. That is not an isolated strategy, as the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) so powerfully said. We have seen the death of innocent people in churches, mosques, hospitals and schools—every sector of Palestinian society has been destroyed.
For those who survive the bombs, starvation is tightening its grip. Families are already watching loved ones waste away: 361 people have already died of hunger, including 83 since famine was officially declared. The world’s leading genocide scholars, Israeli human rights organisations and international experts are clear: what is happening in Gaza meets the legal definition of genocide. Yet here in Britain, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), in his final flurry as Foreign Secretary, wrote that the Government have not determined that Israel acts with intent, and therefore there is not a genocide. How can anybody look away relentlessly when all this tragedy is happening?
I have very little time, so I ask the Minister: will he call on diplomatic—
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The IPC has declared only four famines since it was established in 2004. In August, it declared one in Gaza City. It said:
“this Famine is entirely man-made, it can be halted and reversed”.
The non-governmental organisations I have spoken to have been unable to get any aid into Gaza since March. Save the Children has 45 trucks of aid, including medicine, shelter items and hygiene kits, waiting in warehouses, and Oxfam has been unable to bring in any menstrual supplies.
Humanitarian access also means ensuring the safety of humanitarian workers. The year 2024 was the deadliest on record to be an aid worker, and Gaza is the deadliest place on Earth to be an aid worker. On 1 April 2024, one of my constituents, James Henderson, was killed alongside other aid workers from World Central Kitchen while taking humanitarian aid into Gaza. It was not an isolated incident. Between 7 October 2023 and August 2025, 508 humanitarian personnel have been killed.
I welcome the statement by the previous Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), on the IPC ruling made on 22 August. I also welcome the diplomatic and economic measures that the Government have already taken with allies. However, the situation is becoming ever more desperate. Many constituents constantly ask me what more we can do and what more action we can take. Some, such as Kerenza, who I saw yesterday, are taking time off work to support the flotilla, and some are protesting.
With the other three Labour MPs for Cornwall, I have asked for clear diplomatic and economic action with our allies, such as extending further sanctions—
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) on the passion for humanitarian issues that she has shown in this Chamber and elsewhere in the House in the time that I have known her.
Samaritan’s Purse is an NGO that operates out of my constituency of Strangford and responds in areas of humanitarian need. When victims of war, poverty, disaster, disease and famine cry out, Samaritan’s Purse is often the first to answer. It specialises in meeting critical needs in the world’s most troubled regions. It works through ministry partners already on the scene of a crisis.
Members are thankful for every single charity that is doing its utmost to help, from Samaritan’s Purse collections in Northern Ireland in my constituency of Strangford, under its tremendously hard-working and gifted volunteer Gillian Gilliland, my constituent, through to our American counterparts. Aid has been sent, and it is the place of this House to do all we can to ensure that it goes to the places that most need it. There is a disaster assistance response team, and I have written to the Minister’s Department to ensure that help is given in particular to the NGO Samaritan’s Purse, so that it can do its work.
The House must do its best so that children on both sides of the Gaza strip can have hope and a future. That is the best that we can do in this House today.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
It was deemed irrefutable by the UN-backed agencies that this is a man-made famine. That man-made famine becomes a genocide if it can be proven that it was used as a tool to destroy a specific group of people—and I believe that there is only one group of people there. Journalists and international monitors, who we rely on for all our information—for reality on the ground—have been banned from entering Gaza, leaving brave Palestinians to tell us their story.
Even though there is a growing consensus among genocide scholars that Israel’s actions in Gaza do meet the legal definition of a genocide, without access to information on what is happening, and until mainstream journalists are allowed in, we are left in the dark over the true extent of the horrors on the ground. How will we gather the evidence needed to assess that Israel is committing genocide? How much more slaughter will the Palestinians have to suffer in the meantime?
On all fronts, entry into the occupied Palestinian territories for journalists, monitors and aid workers has been shut. Food and essentials for Palestinians have been banned, blocked, barricaded and destroyed.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
As a parent, I cannot imagine the agony of seeing your children starve and not being able to do anything about it, but that is the daily experience of families in Palestine. Does my hon. Friend agree that Israel’s man-made catastrophe must be put to an end and that aid must be allowed into Gaza immediately?
Jas Athwal
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that this has to come to an end straight away. While I welcome the Government’s decision to recognise the state of Palestine and to condemn the Israeli Government’s dehumanisation of Palestinians, we must face up to the unfortunate truth that this is simply not enough, as it has not stopped the violence. Instead, every day the reports grow bleaker, the suffering is deeper and the need for intervention grows more urgent.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
We have all witnessed what can only be described as genocide and ethnic cleansing, mass starvation, and the intentional murder of aid workers and people who want doctors and so forth. This Government’s approach, in saying that there is not a genocide, further emboldens Israel in what it is doing. Does the hon. Member agree that military intervention is an option that should not be off the table?
Jas Athwal
What I agree with is that we must never give up the diplomatic option, because that is the way that we will get across. We must avoid more bloodshed at any cost, and we must work harder for the diplomatic solution.
Mr Stringer, I will not abuse my position; having had two interventions, I will relinquish the floor for my colleagues to contribute.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) not only for all her work in the region, but for bringing this debate forward.
We have met those who have suffered and lost, and who have risked everything to deliver aid and service. We have seen pictures of suffering that no mind can forget and heard the heart-rending agony of trauma and devastation: from the children whose bodies are unrecognisable from blasts, bullets and bombs, with no analgesia to soothe them, to children so emaciated that they can no longer feed—little bundles of linen, as parents are ripped apart with grief. And yet it continues. Our constituents want our Government to do more. All they feel that they can do is march, donate and pray. We too want our Government to do more, but we have to believe that even today, our agency will resonate with them and with the Knesset.
I want to ask the Minister a few questions on the health aid that we can provide. What are the plans for this afternoon’s discussions? What is going to happen after today to ensure that aid arrives at its destination? How will we ensure that healthcare gets through, and how will we provide the support and training of medical staff to ensure that we can rebuild the health service for the future?
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
UNRWA has been crippled, staff killed, warehouses targeted and its mandate undermined. Since last July, less than 40% of required food supplies have entered Gaza. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, anti-Islamic US biker gang included, operates only a handful of distribution points where UNRWA once ran 800. Its centres are largely in the south, forcing desperate civilians towards the Egyptian border, in line with Israeli military objectives. There have been repeated shootings at those sites. This is not humanitarian work; this is exploitation of suffering.
The assault on Gaza City is escalating, 1 million residents have been told to evacuate, and we risk a further escalation of civilian death—a new phase in the genocide, so I ask the Government: what action is being taken to enforce an immediate ceasefire? Will the UK match the EU’s move to suspend bilateral support to Israel? And will we ask our F-35 partner nations to consider suspending supplies?
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
The sheer volume of correspondence that I have received from my constituents about the restriction of aid going into the Occupied Palestinian Territories is vast—unprecedented. Israel has weaponised the flow of aid into Gaza. The loss of life and the destruction of homes and schools is horrifying. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to take more steps to ensure that aid can reach the Occupied Palestinian Territories?
Andy McDonald
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s comment. Much more needs to be done. I also support the call for UN peacekeepers. I ask the Government directly: has there been any discussion with the UN Secretary-General on the use of peacekeepers to secure operations? And will demands be made of President Herzog, as he is here today—the man who signed the bombs that would rain on Gazan children and who made it abundantly clear that he was totally aligned with the principles of collective punishment? We have to shake our heads that such a man should be invited into our country.
Civilians in Gaza cannot wait. Starvation is advancing. International law is being shredded. Britain must act decisively, urgently and on the side of humanity.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for securing this important debate.
I begin with a harrowing quote from a father in Gaza speaking to aid workers:
“Bread has become a dream. On the fourth attempt, I finally got flour—but only by stepping over bodies of people who died trying to reach the same bag I held in my hands.”
Those words are not simply tragic; they are a stark reminder of the human cost of conflict—a cost borne disproportionately by those who have no choice and no voice in the halls of power.
More sobering is the fact that this situation is not an unavoidable tragedy. It is a deliberate use of starvation as a weapon of war. It is a campaign of mass killing. It is a war crime. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has warned us plainly:
“We are failing the people of Gaza. Inaction is not an option.”
Yet we sit in our homes in our country, with a Government choosing to look away. I ask our Government and the Minister: has Israel really desisted? Has it responded to any of the steps that the Government have taken? It has actually increased the atrocities and the number of people being killed on a day-to-day basis, using all means available.
I end by asking the Government: will we stop looking away? Will the Government finally demand and enforce a permanent ceasefire, ensure the protection of civilians and ensure unhindered access to aid? Will we—
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The famine that we see unfolding in Gaza is not merely a humanitarian crisis, but an absolute moral catastrophe: children starving before our eyes and families digging through rubble not for shelter but for food.
I welcome the fact that the Government have already taken decisive action to respond to this by restoring funding to UNRWA, through a programme to airlift critically injured children, and by supporting UK-Med and treating more than 600,000 Gazans. We have helped to shape the international community’s work to plan for what post-conflict peace will look like. We have provided more than £250 million in development assistance and have been working with our allies, including Egypt and Jordan.
Those are all welcome steps, but all of us here today want to hear from the Minister about what more we will do. We must get more humanitarian aid into Gaza, without obstruction, without delay and on a scale that meets this vast and desperate need. Food, water, medicine and shelter are not political bargaining chips; they are basic human rights.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for bringing this important debate to the Minister.
The situation in Palestine has been the single most pressing issue raised with me by my constituents in Mid Dunbartonshire. What possible justification can there be for the deliberate creation of famine? Starvation is not only a humanitarian catastrophe; it is recognised under international law as an illegal weapon of war. Despite repeated assurances, arms sales to Israel continue, sanctions against those responsible for violence have not been imposed, the right of the Palestinian people to recognition has been treated as a bargaining chip, and hundreds of peaceful protesters here in the UK have been arrested.
The Liberal Democrats call on the Government to press for full and unimpeded humanitarian access to the Palestinian territories. Without appropriate humanitarian access, and with only limited aid convoys and airdrops—spotlighted by propaganda—the Palestinian people will face catastrophe beyond the horror they already live every day. Without a serious change of course, this Government risk both appearing weak on the international stage and undermining trust at home—targeting elderly protesters here while refusing to take meaningful action abroad.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for her tireless activism on this issue.
Twenty months ago, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches Palestinians in Gaza, to protect what the Court found to be Palestinians’ “plausible” right to be protected from acts of genocide. Today, humanitarian reality speaks for itself, as other hon. Members have set out: 470,000 Palestinians face catastrophic food insecurity, and nearly 900 people have been killed while queuing for aid since May—shot by Israeli forces as they waited for food and water.
Last month, alongside 27 other countries, the UK rightly condemned Israel’s aid distribution system as “dangerous” and “inhumane”—my hon. Friend rightly described it as a disgrace. It is clear that humanitarian access has worsened and that the Court’s orders are still being systematically ignored. We must see full compliance with the ICJ’s provisional measures, all border crossings reopened, all restrictions lifted and humanitarian operations restored to pre-conflict levels.
Under the genocide convention, the UK has obligations to ensure Israel’s compliance with international law, regardless of whether the UK has reached its own conclusions about genocide itself. The ICJ has made enough rulings. The time for action is now.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)
I want to begin by saying that what is happening in Gaza and the ongoing situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is not just some random natural disaster. The UN-backed integrated food security phase classification has declared a man-made famine. Civilians are not starving; they are being starved. Israel stopped aid entering Gaza on 2 March and, since 9 March, all electricity has been cut off in Gaza.
It is not enough to repeat the line that Israel must uphold international rights and standards in theory, when it is so clear that it is not doing so, has not been doing so and has effectively been given the go-ahead to continue not doing so. Quite frankly, the UK’s continued support and facilitation of that is shocking to my constituents and the majority of people in the UK.
In the short time I have, I want to raise a point on UNRWA. The Knesset’s decision to ban Israeli officials from engaging with UNRWA, and UNRWA from working in East Jerusalem was wrong, according to what the Government said in January. They also said that if UNRWA found itself unable to operate, they would release a statement, which we have not had. Will the Minister ensure that that follows soon?
I am speculating that the Minister will assert something along the lines that aid must get to where it is needed in theory. To be clear, aid is being blocked and hindered by Israel, the UK’s close and staunch ally. It is obvious that the best way to stop and to address that is not to provide political cover.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for securing the debate and I agree with everything she said.
This is a time when children are starting school for the first time—a moment of optimism, pride and love for their parents. Imagine being a Palestinian mum and dad, unable to feed their children, unable to take them to school or to pray at a church or mosque, unable to find a doctor when they are ill. This is a moral outrage of the first order. At present, under international law, people are able to act with utter impunity. There is a question of whether the scope of international law is wide enough to cover the atrocities being committed in this and other conflicts.
There is a serious question when people can act with impunity without fear of prosecution and conviction for serious crimes. I ask the Minister to set out how the United Kingdom Government are working with international allies to strengthen international law, so that people cannot act with such impunity, to protect children in Gaza and all the other conflict zones of the present and future. I am obliged, Mr Stringer.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The situation in Gaza is absolutely appalling, with schools and hospitals bombed, people killed at aid stations, children shot by snipers and people deliberately starved to death. Everyone is trying to understand what further war crimes will have to be committed before the Government will sanction Netanyahu and his entire Cabinet. When we will stop supplying all arms to Israel, including parts for F-35s?
We receive thousands of letters and emails every month. By a long way, the hot and most discussed topic for people in Winchester is the situation in Gaza. It is clear that people are desperate for the Government to use every single diplomatic lever and every bit of power they have to ensure that we get aid in and hostages out, and that we recognise the state of Palestine.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for calling this debate, rightly highlighting the siege that is stopping food, water, hygiene, shelter and medical aid getting into Gaza, putting a spotlight on the aid agencies being blocked, and the role that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is playing, or not playing, in getting aid to where it is needed.
It is very important because this is the month of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly. I ask the Minister if that will be raised by our UK Ministers at the General Assembly, to make sure that the issue of humanitarian aid access is a key part of our interventions in New York? I pay tribute to the clergy and aid workers at the Catholic Holy Family church in Gaza, who are staying put to help the population despite the evacuation orders. I just met with the Palestine director of the UN World Food Programme, who says that it has the capacity to feed all of the population, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is not meeting the needs of the population, and it is too unsafe to collect aid. Their main point, though, is about law and order. Is the technical committee going to come into place and enforce the law and order that is needed for access to humanitarian aid? I would also like to know whether this was raised by Prime Minister this morning at the meeting with President Herzog.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for an excellent contribution that clearly came from the heart.
We know that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is appalling and has been for far too long. That aid cannot get in is despicable, but that aid workers are not able to get in is also despicable, not least because we cannot just give food to starving people; we have to introduce a comprehensive refeeding programme to allow them to cope with the food that eventually arrives. We need to be taking that seriously, otherwise we will end up with many more casualties than we expect.
In his response, will the Minister tell us a bit more about the evacuation of injured children to the UK? My understanding is that of all the children evacuated from Gaza, only 0.03% have come to the UK so far. Clearly, we need to do more. If the Minister has time, could he also talk about the need to evacuate scholars—the people of the future for Gaza—to the UK? One of my constituents had been told that she could come, but her family—her children—could not. She has now been told that she cannot come either, because she cannot get a visa.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) on her contribution and her tireless work in this space.
The humanitarian picture, especially in Gaza, is beyond desperate. The UN special rapporteur has described the situation as “apocalyptic”. Whether it is the starvation of the population, the repeated strikes on health facilities or the obstruction of aid, it is our duty to ensure that the UK’s response—diplomatic, legal and practical—helps to turn statements into access to safe and sufficient aid, and the opportunity for people to survive.
We must fight for safe and reliable aid delivered at scale, backed by a robust ceasefire that protects aid convoys, warehouses, hospitals and shelters. We must also seek to guarantee the protection of civilians and humanitarian personnel. That means an end to evacuation orders, which clearly cannot be done safely under the current conditions.
Israel must also face the consequences for grave breaches of international law. The Government must support international investigations and the enforcement of international humanitarian law, so that impunity does not become embedded as a grim legacy of this conflict. We must champion a comprehensive political track that delivers the only durable answer: security, dignity and self-determination, including the recognition of a Palestinian state as part of a just peace.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. My former colleagues in the aid sector tell me that this is the toughest operating environment that they have ever worked in—some are British, some are international, almost all are Palestinian. My brilliant hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) has powerfully set out how they are risking their lives every day to do their jobs. Most of them are also experiencing their own personal and family humanitarian crises while trying to get relief to others.
One aid agency told me that its staff in Gaza are now living on a single meal a day, and almost all of their families are enrolled in the agency’s own malnutrition programmes. It is set to get worse, as one aid worker put it:
“The situation in Gaza City is incredibly serious. Our staff want desperately to stay on to help their neighbours and communities, but the almost uninterrupted bombardment is merciless…I don’t anticipate that we will be able to hang on in Gaza City for very much longer.”
The only way to restore an effective aid operation is to let the trucks in and across Gaza, protect aid workers at all times and bring an end to the relentless bombardment. That is entirely within the gift of the Government of Israel and within their obligations under international law, and there must be consequences for their flagrant disregard of those obligations. Our constituents see what is happening. As one of my residents put it, “History will ask each of us what we did as we watched the Palestinians starve and die.” Aid workers are risking everything to play their part. I pay tribute to them, and we must do more to play our part too.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
In the words of the President of the European Commission:
“What is happening in Gaza has shaken the conscience of the world.”
In this House, in debate after debate, we come and talk about the horrific scenes in Gaza, yet there is very little action. My constituents are telling me that the Government can and should do more, and I agree.
The starting point should be the recognition of Palestine. By recognising the state of Palestine, we can deliver much-needed aid to the Palestinians, but we can do that only if we recognise Palestine. If Israel then tries to obstruct that, we must deal with it, with the force that needs to be applied to Netanyahu, because he has gone berserk. He is going round like a mad dog—a mad dog that has attacked every sovereign country in and around the region, that has no regard for international law, and that disregards everything to do with humanitarian law and humanity. We cannot sit back—
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
The humanitarian crisis that we are continuing to see in Gaza is appalling, horrific and unforgivable, and continues to worsen day by day. Since January, there have been 44,000 admissions of children for the treatment of acute malnutrition. We all know that the World Health Organisation, along with the UN, UNICEF and others, recently confirmed that Gaza is facing a man-made famine, with over half a million people affected.
I have often said, as have others, that Netanyahu will only listen to the voice of President Trump and the United States. As President Trump has criticised Netanyahu’s attack on Qatar, I ask the Government: is this not the perfect time to put further pressure on the United States to get an immediate ceasefire that includes full and proper humanitarian aid going into Gaza, facilitating the return of all hostages, and recognising the Palestinian state?
I am pleased that the Government have continued to condemn Israeli settlements and that they recognise that those settlements are illegal under international law. I am also pleased that they are committed to recognising Palestine as a state, but we cannot just sit back and say that we have done all that we can while the unimaginable suffering in Gaza and the occupied territories continues and worsens.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for securing this much-needed debate.
We have seen 44,000 children being treated for malnutrition, 2,146 people killed while seeking aid, 131 children killed by a man-made famine, and 5,700 acres of land stolen by the Israeli army in the last three months alone in the west bank. The violence in the west bank is repellent, and a flood of aid—no less—is required in Gaza. I think we all now struggle to find the words to articulate just how horrific what is happening in Gaza and across the west bank truly is.
I will use my time to ask some questions of the Minister. President Trump is due in the UK next week, and he has said that he is not happy with the “real starvation” he is seeing. How can we further work with the US Administration to encourage Israel to open up the Occupied Palestinian Territories to aid at scale and at an unhindered pace?
Ministers have stated that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is
“incompatible with the principles that underpin our bilateral relationship”—[Official Report, 20 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 924.]
and they are prepared to take “further action”. As the road map on UK-Israel relations is being reviewed, what further action can be taken now to help alleviate the immediate humanitarian catastrophe?
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for her leadership and wisdom on this topic over a number of years.
Today we have heard powerful testimony and evidence about the desperate need for doctors and aid workers to be able to get into Gaza. There is not a day that goes by where we are not seeing terrible suffering in Gaza: we are hearing about it from our constituents, we are seeing it for ourselves through what is happening, and we are listening every single day to the devastating situation there.
It is vital that we secure access for doctors and aid workers, and that journalists are able to get in so they can tackle the crisis of misinformation in the region. I would like to hear from the Minister today about the international pressure on securing a ceasefire and on ensuring that we can get aid trucks in. We know the UN estimates that we need 600 trucks of aid every day, but we are seeing only half that. How can we maintain that ceasefire through international pressure to make sure that we see long-standing sustainable peace in the region?
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for securing this important debate. We must continue to strive to use every possible avenue for delivering supplies, so I welcome the Government’s co-operation with Jordan on airdrops. I want to put on record my praise for the efforts of Ministers and diplomats at a difficult time, but we must all do more.
The Palestinian people must not pay the price for the atrocities of Hamas, yet Israel’s then Defence Minister Yoav Gallant ordered a “complete siege” of Gaza with
“no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel”.
We all know that starvation as a method of warfare is illegal under international humanitarian law. The Gaza strip has now faced what is effectively a siege. The UN-backed panel, as hon. Members have said, has declared that there is now a famine in parts of Gaza. I know that the Government believe that the strip must be flooded with aid, not drip-fed through the piecemeal deliveries of the failing Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
According to the House of Commons Library, the UK considers Gaza’s status as occupied. As the occupying power, Israel is bound by the fourth Geneva convention and Hague conventions, which require it to ensure civilians’ access to food and medicine and to avoid collective punishment. The UK views Israel’s naval blockade as part of that. Blockades are governed by customary international law, including the San Remo manual, which requires legality, necessity and humanitarian access.
Given the humanitarian crisis, and Israel’s role in fomenting it, do the Government have a view on whether we and other countries have a legal right to provide aid by sea? Can the Minister outline whether the Government have looked at whether the Royal Navy could deploy ships off the coast of Gaza or a hospital ship? I am not singling out Israel; I am asking that we treat it by the standards, norms and law that all nations must adhere to, especially democracies. Those rules are fraying before our own eyes, and that is terrible, mainly for the Palestinians, but also—
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for securing this important debate. The importance of improving humanitarian access to help offset the intolerable hardship, suffering and misery that currently faces those living in Gaza cannot be overstated. For children alone, this war has been beyond cruel. Save the Children, for example, has recently reported that at least 20,000 children have been killed in Gaza since October 2023. To put that in perspective, the capacity of the O2 arena here in London is 20,000 people.
More must be done to pressure Israel to reopen crossings and lift restrictions on movement. The UN-led co-ordination of humanitarian aid must be restored. That will once again allow professional and experienced humanitarian aid agencies to reach people in need at scale with meaningful assistance.
I acknowledge the Government’s position that it is for the international courts, not Governments, to determine if genocide is taking place. However, looking at the evidence that we have all seen—air attacks, ground attacks, displacement of people, targeting of health services, attacks on aid workers, access to food as a method of control, and deliberate and consistent blocking of humanitarian aid—it is difficult to see how those courts will not reach the decision that what we are now seeing is genocide.
Fleur Anderson
On a point of order, Mr Stringer, I omitted earlier to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have been on two trips to Palestine: one with Medical Aid for Palestinians and one with Yachad. I wanted to make that clear and set the record straight.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
It is an honour to speak under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) for bringing this vital debate to Westminster Hall.
Before I try to address some of the many important points made in today’s debate, I would like to say that this matter is very close to my heart. As a student in the early 1980s, I spent a year researching in Israel and Egypt, based for much of the time on Kibbutz Re’im, which would be attacked by Hamas militants on 7 October 2023. In those now far-off days, I remember going into Gaza with my Israeli friends to visit their Palestinian friends, to drink coffee and to trade. Those were happy times, and they show that another way is possible.
I should also add that, as a member of the International Development Committee, I have not only travelled to the west bank and witnessed at first hand the effect of IDF teargassing of UNRWA schools, but heard testimony from humanitarian workers, doctors, ambulance drivers and paramedics, sometimes in tears over the utterly appalling targeting of humanitarian staff and children by Israeli drones—shooting children at bomb sites in Gaza, some days in the groin, other days in the legs, and other days in the head. This behaviour is most foul, and has even been acknowledged to be ethnic cleansing by none other than former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. It must stop or be stopped by all means possible.
I will shoot through some of the points that have been made, because they are all valuable: the 28,000 women and girls killed; the fabric of life destroyed; the latest attack on Qatar; the disinformation campaign; the provision of rotten food; the US President’s visit and the chance to lobby him; access for aid workers, not just aid; 98% of aid workers killed are Palestinians; 2,000 people killed in orchestrated killing; aid workers killed in Gaza; the trauma and the fear; the Israeli denials, obfuscation and confusion; the attacks on the Palestine Red Crescent; the attacks on hospitals; deaths of civilians; starvation, hunger and famine—it goes on and on and on.
I go to the Lib Dem position: obviously, we say that the situation in Gaza is unconscionable. The Liberal Democrats firmly support human rights, international law and the peaceful resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Above all, we believe that all humans should be treated with dignity and have their basic rights respected. Like many millions around the world, we have been deeply devastated by the scenes in Gaza, and increasingly now in the west bank. That is not to take away the trauma experienced by the Israeli people following the heinous attack that Hamas undertook on 7 October. There is no overestimating the grief, anger and trauma that they are still feeling.
We have been deeply concerned by the violence between Israel and Hamas, which has led to mass displacement, immense suffering and loss of life. No Israeli or Palestinian should be killed simply because of where they were born. The UK must play a proactive role in achieving a peaceful and lasting solution that ensures dignity, security and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians. The Government must finally recognise that they need to do more to ensure that Britain is not complicit in human rights violations, starting by immediately halting all arms sales to Israel.
The Government have still failed to release their legal advice surrounding the ICJ rulings on the occupation. Why? Will they now make clear what advice they have received regarding the legality of actions undertaken by Israel in Gaza? In the light of the confusion caused by the letter from the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), is genocide taking place?
We call for a multilateral push to secure a renewed ceasefire to end the humanitarian catastrophe, as well as unhindered humanitarian access into Gaza. We need that ceasefire to hold to ensure that the remaining hostages are released and that the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza is alleviated. Hamas terrorists have shown despicable cruelty even in the release of Israeli hostages and also in the return of the bodies of hostages killed in captivity. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza has left countless people in danger and in a state of famine, and many thousands dead.
The UN estimates that women and children have accounted for 70% of fatalities in Gaza since October 2023. It has stated that more than 1.9 million people have been displaced, including more than 1 million women and girls, as estimated by UN Women. The entire population of Gaza—approximately 2.2 million people—is experiencing acute food insecurity, and a famine has been declared in the Gaza strip.
The UN has noted that an estimated 63 women, including 37 mothers, are being killed daily, and 17,000 Palestinian children are believed to have been orphaned since the war on Gaza began. More than 183 women per day are giving birth without pain relief, while hundreds of babies have died because of a lack of electricity to power incubators, and 95% of pregnant and breastfeeding women face severe food poverty.
Reports of sexual and gender-based violence in this conflict, including allegations against Israeli forces and about Hamas’s actions on 7 October 2023, are deeply concerning. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has uncovered that nearly 70% of those killed in Gaza over a six-month period were women and children. That is a disproportionately high level, compared with usual conflicts.
Many Israelis are disgusted by the behaviour of their Government. They have been openly demonstrating and even bravely burning their draft cards, which will result in their imprisonment. We need to stand and act in solidarity with them and with Palestinians, who just want to have a peaceful future.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), not least because of the unique experiences she brings to this debate and the important way she has put it together. I will try to keep my comments as brief as possible, because I think that some 20 Government Members spoke in the debate and the Minister will have a lot to answer and get through.
Obviously, a lot of the speeches have been about humanitarian access, as that is what the debate is about. Many stories have been brought forward about reports from the ground, and it is indeed undoubtable that a famine is taking place. The first thing I would like to probe the Minister on is whether he has had any reports on where all the violence is coming from at the humanitarian aid points. Is it purely from one side, or the other? Has he had any reports on what the security situation is and how that could be improved? I ask because we obviously want to see aid getting in in any way we can. In that sense, you—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. Sir Alec, you are an experienced Member. Can we move to ordinary parliamentary debate? I have not had any reports.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
I apologise sincerely, Mr Stringer. Has the Minister got the plans for what will be said to the President of the United States to cover these very important aspects? Why is there such violence around the aid points, and what influence can be brought to bear to get more aid in? Some Members have suggested using assets such as the Royal Navy. Indeed, the last Conservative Government were involved in trying to put harbours in and get aid in place. These are all important aspects, because the first point that we come to today is the value of human life and doing everything that can be done to stop what is a man-made famine, wherever the original or ongoing responsibilities for that may lie.
The events going on in the middle east shock us all; indeed, the events of last night shocked us all. That includes the President of the United States making statements that perhaps surprised us all and showed that it may be time for the Israeli Government to rethink whether they can act with impunity, because it appears the Americans were not aware of what was happening and are absolutely furious at what appears to be an attempt to scupper any peace deal. That shows the importance of the Israeli President coming to see the Prime Minister today. It is important to keep those engagements alive, and to be able to look people in the eye and be honest with them. Often, friends can give people the most honest opinion, and it is important to keep those relationships in place.
The hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy said that it is not Hamas that pays the price for the lack of humanitarian aid, but the starving children. What assessment has been made of where aid is going when it is received on the ground, and what can be done to secure that aid for the populations that need it?
We are in a position to leverage influence on the Israeli Government, but I am concerned that declaring recognition of a Palestinian state without calling for the release of hostages may damage the ability of the Israelis to listen to what is said. The significant shifts in foreign policy at this time must be balanced with trying to get a tangible outcome to this event. Everybody wants to see this conflict come to an end. Everybody wants to ensure that the events of 7 October cannot happen again. We must be able to be in the room and to work with the Israelis and the Americans, who have such influence in this area, to ensure that we can reach that position as quickly as possible.
I think the Minister will have plenty of time to answer all the questions that have been raised about humanitarian aid, but I want to draw on the comments made by the hon. Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) about getting to the ceasefire and what takes place afterwards. I urge the Minister, if he can, to outline any plans the Prime Minister may have, in meeting the President of the United States, to clarify where American thinking about the day after the war is. We have heard many conflicting reports of the things that may go on, some of which may well be genocidal acts. On that note, is it still the position of the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary to support last week’s letter from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), which said that the Government did not recognise a genocide? Can the Minister outline the thinking behind that? There is plenty of international law that makes the situation opaque, so perhaps he can outline exactly where that thinking came from.
With that, I will sit down, because the Minister has a huge amount to get through. A lot of valuable comments have been made today, and I thank all Members for outlining their points in very precise terms.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
We have caught up on time, so the Minister has a decent amount of time to speak. I ask him, if possible, to find a couple of minutes at the end for the proposer to wind up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. There was a rather large number of questions, but I will try to address them as much as possible, take interventions and leave some time for my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), whose work in this area is so deep and respected across the Chamber, as we have heard. I may not be able to make as much progress through my speech as I might under normal circumstances, but I hope colleagues will forgive me, as many of them will already have heard me speak about the middle east for about an hour in the main Chamber.
My hon. Friend is a stalwart voice on these questions. She has worked on them tirelessly in Parliament and before. I knew her when she was the chief executive of Medical Aid for Palestinians, and many across this Chamber will appreciate not just her work, but the work of the organisation she used to lead.
It goes without saying that the humanitarian situation in Gaza remains a scar on our collective conscience. Many Members have asked what the view of history or the view of our constituents will be when this conflict hopefully comes to a close, and that sense rests heavily on me personally and heavily on the Government. More than 64,000 lives have been lost since October 2023. More than 2,000 people have been killed and 16,000 have been injured while seeking aid since May. Those are extraordinary figures in a—I was about to say in a modern context, but in any context at all.
Let me turn first to some of the questions about accountability. I have called on the Israeli Government to conduct independent investigations into a number of strikes on a number of occasions. I agree with the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy; we will call again for independent investigations, particularly into the recent so-called double-tap strike on the hospital. It is a source of enormous frustration and tension between the Israeli Government and the British Government that, even in cases that have involved British nationals being struck in drone-recorded videos, as in the case of the World Central Kitchen attack, while there have been preliminary investigations conducted within the IDF, we still await, 15 months on, the findings of the military advocate general. I have met those families repeatedly and they, like so many other families affected, await the level of investigation and accountability that would give them satisfaction and provide confidence that the Israeli Government are taking accountability seriously.
One of the contributions suggested that the Government were looking away or turning away. This is the longest opportunity I will have to talk about humanitarian aid since the recess, and I want to reassure colleagues that during that period I met UNRWA, MAP, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Red Crescent and, perhaps most searingly, British doctors recently returned from Gaza, on a number of occasions. I heard directly the tales not just of injuries, as so many hon. Members have recounted during the debate, but of the injuries to children, the similarities in those injuries over particular periods and the impact that had on the British doctors who had gone out, let alone those affected and their families.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The Minister knows from when I wrote to him that what distinguished the shooting up and ransacking of the Action around Bethlehem Children with Disability charity by the Israeli army was the fact that it is a British charity. Will he pursue compensation from the Israeli Government for that British charity for the destruction of the children’s centre in Palestine, as was raised by my constituents in North Curry?
Mr Falconer
If I have not responded to the letter, I will ensure that I do so, and I will add the case to the list that I have described of cases on which we seek further action.
In relation to questions of accountability, there are areas where we need to see much more action but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy rightly pointed out, it is not simply the strikes themselves that impede humanitarian work; there is the question of visas and access for those doctors and other skilled humanitarian workers, just as there are outstanding questions that this House has heard many times from me in relation to so-called dual-use goods. The policy on those goods is applied in such a way that it is very difficult to provide, both in medical and in many other contexts, the kind of equipment and supplies that aid agencies require to carry out their duties.
I turn to the important questions asked by the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke). It is regrettably the case that not only is the volume of aid being brought in through the GHF insufficient, but huge volumes of it are being looted. The percentages are difficult to assess, but the WFP thinks that at least 80% of aid trucks are being looted almost immediately, so the ability of anyone to provide assurance that aid is reaching the most vulnerable people is very limited, and any assurance about where that aid ends up is also very limited.
I understand the frustration of hon. Members across the House who often press me to try to find other methods by which aid might be brought into Gaza, whether that is by air or sea. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy has operational experience of the limitations of the alternatives, which have been explored on several occasions. I do not rule any alternative out. Over the recess, along with our Jordanian partners, we supported aid drops into Gaza. Of course, we will consider any measures that we can use to try and assist people.
I will move on to the important questions about medical and other evacuations shortly. However, I am afraid that the inescapable truth is that it is only the UN operation, operating only by land, that can make a real difference to the absolutely horrific circumstances that are described in the IPC report. It is only via land that the volumes of aid required can be delivered; it is only via land, with UN support, that we can ensure that there are sufficient distribution centres; and it is only through those tried and tested mechanisms that one can have confidence about where the aid ends up.
Andy McDonald
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is a good man who pays an awful lot of attention to these issues. He is telling us about the difficulties regarding aid and he is applying his mind to them. However, as we speak, we have President Herzog in the country.
So I ask the Minister: is that opportunity being used to discuss the root cause of this situation? The failure to transmit humanitarian aid is because of the genocide and war crimes being committed by Israel. Is President Herzog being challenged on his open statements about collective responsibility and saying that there is no such thing as an innocent Gazan? And will he be upbraided for blithely signing his name on bombs that come raining down on Palestinian children? If so, will the Minister make those comments known to the public? We must know how this President is being received.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Just before I call the Minister to respond, we have done really well on the timings so far. However, if hon. Members are going to make interventions, can they be short and to the point, please?
Mr Falconer
Thank you, Mr Stringer; I will try to speed up as well. I will come to the important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) shortly, but first, I will just segue from the overall humanitarian challenges to discuss some of the specific areas of work on which I and the rest of the Government have been heavily engaged over the recess period.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy asked vital questions about the evacuation of vulnerable people. Over the recess, we repeated our commitments to assist both medically vulnerable children and a number of scholars, and there are a number of other people, too, whom I and the Foreign Office are trying to get out of Gaza. However, the operation to get anybody out of Gaza is enormously complex and involves a range of operational partners, and the brute truth is that it also involves the Israeli Government. Nobody can leave Gaza without the support of the Israeli Government.
I am pleased to report to the House that we are making progress on some of those cases, but not all of them. It is an overwhelming focus for me—the operational challenge implicit in getting even handfuls of people out of Gaza. This contribution is, of course, a tiny one, given the scale of need outlined in the IPC report and everywhere else. However, despite the small number of people involved, the operational challenge remains great.
I hope to be able to update the House on the specifics shortly. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have constituents who are personally affected. As soon as I am in a position to give confirmation on specific cases, I will do so. I know that there are so many right hon. and hon. Members who are deeply concerned about this situation. I can give the House the commitment that at the moment there is nothing else on which I am spending more time, and I will continue to do so until as many people as we can possibly rescue are rescued.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East asked an important question, which was also asked by other Members. Just to clarify, President Herzog’s visit is a private visit. He has come not at the invitation of the British Government. Nevertheless, given his presence in the UK, we are taking the opportunity to raise a number of very important issues with him.
The Foreign Secretary met the President this morning, and the Prime Minister will meet him this evening. I am sure that they will provide a full account of the points that they have raised. From speaking briefly to the Foreign Secretary, I know that she raised a range of important points, including the importance of Israeli support for our evacuations, over the course of her discussion this morning.
I want to leave my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy some time to respond, but I would like to say that, understandably, Members raised the question of determinations, and I want to make as clear as I can how the British Government approach genocide determinations. They are, obviously, a question for a competent court. No competent court has made a determination, but courts have made provisional findings, which we would clearly abide by. The previous Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), set out in his letter that, of course, as I have told the House on a number of occasions, we conduct assessments of likely breaches across the whole range of our international legal commitments, including in relation to genocide.
As hon. and right hon. Members will know, there are different tests for different elements of international law. As I have always told the House, we take our commitments under all elements of international law, including the genocide convention, extremely seriously. We keep all those assessments under regular review. The spirit of the previous Foreign Secretary’s letter was not to break with what hon. Members have heard me say many times—that it is for a competent court to make determinations—but to seek to give further aeration to the IDC about what our internal assessment looks like on that particular element.
Melanie Ward
It is clear from the sheer number of hon. Members who have spoken in the debate how much this issue matters to us and our constituents—how much horror and disgust constituents across the whole country feel when they see what is being done in Gaza. It was striking that a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), raised links that their constituencies have with different local charitable organisations that operate all across our isles to try to get help to people in need.
I want particularly to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), because I know that the World Central Kitchen attack was particularly felt by people who lost loved ones—I do not like to say “lost”: they had loved ones killed in that attack. We send our solidarity to her constituents, who are trying to deal with that still.
The Minister ran out of time before he was able to answer my very specific questions about the restrictions placed on humanitarian NGOs, including British NGOs. Will he write to me with answers to those detailed questions as soon as he is able? That would be appreciated by the many charities, including here in the UK, that are deeply concerned about the future of their operations, as well as their supporters all across our country.
I want to highlight a couple of other speeches—I do not have time to go through loads. First, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) made some important points about international law, including that Israel, as the occupying power in Gaza, has the legal duty to ensure that the needs of civilians are met, which it is clearly not, and that the ICJ provisional measures included the need for aid to get in. Another Member raised the need for the Government to bring forward their response to the ICJ’s advisory opinion, which of course was given more than a year ago.
I also mention the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith), who is a former aid worker. She knows what she is talking about and does so much important work on this and related issues across the House.
Finally, the Minister was right when he said that we need to bear in mind how history will view what we are all doing in this moment. The Minister knows the gravity of the moment we are in—famine, ethnic cleansing and genocide. He knows that our actions must be equal to the scale and the gravity of the moment. Members across the House urge us to truly do everything we can in this moment to bring these horrors to an end.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered humanitarian access to the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Playgrounds: Bournemouth East
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered playgrounds in Bournemouth East constituency.
Eight months ago, I stood just a few seats away from this spot to lead the first debate on playgrounds in eight years—the longest in 17 years. The previous debate, 17 years ago, saw the last Labour Government launch the first and only national play strategy, backed by £235 million of investment in children’s right to play. On behalf of my constituents, it is an honour to open this debate, my second, and to turn a spotlight specifically on my constituency, focusing exclusively on playgrounds in Bournemouth East.
When Parliament has effectively ignored playgrounds in Bournemouth for 17 years, is it any wonder that they are rotting? Is it any wonder that people feel pushed away from politics when Parliament did not speak to their priorities to any meaningful extent for nearly two decades? Is it any wonder that people feel disaffected with democracy when the last Government did not care enough about children to invest in their playgrounds? Children who sat GCSEs this year were not even alive the last time that Parliament seriously considered playground provision. We are talking about near adults whose formative years went unexamined at the very highest levels of the last Conservative Government.
Children make up 20% of our population and 100% of our future, but we are not treating them that way as a country. As Play England’s Eugene Minogue says, “Let’s start with play.” This really matters. In 1925, Lloyd George called play “nature’s training for life”. Frank Dobson later described it as,
“what children and young people do—when they follow their own ideas, in their own way, and for their own reasons.”
Play is instinctive and natural; it is how children learn, grow and take responsibility. In Gaza, where children are hungry, exhausted and emotionally wounded, the instinct to play still endures. Just two weeks ago, Palestinian children were filmed playing with a parachute used to drop aid.
Play is natural, essential and deeply personal. It nurtures emotional development, builds confidence and fosters creativity, collaboration and resilience. Those are the skills that renew our democracy and reinvigorate our liberal values, but right now, in Bournemouth East and across England, that right is being eroded. Lloyd George warned how infringing the right to play can cause
“deep and enduring harm to the minds and bodies of its citizens.”
Lloyd George was right.
Today, 2 million children in England live more than 10 minutes from a playground, and one in eight have no garden—in London, it is one in five. Nearly 800 playgrounds have closed in the past decade, casualties of austerity. In Bournemouth East, only 35% of children live within reach of a play area.
What are the deep and enduring harms that result when children cannot play outdoors? First, they retreat indoors, glued to screens. As my constituent Helen from Southbourne says,
“We must provide exciting, enjoyable and affordable alternatives to screen time.”
Secondly, as Baroness Longfield, the former Children’s Commissioner reminds us,
“Play is a social justice issue—it’s about who gets to thrive and who gets left behind.”
Among those children being left behind the most are wheelchair users and neurodivergent children. As Terri from Muscliff says:
“If a child uses a wheelchair, there is nothing they can do.”
Teens for whom traditional spaces such as multi-use games areas and skate parks just do not work are excluded too. In particular, teenage girls who mostly want social spaces near, but not within, family zones are not being catered for. If inclusive design is to be the baseline, not a bonus, we must listen to my constituent Jennie Savage, a community place-making designer, who, at our surgery on Saturday, spoke about the importance of listening to the very people who use playgrounds.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In my time on the council in a previous life, we always encouraged playgrounds, and it was the same in the Assembly; now, we are here in Parliament. New playgrounds are really important, and they need to include wheelchair-accessible swings and roundabouts, sensory play areas, nature zones and family facilities such as toilets and baby rooms. Are those the things that the hon. Gentleman is pushing for?
Tom Hayes
I entirely agree; the hon. Gentleman pre-empts some of what I am about to say. Community infrastructure and accessible infrastructure are absolutely critical alongside playgrounds.
The public voted for change last year, and we now happily have a different Government. The question is whether this Government will restore playgrounds for future generations. My first year as an MP has taught me how difficult it is to bring together Departments around the cross-cutting issue of play. We have a fantastic Minister, Baroness Taylor, who holds responsibility for play. To support her, this Parliament needs to agitate for a strategy with objectives and deadlines. That is my first request.
Seventeen years ago, Ed Balls and Andy Burnham, as Secretaries of State, published England’s first national play strategy, and much of it still stands. It is time to dust it off. This is unfinished business for Labour, and momentum is building now, as it was before the last play strategy and the multimillion-pound budget were announced. In June, I hosted the launch of Play England’s 10-year strategy, “It All Starts with Play!”, here in Parliament, and I also welcomed the Raising the Nation Play Commission’s final report, “Everything to Play For”, which called for a new national strategy, a statutory duty for councils and a cultural shift that places play at the heart of public life. Last week, a new all-party parliamentary group on play launched with a Minister in attendance. I am honoured to chair it. That followed, on the same day, a session on play by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Yesterday, I was pleased to sponsor and speak at a LEGO reception in Parliament. The LEGO group, supported by the LEGO Foundation, launched “The Power of Play”, a report that looked into its project in Tower Hamlets, where poverty limits and denies access to play, as it does around the country.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
In my constituency, many children have no playgrounds. The population is very young—over 69% are under the age of 45—and play equipment in the playgrounds is of very low quality. Does my hon. Friend believe that funding must be set aside to ensure our playgrounds are brought up to the correct standard?
Tom Hayes
My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point about funding our playgrounds so that they are accessible, safe and fun. I commend the work that she does on behalf of her constituents, particularly children.
A strategy alone will not be enough. That is why I tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to introduce a play sufficiency duty in England, mirroring legislation in Wales and Scotland. It was backed by 70-plus MPs from across parties, although unfortunately there were no signatories from Reform. It sought to correct the wrong that England does not have the same statutory duty as Wales and Scotland. It is wrong that Scottish and Welsh councils regularly assess and support play provision, while this Parliament does not regard that as essential for English councils.
We saw what happened when the previous Labour Government announced a strategy and a budget. The coalition quietly dropped the strategy and drew a thick red line through the budget. Without a statutory duty, Parliament cannot protect playgrounds for childhoods in this country, so a statutory duty is my second request.
We can and should extend Sport England-style duties to play, making it a statutory consideration, like sports facilities, not a discretionary extra that gets ignored. That is my third request.
My fourth and final request, which goes to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) made, is that we need to talk about funding. Put simply, this will require financial investment from the Government. I care deeply about giving children their right to play, which is why I am shining a light on Bournemouth East in Parliament to help bring money to our town. In Bournemouth, we are embracing the challenge of improving our play areas. Thanks to council officers such as Martin Whitchurch and Rebecca Whelan-Edmonds, all 171 play sites in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole and all 1,175 pieces of play equipment have been mapped, audited and costed. A consultation has closed, and I have represented constituents’ views on proposals into it. The consultation included events, and I joined two to hear from constituents. I want to balance my admiration for the good work done by those officers with my constituents’ need to represent their concerns for the council’s plans.
While every playground matters in Bournemouth East, some raise particular concerns, such as Kings Park and its two play areas. At the Ashley Road site, security fencing dominated until I got it removed. The zipwire is missing, the bandstand and bins are rusty, and offensive graffiti scarred a bench until I lobbied the council to scrub it clean. The sudden removal of equipment without warning or explanation has deepened frustration. It struck such a chord with year 6 students from King’s Park academy that they staged a protest in their final day of school. Many of their placards remain in my office and are a daily reminder to campaign harder. It was an honour to stand with those children as they voiced their hopes and called on the council to act in their very first protest. If the Minister would like to green-light funding for a trampoline to go into the refurbished Kings Park playground in Bournemouth, I am sure the students of King’s Park academy would be most grateful.
Last week I met with Kirsty, Kate and David, Rebecca, Shelley, Robyn, Jonathan, Charlotte and their children at Harewood junior school. They were clear that these spaces are vital for children’s health, wellbeing and social development. Yet they have been overlooked for too long. I have met Rio and his mum Amanda at Mallard Road play area, just steps from their home. Rio organised a protest at 9 am on 6 August and rallied 30 people to stand up for their park—an incredible achievement. Some brought home-made posters to voice their concerns. Dave, who lives nearby with his two children, says,
“We do not have a garden so the play space is very needed as parents do not have the money sometimes to take their children out.”
For Dave and others, that park is a lifeline. Kayleigh, a mother of three, says,
“With the cost of living being what it is right now, families are relying more than ever on free local spaces like this one.”
She reminds us that play areas are not just for children; they bring people together. Parents chat, children make friends and local bonds are formed. Without those spaces, we lose more than just swings; we lose connection. Kayleigh ended with a powerful plea,
“I understand budgets are tight, but I’d ask you to think of this not as a cost, but as an investment in our children, our neighbourhood, and in our community’s future. Please do not take this away from them.
Let’s find a way to protect this space for the children who use it now, and for those who will in the years to come.”
The proposed closure of 13 playgrounds across Muscliff, Strouden Park and Townsend in my constituency is sparking serious concern. Residents fear longer journeys, fewer spontaneous visits and exclusion for those without transport, which will inevitably hit the disadvantaged families of those communities hardest. The promise of a new playground at Landford Way is being understood as a trade-off for the loss of those 13 doorstep play areas, and it is not reassuring people. It is seen as a reduction in equity, not as an enhancement in access. Muscliff Park, a high-use site, has seen strong demands for reopening the toilet facilities, reviving the café and launching a full refurbishment programme, which again goes to the point that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was making, which is that there is a deeper truth here that parks are not just patches of grass and playgrounds, not just swings and slides; they are outdoor community centres. Reframing them as essential community infrastructure is essential.
Elsewhere, constituents have raised concerns about proposals to consider and relocate Tuckton tea gardens and Riverlands play park. Others have voiced concerns about Beaufort Park, Knowlton Gardens, Clarence Road, Shelley Road, Churchill Gardens, Moordown rec and Epiphany play areas. The Minister will be pleased to hear that there is not a test on these playgrounds. I name them because they are so important to my constituents. Above all, residents are asking for a strategic approach: yes to investing in busy destination play spaces, but not to the detriment of smaller playgrounds on people’s doorsteps. The message is simple: play matters and our communities are ready to help shape its future.
For my constituents, play matters for very distinct reasons. Children’s development, their mental health and emotional support is key. Sarah in Strouden Park, whose family uses Mallard Road play area, says that play
“lays down positive habits for life.”
Rachel in Townsend, who uses Moordown rec, says,
“It is vital for children to be outside and free resources are a lifeline for many. Our children spend so much time learning or on screens that play is desperately needed”.
Danielle in Boscombe West, who uses Kings Park at the Ashley Road site, says that playgrounds
“help children learn through play. They are a free activity that helps low-income families who otherwise would have no outdoor space access. They keep the older children occupied rather than committing anti-social behaviour.”
At the other play area in Kings Park, Clarence Road, Thomas, who lives in Boscombe East, says,
“It is an essential part of our day that gives the girls a chance for physical play and to decompress after school. It’s really important for our eldest, who is dyslexic and often finds the school day mentally exhausting.”
Playgrounds are also great for community and social connection. Chris in Muscliff, who uses Knowlton Gardens play area with his family, says,
“Micro communities within Muscliff use these green spaces/play parks (what’s left of them) and rely on them for their own wellbeing as well as their families.”
Charlotte in Littledown, whose family uses Kings Park, Clarence Road, says:
“They are one of the few remaining things that parents and children can do together as a community outside in nature for free.”
And Judith in Southbourne says about Riverlands play area:
“Grandparents who take their children there also have an increased social circle—not only with other elderly people but with young people who might be using it. I often find myself in conversation with people I don’t know of all different ages.”
There are clearly significant benefits to having playgrounds.
Play is not just about playgrounds; it is a mindset, a culture, a lifeline, and it deserves to be woven into every part of community life. For children who have known trauma or injury, health play services are critical. They help children to cope, connect and heal, both emotionally and psychologically, yet for too long health play services have been treated as optional. That must change. Play specialists should be embedded in paediatric care, supporting children from waiting rooms to treatment rooms, and even in operating theatres. I saw this in action in Poole hospital, with Lego used to explain MRI scans, playful syringe demonstrations and outdoor play woven into physiotherapy.
In June, NHS England and Starlight launched “play well”, a new toolkit co-produced by over 60 professionals with support from the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Care Quality Commission and Sophie’s Legacy. It is backed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance and research showing that therapeutic play reduces anxiety, loneliness and the risk of medical trauma, so I fully endorse it.
Play also happened in Sure Start centres, so I am thrilled that the Government are bringing back a revamped Sure Start programme. Recent reports by University College London, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Centre for Young Lives all proved the benefits of Sure Starts and their play provision. Sure Starts prevented over 5,000 hospital admissions annually and halved inequality gaps, and children living near centres scored higher in GCSEs. The experience of Bournemouth East’s Sure Starts, delivered so excellently by the YMCA in Townsend and Springbourne, was that safe, joyful play helps children to develop socially and emotionally. I cannot wait to see a revamped, reinvigorated Sure Start in my constituency.
Play is good for our economy. The Association of Play Industries has 60 members contributing around £250 million to the economy. The association represents 70% of the industry, so if we extrapolate, it has been estimated that the industry is worth approximately £357 million. Many of those businesses are small, British and family-owned.
I will close where I started, which is to say that the people of Bournemouth East have felt they have not been heard for too long. They know that a child’s right to play is important. They know the importance of playgrounds to a child’s right to play. We must protect these spaces and improve them. We must stand up for play everywhere, not just in Bournemouth East. After 14 long years of austerity, with the benefit of a Labour Government, we should stand up for play across the country.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) on securing this important debate. I commend him for the eloquence with which he stated his case and how he always speaks on behalf of those he represents. I thank him for the tenacity and dedication with which he has continued since his election to promote playground and play space provision. I note and recognise his ongoing efforts to maintain and improve playground provision in his Bournemouth East seat. His council will have heard that message, too, as it has on other occasions. I thank him for his ongoing engagement with the Department on this matter. I should also welcome him to his role as the chair of the new all-party parliamentary group on play, which, as he mentioned, met for the first time last week. I am delighted that, through that avenue, he will continue to champion this work, and I look forward to the continuing discussions in this area.
The Government recognise that access to playgrounds is vital for the health and wellbeing of communities and in supporting physical activity, social cohesion and opportunities for young and old people. My hon. Friend made an important point about the benefits that playgrounds bring for parents and grandparents, who find others in their community to speak to when they are with their children or grandchildren in those settings. As the Minister for Housing and Planning, I will speak in what remains of my time in large part to the planning system and how it supports play, but I will touch on other areas.
Our planning system plays an important role in securing and protecting playgrounds, but this is not the reserve of planning alone. As a whole, the Government are considering how to improve both the availability and quality of play spaces across England. Following my meeting with my hon. Friend after our debate on Report of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, I wrote, as promised, to my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Education and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that we do all we can across Government to support better outcomes for children and communities. We are considering how to bolster further the provision of sufficient opportunities for play, and although I cannot speak for those Departments and their thinking in policy terms, I assure my hon. Friend that the Government as a whole have heard his call to explore a national strategy in the area.
With local authorities and industry specialists, the Government have established the parks working group to find solutions to the issues facing parks and green spaces across the country, including in Bournemouth East. The work includes increasing the number of playgrounds more generally. Our £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods will deliver funding to enable neighbourhood boards in 75 communities across the country to develop local regeneration plans in conjunction with local authorities. The boards can choose to use that funding for a wide range of activities, including to upgrade play areas.
My hon. Friend knows—we have a difference of opinion on this point—that it is not the Government’s intention to place new statutory responsibilities on local authorities in relation to play. We are instead giving them the freedom and flexibility they need to meet local needs, including looking after treasured green spaces. The spending review provided more than £5 billion of new grant funding over the next three years for local services that communities can rely on. That includes £3.4 billion of new grant funding to be delivered through the local government finance settlement in financial years 2026-27 to 2028-29. The Government have also committed to simplifying the wider local funding landscape, reducing the number of grants and consolidating them into the local government finance settlement, so that local authorities are able to plan more effectively for infrastructure, amenities and services.
As my hon. Friend also knows, because we have had many a discussion on this point, the national planning policy framework includes a number of safeguards for play spaces. It makes it clear that local planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. That includes places for children’s play, both formal and informal. Information gained from those assessments should be used to determine what recreational provision is needed, which development plans should then seek to accommodate.
The framework also includes strong protections for these spaces, where they may be threatened by development. It sets out clear and robust tests that must be met before any development affecting such spaces can be approved. It means that these facilities can be lost only where the facility is no longer needed or where there is a justified and appropriate alternative, such as equivalent or better provision elsewhere. My hon. Friend welcomed the further strengthening of that policy in our update to the NPPF in December last year, through the explicit safeguarding of formal play spaces.
My hon. Friend knows—we have had this discussion, and I will continue to engage with him on the subject—that in recognition of the importance of play space provision, we are actively considering what more we can say about this important matter, including on the vital role of communities in ensuring that play spaces are fit for purpose. The debate today has, as have other discussions I have had with my hon. Friend, provided invaluable feedback and experience on play spaces and the issues affecting them in his part of England, and he has spoken about others more generally.
We are, as my hon. Friend knows, intending to launch a consultation on what are termed new national policies for decision making—that is, the rules by which development management is managed and taken forward. That currently sits within the national planning policy framework, but he knows we are looking at how we make reforms in that area. I have taken on board his points about what more that suite of national policies might do in relation to the provision of play space. I know that he will contribute, as a constituency MP, to that consultation when it goes live.
A couple of other points are worth mentioning. The national planning policy framework is supplemented by national design guidance, which encourages the provision of open space and play space, including guidance on types of play space and how this can be integrated into new development in an accessible, inclusive and secure way. We are in the process of updating that suite of national design guidance and we are reviewing existing guidance on play space as part of that effort.
My hon. Friend mentioned the role of Sport England. With regard to that role, and potentially, as he put it, extending its duties to play, he will know that the Government have a moratorium on new statutory consultees. However, we want to improve and streamline statutory consultee arrangements in England more generally and empower local areas to make those important decisions. We remain committed to ensuring that our playing field capacity is protected and extended, and the NPPF ensures that those interests are maintained in the planning system, as I have set out.
Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East on securing this debate. I thank him for outlining, with his customary clarity and force, the issues affecting playgrounds in his constituency and around the country. Parks and playgrounds provide places for social connection, support health and wellbeing, increase community engagement and volunteering, help people to connect with nature, and can be a foundation for social capital that underpins local opportunity and prosperity.
We will continue to do all we can to bring together key stakeholders, as well as local and central Government officials, across the parks and green space sector to identify effective and deliverable solutions to improve the quality and sustainability of those spaces. More widely, this Government remain committed to creating a planning system that delivers the play space opportunities that my hon. Friend’s constituency and other parts of the country need. I look forward in particular to sharing our updated planning policies and designing guidance with him and other hon. Members in the months to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Stockton and Darlington Railway: 200th Anniversary Festival
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the heritage festival of the 200th anniversary of the Stockton and Darlington Railway.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. This month we celebrate a pivotal moment in our history: the first steam-powered passenger train, which marked the birth of public rail travel as we know it and had a profound impact on the social, cultural and industrial heritage of Britain and countries around the world.
Two hundred years ago, on 26 September 1825, the world’s first passenger locomotive was put on the tracks outside the world’s first passenger train station: Aycliffe Lane, now Heighington station, in my constituency. Locomotion No. 1, designed by Newcastle engineer George Stephenson, was about to make history. On the following day, when the train left Shildon in the Bishop Auckland constituency, steam-hauled passenger railways began and passenger rail was born. More than 450 passengers in converted coal wagons passed through my hometown of Newton Aycliffe, then through Darlington, where the train was greeted by 10,000 people, before reaching the outskirts of Stockton around half past 3 in the afternoon. All modern railways, across the globe, trace their beginnings back to that journey and that incredible part of our heritage.
I want to set out, with enormous pride, the impact the event went on to have around the world; the way it transformed our society, culture and leisure time; and how we will celebrate the heritage of our groundbreaking railway with a major cultural festival this year. The contribution of that first journey was enormous. It endowed the north-east and our country with a rich heritage of innovation, inventiveness and ingenuity. It seems strange to think it now, but, because the Stockton and Darlington railway brought passenger rail into being for the first time, it led to the invention of many things that we have long taken for granted.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I cannot claim that the Stockton and Darlington railway went anywhere near my Carlisle constituency, but I cannot let this moment pass without celebrating Carlisle and north Cumbria’s role in the heritage of that line. Indeed, the engine that was first used on that marvellous line was Locomotion No. 1, created—as my hon. Friend says—by the Stephenson company. The company went on to create the iconic Stephenson’s Rocket, which, hon. Members might wish to know, finished its days in service on Lord Carlisle’s line in my constituency. I invite my hon. Friend to celebrate not only the glorious Stockton and Darlington line, but the inventiveness of our heritage in our railway industry.
Alan Strickland
I agree with my hon. Friend. She is a doughty champion for the city of Carlisle and has an astonishing knack of linking all subjects back to Carlisle’s rich heritage. We indeed celebrate its crucial contribution in this debate. Carlisle is lucky to have such a good advocate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He is right to underline the heritage festival of the Stockton and Darlington railway. When he mentions what he is celebrating in his constituency, I think of my constituency, where we have a great culture and heritage that started in 1606 with a market town. Does the hon. Member agree that it is important that we celebrate the individual culture and heritage of local areas and communities, understanding that someone who does not know where they come from can never know where they are going?
Alan Strickland
The hon. Member is absolutely right that it is only by understanding the rich social and cultural heritage across our United Kingdom that we can look properly at and understand the future. I understand he is also a doughty champion for his constituency, from time to time.
The Stockton and Darlington railway made a great difference. The world’s first railway carriage—quite rightly called “Experiment”—was brought into being. Thankfully, railway companies have slightly upgraded their carriages since the coal wagons were used. Station waiting rooms had to be invented because passengers did not want to wait in the rain; without their invention, David Lean could never have filmed “Brief Encounter”. Railway bridges such as Skerne bridge in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), which is the oldest continuously used railway bridge in the world; signalling systems; railway pubs including one where passengers’ pints were pulled by the first woman to work for a railway company, Mary Simpson; and of course iron tracks fixed to railway sleepers to a set gauge—they all had to be invented for the first time by the railway. Each of those elements of travel, used around the globe, traces its evolution to this extraordinary piece of history.
This could not have just happened anywhere; it could only have happened in the north-east. Our region had the key ingredients for this railway revolution: coal under our feet to power the engines; world-leading inventors and engineers, such as George Stephenson and his son Robert, who spent 10 years experimenting with tracks, locomotives and all the parts that make up the railway; and dynamic entrepreneurs, such as local Quaker Edward Pease, whose investment in this groundbreaking technology was critical to its success.
It is difficult to overstate how important that first journey was. Most importantly, it was proof of concept. It showed that rail travel could work for passengers, not just goods, and by connecting people, raw materials, markets and ports it helped unleash the industrial revolution as never before. It also changed how we all live. Changing the way people were connected to each other fundamentally altered Britain socially, culturally and economically. It had a huge impact on all aspects of our lives.
For the first time, working-class people could afford to travel far from the town or village they were born in, powering social mobility. For the first time, people could commute to work, with the railway allowing businesses to diversify and expand their workforces. For the first time, working people could travel for their holidays. Saltburn, in the Redcar constituency, became one of the world’s first tourist resorts, with a hotel that trains pulled up to directly, so that passengers and their luggage could move seamlessly from carriage to room. That first journey might well have led to the world’s first package holiday, when a pub landlord in Shildon in the Bishop Auckland constituency sold return tickets to Stockton races, which included the price of race admission.
Passenger rail also transformed sport, leisure and the way we come together in society. In 1882, the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway put on special trains to transport 2,000 fans to the FA cup semi-final in Huddersfield. Did you know, Mr Stringer, that it is the early railways we have to thank for modern timekeeping? As villages, towns and cities became more connected, it no longer made sense for each place to keep its own local time based on the sun’s position in the sky. That was found to be slightly impractical. For reliable railway timetables to be created, the UK embraced a single unified standard time across the whole country, which we had never done before. The event genuinely changed the world for ever, bringing us into the modern age.
We have a proud history of celebrating our region and country getting the world on track 200 years ago. On the 100th anniversary, local schoolchildren were given specially made medals. For the 150th celebrations, quite extraordinarily, special cans were distributed containing steam from Locomotion No. 1. I am not clear how that worked.
It is brilliant that we have been celebrating the 200th anniversary across the country with the Railway 200 campaign. In the north-east, the S&DR200 festival includes more than 40 events from film screenings to steam train galas. I am delighted it is being supported by the Arts Council, the Heritage Fund, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—for which I thank the Minister—and Transport Ministers including Lord Hendy, a renowned steam train buff whom I met earlier.
I am also incredibly proud that a newly renovated replica of Locomotion No. 1 and its passenger carriage will travel along sections of the original line, including Skerne bridge in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, where the Hopetown museum has been refurbished. My hon. Friend is working hard to include the local community, including by developing a blue plaque scheme to celebrate the railway heritage of that proud town.
It is also fitting that the train will pass through Heighington station, where this all began. Our history of innovative rail manufacturing continues just a few hundred yards away at the world-class Hitachi train factory, for which I was proud to campaign to secure a bright future. Thanks to Hitachi and the fantastic campaign by local volunteers of the Friends of the Stockton & Darlington Railway, we have managed to secure the funds needed to renovate the historic station to its former glory and restore the building, which is of such national and global importance. As part of the festival, families will be able to come together to see what those cheering crowds saw 200 years ago. Perhaps, without knowing it, our ancestors witnessed a critical moment in the history of the way we live.
It is with shared pride that I note that this incredible journey began not just in Britain, but in the constituencies of many of my colleagues who are here today. I hope that Members from all parties will join me in celebrating the marking of this incredible piece of our heritage, as well as the rich contribution that the events of 1825 made to our society, our shared culture and the way we live, work and spend our leisure time.
My final message is this: if people are interested in this incredible history, whether they live in the United Kingdom or abroad, they should come and see us. Travel to the north-east for the huge range of events taking place throughout September. Let us make sure that the heritage festival celebrating the 200th anniversary of the incredible Stockton and Darlington railway is an enormous success.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I am not going to impose a time limit, but I am going to call the Front-Bench speakers to respond to the debate from 5.10 pm. With half an hour, the four people standing can work out how much time they have.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) for introducing the debate so well, and for bringing alive the past 200 years of the railway.
Since steam filled the air on 27 September 1825, as the first passenger rail between Stockton and Darlington ran on that line, rail has transformed the world. It has transformed the economy, our society and livelihoods—lives and leisure—and all that was to follow captured the global imagination. To mark its 150th anniversary, in 1975, the National Railway Museum opened in my city of York: a national museum outside London, fought for by Jennie Lee, the Labour Minister at the time.
In parallel to the museum’s 50th anniversary celebrations, we in York will also be opening the station hall on 26 September. I welcome visitors old and new to see the improvements, the new interpretation in the gallery and the new gallery roof. I thank the Labour Government for all that they have done to support the National Railway Museum. New artefacts, such as the wreath that adorned Queen Victoria’s funeral locomotive, will be on display. There will also be a beautifully restored WHSmith book stall kiosk from Waterloo station, which I am really looking forward to seeing, as my grandfather started his working life selling newspapers at the WHSmith at North Shields station. The old favourite royal trains will also return in their full glory.
I am sure that visitors will want to flock to the National Railway Museum to join the celebrations on the celebratory weekend—on their way, of course, to Shildon, Darlington and Stockton. The National Railway Museum’s sister museum, Locomotion, in Shildon, the world’s first railway town, will also be part of the commemorations. Locomotion will hit its 21st birthday at the same time, and will host the Inspiration train. For those yet to make it to these parts, the Railway 200 Inspiration train will be their destination. It will be travelling throughout the country, led in partnership by the National Railway Museum, as its carriages tell our story of the history of rail, engage all in science with its mobile Wonderlab and spark a flame for people to consider a career on our great railways.
I also want to thank the Labour Government for what is about to come in York. That is, of course, the new gallery. Spades will be going in the ground in January, as part of our ongoing 200, 201 or 202 years of celebration. The revamped museum will tell a far better story of the history of rail—past, present and future—enabling budding engineers to explore their heritage while learning the science behind rail, and all engaging with science, technology, engineering and maths through the Wonderlab.
I would not steal the history of the Stockton to Darlington line, but the revolution that was born there was scaled and exported because of my predecessor George Hudson’s vision for the railways. Two hundred years on, York is the centre of digital and advanced rail, and because of our shared history it is the global centre for the future of rail. Stephenson’s Rocket will soon take pride of place at the National Railway Museum, alongside the Mallard and the Flying Scotsman. Given that we hold such incredible assets in our city, there will be a shared enthusiasm—from young and old, locally and globally—to come to York to the world’s leading rail museum. Of course, we will encourage them to go up the line to the north-east as well.
This is not about just our past, but our future. We must see the modal shift to rail, on which I know the Transport team is working so hard. We need the decarbonisation and the economic power that rail can bring to all our communities. As that happens, we must build that incredible, aspiring industry that we saw in our country 200 years ago and that we will celebrate in York on the weekend of the 26th to the 28th. Five thousand people now work for the future of digital and advanced rail in our city. Our past tells a story of our future. That is why I really welcome the opportunity to celebrate Railway 200.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing this wonderful debate. I hope, Mr Stringer, that you will indulge a speech that not only celebrates our transport heritage but takes a look at our transport future.
Some 200 years ago, on 27 September 1825, a small steam locomotive named Locomotion No.1 set off from Shildon, went through Darlington and reached Stockton-on-Tees. What seemed an eccentric experiment at first became the spark that ignited the modern world. That line—the Stockton and Darlington railway—was the first public railway to carry passengers and freight by steam. That journey began on the banks of the Tees; it transformed not only Britain, but every corner of the globe. In a few years the line reached the mouth of the Tees, and within a generation a small farmstead called Middlesbrough, with a population of 25 people, became an industrial giant—“the infant Hercules”, as Gladstone called it.
The town’s first passenger station opened in 1846 and the present station, dating from 1877, has now been restored, its undercroft part of a new heritage quarter. From the 1880s came the great goods yards and sidings: Middlesbrough goods yard, the dockside yards, the Eston and South Bank sidings feeding the furnaces; then South Bank yard, Cargo Fleet sidings and finally Tees yard in Thornaby—the great marshalling hub for Teesside freight.
Here, rail was never just about moving people; it fuelled an industrial revolution. Durham coal fed the network—carried to Stockton and Middlesbrough to power London’s homes, factories and ships. As iron and steelworks rose at South Tees, Middlesbrough and Redcar, the railway was their lifeblood. Rails, bridges, engines, ships—the very fabric of the modern world—were forged there and carried by train from that spot. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, having woven Northern Ireland into the debate, was absolutely right: people have to know their own heritage. What I have described brought about the immigration of thousands and thousands of people from Ireland, who came to work in those industries.
The Stockton and Darlington railway was not just a local line, but the first step in a global transformation—the marriage of steam, steel and energy that built the modern age. We on Teesside can say, with great pride, that it all began with us. In celebrating our heritage, I hope that at the end of this month I will be able join the Boulby Flyer, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), as it runs from Middlesbrough to Saltburn—I will give notice of my visit. I may also visit one of the exhibitions planned at Eaglescliffe station, the one I use so regularly, on the original railway’s route.
If the first half of our story is pride, the second half must be honesty. Although our ancestors led the world, our region is today in some respects being left behind. Look at the line that still runs from Darlington, through Middlesbrough, to Saltburn. Nearly two centuries on, it still has not been electrified. Passengers and freight alike rely on ageing diesel trains. While other regions benefit from faster, cleaner and more reliable services, Teesside is stuck with the infrastructure of yesterday, not tomorrow. It is a bitter irony that the birthplace of the railway revolution now finds itself waiting on the platform while others speed ahead. Electrification is not just about convenience. It means efficiency; cutting emissions; freight trains hauling more without choking our air; faster, quieter and more reliable passenger services; and connecting Teesside businesses and communities to a modern rail network worthy of the 21st century.
In 2024, the Tees Valley combined authority announced that it would use part of the £1 billion of funding devolved to it to develop a business case for electrification from Northallerton to Saltburn, but the Conservatives’ record is clear. In 2017, when I was shadow Transport Secretary, they scrapped electrification in Wales, the east midlands and the north-west. Again and again promises are made and then abandoned. That is why, whether it is urged by this House’s Transport Committee, the RMT, the Railway Industry Association or the Campaign for Better Transport, I believe that a Labour Government must deliver a long-term, rolling programme of rail electrification—not piecemeal promises or short-term fixes, but a serious national commitment. At home on Teesside, that must mean electrifying the line from Northallerton and Darlington through to Saltburn.
Two hundred years ago, George Stephenson and Edward Pease had the vision to imagine a future that others thought impossible. They did not wait: they built, they acted, and they changed the world. We owe it to their memory, and to the generations to come, to show the same ambition today, so let us celebrate the courage of 1825 not with nostalgia alone, but with action. Let us put Teesside once again at the forefront of Britain’s future as it was at the forefront of Britain’s past. From Stockton to Darlington and from Middlesbrough to Saltburn, the railway that carried coal and steel now carries our pride, our history and our hope. Let us make sure that it carries our future as well.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
It is always great to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this wonderful and very important debate, for which I must thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland), who secured it. We have heard some great speeches already.
The Stockton and Darlington railway is an incredible part of our regional transport history. As we have heard, it was the world’s first public railway to use steam locomotives. I am thrilled that we are now celebrating 200 years since its first public journey. The international heritage festival taking place across County Durham and Tees Valley is an excellent opportunity to display our region’s contribution not just to the country, but worldwide.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
This summer, Derby celebrated Railway 200 in style, bringing 40,000 people together in just three days to mark the Greatest Gathering, which was the largest collection of new and heritage railway stock ever assembled anywhere in the world and included Locomotion No. 1. From Darlington to Derby, will my hon. Friend acknowledge our incredible volunteers who are working hard in every part of the United Kingdom to mark Railway 200? It has been a roaring success so far, and I am sure it will be for the rest of the year. Does she agree that the celebrations are not just looking at the past, but inspiring the next generation to carry on our great railway heritage into the future?
Mrs Hodgson
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. He raised very important points. Yes, while looking to the past, it is important to look to the future. He spoke also about the importance of volunteers in our heritage railways across the country. Without those volunteers, those railways would be long gone. He made a very important point in mentioning the volunteers.
Last year in Great Britain, surface rail alone accounted for 9,848—just under 10,000—miles of track and more than 1.6 billion passenger rail journeys, showing its continued significance nationwide. The Government understand the importance of our railways, and they are working harder to create more journeys and to reduce delays. I support their plans to bring our railways finally back into public ownership.
I would like to mention my own constituency of Washington and Gateshead South, which is home to the Bowes railway, which opened just four short months later on 17 January 1826. It will be celebrating its bicentennial next year. The earliest section of the Bowes railway was designed by George Stephenson, who, as we know, also helped to design the Stockton and Darlington railway. The Bowes railway is the world’s only operational preserved standard-gauge cable railway system, which used stationary steam engines and gravity to move coal wagons from the pits in Durham to the River Tyne. It is still there to this day, as the Bowes Railway Museum is proudly in Springwell village in my constituency.
I also want to take this opportunity to discuss the Leamside line—you didn’t think you were going to get away without me mentioning that one, did you, Mr Stringer? It begins at Ferryhill in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor and passes through Washington, on to Gateshead and South Tyneside to Pelaw. The first section of the Leamside line opened in 1838 and served our communities until it was closed to passengers in 1964, under the Beeching cuts. It was mothballed in the 1990s. As chair of the Leamside line all-party parliamentary group, I have campaigned, with the help of my hon. Friend, to reopen the line and to bring trains to Washington, which is one of the largest towns in the UK without a direct rail link.
I am delighted that, following our Government’s spending review in June, North East Mayor Kim McGuinness has announced that the first sections of the Leamside line will be reopened as part of the Tyne and Wear Metro, linking stations at Pelaw and South Hylton via Washington. That will include three new stations at Follingsby in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) and Washington North and Washington South in my constituency. I will continue to campaign to reopen the full 21-mile line connecting our constituencies, taking pressure off the east coast main line and helping commuters get to employers in my constituency, such as, to name a few, Nissan, BAE systems and Rolls-Royce. There are many more.
Rail continues to be of vital importance as we seek to grow our local economy and look for solutions to climate change. The heritage festival is an incredible opportunity to celebrate our region’s history, as well as the future of our trains, as they continue to serve an essential part of our lives.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing this important debate.
Today, as colleagues have said, we mark 200 years since the Stockton and Darlington railway opened; it was the first passenger railway in the world, and the Quaker philanthropist Edward Pease, father of the railways, had a slogan for the railway:
“At private risk for public service”.
It was a radical experiment to fund engineer George Stephenson and his 18-year-old son Robert to use a steam engine instead of horses to power Locomotion No. 1, and it worked. As we have heard in this debate, 10,000 people turned out to welcome its launch, and the success of the railway soon spread across Britain and around the world. Goods could move quickly and cheaply, and so could people.
Stockton’s exports and economy grew, and soon the town’s storage staithes could not keep up with the amount of coal, so in the summer of 1828, Edward’s son Joseph started looking for new land. On 2 August 1828, he surveyed the small hamlet of Middlesbrough. He recorded in his diary that he could see the day when
“the bare fields will be covered with a busy multitude, and numerous vessels crowding to the banks denoting a busy seaport”.
He bought the farmland in 1829, with a population of 25, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) has just said; over the next 20 years, it would grow to over 7,000. Industrial Teesside was born.
Sadly, 200 years on, our public transport across Teesside is no longer world leading. Our bus routes have been cut back and our trains do not meet the needs of our communities. That is why the Labour Government have given the Tees Valley Mayor a £1 billion Transport for City Regions settlement to start sorting things out.
As part of that work, I would like to see new passenger railways spread across our region again, such as along the Boulby line, which has had a station sitting empty at Brotton since 1960, even though freight still runs three times a day along the line. Previous work by Arup in 2018 and by SYSTRA in 2023, commissioned by Redcar and Cleveland borough council, found that restoring passenger trains to the line would be feasible without substantial investment in infrastructure, and that diverting an existing service from Saltburn to service the villages in Skelton, Brotton and Loftus would represent value for money and be a net generator of revenue for the rail network.
The combined authority has committed £1 million of those TCR funds to a feasibility study, and I hope that the Mayor will do that work—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I say to the hon. Gentleman that the motion that we are considering is relatively narrowly drawn; it is about the 200th anniversary of the Stockton and Darlington railway. I am following his speech and chain of logic but ask him to come back to the motion.
Luke Myer
Thank you, Chair.
As part of the S&DR200 celebrations, the Boulby line is being reopened, so passengers can enjoy that heritage rail, because it is an important part of Teesside’s infrastructure and still services the mines in our region today. With respect, Chair, it is part of the heritage of Teesside’s rail infrastructure, and I would greatly like to see it restored.
There is no reason that our region cannot again lead the world in public transport. Just as we did 200 years ago, we have the ideas and the can-do attitude to take things forward. Let us make that happen; let us get our region back on track once again.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer, and I thank the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) for securing this important debate.
Railways are a hugely important part of our national story, and an important factor in the economic success of Britain and the region that we are discussing today. The development of the Stockton and Darlington railway was one of Britain’s greatest industrial feats. It pioneered the creation of the modern railway system, allowing people to travel faster than before in a carriage that was wonderfully named “Experiment.”
The existence of the Stockton and Darlington railway helped the development of steam trains, including Stephenson’s Locomotion No. 1, which was the first locomotive to travel on the railway. There followed some of the most incredible feats of engineering, including Stephenson’s Rocket, the Flying Scotsman and the Mallard. It is a testament to the enduring legacy of the Stockton and Darlington railway that last year—200 years later, and despite all the subsequent technological advancements —Brits took over 1.7 billion railway journeys. It is right that we pay homage to where it all began, on the original Stockton and Darlington railway, which served as a catalyst for a rail revolution across the country.
As we reflect on the legacy of Stockton and Darlington, we must also ensure that rail continues to deliver for passengers in the 21st century. Today, unfortunately, rail passengers do not always receive the service they deserve, after years of failed privatisation. Services are unreliable and subject to cancellations and delays. When they do run, they are often uncomfortably overcrowded. By contrast, when I travel on my local heritage railway, it is never delayed; it is run by volunteers, but always runs on time. The current situation is particularly challenging to accept on the mainline railways, given the fare rises that we all have to put up with. Meanwhile, fare dodging regularly goes unpunished, as Conservative leadership hopefuls are often keen to point out.
The former Conservative Government planned to use this anniversary to encourage people to take up roles in the railway industry, through education, through tourism, and through the celebration of railway workers and enthusiasts. I hope that the current Government will seize on this anniversary as an opportunity to deliver better railways for passengers, with expanded connectivity, particularly to the north of England, which has had a very raw deal over a very long period. I know that, from having travelled on rail in the north of England. But let us face it—on any rail journeys that are not to or from London, we tend to get a poor deal.
The Government must be far more proactive in the sanctioning of those train operators who cannot provide a high-quality service. Of course, some of them will cease to exist when Great British Railways comes fully on stream, but we should not forget—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Member heard what I said to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). If he could stick to the motion before us, I would be grateful; sanctioning current rail operators is not directly relevant to the motion.
Max Wilkinson
Thank you, Mr Stringer. Then I shall skip over my anecdote about the excellent Pullin’s Bakery fruit cake served on Great Western Railway services—I hope colleagues in the north also enjoy such delicacies.
I have spent many hours on heritage railways, and I believe they give us the important points we need to focus on for railways today. The Stockton and Darlington railway that we are discussing today revolutionised our country 200 years ago. Railways still play a central role in our modern economy, but for too long passengers have felt that they are not getting the services they deserve. The best tribute we could pay to George Stephenson and the legacy of the Stockton and Darlington railway is to modernise our current infrastructure, bring fares down and expand connectivity. In celebrating 200 years of the Stockton and Darlington railway, let us invoke the spirit of George Stephenson and seek to deliver exactly that.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) for securing this debate and for speaking with such knowledge and passion, not only about the Stockton and Darlington railway but about railways more generally and the impact they have had on this country.
The Stockton and Darlington railway was the first step in the great railway invention and expansion that shaped our country and the world. Britain pioneered steam locomotion and railways, and we have heard how George Stephenson set the global standard. Railways in turn powered the industrial revolution by enabling the efficient movement of raw materials, goods and people.
Within just a few years our country had established a railway network that grew throughout the country; what was once a three-day trip to remote areas by horse and cart became, within a few years, a journey of a few hours by train. We take it for granted today in the age of the internet and artificial intelligence, but it is hard to overstate just how transformative the railways were in the 19th century—and it all started in Stockton and Darlington.
Beyond the railways’ economic impact, they transformed the social fabric of our country. They opened the countryside to the urban population, offering access to fresh air and green spaces. Rail travel also revolutionised tourism. Affordable fares made trips possible for working-class families, reshaping the character of seaside towns such as those in my constituency on the Isle of Wight.
Heritage railways act as living museums that preserve the rich legacy of our railways, and they will be doing so up and down the country—an essential part of the 200th anniversary celebrations. The central and most important part of that will be the cultural festival in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor. While discussing heritage railways, I must mention the contribution of the heritage railway in my constituency, the Isle of Wight steam railway at Havenstreet, which welcomes over 110,000 visitors annually. It is not just a tourist destination; it is an accredited Arts Council England museum and educational charity, employing 35 staff and enriching our local economy—particularly the visitor economy—and our community.
Heritage railways contribute £600 million to the UK economy and welcome 13 million visitors each year. None of that would be possible without the extraordinary contribution of volunteers, and I am sure volunteers will play a very significant role in the upcoming cultural festival. Across the country, thousands of dedicated individuals give their time and expertise not only to restore locomotives and maintain rolling stock, but to guide visitors and passengers. On the Isle of Wight steam railway alone, we have a team of up to 500 volunteers, and it is one of the largest volunteer organisations on the island.
In celebrating the 200th anniversary of our railways, we must do more to remove barriers to volunteers and offer more flexible opportunities that encourage people both young and old to volunteer. Recently, my noble Friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay identified just such a barrier to volunteering and sought to remove it during consideration of the Employment Rights Bill in the other place. An obsolete 1920s law governing the employment of young people has survived in later legislation. It means that, strictly speaking, it is not legal for heritage railways to give volunteering opportunities to anyone under the age of 16. My noble Friend was able to amend the Bill in the other place on a cross-party basis to remove that outdated provision in existing legislation. I hope very much that when the Bill comes back to the Commons, as part of the 200th anniversary celebrations and in that spirit, the Government will allow that amendment to stand.
I close by again congratulating the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor and by celebrating the story of Britain’s railways. The Stockton and Darlington railway was the world’s first public railway to use steam locomotives. Its opening was pioneering proof of the role not only of steam, but of railway, as a means of public transport that continues to this day. It is only fitting that we all join in honouring 200 years of innovation, connection and progress.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Minister, I suspect that you will have plenty of time to leave space for the mover of the motion to respond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I will indeed. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing this important debate and shining a light on the Stockton and Darlington Railway 200. The festival is a wonderful celebration of the birth of modern railway in the region, which transformed how the world traded, travelled and communicated.
In September 1825, the first passenger railway journey in the world took place between Stockton and Darlington. News reports at the time spoke of thousands of people lining the tracks to witness this small steam train as it travelled the 27 miles between Shildon, Darlington and Stockton. The journey led to the modern railway as we know it. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor spoke powerfully about its transformative impact, whether that be the package holiday or modern timekeeping. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) spoke about the link between industry, in particular coal—something I know very well from my constituency—and the huge role it played in developing local areas. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), rightly highlighted that we take connectivity for granted although it changed the social fabric of our country forever.
In just a few weeks’ time, we will mark 200 years since that momentous day. The Stockton and Darlington 200 festival will stage a re-enactment of that first steam journey, with a replica of Locomotion No.1 travelling along the historical line. The Government are proud to have supported the festival and the wider Railway 200 festival, which has partner events across the country. Railways transformed this country and the world, and it is right that we celebrate our past contribution to rail as well as looking to the future.
I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the local MPs, my hon. Friends the Members for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor, for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) and for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), and to the Members from slightly further afield, but present today in Westminster Hall—my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). They have all been working hard together to promote and support this anniversary over many months, and have also successfully campaigned to save the modern Hitachi train factory, which sits next to the original historical line.
The international Stockton and Darlington Railway 200, which celebrates the region’s unique contribution to rail history, has been a great success across 2025 so far. This Government are proud to support the festival, showcasing Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor’s outstanding contribution to the development of the modern railway.
Funding from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and its arm’s length bodies is central to helping communities to celebrate their proud heritage and the contribution they have made to this country. I am pleased to say that the Stockton and Darlington Railway 200 festival has benefited from a range of heritage and arts funding sponsors that have helped to support the area in developing the infrastructure and events to commemorate this important anniversary.
The National Lottery Heritage Fund has a long history of supporting the UK’s outstanding rail heritage, and has invested more than £100 million in heritage rail projects since 1994. In 2022, the National Lottery Heritage Fund awarded a grant of more than £3 million to Darlington borough council for its Stockton and Darlington railway project. The five-year project developed the Darlington railway quarter, creating a new railway attraction called Hopetown, which opened in July last year. The brilliant new museum and surrounding heritage buildings celebrate the past, present and future of rail travel engineering genius.
Hopetown was funded by a total investment of more than £35 million, with additional sponsors including Historic England, Arts Council England and the Railway Heritage Fund. I was pleased to see that Hopetown won the Heritage Railway Association Railway 200 special award earlier this year. It is a great example of the power of heritage to revitalise areas. Hopetown, of course, is the original name of that area of Darlington at the time of the industrial boom 200 years ago. I am glad to hear that the project is a great source of pride for my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington; I know it is one of the most significant heritage museums and attractions in the north-east.
Historic England, along with other arm’s length bodies of DCMS, has been heavily involved in supporting the north-east as it approaches the anniversary. In 2018, it established the Stockton and Darlington railway action zone to help to rejuvenate and restore the historical railway, and to realise its potential to become a major heritage attraction and visitor destination in the approach to 2025. Running from 2018 to 2023, with a total investment of more than £2.3 million from Historic England and numerous other sponsors, that fantastic project laid the essential foundations for the Stockton and Darlington Railway 200 bicentenary celebrations and the railway line’s longer-term management as a world-class visitor attraction.
On the Railway 200 festival more widely, over the past year, the Government have been working with Network Rail and partners across the country to help to deliver the partner-led initiative that celebrates the 200th anniversary of modern rail. Railway 200 explores how rail shaped Britain and the world. As this Government transform our railway system today, bringing the railways back into public ownership, as my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South spoke about, Railway 200 will also look to the future, encouraging more people to take the train and inviting the next generation of pioneering talent to join the railway industry and become the history makers of tomorrow.
Alongside the fantastic work going into the Stockton and Darlington festival, other railway museums have been supported as part of the Railway 200 festival. The National Rail Museum in York is a key regional sponsored museum, and part of the Science Museum Group. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) rightly paid tribute to Jennie Lee for her campaigning work on that. Events will be taking place across the country, and we heard a really good example from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker).
Much of the Railway 200 activity is being delivered through arm’s length bodies, many of which benefit from Government support. I look forward to the culmination of the bicentenary celebrations in late September, and I know the Rail Minister will join the events in the north-east marking 200 years since the first passenger journey—an historic moment that changed travel forever. I am familiar with the 1920s law that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East mentioned; I will reflect his comments to the relevant Department.
I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor for his personal contribution to railway heritage, and his support for the Friends of the Stockton & Darlington Railway. I pay tribute to them for their tireless campaigning. I end by putting on record a huge thanks to all the volunteers up and down the country who support heritage railways for all the work they do, as we mark this very important 200-year anniversary.
Alan Strickland
I thank all hon. Members from across the House who took part in the debate today. I thank the Minister for her very generous summary and for acknowledging colleagues who worked so hard on this anniversary, and I thank the Opposition spokespeople for their excellent speeches. It is wonderful to hear that across the country, there is real pride in our railway heritage and in the heritage lines that continue today: the Bowes railway line, the Isle of Wight steam railway and the Boulby line. There is also the Leamside line, which my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) has campaigned tirelessly to turn from history to reality.
Andy McDonald
This has been a really interesting exploration of our fantastic rail heritage, and we have celebrated many elements of it. Since his and my part of the world was the birthplace of the railway and we see the advances that have been made over 200 years—that fantastic progress showcased at the National Railway Museum in York—does my hon. Friend share with me an ambition for our part of the world, and the entire country, to make another seismic shift in the advancement of our transport, to be inspired by that heritage experience and to take it forward for the next 100 or 200 years, for the benefit of our people and economy?
Alan Strickland
I thank my hon. Friend for his incredibly powerful points. He was quite right to say earlier that the north-east has been a cradle of railway ingenuity for many years, and we want to recapture that spirit. We want to recapture high-quality manufacturing in the area—many of us here have worked hard to save the Hitachi rail factory. The link between the past and our future, a bright future that we need to fight hard for, is incredibly important as shown in the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) about how Middlesbrough grew from hamlet to city, thanks to the arrival of rail.
We also heard about the historical link to Carlisle and the important role that the city has played, which shows just how quickly rail spread across the north of England. I am sure we will all be visiting York to see the new gallery and the exciting developments at the National Railway Museum. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) made important points about science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and the link to the modern world that we can draw from that industrial heritage.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) mentioned, Derby has already had an extraordinary festival this year: 40,000 attendees is clearly the number to beat, and we will do our best in the north-east. It is fantastic that this year, and particularly this summer, there have been fantastic festivals around the United Kingdom to celebrate this important part of our history. I thank all hon. Members for taking part in this debate, and say, “See you in the north-east!”.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the heritage festival of the 200th anniversary of the Stockton and Darlington Railway.