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
International Day of Democracy
(2 days, 7 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
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the International Day of Democracy.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. It is an honour to speak on this topic, not only as an MP deeply invested in the state of our democracy, but as the representative of the Cities of London and Westminster, where we are today. I was stunned to learn that this House has not marked International Day of Democracy since 2017—and how much has changed since then. At home, we have seen Parliament unlawfully prorogued to push through a Government’s partisan agenda, restrictions introduced on voting and freedom of protest, and a Prime Minister who broke the stringent lockdown rules he set for a nation of millions.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned the unlawful constitutional vandalism wrought by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Having read recent reporting by The Guardian on his many commercial activities since leaving this place, does my hon. Friend agree that far stricter enforcement is required on the revolving door between Governments and the private sector? The current lobbying regulations surrounding that risk are clearly unfit for purpose.
Rachel Blake
I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. I agree that that is an area for considerably more thought.
Abroad, we have seen democracy in decline for a sixth consecutive year. According to analysis from Freedom House, in 2024, 60 countries experienced a deterioration in their political rights and liberties and only 34 secured improvements. Anti-democratic coups in central and west Africa, and the sustained illegal invasion of Ukraine by an increasingly authoritarian Russia, serve as reminders to us all that democracy is not just in decline, but being actively assaulted. At home and around the world, we are facing increasing radicalisation to the far left and far right, as the politics of meeting generational challenges, such as international conflicts, rewiring our global economy and countering climate change, are confronted by polarisation through disinformation and social media.
Last weekend, over 100,000 people marched through my constituency. Many expressed a long-standing freedom of speech without concern for harm or disorder, but some acted in ways that we need to condemn: assaults on members of law enforcement; speeches propagating racist conspiracy theories; foreign tech billionaires demanding “revolutionary” Government change to a democratically elected Administration; and calls to shoot the Prime Minister. That does not reflect who we are and what our democracy can achieve.
Many of those who marched on Saturday did so under the Union flag, which has so many times united us as a country; it united us at the millennium celebrations, the Olympics, and even every Thursday during lockdown as we clapped for our key workers. We cannot let this flag and our national pride be corrupted by the elements within this movement that espouse anti-British values.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Does she agree that our democracy, and wider democracies around the globe, need to be sufficiently strong, wide and deep to tolerate views and opinions that we may fundamentally disagree with, but are allowed to be expressed peacefully and democratically?
Rachel Blake
I would agree. I will come on to some of the ways in which we can strengthen our democracy later. I welcome the point made by the hon. Member. This movement cannot be supported in espousing anti-British values.
My constituency is home to Soho, built from the ground up by migrants and the LGBT community living, working and organising together. It is home to the City of London, whose status as a heart of business and growth has been strengthened by waves of refugees fleeing persecution, such as the 16th-century Huguenots. It is home to Fitzrovia, the heart of artistic and academic excellence from generations of freethinkers. This is the London that I know and love, and this is the country that I know and love, and that the leaders of far-right movements want to take away from us.
We have seen what it looks like when our rights and freedoms are taken away in the experience of those such as my constituent Jimmy Lai, who as of today has been detained unlawfully for 1,721 days for standing up for freedom in Hong Kong. That China would feel emboldened to imprison a British citizen, a journalist, a grandfather, and put him through a sham trial is completely unacceptable.
Our rules-based international order, which upheld fundamental human rights, has decayed at a remarkable rate. Some in this country would degrade it further by withdrawing from and dismantling the European convention on human rights, which the United Kingdom founded and which enshrines fundamental British values such as the right to life, and the freedoms of speech and thought, on an international level.
I also see threats to democracy at local level, in my work as a constituency MP. The frustration, disillusionment and disappointment with which constituents contact us is just a small signifier of the strength and depth of the malaise in our democracy today. We must confront head-on the fact that our democracy is at a crossroads. Voters increasingly feel that the social contract between them and their leaders is wearing thin, with only 12% of them trusting the Government to act in the popular interest, above that of their party.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate on renewing our democracy. First past the post served Labour and the Conservatives well in the 20th century, but the blowing open of electoral politics by smaller political parties means that many more people are now feeling under-represented. Does the hon. Member accept that it is time to replace first past the post with proportional representation?
Rachel Blake
I welcome the hon. Member’s suggestion about reviewing and considering the alternative ways in which we can conduct our democracy. I will come on to some of that later.
People feel that their vote does not matter, and that politicians are not listening. People feel that the system is broken and does not work for them. But we are not powerless. We are not just a solitary ship being buffeted by the tides of change. We sit today in the mother of all Parliaments, where, despite some weaknesses, the UK remains one of the most advanced and resilient democracies in the world. Our democracy means everyone does have a say. This place has adapted with the times, whether that is with the extension of the franchise, the tempering of the monarchy and the Lords or, most recently, the devolution of power to the nations and regions of the UK by successive Labour, coalition and Conservative Governments.
I was proud to be elected on a manifesto that promised generational change to our democracy—changes that this Government are enacting. We are extending the franchise to the 16 and 17-year-olds we already trust to pay tax and serve in our armed forces. We are tackling the influence of dirty money in politics, with new restrictions on foreign donations and improved transparency, and restoring independence to the Electoral Commission.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The hon. Member mentioned young people. Last Friday, I met some A-level politics students at Huish Episcopi academy in my constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton and I was struck by the political enthusiasm of the young women in the classroom. However, we face an alarming rise of extreme misogyny through people like Andrew Tate. If women and girls feel that politics is hostile to them they retreat from it altogether, so does the hon. Member agree it is important that we show young women that there are political role models, so that they know their place is at the heart of British politics?
Rachel Blake
I wholeheartedly congratulate the hon. Member on the work that she is doing to encourage and support young women into politics. That is something really important in our role as Members of Parliament. I definitely agree that we need to be supporting women into politics, as Members of Parliament and throughout public life, to give young women confidence that there is a place for them in public life.
We also need to push power to our communities and neighbourhoods with the landmark English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, with a community right to buy and a right for any area to ask any power of central Government. I think we can go further still. That is why I am so honoured to open this debate. It is inspiring to know that Members across Westminster Hall want to talk about our democracy and how we can have these debates together and openly.
I am delighted to be joined by colleagues from the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, with whom I am working on the UK’s anti-corruption strategy. I know they will agree with me that we need to fight head-on the money and influence attempting to corrupt our politics. I am really pleased to see so many MPs present who share my background in local government and so keenly support this Government’s agenda to decentralise power out into communities. Residents in my constituency and across the country are raring to go to take on the responsibilities that for too long have been held in the Palace of Westminster, not the Cities of London and Westminster.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am very aware of her background in local government. Does she agree that the local level is where we see democracy work? We see excellent representation by councillors and an opportunity to have local debate through neighbourhood plans or other mechanisms. Does she agree that we must prioritise those local voices and that local representation to protect our democracy?
Rachel Blake
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and for that support for local councillors and the hard work that they do every single day working with communities. It is important that we support and empower them to deliver for communities. In fact, that is a vital part of restoring confidence in our democracy.
It is a pleasure to see members of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, who are leading a wide-ranging discussion on the future of our electoral system. I know many of us across the House are concerned about the division that our electoral system has seen. It is right that we have a robust discussion about that. In recent polling for More in Common, 62% of voters stated that our political and social institutions are worth preserving and improving in spite of the headwinds that we face. This is the country that I know: one that faces the challenges before us and acts to meet the moment. We can address the frustration and disillusionment that last weekend saw people marching in my constituency, while making our democracy richer and more inclusive.
Today let us mark International Day of Democracy by recognising the threats that face us and the opportunities that change can bring. I look forward to hearing from all the speakers gathered here today and from the Minister, what such change can and should look like.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they need to bob to catch my eye—I can see they are already doing that. Let us try to get everyone in by limiting the length of speeches. I will not set a limit; I will leave that to Members’ discretion. I call Liz Saville Roberts.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Sir John. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this debate. Today is Owain Glyndŵr Day, which celebrates Wales’s first Parliament in Machynlleth and in Harlech 620-odd years ago.
This past weekend Elon Musk addressed those gathered in London. He spoke about freedom of speech, about knowing what is real and defending Britain’s future and democracy. That is what he said, but at the heart of his remarks was an explicit justification for division and violence. That should concern us all because it is fundamentally at odds with the values of democracy. Mr Musk has already contributed to destabilising political life in the United States. His decision to intervene in our debates makes it clear that we are not immune, so parliamentarians—I think this will be a common theme across the Chamber today—must choose how to act to counter the rising tide of authoritarianism.
Silence is a dangerous form of consent that leaves the space open for others to harness people’s unhappiness to their own political ambitions when, in reality, much of that unhappiness is a direct result of decisions taken by those in power and the very wealthy—decisions that benefit themselves and, at the same time, impoverish whole communities.
Too many people have no secure roof over their heads. Too many of our public spaces, sources of community pride—our parks, libraries, schools, hospitals and even our roads—are left to decay. Public services are hanging on a thread, and the quality of day-to-day life is evidently declining. Years of austerity and poor policy decisions have very real consequences for people’s lives. We need to recognise that, because people are rightly angry.
Into that void of anger rushes misinformation, disinformation and lies straddling the no man’s land between empirical facts and tub-thumping opinion. Social media moguls play on our basic needs for belonging, affirmation and friends in an atomised age of lonely screens. They monetise us and our very actions in a cynical mockery of community. The rise of artificial intelligence exacerbates and accelerates that, creating new ways to generate and spread falsehoods. That is why institutions that strengthen democracy are so important, now more than ever.
I will speak first of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which supported more than 44,000 people last year in 64 locally led programmes in 58 countries and territories across the world. It is primarily funded by the Foreign Office, and I am glad that the Minister is here to speak for that Department. Those programmes give communities the tools to hold power to account and to build resilience against those who seek to undermine democracy. I am proud to be the small parties governor on the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.
On one Westminster Foundation trip, I learned how Finland, Europe’s most literate country, has made media literacy a key part of the education curriculum, so that even six-year-olds are equipped with the skills to spot fake news and online manipulation.
I have also met Joe Brinker, the policy fellow for democratic resilience at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. NATO’s article 2 states that member countries will work towards “strengthening their free institutions” and promote social “stability and well-being.” The Parliamentary Assembly has called for a centre for democratic resilience at NATO headquarters to counter the threats posed by authoritarian regimes and give strength to NATO’s commitment to democracy. That aspect of NATO’s work is critical, and we should be pushing for more attention to it and raise our expectations of what it does.
In closing, I hope other Members will join in referring to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy at a time of worldwide uncertainty. I also hope to secure a meeting for other governors with the Minister to ensure there is sufficient funding and reach for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to continue to function so effectively. Our values include democracy at their heart, and they cannot be defended by words alone. We should be willing to pay for what we want to keep.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this important debate. I also put on record my disappointment that there is only one Conservative, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), present, although I look forward to his views because I respect his opinions.
To keep our bodies healthy, we take care of ourselves. We eat the right food, we take exercise and we avoid unnecessary dangers. We maintain our homes and our roads, and our farmers nurture the soil and tend the crops. I will argue that this applies to democracy, too.
Democracy is a living process. Without nourishment it will decline in efficacy, and it will decay. The International Day of Democracy is an important reminder to us all, at home and abroad, that democracy is not a given. There is no inexorable, divinely ordained path towards it. It is a precious, fragile, vulnerable thing, and it needs nurturing and protecting by every one of us and by every organisation and institution of our country.
On the International Day of Democracy, and because I am an ardent internationalist, I heed the words of the UN Secretary-General, who said that he admires,
“the courage of people everywhere who are shaping their societies through dialogue, participation and trust. At a time when democracy and the rule of law are under assault from disinformation, division and shrinking civic space”.
Democracy is about respecting the political process. It is about respecting the rules, and acknowledging that it is the rules that protect democracy from the forces that would undermine it from within.
At a fundamental level, democracy requires us all to accept that we both should and will resolve our differences through respectful debate, free and fair elections, and peaceful and law-abiding protest if necessary, and never, ever—under any circumstances—through violence. Violence has no place in a democratic system. Let us not kid ourselves, and let us not allow Orwellian doublethink to drag us into a post-truth reality peddled increasingly by the powerful on social media. Britain is not a crime-ridden dystopia teetering on the edge of anarchy, as some would have us believe. In fact, violent crime in London has dropped by 13%.
Britain is not a nation that suppresses free speech or free assembly, as Saturday’s march so obviously indicates. We are not a country whose elites prevent new parties from forming to represent the people—just ask the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). Words are at their most potent when used in political debate, and those who hold positions of influence must be more careful than most in how they wield them.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I am interested by my hon. Friend’s reference to Orwellian thought. Did he notice that on Saturday, Elon Musk was wearing a T-shirt that said, “What would Orwell think?”, and does he agree that anyone with a passing knowledge of George Orwell’s work knows exactly what George Orwell would think of Elon Musk and his actions over the weekend?
John Slinger
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is a matter of opinion, and Mr Musk is entirely entitled to express his opinion about Orwell in any way he sees fit, although my opinion is that Orwell would be turning in his grave about that speech and many other things in our society. Orwell also spoke about the dangers of unbridled nationalism versus patriotism, which is a very positive force in our world and belongs to all of us, not to one group.
As I was saying, those who hold positions of influence must be more careful than other people in how they wield words, because words inspire real action that is both constructive and destructive. That is why I immediately condemned the appalling assassination of Charlie Kirk and offered my condolences to his family. There can be no double standards when it comes to rejecting violence. How stark the contrast is with Elon Musk telling the crowd on Saturday:
“The left is the party of murder.”
I have challenged Mr Musk’s foreign interference in our sovereign democracy, and his shameful framing of the debate through the lens of imminent violence. I have challenged this on my social media channels, and I am doing it today. I encourage all who value democracy to do so similarly.
Democracy implores us to regard our political opponents as just that: opponents, not enemies. We must not demonise, dehumanise or delegitimise our opponents. To do so is to build a road, whether wilfully or not, into the abyss. I have said publicly that 99.999% of politicians in this place and beyond are motivated by a desire to improve their community and, by extension, their country. If we imply otherwise and question their motivation, we are implying to our supporters that we do not regard our opponents or their views, or the views of their supporters, as legitimate.
It is unfortunate that GCSE and A-level politics 101 needs to be rehearsed here today, but frankly, at this moment in time, it does. Democracy requires the losing candidate and party, and their supporters, to accept the outcome of the election and, I would argue, to show respect to the winners by congratulating them and wishing them well, as we do in this country. Democracy also requires that the victorious candidate or candidates—the winners—show magnanimity towards those they defeated and those who supported them. That means that, in the immediate aftermath of an election, there can be a peaceful transfer of power that protects both winners and losers from retribution.
Democracy is about respecting freedom of speech and a free media, but not weaponising and fetishising them to enable and amplify hatred through the incitement of violence and intimidation, and hon. Members across the House know all too much about that. A healthy democracy requires education so that citizens understand their rights and responsibilities, how the system works and the ways in which they can engage with it. It also means highlighting how the ordinary workings of democratic politics should, can and will improve people’s lives.
I end by returning to my argument about nourishment. Just as we take care of our bodies, a healthy democracy requires sustenance and care, a diet of trust and honesty, and regular exercise in civic participation and open debate. It must be protected from the cancer of political violence, and our population must be empowered to identify and challenge snake oil salesmen, wherever they lurk.
Failure to tend to our democracy will leave it malnourished and brittle, vulnerable to the corrosion of cynicism, apathy and all that flows from the unholy, abusive and manipulative dance between angry voters and powerful political actors who exploit grievance and stoke cynicism for their own gain, dressing it up as speaking for the people. That tactic is as old as the hills. It is as old as the Greek city states, and the history of nations is littered with disasters arising from the apathy of those who failed to protect democracy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I commend the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this debate. It is an absolute pleasure to speak in this debate, as the importance of democracy lies in the protection of rights, the accountability of power and, indeed, public participation. That is what gives each and every individual of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and beyond, a right to civil liberty. I am honoured to speak in support of that.
I welcome the Minister to his new role as the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs. He is probably glad that he is no longer in charge of the Whip. He hopefully has an easier job. I look forward to his contribution. He always has a calmness, and in this debate we will see how calm he can be when it comes to answering all the questions. I wish him well.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster referred to Jimmy Lai, and I wholeheartedly agree with what she said. He is deteriorating, health-wise, in a Hong Kong prison on trumped-up charges made by the Chinese Communist party. It is important that we, in this House and elsewhere, take a stand.
For decades, democracy has been used across Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ensure free and fair elections. With our universal suffrage for all citizens aged 18 and over, the separation of powers and the rule of law that all must follow, democracy in the United Kingdom has delivered representation and accountability, but it must always remain resilient, fair and inclusive. Democracy must be the cornerstone of any country, as we have seen in Northern Ireland from the era of the troubles until now, albeit there is still much work to be done.
This debate is timely. I, as an elected representative, would not feel right participating in it without mentioning the attack on democracy and the freedom of expression that we all witnessed in Utah last week in the murder of Charlie Kirk. It hit all too close to home, following the murder of our own David Amess and Jo Cox, and many others.
Free speech—the right to speak freely—is fundamental to any democracy, or any state with democratic principles, as this mother of Parliaments very much demonstrates. Back home in Northern Ireland, we know all too well the damage that political violence can do. It is upsetting and shocking to witness further instances of it in other parts of the world. Each Member who represents Northern Ireland, and indeed those who do not, will understand the 30 years of conflict that we had, to which many of us, and our families, were subject directly.
Charlie Kirk spoke boldly for what he believed. He used his voice to challenge the damaging culture of the day and to shape the future of America. Charlie highlighted how one person’s words can move hearts, spark debate and leave a mark on history. On that gazebo last weekend was written, “Prove me wrong”. He was open to debate and to exchanging views. At the same time, he was open to being able to persuade others of what he was trying to say.
Mr Gregory Campbell
The murder of Charlie Kirk shows the most concerning aspect of democracy in the United States, but almost as concerning was the aftermath, when a number of people sought to justify his murder, and to explain it and define it, by quoting—sometimes in context, sometimes out of context—something he is alleged to have said. We need to be careful in the aftermath of violent acts.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Nothing grieved me as much, and probably grieved others in this House and further afield, as those awful remarks that were almost rejoicing in Charlie Kirk’s murder. I find it almost inconceivable to comprehend that, especially when a wife and children, and many others, are grieving.
It cannot be overestimated how loved and well respected Charlie was, especially among the young people of this generation. I have some seven staff who work with me, and there are four young ones among them. Those four are in their 20s, and they were genuinely devastated by the news—they said they felt grief and loss. That tells me that the impact of the murder of Charlie Kirk went far beyond America and across this great nation as well. The shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), has tabled an early-day motion on the murder, and I have tabled one as well.
Those in my constituency from older age groups have also outlined how they are equally as shocked and saddened. Charlie spread the word of God, the word of family, faith and freedom, and the importance of conservative politics today. I do not care what someone’s political aspirations or religious views are—they are not important. The fact is that no individual on this Earth deserves to have their life ripped away from them.
Lizzi Collinge
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the murder of Charlie Kirk was an appalling act. No one should ever feel threatened by violence; no one should ever be killed for their beliefs or their actions. However much we disagree with the horrendous nature of his death, does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the statements made by Charlie Kirk in life meant that other people felt that their freedom was being threatened, and that they were not safe to speak out?
Jim Shannon
I agree that we have the right to freedom of speech, and it is very important to have that. Charlie Kirk took full value of his right to speak. Tommy Robinson, whom I disagree with very much, has a right to speak as well.
What we need to be careful about in life is this. I was speaking to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) about how when I am on recess I spend at least two half days on the doors, just to keep in touch with people and understand what they are thinking. The issue of immigration is massive. Now, I may not agree with all the things that are said about immigration—I have my own point of view—but I understand that many people worry about immigration. Those are not the people who are going out to wreck and smash; they are ordinary, middle-class, churchgoing people who have concerns. There are many concerns that people have. We should be careful with our words. I try to be careful with my words in this House, and I hope that others do the same.
Liz Saville Roberts
We all agree that the murder of Charlie Kirk was horrific—it was abhorrent. That is the only response to it. I am sure that we also feel that it is the duty of Governments, following these terrible actions, to ensure that community safety is a priority. There is always a tension in allowing and enabling voices from across a whole spectrum, while at the same time maintaining that safety. That is one of the not irreconcilable tensions of a democracy, and it is something we must face every time we are challenged in this way.
Jim Shannon
The right hon. Lady is right. That is fundamental to the society we live in and the way that we move forward. Freedom of speech is the very essence of democracy. Let me be clear that murder does not silence. As Erika Kirk stated:
“If you thought my husband’s mission was powerful before, you have no idea…what you have unleashed across this country and this world”.
Freedom of speech—that viewpoint—must be maintained.
Charlie’s message mattered to people, democracy matters to people and freedom of expression matters to people. This wonderful United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland matters to people. As the right hon. Lady said, having respect for other people’s opinions matters; it matters to me and everyone in this House. Personally speaking, I try to get on with everyone in this House. I might disagree with many things, and I probably disagree with many of the votes that are cast in this House, but that does not stop me being respectful to others. That is something we should all be trying to do.
John Slinger
As a relatively new Member of Parliament, I put it on the record that the hon. Gentleman epitomises that approach to politics. He has shown kindness to me, and I am sure that that is true of hon. Members right across the House. That is to be commended. We should all try to act in the way that he does.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is most kind. I serve my God and saviour. That is who I try to represent in this House, and that is my purpose for being here.
Political violence undermines democracy by disrupting peaceful political processes and intimidating others. On the International Day of Democracy, I celebrate those who uphold democracy. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster did so in her introduction, as did everyone else who spoke, and others will do the same. Unfortunately, we live in a world where those with violent vendettas seek to silence and take over, and we must never allow that to happen.
Democracy without morality is not possible. We must not forget those who stood up and fought for the principles of democracy. Charlie wanted to be remembered for his courage and his faith, which will never be forgotten. Those who share his values and feel silenced by these acts—and there are many—should not forget the importance of democracy and how many people before us fought for our rights in wars throughout history. I look to the Minister for his commitment to respect and freedom of expression, and for condemnation of these horrific acts of political violence. We must do more in this great nation, this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—always better together—to stand up against them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I am going to call people for the wind-ups just before 10.30 am. You can see what time it is, so let us try to get everyone in—be powerful and pithy, please.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) not just on securing the debate, but on a powerful speech, and especially on her tribute to how our Parliament is evolving. It is vital to recognise that we have agency in this place and that there is cause for hope.
Not only is it customary to open a speech in that way, but it speaks to something that is core to our democracy: that civility matters. We make progress as a society and as a country through considered debate and by contesting ideas. We value the opinions of those on all sides of the political divide. The process of building consensus is invariably a strength and not a weakness.
People who represent different political views or parties can be, and often are, our friends. I consider everyone who serves in the House of Commons to be a colleague. Many will be my political opponents, but they will never be my enemies. That may seem self-evident in a mature democracy such as the United Kingdom, but we live in a time when democracy needs renewal and reaffirmation.
We can take nothing for granted, and the comments of Elon Musk on Saturday demonstrate why. At a rally that was purportedly about the uniting the kingdom, Musk told the crowd that
“violence is coming to you”
and that Parliament should be dissolved, on the basis that he did not like the result of the last election very much.
Since 1929, we have run fully democratic elections in our country, with universal suffrage for men and women. Our democracy has endured and grown stronger through the horrors of war with the Nazis, global financial crises and a pandemic. We are not going to be cowed by a foreign billionaire who does not live in this country and cannot even pretend to understand it.
We must not overstate the political abilities of this man. A couple of days ago, Musk announced that his AI tool, Grok, would once again be sent for reprogramming because it inconveniently shared facts that contradicted its master’s argument. If he cannot win an argument with his own AI tool, he is not going to win an argument with the British people.
We should have confidence in our democracy but never be complacent about its future. We live in a world of mass information, where private companies that design social media algorithms hold more power to shape political debate than the editors of newspapers or the producers of broadcast news. The debate online has coarsened, which is precisely why our conduct in Parliament matters more than ever: we have to set an example. At times, it may feel quaint that we refer to each other in this place as hon. Members, but there is honour in debate, disagreement and democracy.
There is no doubt that we live in fragile times. Putin has brought war to Europe, and I am speaking on the morning that the United Nations commission of inquiry has concluded that Israel’s leadership has committed four of the five acts of genocide defined under the 1948 genocide convention.
The times we live in make it all the more important to look back at how democracy became a beacon of hope after we emerged from the second world war, the darkest chapter in our history. The response then to suffering was not to turn inward, to stigmatise or to attack others—it was the opposite. Signed by 50 nations in June 1945, the UN charter’s purpose was to reaffirm
“to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women”.
It went on to say that all signatories must
“practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours”.
This country was at the vanguard of defending democracy even in our darkest hour. If a previous generation could succeed in championing democracy then, we can and must do it now.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests, particularly as board member for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.
The UN has titled this International Day of Democracy “From Voice to Action”, which is a fitting message, because we need those who support democracy and freedom now more than ever. We are at a crucial moment. As a liberal and a democrat, I was horrified by events last week. The murder of Charlie Kirk in the US has captured the world’s attention, and rightly so. No one in this room will be surprised to learn that I disagreed with the opinions and thoughts that Mr Kirk pushed through his social media channels and debating tours, but as a liberal I believe it is my job to challenge such opinions through debate and argument.
People should not die for holding opposing views, and it is vital that liberals stand up against violence and bloodshed because, tragically, we have experienced such events too. The horrendous murders of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess are proof that we in this country are not immune to attacks on our democratic way of life. We should never take our freedoms for granted.
Research published last week showed that global freedom levels have declined for the 20th consecutive year. The UN Secretary-General said that the very rule of law, and justice and democracy are
“under assault from disinformation, division and shrinking civic space”.
A threat to democracy globally is a threat to our democracy here, and democracies across the globe are declining and suffering. Cuts to the aid budget are driving the downward spiral. I heard first hand from the Red Cross that next year it will have to reduce its operations by 18%, despite there being a 25% rise in global conflict.
Respect for international humanitarian law has also waned. We have seen the deadliest year on record for humanitarian workers, with hundreds dying and many more injured or being held captive.
There are also threats to our democratic way of life here in the UK. The Centre for Countering Digital Hate has reported that the platform X has not followed its own rules on preventing the amplification of serious political violence. We know that the spread of misinformation and the incitement of violence go hand in hand. Last summer’s violent riots, fuelled by misinformation, almost spread to my Cheadle constituency. I was proud that communities and faith groups from all over the constituency came together to show solidarity.
The threats posed by the growth of social media and the small handful of media barons who control the platforms need to be addressed. We cannot allow this pattern of misinformation and disruption to our way of life continue as it is.
Despite the worrying developments, we must reflect on and embrace the existing strength of UK democracy. I am very proud to represent the Cheadle constituency, a place with a profound sense of identity and strong community cohesion. It is driven by community groups who bring voice to action. Whether by standing up for nature, tackling flooding or fighting to get better access to transport, community groups are, as the UN Secretary General said,
“shaping their societies through dialogue, participation, and trust.”
Liz Saville Roberts
The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. I am sure he will agree that, with the United States withdrawing from grant in aid, there is the potential for the role of the United Kingdom and its presence on the world stage to be considerably enhanced by the actions we take to support democracy both at home and abroad.
Mr Morrison
I absolutely agree. The Government must invest more in our democracy at home to ensure that the country stays on the right path, with sustained economic growth, thriving global partnerships and a place on the world stage that is as influential as it is admired.
The Government must increase the aid budget, as it is not only a lifeline for millions but a strategic priority that strengthens our democratic allies and makes future allies around the globe. We cannot and must not ignore this soft power. I am proud to sit on the board of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which, for more than 30 years, has worked tirelessly on programmes that have supported so many democratic nations to grow and prosper. These are huge success stories for our nation. These are huge moments that place us as a key player on the world stage, and we should not take them for granted.
I will conclude by returning to my opening remarks. We are at a crucial moment both at home and abroad, with the rise of extremism, the polarisation of debate and misinformation being fuelled by the growing influence of social media. We, as liberals and democrats, must take a stand. If we do not, I truly worry what will happen next.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I call Lizzi Collinge. There are two after you, Lizzi, so bear that in mind.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this important debate.
We rightly talk about a lack of trust in politics, and there is one key element as to why that is: the first-past-the-post voting system. I found a beautiful quote the other day from Elie Wiesel:
“The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.”
We can see that indifference in the lack of participation in even general elections. Left unchanged, the first-past-the-post system will continue to erode public trust, produce unfair and unrepresentative outcomes, and undermine the stability of our democracy. A majority of the voting public support a change to the voting system. What I and other members of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections are calling for is a national commission on electoral reform, so that all options can be examined independently and impartially.
It will come as no surprise to anyone that I have views on what a new electoral system should have. It needs to be more proportionate, but it needs to take into account other things as well. I believe in constituency MPs. I believe in each MP’s representing a defined geographical area. However, the guidelines at the last boundary review, which had very tight numbers, have left us with some slightly odd constituencies.
My constituency crosses the county boundaries of Lancashire and Westmorland, and it includes the Yorkshire Dales national park. I have three planning authorities, which is great fun. Although it is great for me to walk through the Yorkshire dales to see a red squirrel in Cowgill, I can see why people in Dentdale do not feel particularly connected to people in Morecambe, which is an hour’s drive away, so I think the Boundary Commission needs a bit more flexibility. I also think that any voting system should allow voters to rank their preferences, so they can say, “That person is my favourite. That person is also acceptable, as is that person.” They should also be able to not rank people if they definitely do not wish them to be elected. Some of my colleagues have spoken about the action that the Labour Government are taking on political donations, which I welcome.
We cannot talk about the deficits in our democracy without talking about young people. We have a lovely history of older people bemoaning the youth of today; I found a brilliant social media thread with examples that go back to Plato. We have to stop berating young people for not engaging and do the work ourselves. I know that some people are on TikTok—that is not really for me. I do not think disengagement comes from the lack of me lip-synching along to pop songs. It comes from young people not being listened to and their concerns not being addressed.
We are taking some steps. The Labour Government are giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote, which is fantastic. If people start voting young, they keep voting. I know people who are older than me who have not voted just because they do not know how it works. They literally do not know how to physically go and vote, which is a real shame. More foundational changes also need to be made. If elections hinge on certain constituencies or certain voting blocs, then policies and campaigns will cater to them at the expense of other groups. Whenever I see young people, I tell them to vote. I say, “If you vote, you’ll get policies that work for you.”
This week, the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections published suggested terms of reference for a national commission on electoral reform. This is a clear proposal for the Government to set up a national commission that could independently ask the big questions about our democracy. How do we build an electoral system that represents all voices fairly? How do we inspire public trust? How can we ensure that every vote, every voice and every citizen counts? It is only by answering these questions that we can protect our democracy, strengthen our democratic institutions and show that every voter matters.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
When we think of the International Day of Democracy, it is relevant and appropriate to reflect on what the essence of a functioning democracy is. When we distil it down, the essence of a functioning democracy is that those who are governed elect those who govern them, and that those who make the laws for any people are elected by the people over whom those laws have control. That is the very essence of a functioning democracy.
We might talk about things around the world, but we need to stop, pause and ask ourselves, “Is that operating in this United Kingdom?” I have to say that in the part of the United Kingdom that I come from—Northern Ireland—that fundamental has been shredded. It is not allowed to operate because not in one, not in 30, but in 300 areas of law, the laws that govern Northern Ireland are made not in Stormont or Westminster, or by anyone elected from anywhere in Northern Ireland. They are made by a foreign Parliament—indeed, by the Parliament of 27 other nations. Why? Because of the iniquitous Windsor framework.
Annexe 2, which I invite people to look at, lists hundreds upon hundreds of laws that are made in the European Parliament—not here—but enforced on Northern Ireland. Those laws touch upon the fundamentals of many of our lives. They govern the trade of Northern Ireland; they govern the manufacturing of goods in Northern Ireland, and how we package those goods, their contents, and how they are labelled; they govern the environment; and they even govern rights under article 2 of the Windsor framework, and culminate in the imposition of a partitioning border in this United Kingdom.
So, before we get too excited about the lack of democracy elsewhere in the world, let us take the mote out of our own eye and work towards restoring that most fundamental principle: that wherever someone lives, they should be able to elect those who make the laws that govern them. It is a shame of the past Government and of the current Government that they continue, sanguinely, to allow this situation to prevail.
I hear talk about young people. I just heard talk about, “Isn’t it great that young people will be able to vote?” I recently listened to a video from the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). He said, “We want young people to feel they have the same chance as everyone else to make the laws to which they are subject.” How I wish that applied to not just the young but the old in Northern Ireland—the right to make the laws that govern us.
We present ourselves as a world-leading democracy, and yet are killing the legitimate expectation in Northern Ireland that people should be able to make the laws that govern them and not be subject to colony-like rule, because the essence of colonial rule is that people are governed by someone else’s laws, as they are not considered worthy of making their own laws, such that a foreign jurisdiction must make the laws for them.
That is the essential constitutional and democratic affront of the Windsor framework. Let us set about taking the mote out of the eye of the United Kingdom. Let us set about restoring fundamental democracy to Northern Ireland.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I call Jeevun Sandher. I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesman at 10.28 am.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. The truth is that today democracy is dying and we have to face that if we want to save it as it stands. We are living in a divided nation, where people are losing faith in democracy because they cannot afford a decent life, they do not see a way forward and they see others who can. A nation as divided as ours cannot stand and it will not endure unless we protect and save it.
We are divided by economics, by geography and online. We live in a nation where record numbers cannot afford a decent living. We live in different places in our country. Young people go to university and then never come back home. They live in major cities, living entirely different lives to those they have left behind. We occupy completely different spaces online. On average, we spend two and a half hours scrolling a day, hearing and listening to things that others do not, inhabiting completely different worlds.
If we want to address that, and want people to once again have faith in our democracy, we need both a policy answer and a political answer. On the policy side, people need to see that democracy can and does deliver for them. There is a cost of living crisis today. What delivering means is good jobs in every single place for people. It means places where people can cohere and come together in their local communities, as well as ending the pervading sense of loneliness that leads people to live their lives online, seeing more extreme content, engaging with it, living within it and being driven by it.
More than that, there is a political answer. How do we come together as one nation and one people? The answer is by living up to the greatest values of Britishness—unity, decency and determination. That is what has made this nation make the impossible seem only remarkable. It is how we saved democracy in Europe and saw it spread across the globe. It is how we came together during a pandemic. And beyond those great moments are the small, everyday ones that make life worth while—having a pint, queuing politely, a cup of tea. That is what it means to be British, cohering as one nation, together.
The radical right will say, “No, no, no—we can fix all our problems by attacking immigrants.” The radical left will say, “It is all about corporations.” It is for us to say that we stand as one British people for decency— not blaming, but cohering together. Unity, decency, determination: that is how we protect our democracy, that is how we save it and that is how we keep it for future generations.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Thank you very much to everyone for being so disciplined with their speeches. We have had an excellent debate so far. Let us hope that continues. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this really interesting debate. I echo your words, Sir John—it has been really valuable. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, many of which I agreed with very strongly and some of which I did not agree with quite so much, but it has been an excellent illustration of what a functioning democracy looks like on this International Day of Democracy.
It is often said these days that we face a crisis in democracy. Authoritarian regimes in Beijing and Moscow become bolder, while long-standing democracies in Europe and the USA appear to struggle in the face of populism. It has never been more important for us as British parliamentarians to stand against those who would erode and diminish our hard-fought democratic freedoms, both here and abroad.
I will speak today about this crisis, but also about the opportunities that the response to it presents both here in the UK and around the world. It starts with respecting the building blocks of any successful democracy—the rule of law, free and fair elections, rights and freedoms, and accountability and transparency.
In some countries, the erosion of these building blocks is worrying. In Georgia, for instance, the stakes could not be higher. Last November the Georgian Government suspended EU accession talks, a choice that outraged a nation where polls consistently show overwhelming support for integration with Europe. Since then, protesters have filled Rustaveli Avenue almost daily, braving batons and water cannons to say, “Our future is ours”.
Over the summer, the Georgian Dream Government started arresting opposition leaders. Just weeks ago, I was informed that my friend Giorgi Vashadze, a leading opposition figure, had been arrested and sentenced to eight months in prison. Just yesterday another, Elene Khoshtaria, was arrested. The heinous crime of which she is accused? Damage to the mayor of Tbilisi’s election posters. How we respond to these challenges to democracy defines us as much as it defines those countries who are seeing their rights diminished.
Another example is Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the Dayton peace agreement is being undermined by Milorad Dodik and his breakaway Republika Srpska. Less than a week ago, Dodik was hosted by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow. The decision under the last Government to withdraw British troops from the EUFOR peacekeeping force in 2020 was a strategic blunder. The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to recommit to the EUFOR mission, to support the civic groups painstakingly building bridges between communities and to reinforce Britain’s commitment to democracy and peace in the Balkans.
That also holds true in Serbia, where anger over corruption, negligence and brutality erupted after the Novi Sad railway station disaster last November. What began as mourning for victims became a nationwide anti-corruption movement, drawing hundreds of thousands on to the street. Rather than listening, President Vučić smeared protesters as foreign agents and invited Russian backing, while riot police fired stun grenades and tear gas. There were five nights of unrest and party offices in flames, but still there has been no meaningful reform.
The UK must send an unmistakable message: the Balkans cannot become a playground for Moscow’s interference. That means fair and transparent elections where the results are respected. Those of us in positions of responsibility and power must uphold those standards. If we do not, the consequences can be violent, as we saw in January 2021 when the US Congress was stormed by those who agreed with the current US President that the election result, in which he had been clearly defeated, was illegitimate and sought to overturn it.
Across Europe and around the world, we find democracy under pressure. From Tbilisi to Hong Kong, hard-won freedoms are being eroded, legislatures hollowed out and the voices of citizens silenced. The Liberal Democrats understand that democracy is more than just a mechanism for simply choosing Governments; it is a covenant between people and power—between rights and responsibility. It is how ordinary citizens hold the mighty to account. These crises are a symptom of a broader malaise.
James Naish
On the point about accountability, the hon. Member may be aware that at the end of August, the leader of Nottinghamshire county council banned the Nottingham Post and Nottinghamshire Live from speaking to him and his organisation with immediate effect. That included a ban on the local democracy reporting service. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me and the Society of Editors that picking and choosing media scrutiny is avoiding accountability, it is profoundly wrong and it is dangerous to our democracy?
James MacCleary
Yes, I did see that story, and it is absolutely shocking. Anyone who purports to care about free speech and accountability, then bans journalists from attending meetings for no good reason, does not respect that at all. We cannot pick and choose who provides that scrutiny. I have not spoken at length here about the media, but it performs a fundamental role. We have spoken today about the iniquitous role of some social media, and that has shown the transition in the way that people consume information about democracy. We must protect and support local government reporters, which the hon. Member mentioned, who are absolutely essential to the democratic process in this country. That is an important point.
I was just about to say that globally, records show declines in press freedom on every continent. Rule of law is slipping. One in five nations saw a deterioration in freedom of expression, economic equality and access to justice. Hong Kong activists face intimidation, even on British soil, with Chinese Communist party-linked bounties pinned to lamp posts, even in our own towns. In Iran, the Revolutionary Guard exports terror and targets women demanding freedom. In Russia, Vladimir Putin claimed an 87% “victory” in a sham election while jailing and killing rivals. These regimes do not simply repress at home; they meddle abroad, launder their money through London and seek to divide our alliances.
Crucially, Britain’s credibility must start at home. Many people feel that democracy is not working for them in this country. They feel detached and distanced from this place, and look to those who offer easy answers. Our politics is realigning, and our system of democracy must realign with it. That means real electoral reform; a system of proportional representation that reflects what people actually voted for. There is a real danger that at the next election the distorted first-past-the-post system, which both the Conservative and Labour parties have done so much to protect, will sweep them away. The time for change is now.
Democracy is something precious that we must all work to protect, but it is not certain, and it is not inevitable. Too many people who claim to cherish our democracy now spend time subverting it—deliberately or not—by undermining our judiciary, discrediting serious media outlets and attacking the integrity of election results that do not suit them. The Liberal Democrats’ answer is clear: we must restore Britain’s moral authority by defending rights robustly, here and abroad; champion a proportional electoral system, so that every vote counts and political monopolies cannot fester; enshrine the ministerial code in law; uphold the Human Rights Act 1998 against those who would dilute it; impose Magnitsky-style sanctions on those who persecute in Hong Kong, Georgia, Serbia and elsewhere; and fund development and diplomacy properly by reversing aid cuts that leave vacuums for autocrats to exploit.
Democracy is not merely a ballot box. It is a citizen in Tbilisi protesting without fear; a journalist in Belgrade exposing corruption without a midnight knock at the door; a student in Hong Kong refusing to be silenced by Beijing; a Ukrainian citizen voting for their future under Russian fire; and a voter in Lewes knowing that their vote will really count. Authoritarianism spreads when democracy grows timid, and we Liberal Democrats will not be timid. We will stand with the people of Georgia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia, with Hong Kong’s exiles and Ukraine’s heroic defenders, and with every community fighting to have their voice heard. Britain must be known as a country that does not just lecture on democracy, but lives it, defends it and invests in it.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this timely debate to mark the International Day of Democracy. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition I absolutely endorse her words about Jimmy Lai; her constituent should be released immediately.
It is right that this debate has been brought to the Floor of the House today, and that we all pause and reflect on the centrality of democracy, which in various forms runs right the way through our own national story and to the principles that we the United Kingdom hold dear across the world. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the birthplace of parliamentary democracy. Our history, our institutions and our very identity as a nation are bound up by that great achievement of democracy.
The story of our constitution—the balance between Crown and Parliament, and the empowerment of the individual through common law—was a British innovation that has evolved organically over many centuries. By the good fortune of our history and the wisdom of our forebears, we achieved a parliamentary system that blends monarchy and an upper Chamber, and which includes the state Church, the judiciary, science, the armed forces, academia and business. Of course, we have the vehicle to represent the popular will of the people here in this democratically elected House of Commons. Despite what some would describe as anachronisms of history, I believe that we in this country have a model parliamentary democracy. At the heart of our democracy is the principle of parliamentary sovereignty: our people, through their elected representatives, are the final authority. That is the cornerstone of our freedom.
Britain’s democratic reach extends far beyond these islands. From the very outset of our imperial past, England, then Great Britain, and then the United Kingdom was able to replicate the best of our democratic traditions in the far reaches of the planet. In many of our former colonies, the right to vote was established and extended even more broadly than it was at the same time in the United Kingdom. The Commonwealth of Nations embodies these democratic principles: 56 nations bound together not by force, but by free choice and by the shared democratic values enshrined in the Commonwealth charter. I believe that the Commonwealth of Nations is an undervalued institution. To have its headquarters a mere few minutes’ walk from where we sit today surely makes us the envy of any western democracy.
I read with great interest ahead of this debate the briefing from the Westminster Foundation for Democracy —an organisation that I was proud to serve as a board member for nine years and have worked with for 20 to 30 years. It was established by John Major’s Government following the fall of the Berlin wall and the iron curtain, at the time when Margaret Thatcher was our Prime Minister. We commemorate the 100th anniversary of her birth next month, on 13 October. As we all know, Mrs Thatcher was a courageous leader, who was not afraid to oppose communism and stood up for freedom and democracy in Europe, resulting in an end to the communist tyranny that dominated the eastern side of the continent.
In 1993, I established a freedom training programme, with the support of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, through the Conservative party’s international office and the European Young Conservatives, which I chaired at the time, to help to spread the ideas of free people, free nations, free markets, democracy and the rule of law. We were doing all that via sister parties; the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, all political parties did the same. I worked with countries ranging from Estonia, Poland, Lithuania, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia to Belarus—where I launched the Free Belarus campaign in 1997—Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Moldova and Albania, as well as Ukraine and Russia, and even nations as far away as Argentina, a country that regained its democracy after Margaret Thatcher ensured the defeat of the military dictatorship in 1982 by the forces of the Crown in the south Atlantic.
Andrew Rosindell
I am afraid not, because we are very limited for time.
Britain should do more to strengthen international democracy, and the Commonwealth is a perfect vehicle for that. We have seen a queue of nations, particularly on the African continent, that want to join the Commonwealth. A good example of that is Togo. I am proud to have assisted that nation’s accession to the Commonwealth, which formally took place in 2022, following my visit to Togo in 2019. Therefore I ask the Minister: what are the Government doing to assist the Commonwealth with its operations abroad? Surely the Commonwealth should be central to this Government’s strategy in promoting democracy and our democratic traditions abroad.
We are seeing the rise of authoritarian regimes around the world. I am thinking of, among others, the People’s Republic of China, Russia and Iran, the leaders of which came together in a show of force in Beijing only a fortnight ago. These countries pose a serious threat to democracy around the world. Therefore I ask the Minister: why are the Government willing to give the world’s leading authoritarian country the largest embassy in Europe and a base to spy on its dissenting citizens—those who simply disagree with Chinese communism? These nations have openly expressed their intent of reshaping the international system, so how is Britain making use of its seat on the UN Human Rights Council to push back against those who would seek to water down our democratic norms?
Also, of course, there is the matter of the Chagos islands. The Government denied the Chagossian people any form of serious consultation over the future of their homeland and ultimately decided to hand their islands, which belong to them, over to a nation in cahoots with China. Will the Minister reflect on the discussion we have had today and give the Chagossian people the democratic right, which I believe they are entitled to and which all of us, regardless of party, are supporting today—the right to determine their own future? That is democracy. Decolonisation must mean giving self-determination to those whose homeland it is. Why should our loyal and God-fearing British Chagossian friends be denied that right?
In closing, I will mention, as many Members have done today, the horrifying event that took place in the United States of America last week. Charlie Kirk’s murder was, I believe, an affront to the democratic values that have bound our two nations together for hundreds of years. Of course, Members across the House may not have agreed with Charlie’s views on a number of issues—we all disagree, on all kinds of issues—but this is a place where we can discuss our differences and the pursuit of truth in well-intentioned debate, without intimidation, hatred or violence. So I believe it is fitting to conclude with a quote from Charlie that sums him up best. He is someone who I actually met, when he came to the House of Commons in 2018—I gave him a tour and he went to Speaker’s House for a Christian celebration. Let me end my comments today by quoting from Charlie, because I believe that what he said encapsulates the very issue we are discussing today:
“When people stop talking, really bad stuff starts. When marriages stop talking, divorce happens. When civilizations stop talking, civil war ensues. When you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to want to commit violence against that group…What we as a culture have to get back to is being able to have reasonable disagreement where violence is not an option.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his remarks about my appointment—I think most Members do not realise that I have been silent for a good two years, so it is nice to know that the voice box is still working.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and I thank Members from across the House for the cordial way in which we have debated today—clearly without everyone agreeing, which is the whole point of democracy in this place and in institutions around our United Kingdom. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this debate to mark such an important day and for her work to advocate for her constituent, Jimmy Lai. Mr Lai’s case remains a priority for the UK Government. We continue to call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and release Mr Lai. I am also grateful for the thoughtful contributions of other hon. Members and will try to respond to all the points raised.
In these unpredictable times of global tension and turmoil, with democracy under threat, the stakes are high. When we stand up for our democratic values, we are not only doing what is right, we are safeguarding our own future, for we know that accountable governance is the foundation for a safer, greener, healthier and more prosperous world. Although public support for democracy remains strong, as has been mentioned, over the last 20 years, the world has, overall, become less democratic. Today, more than seven in 10 people around the world live in autocracies, and democracy is under pressure from climate change, conflict and irregular migration, among many other factors. Even long-established democracies like our own are affected. That is why in the UK we continue to work with partners at home and abroad to ensure that democratic principles remain strong.
We need to maintain public trust and support for democracy by showing that democratic Governments can meet today’s challenges and deliver for their citizens. We must address the threats posed by countries such as Russia that are working to undermine democratic systems and values in the UK and around the world. We must also support our partners where the shoots of democracy are still growing to defend the space for civil society, uphold the rule of law, champion equal rights, support accountable, inclusive institutions, and tackle global challenges such as dirty money and corruption.
The Government have already taken big steps to strengthen democracy at home. As has been mentioned, we are giving 16-year-olds the right to vote in UK elections—a major change that will boost young people’s trust in democracy. We are making sure that eligible voters are not prevented or deterred from voting by permitting the use of UK-issued bank cards as an accepted form of ID at polling stations. We are introducing tougher rules on political donations, striking the right balance between safeguarding against foreign interference and making sure that legitimate donors can continue to fund electoral campaigns.
We are also empowering the Electoral Commission to clamp down on those who breach political finance rules, with fines of up to half a million pounds, and there will be tougher sentences for those who abuse election campaigners, or elected representatives or their staff. Our commitment to give more decision-making power, funding and tools to local leaders and mayors in England will enable them to effectively address local needs, drive growth and improve public services.
Alongside our efforts to strengthen democracy at home, we must protect ourselves from those overseas who do not share our values. The defending democracy taskforce, chaired by the Minister for Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), is leading a whole-of-society effort to protect the integrity of British democracy. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has been stepping up its efforts to expose those who manipulate information, interfere with our democratic processes and institutions, or undermine the rights, freedoms and security of our citizens.
The international nature of the threats requires an international response. We are working through partnerships such as Five Eyes and the G7 to share expertise and take co-ordinated measures against actions by states such as Russia, China and Iran. Last month, the UK and our G7 partners condemned the latest round of arrest warrants and bounties issued by the Hong Kong police as acts of transnational repression. In July, we exposed and sanctioned the Russian interference agency African Initiative for its role in malign influence operations across Africa.
It is equally important to nurture and support democratic government around the world. We are delivering on that commitment through our extensive diplomatic and development partnerships. The UK supports elections, Parliaments and political parties in over 30 countries through our arms-length body, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I have heard the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), and I am more than happy to engage with the WFD governors and ensure that FCDO officials do too. Election observation remains an essential part of the UK’s support for free and fair elections. This year and last year, we sent more than 160 observers to watch votes around the world, including in Moldova, Georgia and Uzbekistan.
Freedom of expression and a free media are the bedrock of a healthy democracy, empowering citizens to hold institutions to account. However, as the persecution of Jimmy Lai demonstrates, in many parts of the world the freedom of the media is under threat. The UK is one of the most significant champions of international media freedom. Our support for the BBC World Service brings impartial, accurate news to 320 million people around the world, in 42 languages, every week. It remains the world’s most trusted international news service.
Illicit finance and corruption are transnational challenges, undermining growth and democratic governance, and fuelling organised crime and conflict. We are strengthening our domestic defences and stepping up efforts internationally to ensure that dirty money has nowhere to hide. In April, we sanctioned the cronies of corrupt leaders who are undermining democracy and the rule of law in Georgia and Guatemala.
It is unacceptable that in the UK and around the world, women face barriers to participation in politics and are increasingly exposed to abuse and threats. Our special envoy for women and girls, my noble Friend Baroness Harman, is championing gender equality worldwide and co-ordinating international efforts to ensure that women and girls are empowered and their rights are protected. I am sure that Members from across this House can agree that there is no more powerful advocate for ensuring that women and girls are able to take part in our democratic processes.
To briefly answer the point from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell)—having spent many years myself not always getting answers as an Opposition Member—I understand more than most Members of this House the importance of the Commonwealth, having served on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK and international for years. I can assure the hon. Member that the Government recognise the importance of the Commonwealth, and we are working with the new secretary-general. I give him the assurance that we will continue to do that work.
This Government are working to protect and strengthen democracy internationally because it is the right thing to do and is clearly in our national interest.
Chris Elmore
I am running out of time.
A world where rights are respected and states are well governed is a more peaceful world—one where Britain and our partners will be more secure and prosperous. We are working flat out to achieve that goal.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I am delighted that the Minister has broken his vow of silence. I call Rachel Blake to sum up.
Rachel Blake
Thank you, Sir John, for bringing us together for this important debate. I put on record my thanks to everybody who has joined us in the Public Gallery to listen to this debate. What better demonstration of how democracy is alive and well than that people will come out on a Tuesday morning to listen to a debate about the International Day of Democracy.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for talking about lobbying rules and the risks of revolving doors; to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who talked about the importance of free speech; to the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), who discussed electoral reform; to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton, who talked about the important role of women in politics; to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for talking about the vital contributions of local communities; to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) for discussing the rise of disinformation and authoritarianism; to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) for a powerful discussion about how democracy must be nurtured; to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for a powerful tribute to free speech; and to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for talking about how important it is to have these respectful debates.
We also heard from the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) about the values of democracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) gave a powerful discussion of electoral reform. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) talked about the Windsor framework. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) talked about how we can overcome division by investing in the social contract. Finally, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) talked about the vital role of international support for contribution, while the Opposition spokes- person, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), discussed support for the Commonwealth in his contribution. I also welcome the Minister’s remarks.
In this debate, we have heard about the scale and complexity of the challenge that we face. We have all been sobered by the rise of disinformation and authoritarianism. We have been able to discuss the terrible political violence that occurred in America last week, and able to discuss the importance of investing in the social contract and overcoming some of the barriers in order to have confidence in democracy.
Democracy means a stake in one’s community, a stake in the rules, and a stake in all our futures. In this debate, we have seen how democracy helps us to disagree. I agree with much of what was said and disagree with some remarks, but this debate has given us a chance to come together and discuss. I imagine that every hon. Member in this Chamber has lost an election. I might be unusual among politicians to think that, every once in a while, such losses are an important opportunity to learn lessons about how we conduct ourselves going forward. Through that process, we have all learned how to be better politicians—one example of how disagreeing respectfully is an important part of democracy.
We have learned that freedom of speech and expression is not the preserve of the right or the left, but a foundational principle in our democracy, and one that I know we will all defend. I finish by saying that there is hope. Every day, communities in the UK and internationally are organising and influencing their democracy and the decisions made by their leaders, at some level or another. There is hope in investing to tackle the cost of living crisis and investing in the social contract, and hope in the international support for the release of my constituent, Jimmy Lai.
I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks, and the confidence he has given about the Government’s commitment to espousing democratic values and supporting democracy internationally. I am grateful, too, for your chairship, Sir John.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the International Day of Democracy.
Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects: Suffolk Coast
(2 days, 7 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
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I will call Jenny Riddell-Carpenter to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. Other Members should be aware that they can contribute only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. Sadly, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up the debate, because we have only half an hour.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the coordination of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects for energy on the Suffolk coast.
Suffolk Coastal is central to the UK’s energy ambitions. It is often said that up to 30% of Britain’s future energy is expected to be generated in, or transmitted through, my constituency. Suffolk Coastal is home to nationally and internationally important landscapes, including national landscapes, sites of special scientific interest, the Suffolk heritage coast and wetlands that form part of the east Atlantic flyway migratory bird route. Those are not simply scenic features; they underpin local economies and nature-based tourism, and they are vital to national commitments to biodiversity and environmental protection.
As the Minister will be aware, the nationally significant infrastructure projects that I will refer to are being delivered within a small, 10-mile radius, and sit in the heart of those national landscapes, including in nature reserves run by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and on important national sites. They stretch from LionLink in Walberswick, which is just south of Southwold, down to Sea Link in Aldeburgh, then next door to Sizewell C, which is Europe’s largest energy project, and link into proposed converter stations in Friston and Saxmundham. Some of those projects have consent while others are going through the process as we speak.
What is remarkable—it is the point of the debate—is the lack of co-ordination between the plans. No attempt has been made to plan for the cumulative impact of the projects or to consider how better to co-ordinate them. In fact, in March 2024, National Grid published details showing that it has no intention to co-ordinate LionLink, led by National Grid Ventures, with the more advanced Sea Link project, led by National Grid Electricity Transmission.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for introducing the debate. She is right to highlight the issues of coastal communities, where there are very many difficulties. My constituency suffers from coastal erosion, for example, which has been worked on, but there is also the potential to produce clean renewable energy. Does she agree that there is, perhaps, an opportunity for the Minister and the Government to put their minds and money into harnessing that energy for the benefit of all communities throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, and I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.
As I said, the multiple NSIPs in Suffolk Coastal are within just a 10-mile radius. They are being planned in an area of the country that is mostly served by B roads and country lanes. It seems remarkable that developers are being allowed to bring forward these proposals on some of England’s most important nature sites, when offshore alternatives could easily have been considered. I will focus in this debate on how Suffolk Coastal is being let down and why I am asking the Government to work with me to require the developers to look again at their plans and improve their proposals to minimise disruption to both people and the environment.
As the Minister will know, the previous Government totally vacated the leadership space when it came to our country’s energy and biodiversity planning, and the void was filled by energy developers. They decided to take the lead and were left to make proposals for totally unsuitable landscapes, all because it was cheaper than developing brownfield sites. What we have been left with is a series of unco-ordinated whack-a-mole projects on the Suffolk coast. We have an opportunity under the new Government to provide greater planning and leadership on these critical infrastructure challenges.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Having worked in the energy industry, I continue to be a strong proponent of local area energy plans, because they would empower communities to make decisions about their own energy needs and how much energy they want to export. At the moment the process feels very reactive and is based on private and landowner interests, as opposed to empowering communities across a local authority area to make decisions. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful to have energy planning on a statutory footing across every local authority in the country?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I know that my hon. Friend has been passionate about this since his arrival in this place last year. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that point, but yes, I do agree; in fact, I will come on to some of those themes later.
There is an opportunity to set up an overarching body to ensure that the many competing schemes, whether already consented, within the development consent order process or in the pipeline, are properly co-ordinated. The body could be departmental or independent from the Government, but it would operate under the direction of the Secretary of State. Although the then Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consulted on the concept of a future systems operator for electricity, that does not go far enough or quickly enough. There needs to be oversight of the cumulative impact of all NSIP schemes in an area. The failings that arise in the absence of such oversight are evident in many areas of my constituency, but are perhaps best highlighted by the case of Boden Farms.
Boden Farms was subject to compulsory purchase of land to accommodate Sizewell C’s development phase, and work has begun on a new relief road on the farm’s former land. The farmer has been told by National Grid Ventures that it, too, will need to access his land in order to lay cables for LionLink. It cannot tell him where, when or if it will be made subject to a compulsory purchase order, but it can tell him that in a year or maybe two it will be digging up the very same land that is being worked on right now by Sizewell C, including, most likely, parts of the new relief road that is being built as we speak.
I am very concerned by reports that the only plans LionLink has ever received for the link road are the ones the landowner provided himself. Surely, that cannot be right, but it is not a one-off; this story is repeated across my constituency, in every parish where lines are being laid or work is being planned. That is in no one’s interest—not the community’s, not nature’s and not even the developer’s—so I tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would have made it a legal requirement for energy developers to co-ordinate their work.
Farmers from Woodbridge to Leiston, and parishes from Friston to Walberswick and Yoxford to Peasenhall, all ask the same thing: why are these projects popping up with no co-ordination, and why is there no legal requirement for them to work together? It is our communities and our environment that have to endure the cumulative impact of all this.
Developers are also failing to put proper mitigations in place or to listen to the concerns of local residents, which is having a real impact. Farmers have told me of issues engaging with energy developers when they have raised objections to cables being buried to a depth of less than 1.8 metres on their land, in breach of electrical safety guidance, leaving them unable to use the land for arable farming. Energy developers have been unwilling to engage, which means that land risks being taken out of arable food production permanently. In laying any cables on active agricultural land, developers should guarantee that arable farmland will be safeguarded for future farming use, and I tabled another amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would have made it a legal requirement for energy developers to lay cables to a minimum depth of 1.8 metres.
The depth of cables is an issue not just for farmers, but for offshore shipping. Members will appreciate that I have shipping lanes off the coast of my constituency, and the Harwich Haven Authority has told me that it is concerned that energy developers must do more to engage with it to ensure that cables are buried at a sufficient depth that projects do not compromise navigational safety. The Sunk area around Harwich Haven is a vital and highly complex shipping zone. Any offshore developments must be planned with strict adherence to safety requirements.
The UK has let developers lead the conversation and the strategy. We have ended up with a mismatch of proposals, in the wrong place, with no co-ordination and no desire to think of better alternatives. Other countries are stealing a march. Holistic network design criteria are adopted and adhered to in North sea countries including Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. As a result, they choose brownfield sites at the outset for their energy infrastructure hubs and, in doing so, manage to avoid adverse impacts on communities and ecologies.
Places such as Zeebrugge and Rotterdam industrial zones are chosen for building substations, with space to build future projects, including hydrogen storage. Those projects are co-ordinated in order to minimise needless damage, maximise efficiencies and move at pace. For the same reasons, energy developers in the UK should be required to pursue as a first option brownfield hubs where multiple projects can co-exist without any adverse impact on nature.
We need to create a legal duty for developers working in the same area to exchange information, seek opportunities for shared infrastructure, reduce cumulative impact and align timelines. A framework of co-ordination, co-design, community benefit and compensation would mean that communities, town and parish councils and the Government could see the whole picture, not just the smallest of fragments. So many of my constituents are devastated by the cumulative impact that these energy projects within a 10-mile radius are having on nature, and no one organisation has ever looked at it.
We can get this right. If we do, we can deliver on our climate ambitions and protect nature at the same time, but it will require greater leadership, oversight and scrutiny, and greater emphasis on making sure that we co-ordinate, plan and implement a clean, green energy revolution that is strategic and not just whack-a-mole. It must be rooted in knowing the land and the geography, and not in the whims of the developer. Getting this right now will mean better protections for our natural environment, better safeguards for our local communities and a lasting legacy for the next generation.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I call the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—no, I am underselling him. I call the Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Thank you, Sir John, for recognising that my role is exactly the same and yet somehow changed in title. I am grateful still to be the Energy Minister, because, as I often say in this place, the debates that we have are always hugely interesting and bring in so many different aspects of how we plan our future energy system. Indeed, you and I, Sir John, have had many conversations about this particular issue.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) for securing this debate and for her contribution. She and I have had a number of conversations about this issue. Let me say at the outset that I actually agree with her on the need for better co-ordination—I have said that many times here and to her personally. I think it is a source of deep regret for all of us—I think the previous Government will look back on this as well—that we did not more properly co-ordinate what has been a huge build-out of new, important infrastructure.
As my hon. Friend said, the previous Government vacated the space of leadership in planning the future of our energy system. That was not because it was an impossible task; I can only assume it was because they thought it was too difficult to do. We have grasped that task in the 14 months that we have been in office. I will talk a bit more about that later.
I want to start with a bit of context, which is important. My hon. Friend also mentioned this point. We are committed as a Government to building things in this country again. For far too long, under both Labour and Conservative Governments, we have held back a lot of critical infrastructure. The plan for delivering economic growth across the country does require us to build infrastructure. Energy infrastructure is going to be absolutely key, not least because even if we were not on the journey to clean power, which is critical, we would still be having to upgrade much of the energy infrastructure, particularly the transmission network, which has been so under-invested in over the past 50 or 60 years.
Our mission as a Government is to move towards clean power, making sure that we deliver our energy security; and every wind turbine, solar panel and nuclear power station that we build protects us from future energy shocks and delivers our energy security here at home. So, it is a critical mission.
New energy infrastructure—indeed, new infrastructure of any kind—is always controversial in some circumstances; there are always impacts and there are always differing views about whether it should be built or not. That is why we have a planning system that seeks to balance the pros and cons of applications against a framework that sets out, as a country, that we have to build things somewhere. So, the planning system is there to make sure that the planning process is rigorous and open, but ultimately so that we make decisions and build things.
For obvious reasons, I will not comment on individual planning applications; they will be decided in due course in the usual way. However, I will make a fundamental point about why we are on this journey and why we think that building this infrastructure is so important. The reason is that the only way to reduce our exposure to the volatility of fossil fuels is to build a new clean power system. That means new nuclear, renewables and storage working together to bring down bills and tackle the climate crisis.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal is aware of the NSIP regime, but for the purposes of the hordes of people that I am sure are watching this debate at home, let me say a little about it. The “nationally significant” in NSIP—nationally significant infrastructure project—is really important for us to recognise. The reason we have an NSIP process is that some decisions have to be made that local communities might not be able to make in isolation because they are of critical national importance, whether that is in transport, water or energy projects. It is important that we have this process and it is a robust process, involving the Planning Inspectorate, and various statutory bodies such as national environment bodies. Projects are judged on a case-by-case basis, weighed against the local impacts, be they environmental, economic or social. The need for this process is set out for all to see in local and national planning policy, and of course national policy statements are scrutinised by this place before being agreed.
When an applicant submits an application for a development consent order or DCO, the Planning Inspectorate, particularly for energy NSIPs, will appoint an independent inspector to examine the application. A recommendation will be made to the Secretary of State about whether permission should be given and the Secretary of State makes the final decision; that decision might be made by a junior Minister on their behalf, but the law states that the decision is still in the name of the Secretary of State. Such applications are considered against the relevant national policy statements as approved by Parliament, which make the case for infrastructure and all the various considerations that have to be made.
Cumulative impact is an issue that my hon. Friend raised with me today, and that a number of hon. Friends have raised with me previously. I know that it is a particular concern. Projects must consider their cumulative impact as part of their applications. Also, the local authority that hosts the infrastructure and surrounding local authorities—given that often these projects are on the borders with other local authorities—are invited to submit impact reports as part of the process, to ensure that the potential impacts of an individual project are taken into account, based on local knowledge.
Of course, there are also opportunities for local communities to have a say. Members of the public can get involved not just in the planning application itself, but in the pre-consultation process and in the discussions before applications emerge. They can also register through the Planning Inspectorate during the pre-examination phase.
On planning reform, we are mindful as a Government that the planning process can take much longer than we think it should. Let me say at the outset that that is not about trying to get to the decision that one particular group might want; it is about getting to any kind of decision much faster, so that instead of projects and communities being held up for year after year, with people not knowing whether something will proceed or not, decisions are made.
The average time to secure development consent for NSIPs has increased from 2.6 years in 2012 to 3.6 years in 2024. Such delays cost a vast amount of money—£1.5 million a month for some large projects—and that of course impacts taxpayers and bill payers, who foot the bill for these projects.
There is always a balance to be struck, as we have said throughout the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Of course we want communities to have a say and we want the process to be as robust as possible, but we need to get decisions and end the uncertainty as quickly as possible, and the Bill will be key to improving the process. Our reforms are about trying to make sure that the system is flexible, proportionate and responsive to Government priorities. The Government must deliver the change on which we were elected; in the energy space, that means building the clean power system of the future. The planning system should reflect the priorities of the democratically elected Government of the day.
Public engagement is key to this process. We want communities to participate in the planning system, but as I will come back to in a moment when I talk about strategic planning, we also want communities to have a say much earlier in the process. It is not just about individual applications, but about the whole question of infrastructure in communities more generally. We are consulting on further proposals to streamline the NSIP process, including for new guidance on engagement following proposals in the Bill to remove statutory pre-application consultation requirements, and we encourage feedback from communities. We are also keen to hear views on the practical next steps and on how the system will actually work. I understand that the consultation is now open and will close at the end of October.
On the siting of energy projects, I agree with my hon. Friend that we should be much more strategic as a country in considering what the future of our energy system should look like, and in planning holistically what infrastructure should be built and where. She made a powerful point about the sheer amount in her part of the country. Had we been strategically planning a decade or so ago, we might have avoided some of those planning decisions, so it is important that we take this step. I regret the fact that we have not done so for the past few decades, but we are moving forward with a strategic view as quickly as possible.
The problem with being the Minister for Energy Security is that we are not short of acronyms—let me just go through some of them. The strategic spatial energy plan, or SSEP, and the centralised strategic network plan, or CSNP, are two crucial parts of how we will provide a holistic design much more carefully. The strategic spatial energy plan is about looking at the whole of Great Britain and how we map out the future of our energy system, and it will be published by the end of 2026—there is work going on at the moment. The centralised strategic network plan will follow, so that we can work out what infrastructure we need on the grid in order to meet the strategic spatial energy plan, and it will be published by the end of 2027.
This is about taking a much more active planning role in the future of energy right across England, Scotland and Wales, both inland and at sea. My hon. Friend rightly brings both of those things from her constituency into this discussion. It will be about assessing the optimal locations for things and the type of energy infrastructure that we need in the future. We must look beyond a developer’s five or 10-year plan and ensure that we meet future energy demand, knowing that it will significantly increase in the years ahead.
The centralised strategic network plan will build on the SSEP by ensuring that our transmission infrastructure meets the need and, crucially, is co-ordinated. My hon. Friend made that point very powerfully, and I was in Denmark last week to talk about this very question with EU Energy Ministers. The North sea is already congested with a lot of infrastructure, and the only way we will effectively plan the future of the North sea— for a whole range of uses, from fishing and energy to carbon capture and storage—is by working together. We will be part of much more co-ordination on the infrastructure in the North sea.
It all feeds into my hon. Friend’s point: we will only get this right by having a holistic view and enabling the efficient and co-ordinated use of infrastructure. That is better for communities affected by this issue directly, but we can also bring down the cost of building infrastructure if we plan it more coherently. That will benefit every person right across the country.
James Naish
The Minister describes something that I am extremely passionate about, as he knows, but it is a very top-down approach. I wonder whether we simultaneously need a bottom-up approach that engages with communities via local authorities in order to look at what land is available and how it could be used. Is that not something that we could do side by side with the vital strategic approach that he describes?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend foresees what I was going to say. I was just about to come on to his earlier intervention, which was really important. He is right about the need for infrastructure plans to be generated by communities and bottom-up. We need to take a national view of the future of the energy system as well, but I think both can work together.
The third great part of this planning is the regional energy plans. We also see a place, on a very localised level, for the local energy plans that many local authorities and combined mayoral authorities are working on, but the regional plans break up the whole of Great Britain into smaller areas so that we can look in detail at what energy can be sited in different areas, and crucially, at how the two kinds of plan can work together—the Government’s land use framework for the future use of land in the country alongside the capability and interest from communities to host infrastructure as well. I hope that we are doing that, but my hon. Friend should continue to bring that challenge to the Government, because it is something that we are committed to doing. I am confident that he will do so, which is great.
Let me finish on a point around the impact on communities. We do not want to get to a place where the future energy system is something that is done to communities, and we recognise that the failure of strategic planning across the country has meant that that is all too often what it has felt like for communities. We have a role to play in ensuring that, where communities do host important energy infrastructure, they benefit from it. Hosting such infrastructure benefits the whole country—without a resilient energy system, we all lose out, and we will not deliver the economic growth that we need—but the communities that host this infrastructure should feel a benefit from doing so.
That is why, in March, we announced two community benefit initiatives, guidance on community funds for communities that host this key infrastructure, and a bill discount scheme for households that are sited in proximity to new transmission infrastructure. The guidance sets out our expectations for how communities hosting that infrastructure should benefit. We will have more to say as the bill discount scheme is developed through secondary legislation, but that is an important statement: people should directly benefit, through money off their bills, if they are doing the country a favour by hosting that infrastructure. In May we also published a working paper on wider questions around community benefits, to make sure that other types of energy infrastructure also benefit communities.
In conclusion, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal for securing the debate. I know that we will continue to have these conversations. In this job I sometimes wish, for a number of reasons, that we could turn back the clock and do things slightly differently. I have been told repeatedly that, unfortunately, that is not an option, although I continue to push for it. Strategic planning is one of those regrets. As a country, whatever the political view, we will look back and wish that we had planned our energy system more holistically across the country. We are doing that. That does not change some of the decisions that have been made and some of the decisions that are in the system now, but it will allow us to build a more holistic system in the future.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
Will the Minister meet me to talk about what more co-ordination can happen now through the projects that are live, in the way that I set out in my speech?
Michael Shanks
I am always happy to meet any hon. Member from either side of the House, and I do regularly, but I will certainly meet my hon. Friend to discuss that. For obvious reasons, it is difficult to comment on specific applications in the system, but I am happy to meet her.
Let me finish with a general point that brings us back to our national mission. As a country, we must move quickly to replace a 19th-century fossil fuel-based energy system with a system that is fit for the 21st century. Even if we were not on that mission, the huge increase in demand for electricity necessitates the building of more energy infrastructure across the country. We must make the change that we are making to bring down bills and benefit consumers, to benefit our national energy security in an increasingly uncertain world, and to tackle climate change. Anyone who says that we can get by with not building any infrastructure is quite wrong.
Since time began, there has been opposition to any pieces of infrastructure built in any part of the country, but we must as a country recognise that, for us to deliver on the outcomes we want as a Government and improve people’s lives, we have to build infrastructure across the country. We want to do that in partnership with communities, to ensure that we do so in as well planned and strategic a way as possible, and to ensure that communities that host such infrastructure genuinely benefit from it. There is much more work to do, and I look forward to engaging with hon. Members on these difficult questions so that we can find the right solution for the country and local communities. I thank my hon. Friend once again for securing the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
London Fashion Week: Cultural Contribution
(2 days, 7 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
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the cultural contribution of London Fashion Week.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am honoured to have secured this debate on the cultural contribution of London Fashion Week, which begins on Thursday. This is an industry and a week with a buzz that is almost indescribable, but in this speech I will do my best to put it into words. About now, across our country and capital, designers and creative directors are reviewing their collections for the final time. Stylists are curating every detail. Make-up artists are checking and rechecking their kits. Streetwear creators are planning their content grids. Production teams are transforming venues across this city into extraordinary stages.
For many of us, fashion is a career driven not just by ambition but by a deep love of the industry and a passion for creativity. When I was 16 fashion was, as it is for many young people, a form of self-expression while I was still trying to figure out who I was, so I was thrilled when I got my first insight into the industry when I was offered a part-time job at Topshop on Kettering’s High Street. I am sure I need not remind colleagues that in 2013 Topshop was quite the brand. It represented a connection to global trends, creativity and culture that felt far away from my day-to-day life in Kettering. I loved watching trends trickle down from the catwalk to the high street and spotting that one piece of the season finally landing in Kettering after seeing it online weeks before. It was in those moments that I realised I did not want to be just on the shop floor, looking at the clothes; I wanted to be part of the world that created them.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this really important debate. Lynne Franks is a good friend of mine and a constituent, and she is also the creator of London Fashion Week. However, her impact does not end there. It is global, but also local. She is the founder of the SEED Hub in Wincanton, which provides a space for female entrepreneurs in the area. Will the hon. Member join me in congratulating Lynne Franks on her amazing career in the fashion industry? Does she agree that we must invest in arts education, ensuring that courses are well funded and apprenticeships are available, so that the UK can maintain its global creative and fashion hub?
Rosie Wrighting
Yes, absolutely. I join the hon. Member in congratulating Lynne Franks on her incredible career. The hon. Member is right, and later I will go into more detail on how important it is that we invest in the next generation of creatives across the country, not just in our capital.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward. Although I am not extremely up to date on fashion—I am probably not a “Dedicated Follower Of Fashion”, as the song goes; my wife knows that for definite—I can certainly appreciate the opportunities that it brings for young people across the UK. A young lady from Northern Ireland whose name is Hope Macaulay has founded her own brand, Hope Macaulay knitwear. She showed her graduate collection at London’s Graduate Fashion Week and in London Fashion Week as well. Does the hon. Lady agree that, along with offering culture, London Fashion Week can offer young aspiring designers real opportunities to get their products on show to support and boost their careers? That is what it does for some of the people in Northern Ireland. I believe it does the same for people across this great United Kingdom—for people in Great Britain as well.
Rosie Wrighting
I absolutely agree. Stories of the careers of graduates who have gone on to be influential designers come from all across the UK. We need to ensure that young people potentially watching this debate now are seeing fashion as a future career and feel as though there are steps they can take and there is a vibrant career ahead of them, so I thank the hon. Member for that intervention.
I grew up with my fair share of challenges, but the thought of a career in fashion gave me drive and determination that shaped the rest of my life. The belief that creativity can be a path forward is something that London Fashion Week represents to me and to thousands of young people across the country, who see their opportunity to be a part of something bigger than themselves.
The talent at London Fashion Week is unmatched and embodies the best of Britain—our creativity, diversity and resilience, which comes from every corner of the UK. Take the story of Lee McQueen, the son of a taxi driver and a teaching assistant who became one of the most influential designers the world has ever seen. Lee’s path into fashion was not paved with privilege; he fought his way in. The story goes that he turned up, portfolio in hand, and quite literally knocked on the door of Central Saint Martins, asking for a place on its MA course. At first he was turned away, but his work spoke for itself and he was eventually given a chance.
That image—of a young designer knocking on a door and refusing to be invisible—captures something vital about London Fashion Week and the British fashion industry. It is a space where raw talent, determination and creativity can break through. Lee McQueen—Alexander McQueen—created collections that were provocative, political and deeply emotional, blending his working-class roots with British history and culture.
Fashion was accessible to me when I was growing up in Kettering and it was accessible to Lee when he banged on that door. But it worries me that there are potentially young people today who cannot force their way into fashion in quite the way that Lee did.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this debate, and I congratulate her on being one of the best-dressed Members of Parliament. [Laughter.]
My constituency of Stratford and Bow is home to so much art and fashion in London, from Hackney Wick to Fish Island, where we have a fashion show this weekend at The Trampery. And in the Olympic Park, we have the incredible London College of Fashion, which is training up the next generation of students and fashion creators. However, both the teachers and students there have told me that although the fashion industry is a massive force for growth and opportunity, its current practices are an existential threat to its future, because they are prohibiting people from becoming involved in the industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is more important than ever that we keep fashion accessible, and that the UK’s world-leading fashion sector prioritises circularity and sustainability in the heart of everything it does? And if she does agree, would she ask the Government to consider those points, too?
Rosie Wrighting
I thank my hon. Friend, both for her intervention and for how much she champions the fashion industry and the creatives in her constituency. East London is a massive part of Fashion Week and she is a great champion of it. And I absolutely agree with her intervention, particularly on the importance of circularity and sustainability. Fashion must move very quickly, given the challenges facing the UK and the world, and it is right that it is supported in that regard.
We must ensure that fashion remains a viable career for young people, particularly those from outside London and from working-class communities. That means making it easier for designers and brands to scale up their businesses without being forced to sell early or relocate abroad. It also means providing stronger financial education and mentoring for young creatives, so that talent is matched with tools to build sustainable businesses. It also means tackling unfair payment practices, because too many freelancers, small brands and small suppliers have to wait months to be paid, making it impossible for them to grow, or sometimes even survive.
We know that talent survives when it is supported. This year is the 25th anniversary of Fashion East, ERDEM and Roxana.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case for London Fashion Week; I agree with everything she has said. I am very pleased to note that last week Manchester Fashion Week returned after a decade’s break, showcasing our city’s talent, sustainable practices and rich textile heritage. Does she agree that we should do more to celebrate innovation in fashion across the UK?
Rosie Wrighting
Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I know from my own career that Manchester’s influence on British fashion has increased massively over the last decade. It is right that creatives up there—I know there are many who study at Manchester Metropolitan University on its fashion courses—are supported, so that we harness talent from across our country. So, I thank him for that intervention.
From Vivienne Westwood to John Galliano, Aaron Esh and Simone Rocha, from Savile Row to the rise of grime and contemporary streetwear, fashion in Britain crosses into art, theatre, subculture and politics. If we do not tackle the current challenges, we risk losing some of the very talent that makes Britain a leading name in international fashion.
The British Fashion Council’s work is crucial in that space. London Fashion Week keeps the door open for new voices, providing a shared space, mentoring and practical support for new-gen designers. For many designers, such as Christopher Kane and JW Anderson, who are now some of the biggest names in the industry, it serves as a launchpad. The British Fashion Council and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport support their talent to grow into a business, helping so many designers get their first break here in the UK.
I could not talk about the British Fashion Council without mentioning decisions made by the new chief executive Laura Weir, who is here in the Gallery today, to scrap fees, levelling the playing field for independent designers and small brands that had been priced out of participating in recent years. Her choice to extend the NEWGEN programme for three years and expand scholarship funding and mentoring for fashion students will directly benefit children who grew up in situations such as mine.
These changes will undoubtedly support working-class creatives in this space, but they will also influence an industry that is fundamentally better off when there are working-class voices within it. A wide variety of voices have made fashion week what it is: an opportunity to bring together different cultures and lived experiences, especially in a week in which London has faced division on our streets. London Fashion Week shows off British values, culture and inclusivity at their best. At a time like this, that should be celebrated.
Fashion has a responsibility to make creativity sustainable. Designers are experimenting with recycled fabrics, circularity, digital presentation and harnessing some of the benefits of artificial intelligence. The result is innovation that is cultural as well as technical. London Fashion Week is an opportunity for Britain to lead not just in fashion but in cultural responsibility. It is also a vital commercial engine for British fashion. It enables emerging and established SME brands to showcase new lines and collections to domestic and international retail buyers.
The cultural and creative industries are rightly recognised in the Government’s industrial strategy as one of this country’s greatest strengths. Over the last decade, the sector has grown one and a half times faster than the wider economy. Within that, fashion makes enormous contributions, adding more than £60 billion to the economy each year and supporting nearly 900,000 jobs. London Fashion Week is a clear example of how British creativity translates into growth, skills exports and cultural influence that is recognised across the world.
In praising that work, we must acknowledge the challenges that the sector continues to face. The pandemic exposed how precarious many creative careers are, and the worsening barriers to entry that risk narrowing the pipeline of talent that London Fashion Week relies on. I have spoken to friends and colleagues in the industry who feel deeply the uncertainty and fear of being priced out of a sector that they love. I am standing here today —in my first Westminster Hall debate and the first ever debate on London Fashion Week in this place—because of the opportunities I had and the drive and determination I learnt from working in fashion.
I admit that—against the advice of my staff—I sometimes read the comments on my Twitter page. Almost every day I see negativity about my background in fashion, as if it somehow makes me less accomplished or less intelligent, but I can tell you that those who thrive in fashion are some of the most resilient, resourceful and driven people I know. It is a career that demands creativity, initiative, quick thinking, a thick skin and intellect. The industry of pattern cutters, make-up artists, buyers, designers, photographers, models, content creators, stylists, set designers and countless others brings so much to our country, often with little recognition.
London Fashion Week reflects who we are, and it shows the world that Britain is and will remain a nation of innovation, artistry and resilience. It cements Britain’s position as a global leader in fashion, and strengthens the UK’s soft power. It is a beacon for the very best of our creativity, craftmanship and bold innovation.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) for securing this debate. I would like to highlight how adaptive fashion is being promoted at this year’s London Fashion Week.
Adaptive fashion enables people who have difficulties in dressing themselves, whether because of physical disabilities, limited mobility or chronic pain, to dress themselves comfortably and confidently. Clothing pieces are often equipped with additional functions such as zips, Velcro and magnetic fastenings, which can help with independent dressing while also providing discreet access for medical ports.
As the parent of a child with cerebral palsy, I know how important adaptive clothing is for someone with a physical disability and limited mobility. I pay tribute to fashion labels such as Unhidden, founded by Victoria Jenkins, that aim to make fashion accessible and inclusive for those with disabilities. Victoria’s new collection, which will be unveiled at this year’s London Fashion Week, will be modelled by individuals living with disabilities, chronic conditions or visible differences.
I applaud Victoria’s mission, but I am also aware of the need for adaptive clothing on the high street. I visited the Primark branch in Bexleyheath last year, where it was outlined to me how the company has launched an adaptive fashion range that was co-designed with Victoria and is available across 96 of its stores. It was refreshing to see a global brand such as Primark making clothing accessible, both physically and financially, for disabled people on the high street. Primark has joined other high street names, such as Asda and my former employer Marks & Spencer, which have adaptive clothing ranges for adults and children. I welcome the increase of adaptive fashion on the high street and in high-end fashion, but I am aware that more can still be done to ensure that it is not just a phenomenon, but easily accessible and available for every disabled person.
As a London MP, I welcome the impact that London Fashion Week has on the economy of our capital. I hope that in future years it will continue to use its role to promote adaptive clothing. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering once again for securing this valuable debate.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) on bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. It is important, but it is also celebratory; I do not think we do enough of that in this House, so I am glad to see the subject debated today.
Our creative industries are central to driving growth. They are not only powerful economic drivers, but a source of huge cultural influence across the world, which is why they are at the heart of our industrial strategy. London Fashion Week exemplifies that impact. It provides a unique global stage for both established and emerging talent, showcasing British creativity to the world and reinforcing the UK’s position as a hub for innovation in fashion.
Welsh designers are very much a part of this creative story. As a Welsh MP, I am pleased to say that Welsh designers show that the UK’s creative excellence extends far beyond London. Across Wales, a vibrant tapestry of designers, artisans and makers are drawing inspiration from their rich cultural heritage, producing innovative works that resonate on both the national and the international stage. The impact of Welsh designers on British fashion over the years has been undeniable. Laura Ashley, whose designs were sported by Princess Diana, still holds a place in contemporary fashion. Ashley herself noted that she owed much of her success to the hard-working people of mid-Wales. Local women flocked to her Carno factory, making it the largest employer in north Powys. Her influence extended to her community, which is so important. The iconic Welsh designer David Emanuel, who designed Princess Diana’s wedding dress, called Ashley an inspiration.
Wales has other designers who are well known across the world, such as Julien Macdonald, whose international client list includes Victoria Beckham and Beyoncé. New to the scene, we have Jayne Pierson, who is focusing on showcasing Welsh heritage to the world, having played a huge role in shaping the global fashion scene. I have not mentioned these people just to boast about the cultural and economic impacts that Wales has had across the world. What is more pertinent is the hope that young people, in Wales and beyond, gain when they see the success of our designers. They see that a creative career is not out of reach and that they too can make their mark.
In my constituency of Clwyd North, the transformative power of creativity is clear in businesses such as the Lost Sheep Company in Colwyn Bay. With the aim of championing Welsh wool, it has grown into a heritage crafts centre that blends creativity with community enterprise, and I was pleased to see its staff at No. 10 as part of the Prime Minister’s celebration of St David’s day. To champion wool, it takes Welsh products out into the world. That small business has an impact right at the heart of my community; it is a great example of how art, craft and tradition can come together to support rural economies, celebrate local identity and inspire new generations to embark on creative pathways. Baa Stool—pun intended—in Denbigh complements this creative ecosystem, providing tools and materials for local makers and craftspeople, and ensuring that people who are looking to pursue creative careers have access to the supplies, advice and community that they need, right on their doorstep.
The opportunities that London Fashion Week provides show what can be achieved when talent is given the right platform. If the same visibility and support were extended to creative hubs across the UK, including in Wales, we could unlock even more potential. By investing in regional infrastructure and nurturing local talent, we can ensure that the creative industries thrive across all our nations and regions.
London Fashion Week is not just about the designers on the runway. It is also about the inspiration that they spark. Seeing Welsh creatives succeed on the national and international stage gives young people tangible examples of what is possible, inspiring them to explore and pursue their own creative paths. That sense of hope and possibility is every bit as important as the economic impact.
I have always been and will continue to be a staunch supporter of the creative sector. I am passionate about ensuring that young people see careers in the arts and creative industries as not only available, but achievable. Role models matter. When our young people see designers and artists from Wales and other parts of the UK succeeding on a global stage such as London Fashion Week, it shows them that they too could follow that path. By showcasing these opportunities, we can inspire the next generation of creatives to dream big and believe in their potential, strengthening not only the economic future of our country, but the cultural richness that defines who we are.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) for securing the debate. This is the first time that this subject has been discussed in this place, and I cannot think of anyone better to introduce it.
I am thrilled to take part in this debate on London Fashion Week, which has been one of the highlights of British fashion and creativity since it began in February 1984. London’s is the youngest of the big four fashion weeks; the others are in New York, Milan and Paris. Full disclosure: my partner is one of the global editors at Condé Nast, which owns publications that are iconic brands from GQ, which I was delighted to see championing and celebrating all things British in its latest edition, to Tatler, Traveller, Wired, Glamour, The New Yorker and very possibly the most famous of all, Vogue.
In 2019, Vogue characterised London’s essence as “fearless imagination” and explained how fashion has long allowed designers to explore “tongue-in-cheek rebellion”. Perhaps the most famous is Vivienne Westwood, who was born in Hollingworth village just north-west of Derbyshire. London Fashion Week provides us all with a brilliant opportunity to champion designers and creatives from right across our country. I remember poring over borrowed and old copies of Vogue as a teenager living in a council house in Nottingham and aspiring to feel as classy and fancy-pants as some of the women I saw and read about.
Through an introduction from Chris Warren at Condé Nast, I had the great pleasure of meeting Claire Singer and Ottilie Chichester at Vogue, who told me how they have recently launched the initiative “Vogue Values”, under the banner “Fashion is for everyone”. It is an attempt to recognise that fashion can be a driver of positive change, not just in terms of creativity and culture, but in addressing overproduction, waste and exclusion. When publications as influential as Vogue begin to put sustainability and inclusivity at the centre of their agenda, that suggests that London Fashion Week and the UK fashion industry are entering a new era in which creativity, commerce and responsibility are at the centre. It is so exciting to see British platforms helping to lead that change.
It filters down to our high streets and shopping habits, too. In Melbourne, in my constituency of South Derbyshire, Best Kept Secret is a dress agency selling pristine-quality, previously loved designer clothing. It offers high-end brands such as Dolce & Gabbana, Versace and Louis Vuitton. We also have some brilliant charity shops giving clothes a second lease of life. In Swadlincote, our Sue Ryder charity shop is a bargain hunter’s paradise, as well as raising money for those experiencing grief, and the Salvation Army offers affordable vintage clothing and raises money for homeless shelters in the UK and disaster relief overseas.
It is great to see young people focusing on sustainability. Students at Burton and South Derbyshire college have worked with Loved Once Again to bring sustainability to life through a series of innovative projects. And there are a great many MPs—women and men—who buy their clothes on sites such as eBay and Vinted. Our very own hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) is inspiring people, including my office manager, with her #NoBuyingNew campaign. Each day, she says where her outfits were from. They are always vintage, which helps to reduce waste to landfill one outfit at a time. Her socials are most certainly worth a follow. I wonder whether at London Fashion Week 2026 there might be room for an MPs’ runway.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) for securing this debate.
London Fashion Week is known worldwide. As we probably all know, it started in 1984 in a tent in a Kensington car park, where the British Fashion Council brought British designers together to show their work. From those modest beginnings, it has grown into one of the most famous fashion events in the world, showing the best of Britain: innovative and inviting the world in.
I had the pleasure of working with two of London Fashion Week’s stalwarts, who sadly are both no longer with us: Hilary Alexander and Lesley Goring. They choreographed two fashion shows in which I took part for Breast Cancer Care in 2009 and 2014, helping to raise many hundreds of thousands of pounds for that charity. They had me on the runway twice in a day in each of those years, with other breast cancer survivors, parading in six or seven different outfits from top designers including Jeff Banks and Stella McCartney. We did it in front of 1,000 people at each session. Looking at me now, you would hardly describe me as a fashion model.
Over the years, London Fashion Week has set new trends, not just in clothing but in values. It was one of the first runways to ban fur, and it is going further this year by banning exotic animal skins such as snake and crocodile. That is important: it shows that the fashion industry can lead the world not only in style but in responsibility.
The fashion and textile industry adds more than £60 billion to our economy and gives work to more than 1 million people. It is not just about glamour on the runway; it is about people’s livelihoods, businesses in our towns and cities, and exports abroad. In London, the effect is clear: during the 2023 fashion week, footfall in London rose by almost 18% compared with a normal day, giving a significant boost to our traders. Shops, cafés, restaurants and taxis all benefited from London Fashion Week. That local boost matters, and it shows how culture and commerce can go hand in hand.
London Fashion Week is not only about money; it is about who we are. Designers from around the world come to London to share ideas and work with our home-grown talent. Our designers shape culture, tell stories through fashion, and give Britain a strong creative voice on the world stage. Through its NEWGEN programme, the British Fashion Council gives young designers a platform to show what they can do. Many well-known names today started out with that support.
Talent does not appear out of nowhere. It begins in our classrooms, our colleges and our apprenticeships. That is why we believe that arts education must be taken seriously. We would include arts subjects in the English baccalaureate, properly fund creative degrees and make sure that there are high-quality apprenticeships in creative and digital industries. Without that, we risk losing the pipeline of young people who will shape future fashion, music, film and design industries.
Of course, there is more that the fashion industry could do. Last year, out of 206 member brands at the British Fashion Council, just seven had published targets for reducing emissions and only five had targets in line with the 2015 Paris agreement on climate change. That is disappointing; the UK average across all sectors is 65%. Progress has been made with the recycling of clothing, and many people use platforms such as Vinted and Depop, but around 300 tonnes of clothing are still thrown away every year.
London Fashion Week is well known for embracing sustainable fashion and has a runway dedicated to it, and some designers are using recycled or eco-friendly fabrics, but we need to try to do better. The UK can and should lead the world, not just in style, but in sustainable fashion. That means tackling waste, fixing supply chains and supporting innovation in new materials.
Closer to home, my constituency of Wokingham may not host catwalks, but our young people, our schools and our small businesses are all part of the bigger creative economy. Local designers, digital start-ups and independent shops all have a stake in the future of the fashion industry. The choices that we make here in Parliament about education, sustainability and support for the arts directly affect opportunities for people in our local communities.
London Fashion Week matters on many levels: economically, it is a powerhouse; culturally, it is a beacon of creativity; and socially, it has the chance to lead on sustainability and ethics, but we must not take it for granted. We must invest in the education that produces the next generation of designers. We must demand higher standards on sustainability, and we must recognise the value of fashion, not just as business, but as part of our culture and identity. Our fashion industry is world leading, and the Liberal Democrats believe that, with the right support, it can remain world leading, not only in creativity but in responsibility.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) on securing this important debate and all hon. Members for their contributions. I welcome the Minister to his new role and I wish him well in government.
London Fashion Week has been a regular part of Britain’s cultural calendar since it was first held in 1984. In four decades, it has grown to become one of the world’s leading fashion events, standing alongside Paris, Milan and New York as one of the big four fashion weeks. It is now firmly established as an international institution, but one that is rooted in Britain’s traditions of creativity, design and craftsmanship.
We can look at London Fashion Week’s contribution through several different lenses. There is the economic impact that we have heard about already today, which is unsurprisingly substantial. There is its international reach and the way it helps to shape Britain’s reputation abroad. As we heard from the Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), there is its role in supporting education, training and careers for young designers. There is its influence on sustainability, innovation and regional economies. Perhaps most importantly, there is the less tangible but equally vital contribution it makes to Britain’s cultural life and identity.
It is important to begin with the economic dimension. The fashion industry, as a whole, directly contributes close to £30 billion annually to the UK’s economy and supports nearly 900,000 jobs across the country. London Fashion Week plays a central role in that wider success. Each season, it brings together hundreds of designers, buyers, journalists and photographers from around the world. The event is not only about catwalk shows; it is also about deals and contracts that sustain designers and businesses throughout the year. Many small and medium-sized companies rely on the exposure that London Fashion Week provides. It gives them the opportunity to secure international orders, attract investors and build long-term relationships with global retailers.
The economic impact also extends into the hospitality and tourism sectors. International visitors attending London Fashion Week stay in our hotels, eat in our restaurants, use our transport system—when it is working—and support our local shops. The event generates millions of pounds of spending, providing a much-needed boost of inward investment for the wider London economy.
Importantly, as the title of this debate makes clear, London Fashion Week is not simply an economic generator; its cultural importance is equally significant. Fashion, at its heart, is a form of cultural expression. It reflects the values, identities and moods of a society. What people wear and how designers present clothing speaks to wider cultural trends, although I must admit that I am not that up on fashion. My sister got all the fashion genes in our house, so she tries to steer me in the right direction when I am looking particularly scruffy.
British fashion has long been known for its creativity and originality. From the craftsmanship of Savile Row tailoring to the rebellious punk energy of the 1970s and the dramatic visions of designers such as Alexander McQueen, British fashion has always had a distinctive voice. London Fashion Week provides the stage on which that voice is heard. At each event, designers bring together traditional materials and skills with new ideas. Tweed, tartan and wool, for example, are reinterpreted for new generations. Alongside them, we see collections that make use of digital technologies, sustainable fabrics and innovative production methods.
London Fashion Week is therefore both a guardian of tradition and a hub for creative experimentation. I have had the pleasure of seeing that when I am out and about in Old Bexley and Sidcup—I will not name all the boutiques that operate in my constituency, as I am bound to forget one and get myself in a lot of trouble. We also have arts students at the likes of Bird college and Rose Bruford college, a big part of whose work involves costume design that feeds the west end and a lot of the talent we enjoy in London.
One of the most striking aspects of London Fashion Week is its global reach. It is reported in newspapers, magazines and online platforms across the world, as we have already heard. Images from the catwalks are shared instantly on social media, reaching audiences far beyond those who have the privilege of attending in person. That means that London Fashion Week plays an important role in shaping how Britain is seen internationally. It presents Britain as creative, innovative and outward-looking. It demonstrates that our country still has something distinctive to contribute to global culture, and it acts as one of the best forms of cultural diplomacy. Just as our music, theatre and sport project Britain’s identity abroad, so too does London Fashion Week.
A vital part of London Fashion Week’s contribution lies in its links to education and training. Britain has some of the world’s most highly regarded fashion schools, including Central Saint Martins, London College of Fashion and the Royal College of Art. These institutions attract students from across the globe, and many of the designers who now show collections at London Fashion Week began their career in their classrooms and studios.
The pipeline from education to the catwalk is clear. Students are trained in technical skills, encouraged in creativity and given the chance to develop their own design identity. London Fashion Week then provides a platform where they can present their work to international audiences. The pathway is vital to sustaining Britain’s long-term success in fashion and those vital careers that we all want to see flourish.
Linked to that is the emphasis that London Fashion Week places on supporting emerging talent. As we have already heard, the British Fashion Council’s excellent NEWGEN programme provides opportunities for new designers to show their work, gain visibility and build their careers. Many of today’s established names first appeared through such initiatives. That commitment to new talent ensures that London Fashion Week remains dynamic and forward-looking. It prevents the event from becoming static or predictable and keeps Britain at the forefront of global design patterns.
Young designers tend to be even more eco-conscious than their predecessors, and London Fashion Week has made an important contribution to sustainability. Globally, the fashion industry has faced growing questions about its environmental footprint, from the use of resources in production to the disposal of clothing. Many British designers and retailers lead the way in exploring sustainable practices, including the use of recycled fabrics, investment in traceable and transparent supply chains, and the development of circular economy models in which garments are reused and repurposed. London Fashion Week has become a stage on which such ideas are shared around the world.
On that point, I wish to give a shout-out—which I do not always do—to my local council, which works with an organisation called Traid to recycle textiles in the London borough of Bexley. I would like to see other boroughs roll out that important initiative for recycling fashion, alongside the work of charity shops and others.
By promoting sustainable practices, London Fashion Week not only addresses environmental concerns but shapes the cultural conversation about fashion. It shows that creativity and responsibility can go hand in hand. As that makes clear, fashion does not exist in isolation. It intersects with many other areas of the creative economy. Film, television and music all rely on fashion for costumes, styling and identity. Sports stars and musicians frequently collaborate with fashion designers, and their influence shapes trends in turn. As much as I would like footballers to be more focused on football, a lot of them are budding fashionistas on their social media profiles. London Fashion Week strengthens such connections, contributing to a wider ecosystem of cultural activity.
London Fashion Week has been held for almost 40 years, and its longevity is a sign of its importance. Over time, it has adapted to new technologies, consumer habits and cultural movements, yet it has retained its identity as a showcase for British creativity. The balance of continuity and change is a great part of its success.
London Fashion Week makes a significant contribution to the United Kingdom. Economically, it generates income, supports jobs and boosts tourism. Culturally, it showcases creativity, reflects our traditions and helps define our new identities. Internationally, it strengthens Britain’s reputation and influence. It supports education, encourages new talent, promotes sustainability and even sustains regional industries. It is not simply a series of shows; it is a major cultural event that brings together tradition, innovation, creativity, commerce, national identity and international reach. In conclusion, I again thank the hon. Member for Kettering for securing this important debate, and thank hon. Members for their contributions.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Ian Murray)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison, for my first Westminster Hall debate in my new role. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), for his welcome. May I say that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting), with her long track record and experience in the industry, introduced this debate with a wonderful speech? If that is her first speech in Westminster Hall, I look forward to many more in the years to come. I particularly liked the way she described how young people relate to fashion as a way of expressing themselves, and how young people should be able to get on to that fashion career path. It is a great passion of the Secretary of State and myself to get more young people from all over the country, particularly from working-class backgrounds, into industries that have been impenetrable for too many for too long.
I am proud, in this debate, to celebrate the successes of Britain’s fashion industry and particularly London Fashion Week, which starts on Thursday. It will be the 41st showcase, and I am delighted to join my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering in welcoming the new chief executive officer, Laura Weir, who has such a busy week ahead but has taken the time to join us in the Public Gallery. As everyone in Westminster Hall can see with their own eyes, my fashion sense makes me perfectly qualified to reply to this debate—indeed, it has caused much consternation and hilarity in the Department that I am responding.
I am responding to this debate, however, because Britain’s fashion is world leading. It is a cornerstone of our creative economy, as many hon. Members have said, with 800,000 people contributing to it. It puts nearly £30 billion into the UK economy, which is more than aerospace and defence combined, and it drives £16 billion of consumer spending in related industries, such as tourism.
London Fashion Week stands at the centre of that success. It is far more than a showcase of style; it is an important driver of economic growth, cultural diplomacy and our national identity. Each season it generates substantial revenue through direct sales, international orders and high-value trade opportunities.
The British Fashion Council estimates that orders placed during London Fashion Week exceed £100 million from overseas buyers alone. By drawing a global audience of buyers, media and investors, London Fashion Week reinforces the UK’s standing as one of the world’s leading creative superpowers. That is really important for the posture of this country, in terms of our creative industries. Moreover, as one of the big four fashion weeks, London Fashion Week puts Britain’s fashion on the global stage. It acts as a cultural ambassador, profiling British creativity, influencing perceptions and attracting tourism, trade and talent from across the globe.
London Fashion Week is not just about London. The BFC’s City Wide Celebration takes the experience and excitement of the capital’s fashion week programme to other cities, such as Liverpool, Manchester—as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Rusholme (Afzal Khan)—and Newcastle. Throughout this month, more than 100,000 activations and promotions are taking place all across the country as part of the City Wide celebrations. City Wide Liverpool took place two weeks ago, during which Liverpool ONE shopping centre saw a quarter of million visitors and a 14% uplift in sales.
We have heard the voice of the Welsh fashion industry from my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd North (Gill German), showcasing the Welsh creators and the contribution to our national fashion scene. It would be remiss of me, with my accent and constituency, not to mention Scotland’s contribution to the fashion industry. Not only are there great designers and great fashion innovators, but tartan itself is a great fashion icon. I recall a story from when I was in New York for Tartan Week this year. Anyone who goes to America or anywhere else in the world and wears their kilt will know that they often get asked what tartan it is. I said mine, which is the Murray of Atholl—a dark green colour with a red stripe—to this rather flamboyant chap who was marching down Sixth Avenue with us in the Tartan Day parade. When I asked him what his tartan was—it was yellow and black—I expected him to give me the name of some Scottish ancestral tartan, but he merely replied “Vivienne Westwood.” So our wonderful British fashion icons do span the globe.
Alongside its impact in the realms of economics and soft power, as we have all discussed, London Fashion Week is a vital incubator for new talent, and that is really important. It is the only fashion week in the world to host a shared space for emerging designers. The British Fashion Council’s NEWGEN programme, which supports the best new fashion design talent, is now in its 32nd year. It has been the launchpad for the careers of some of the country’s most prominent designers, whose names we have heard in Westminster Hall this afternoon, including Alexander McQueen, Christopher Kane and Grace Wales Bonner. We need to continue to encourage that really important programme. We have recognised its importance, and the Government have supported NEWGEN designers in showcasing at London Fashion Week.
It is right that the Government invest in the talent of the future in that way, and I am proud that we committed to continuing the funding for the UK’s fashion talent pipeline in the creative industries sector plan, which I hope all Members have read. The industry was heavily involved in making sure that fashion was a key part of that programme.
Fashion is a cornerstone of the UK’s creative industries—an area of national pride and economic strength. Together, the creative industries contribute 2.4 million jobs to our economy and £124 billion in gross value added, while also shaping how we see ourselves and how the world sees us. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering mentioned the recent activities on the streets of London and other cities and towns across the country. I firmly believe that the creative industries are the glue that binds our communities and us all together, so driving that innovation, investment and cultural influence is in all our national interests.
The sector is an ecosystem—that is the most important word we can use for it—where designers, artists, businesses and freelancers inspire one another, and fashion plays a key and leading role. Sir Paul Smith is a powerful example of that. His designs are globally renowned, spanning clothing, furniture, cars and film. Through Paul Smith’s Foundation, he is also nurturing the next generation of creatives with mentoring and training and by giving opportunities to others. That contribution was recognised by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on a recent visit to the foundation.
That is why the Government have put the creative industries at the heart of our plan for change. Our creative industries sector plan, launched in June, commits £380 million to extra support for innovation, skills, access to finance and regional growth over the next decade. That includes expanding the British Business Bank’s support to help creative SMEs to secure investment, new flexibilities in training to tackle the skills gap, refreshed careers services for young people, which is hugely important, and measures to boost exports.
For fashion specifically, as well as backing NEWGEN at London Fashion Week, as I mentioned, and supporting British designers on the international stage, including through the British Fashion Council’s showroom at Paris Fashion Week, these initiatives connect emerging UK designers with global buyers and press, driving sales and raising the profile of our British talent worldwide.
Of course, the creative industries do much more than enrich culture; they fuel progress across the wider economy. From video game technology advancing medical research to fashion materials supporting space exploration, creativity is powering innovation and shaping the future of our lives, our communities and the wider country. Like other creative industries, fashion is making an impact beyond its boundaries. The industry has led the way on sustainability by embedding circular design principles into businesses, adopting new low-impact materials, and innovating with production processes and waste reduction, as we heard eloquently from my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), who encouraged us all to use Vinted and eBay more often. I am not sure that even on Vinted and eBay I could get a cheaper suit than I am wearing at the moment, but I shall try. She had a pitch to be the new CEO of an MPs’ catwalk next year; she might have dismissed the suggestion rather quickly, but it is in the mix none the less.
The UK Research and Innovation circular fashion programme has provided a launchpad for all this work by facilitating collaboration across the UK fashion and textiles industry to produce a comprehensive national textile recycling infrastructure plan and a practical framework for extended producer responsibility, as well as further insights into the challenges and opportunities of sustainability in the fashion sector. London Fashion Week plays a key role in driving this agenda, and it is the first of the big four fashion weeks to have adopted sustainability requirements for exhibiting brands.
Designers themselves are going further. This week will provide a platform for labels such as Patrick McDowell and Paolo Carzana to showcase designs based around innovative, low-impact and recycled materials. Similarly, the fashion industry has taken actions to advance equity, diversity and inclusivity across all its workforce, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). London Fashion Week has been at the forefront of all this progress, driving change globally and pioneering representation by championing designers and models who reflect the richness and diversity of all of society—from designers such as Sinéad O’Dwyer, who focuses on size inclusivity, to disabled models such as Kelly Knox. This year’s show will feature Victoria Jenkins’s label Unhidden, which focuses on clothing for people with disabilities, producing stylish, inclusive and adaptive designs, and providing means of expression for the disabled and chronically sick community through fashion.
It has been a privilege to participate in this debate and celebrate the cultural contribution of London Fashion Week. The Government are committed to supporting the fashion sector and the wider creative industries, as shown by the ambitious sector plan that we published earlier this year. I will attend London Fashion Week this week in some capacity, and I look forward to celebrating British creativity and innovation on the global stage. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering for securing the debate, and I am grateful to hon. Members for taking part and for all their excellent contributions.
Rosie Wrighting
I thank hon. Members from across the House for attending this debate—the first ever debate on London Fashion Week in this place. It is telling that we had Members from across the country talking about how much fashion means to their constituencies and about designers who come from their constituencies. That shows how important this vital industry and sector is to Members across the House. It was great to hear from Members from different parties on what fashion means for their constituencies.
I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), who spoke about adaptive fashion, which is deeply important to him. We have had conversations in the Tea Room about our careers in retail, and I was so pleased to hear his contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd North (Gill German) spoke passionately about Laura Ashley and what she means for her constituency. I particularly like how my hon. Friend spoke about fashion as giving hope to young people. It so often does, particularly in areas outside London; it ignites a passion that can sometimes be hard to find.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) described fashion as “fearless imagination”, which is brilliant. She mentioned Vivienne Westwood, who is such an influential designer and who shows how important it is that we continue to support talent across the UK, including in areas such as Derbyshire. I also put on record my admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington). Her videos come up on my TikTok sometimes, and I often watch her “#NoBuyingNew” videos.
I welcome the Minister to his place. I am incredibly pleased to see him here, and I am honoured that, in his first Westminster Hall debate in the role, he is talking about fashion. I hope that my passion for this industry came across and that he recognises the importance of investing in the next generation of designers. It was so important to me to secure this debate, because I believe that the challenges the industry faces at the moment mean that we are at a crucial point. Fashion brings so much to the UK, but unless it is correctly supported, we risk losing incredible talent. I hope to continue to work with him in supporting this vital week and the sector that means so much to me. London Fashion Week makes a huge cultural contribution to our capital and the rest of the UK, and I look forward to it starting on Thursday.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the cultural contribution of London Fashion Week.
Religious Crematoriums
(2 days, 7 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
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the provision of religious crematoria.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to have secured this important debate on the provision of religious crematoriums and the access issues faced by faith communities across our country.
At its heart, this debate is about dignity, respect and equality. How we support families at the end of life is a test of our society’s values. Every person, regardless of faith or background, deserves the opportunity to say farewell to their loved ones in a manner that honours traditions and beliefs. For many, cremation or burial may seem a straightforward matter, an administrative process supported by local authorities and funeral providers. Yet for a significant section of our population, and particularly those from minority faiths, the reality is far more complex. Limited provision, a lack of awareness, and regulatory barriers too often mean that families are left distressed and unsupported at the moment when they most need compassion.
I want to begin with the provision of crematoriums. There are more than 300 crematoriums across the United Kingdom, but the vast majority operate on a standardised model that does not reflect the full diversity of religious practice. For many communities, including Hindu and Buddhist communities, religious tradition often requires that cremation be accompanied by specific rites—including chanting, prayers and periods of meditation before the cremation itself—yet many crematoriums impose strict time limits, restrict the length of services or fail to provide space for those rituals to take place with the dignity they deserve. Families are therefore required to adapt their practices, often in ways that feel at odds with centuries of teaching. That adaptation is accepted by some. For others, it leaves a sense that their most sacred rituals are being denied.
This is not a question of faith; it is about fairness and equality. We must not have a situation in which some families can conduct funerals according to their beliefs with ease, while others must travel hundreds of miles, negotiate with reluctant providers or compromise on their most cherished traditions.
That inequality is compounded by financial barriers. In many parts of the UK, families seeking more accommodating crematoriums find themselves reliant on private providers. The cost of travelling, combined with higher fees, makes it impossible for many to access the services they need. For some, this results in long delays or fragmented ceremonies, which add to the distress of bereavement. Local authorities are, of course, under immense financial pressure, but the Equality Act 2010 places clear duties on public bodies. They must have due regard to the needs of religious communities under the public sector equality duty. Inadequate provision risks indirect discrimination against minority faiths, undermining the principle of equal treatment before the law.
There are some examples of progress. At Great Glen crematorium in Leicestershire, a dedicated Hindu shrine has been installed to support ritual practice. Leicester city council’s burial space strategy recognises the growing demand from Hindu, Sikh, Jain and Buddhist communities for more suitable provision.
Alongside cremation, I want to address burial. For Muslim families and Jewish families, religious teaching requires that a body be buried as soon as possible—within 24 hours of death. That is not a matter of preference; it is a religious obligation. Reading borough council took the local Muslim community’s needs into account when updating its cemetery regulations, but the truth is that good practice remains the exception, not the rule.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. As she knows, I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. We speak out for those of Christian faith, of other faiths and of no faith, because we believe that everyone should be treated equally. Does the hon. Lady agree it is vital that we enable people of all faiths to access facilities to ensure that their loved ones’ wishes for their burial or cremation are respected, and even more so when it comes to the expression of that person’s faith and deeply held belief?
Susan Murray
I completely agree with that principle, but our systems are not always designed with it in mind. Delays in death certification, the coronial process and registration services frequently mean that families are unable to bury their loved ones within the required timescale. Some local authorities have taken steps to improve responsiveness by offering out-of-hours registration services. Those efforts show that, with the right planning and partnership, it is possible to respect religious obligations around timely burial, but provision remains patchy across the country and too often families are left facing painful delays at a time of grief. In 21st-century Britain, it is not unreasonable to ask that every family should be confident that their loved one can be buried according to their faith.
I understand that it is important to recognise the devolved aspect of this matter. In Scotland, the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016 provides a modern legislative framework with greater recognition of religious needs. In Wales and Northern Ireland, responsibility also lies with the devolved Administrations, but in England the responsibility rests with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
At UK level, Parliament remains responsible for equalities law and for setting the broader standards of fairness and human rights that underpin our system. That means the Government cannot simply say that crematoriums are a local issue. There is a role for national leadership. All communities across the UK are entitled to expect that their needs will not be ignored because they are in a local minority. Minimum standards, guidance and funding support are all tools available to the Government to ensure fairness across the country.
Constituents and communities have raised this issue for many years. Hindu and Sikh organisations have petitioned successive Governments to highlight the lack of appropriate crematoriums. Muslim representatives have repeatedly drawn attention to the difficulties caused by delays in burial, which has also been highlighted by Jewish representatives. Behind every one of those campaigns is a grieving family—real people facing unnecessary distress because our systems are not flexible enough to accommodate their faith.
The basic concept is simple: public services must reflect the diversity of the people they serve. That is not a question of favouring one group over another, but of recognising that equality sometimes requires accommodation. A one-size-fits-all approach, designed for the majority, inevitably excludes minorities, and that is not good enough in modern Britain.
I therefore ask the Minister to commit to three steps. The first is to review the provision of religiously appropriate crematoriums across Britain, to identify gaps and to work with local authorities to close them. The second is to work with the relevant authorities to ensure that coroner and registration services are able to respond to the urgent burial needs of certain faiths with clear national guidance. The third step is to ensure that the equality duty is properly considered in all planning and funding decisions relating to crematoriums and burial services, so that minority communities are not excluded.
How we treat people at the end of life reflects who we are as a society. A society that truly respects diversity and equality is one that values every community, however small, and ensures that they can say farewell to their loved ones in accordance with their beliefs. Families in grief should not face barriers, compromises or indignities. They should find public services that meet them with understanding, respect and compassion.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alison McGovern)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for securing today’s important debate. It was so good to hear her speak of the importance of the diversity of faiths in our country. As she says, all parts of government must consider properly their duties under the Equality Act.
I begin by acknowledging the unique needs of faith and belief communities regarding burial and cremation practices. As the hon. Member just said, each of us deserves dignity in death. Cremation offers a dignified way to say goodbye to a loved one by providing a respectful, professional and compassionate process for the deceased and their grieving family and friends.
Cremation has become the majority choice for funerals. According to the Cremation Society, cremation accounts for 80% of funerals in the United Kingdom, compared with about 35% in the 1960s. As cremations become more common, it is imperative that there are high-quality crematoriums that fully respect the cultural and religious traditions of all faiths and beliefs, as well as those, like me, of no faith at all. It is with that in mind that service providers should be expected to take into full consideration the sacred funeral rites and specific rituals of our diverse communities, particularly Hindus, Sikhs and Jains, as well as those of other religious backgrounds.
Although the Ministry of Justice is responsible for law and policy relating to cremation, the Government do not have direct operational responsibility for the provision of cremation services, which, as the hon. Member rightly pointed out, are provided by local authorities or, in some cases, private companies. As such, the UK Government are not directly involved with operational issues such as the provision of facilities or multilingual support in crematoriums, which remain a matter for individual cremation authorities. There is no central funding available for the building of crematoriums.
However, cremations must be conducted in accordance with the legislative framework set out in the Cremation Act 1902 and the Cremation (England and Wales) Regulations 2008. The Act defines what constitutes a crematorium and includes siting restrictions, such as minimum required distances from residential dwellings and public highways, or other planning considerations. As I am sure hon. Members will appreciate, sites must also meet environmental and planning requirements before any crematoriums can be built.
I am aware of the consultation carried out in 2016 under the previous Administration, and the then Government’s response covered some of the issues that we are discussing today. The consultation identified a number of issues with crematoriums. These included the inappropriate use of religious iconography, the lack of car parking spaces and a perceived lack of awareness of the specific needs of faith groups, as the hon. Member pointed out.
The previous Government’s response, published in 2019, highlighted the need to recognise that different cultures and faiths have particular needs, and that service providers, including local authorities, should take all reasonable steps to allow those specific needs to be met. The Minister for Faith at the time wrote to all local authorities in England to inform them of this.
Finally, I want to touch on the work of the Law Commission, and to respond to the points that the hon. Member made. The Law Commission is currently undertaking further work on this issue. Its project, “Burial, cremation and new funerary methods”, seeks to create a future-proof legal framework to address what happens to our bodies after we die, and to make recommendations that will provide modern, certain and consistent regulation across different funerary methods. As part of that, the Law Commission is considering issues pertaining to the different cultural and religious needs of faith groups. In my opinion, that ought to be a response in part to the points the hon. Member made.
The hon. Member asked me to consider a review of provision, to work with local authorities to respond to need, and to make sure that equality duty considerations are taken on board. I am not the Minister for Faith, who is currently in a Bill Committee, but I will relay to her the points that have been conveyed in this debate and suggest that she reaches out to discuss those points with the hon. Member in the context of that Law Commission review. At some point, there will undoubtedly be a full response to the review.
In my ongoing work with local authorities, I am sure that I will also have the opportunity to flag some of the issues that the hon. Member raised. I consider it very important that we all take our duties under the Equality Act very seriously. The burial and cremation strand of the Law Commission’s work began last year, the consultation closed in January, and I understand that it anticipates publishing its report on this strand of the project by the end of 2025. I am sure the Law Commission would welcome representations from the hon. Member.
I feel there are significant issues here, and I am sure that, between ministerial teams and concerned Members, we can make progress. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire for raising this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses
(2 days, 7 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
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of employment rights on businesses.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Members across the House will know that I have the distinct honour of being the Member of Parliament for Spelthorne, which is not in Lincolnshire or Lancashire; it is everything south of Heathrow airport until hon. Members get to the River Thames. There are 4,500 small businesses in my constituency. They are its lifeblood. There are also huge employers: BP’s global headquarters is in Spelthorne, as is the world’s second biggest film studios, at Shepperton. I visit as many small businesses as I can, and it is always fascinating to get their insight.
Indeed, I am very much looking forward to next Wednesday, when the Spelthorne Business Forum riverboat trip will see a number of small and medium-sized enterprises come together to go two hours along our beautiful stretch of the River Thames, networking and comparing stories and views. I have to be frank and say that our consideration of the Employment Rights Bill comes in the context of these businesses already smarting, struggling and, in some cases, closing as a result of this Government’s Budget—in particular, the triple whammy of the rise in employers’ national insurance, the minimum wage and business rates.
I should explain that I have a fair experience of life in business. After my 25 years in the Army, I spent 10 years in venture capital and private equity, running, investing in and, we hope, improving small businesses, and growing them into mid-sized businesses and publicly listed bodies. They were mostly in the financial sector, and all had a tech underpinning. Latterly, I spent four years attempting to get Britain’s first ever defined-benefit pension consolidator, the Pension SuperFund, past the Pensions Regulator—an experience from which I still bear the scars.
Yesterday, the House had the opportunity to discuss the measures in the Employment Rights Bill in some detail and to vote on a number of proposed improvements thereto, but I want to concentrate today on the cost of the Bill for businesses. In my view, the cost has been significantly underestimated, and I fear it will come as a shock when the Government see the extent to which it acts as a further sea anchor on growth and employment. Sadly, we have already seen unemployment rise by, I think, 300,000 since this Government took office.
The Government’s impact assessment estimates that the measures in the Bill could cost businesses up to £5 billion annually. According to the Institute of Economic Affairs,
“the £5bn figure is likely to be a considerable underestimate. It almost entirely relates to increased administrative burdens, failing to calculate the significant impacts on business costs and hiring from making it more expensive to employ people.
There is no attempt, for example, to calculate how many fewer people will be hired due to limiting zero hour contracts and day-one rights to unfair dismissal protection”
or
“the costs of more strike action as a result of repealing the measures that made it harder to strike in the Trade Union Act 2016.”
I have been in businesses where people are making very hard decisions. They want to generate growth, they know there is considerable work to be done, and they want to take the next step and make the next investment, but that is a very big decision point, as we will see as I develop this theme. I have seen with my own eyes, talking to Spelthorne businesses, that even today people are curtailing their growth and investment plans. My huge fear is that the new measures in the Employment Rights Bill, which will eventually become an Act, will further dent business confidence, meaning that these businesses will not grow and natural leavers will not be replaced.
Economic studies and business surveys suggest that that will largely be passed on to consumers through higher prices, workers earning lower wages or job losses. I am sure that the Government Members never wanted that to be the outcome of this legislation. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that around 80% of the extra costs are passed on in the form of lower wages than would otherwise have been paid. According to the Government’s impact assessment:
“Costs will be proportionately higher for small and micro businesses due to the fixed costs of admin and compliance burdens”.
There is, of course, an irreducible minimum: if a business needs a menopause management plan and it has only three employees, someone still has to write and manage that plan. The legislation does not seem to derogate, whereby certain sizes of business can just take a knee and have a bye.
The Regulatory Policy Committee, which assesses the quality of Government impact assessments, says that the Government’s impact assessment for the Employment Rights Bill was “not fit for purpose” and that the Bill could lead to lower wages and fewer jobs. It assessed eight of the 23 individual impact assessments as not fit for purpose, and six were at the highest impact measure category of the original assessment.
The Regulatory Policy Committee said that the Government need to provide more evidence to support an
“imbalance of power between employers and workers in certain sectors of the economy”
as its rationale for introducing the Bill. I am sure hon. Members will have seen that the Bill is, to a certain extent, riven with trade union speak—they will have seen trade union interests being played out in the legislation. Of course, hon. Members in certain parts of the House benefit hugely from being the recipients of donations, as does the Labour party as a whole.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the flaws in the impact assessment—there has been wider commentary supporting that point. Does he agree that one of the issues is the accumulation of different aspects of the Bill? For example, not only will there be more hooks for grievances to be based on, but the removal of the 50% threshold for strike action makes it easier for strikes to follow as a result of those grievances. That is at odds with what Ministers themselves have said. For example, when the British Medical Association went on strike, the Health Secretary criticised the low turnout in the ballot, yet this Bill makes it easier to take strike action on some of those more dubious grievances.
Lincoln Jopp
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. When these measures kick in, we could see the law of unintended consequences playing out, with a series of compound impacts.
The RPC said that the fundamental basis for the creation of the Bill in the first place had not been made, and that there had been insufficient “considerations of alternative options” and an “inadequate assessment” of how the Bill would impact small businesses. Some of the individual impact assessments had
“missing business impacts, lack of proportionate monetisation and insufficient assessment of key risks.”
The areas in the impact assessment with the weakest scrutiny included day one unfair dismissal rights, reforms of trade union legislation, flexible working and third party harassment. Looking at the overall cost of the reforms, the Regulatory Policy Committee said:
“The direct impact on business estimate does not account for the likelihood employers may offset the costs of regulation and mandated benefits through wage adjustments, benefit reductions or other compensatory mechanisms which would eventually be borne by the employee.”
Let us see what other people think of the impact assessment. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development published a report in April 2025 entitled “The (Unintended) Consequences of the Employment Rights Bill”. Its survey of 2,000 employers showed that about eight in 10 believed that the measures in the Employment Rights Bill will increase their employment costs. About half of the employers surveyed believed that, overall, the ERB measures will negatively affect employment at their organisation. When we look at how employers plan to respond to the seven measures, one by one, we can see that between 5% and 20% of employers indicate that each of the measures will lead them to reduce staff through redundancies and/or recruiting fewer workers to their organisations. So much for the No. 1 mission of growth.
Out of the measures proposed, the planned changes to the rules on unfair dismissal are expected to have the largest negative impact on employers’ recruitment and redundancy intentions. The conclusions from the report were that eight out of 10 employers believed that certain measures in the Bill, such as changes to unfair dismissal rules and the introduction of the new statutory probation period, will have the effect of increasing their workforce costs. Of those organisations, four in 10 expected to have to raise prices as a result, and a quarter said that they will cancel or scale down plans to invest or expand their business.
Of the organisations that said that employment costs will rise, almost a third anticipated cutting headcount due to reduced hiring or redundancies, and a further fifth reported that they will reduce overtime and/or bonuses, and cut spending on staff training. Of the organisations that expected the Employment Rights Bill to increase employment costs, nearly a fifth reported that they are more likely to rely on temporary workers, while 10% reported that they will increase their use of what they call
“a typical workers and self-employed contractors”.
The legislation is not improving the lot of employees; it is reducing the number of employees, as employers find alternative solutions.
That potential shift to more temporary forms of employment is much higher in certain sectors. In addition, some employers anticipate recruiting fewer workers who may need more support, such as young workers or those with health conditions. A fifth of employers reported that the removal of the unfair dismissal qualifying period and the introduction of the new statutory probation period will make them less likely to recruit from those groups.
I want to make one last point. It is obviously a big thing to take on new employees and assimilate them into teams. Culture eats strategy for breakfast in business, and those crucial hires are some of the biggest decisions that any employer will make. I have taken part in hundreds of interview boards, and often, there is what is identified as the “risk candidate”. They are the different person, who thinks differently from the employer. They are the person the employer does not fully understand. More often than not, they are the person the employer should employ. My great fear is that, as a result of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill, fewer diverse candidates will be employed, because people “won’t want to take the risk”. I believe that, ironically, as a result of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill, far fewer women are going to be employed.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
As ever, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison, and I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp).
Next year will mark 125 years since Seebohm Rowntree’s report into poverty. It was that report that sparked Seebohm and Joseph Rowntree to use their family business to institute rights for workers in my constituency: paying decent wages; introducing pensions and good terms and conditions; and providing welfare, education and leisure. Sickness levels fell, productivity boomed and workers were better off.
Concurrently, in the crucible of industrialised Britain, the trade unions were making a case for similar rights, often to less amenable employers. They organised, they fought, they spoke up and they succeeded in winning their battles. They wanted those rights for all workers, so they found their political voice and founded the Labour party. At this point, I will refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I was a trade union official for 17 years and a national officer for 12 years, and I have worked across many industrial sectors.
In response to the speech by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, I would say that if we have strong partnerships between trade unions and business, or between trade unions and the public sector, we have the opportunity to hit a sweet spot. We will therefore not see the industrial action that he talked about and that we saw in spades under the last Government. We will also advance the interests of businesses and workers side by side, which is a strength, and where economic power comes from having strong employment rights.
Lincoln Jopp
Was the hon. Member affected by the tube strikes the other day?
Rachael Maskell
I was not, because I walk or cycle through London, which I recommend to everybody. Those strikes did not have an impact on me at all.
Good industrial relations are important for business, because when employers are in touch with their workers, business can boom. Ultimately, the people with the most vested interest in the success of a business are the people whose jobs depend on it, so when they are included in the industrial environment, the opportunities come.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne referred to employees’ talent. If employees are brought into the fold, so their imaginations run free and their creativity flourishes, that opportunity really strengthens business. That is why the measures that Labour introduced this week are good for workers and good for business. I congratulate the Labour Government on bringing forward what I hope will be just their first Employment Rights Bill. Instead of causing the fragmentation that we are seeing across our country, good workers’ rights are good people’s rights above all. They address equality and bring fairness, not only in the industrial setting but across wider society as well.
Too many workers have been left feeling insecure, however, such as those in the gig economy, the self-employed and the bogus self-employed. We have a duty to close those loopholes. Indeed, the hon. Member said that employers will seek more loopholes, but of course, we will close them if labour is being exploited. The picture of business for far too long has been about workers getting less of the wealth from business while contributing more. We have to restore such values in the workplace.
Yesterday, I was filled with real pride as we went through the voting Lobby—I think we went through 12 times. I am proud of the legislation, which will provide day one employment rights, giving people real security in employment; improve statutory sick pay; give greater flexibility to workers while ending abusive fire-and-rehire practices and exploitative zero-hours contracts; and strengthen collective redundancy rights.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
My constituents tell me how important it is to strengthen statutory sick pay, particularly for lower-paid workers who cannot afford to take time off work without it. Does the hon. Member agree that, contrary to the views of Opposition Members, that is a particularly important employment right?
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the hon. Member for mentioning that. When I was the shadow Secretary of State for Employment Rights, we really fought for that right, not least during covid. What a difference it would have made to workers then, and it would have kept our country safer. Of course, we need to look after people when they are sick, so I dispute what the hon. Member for Spelthorne said about a menopause plan costing business—women generally would also certainly dispute that, because having a plan would be better for business and better for women at work.
We must reset the relationship with trade unions, which is why establishing a Fair Work Agency and championing engagement around equality are important. I look forward to the future for businesses with a traditional Labour agenda that benefits businesses and workers by bringing better security and better productivity, and providing the green shoots of rebuilding the economy.
I recognise that businesses are in a fragile environment. Over the summer, I held business summits for the daytime and night-time economy. The attendees are looking forward to engaging with me as we set out our plans for our city together: resetting the climate, realigning workers’ rights and giving businesses a boost. The voices of businesses are really important. The Living Wage Foundation notes that 87% of employers say that paying the living wage improved the reputation of their business, and two thirds said that it improved recruitment. A letter about the Employment Rights Bill from leading economists and employment lawyers, published by the Institute of Employment Rights, says:
“The emerging consensus is that labour laws do not, on the whole, have negative economic consequences, and may well have positive ones.”
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to assess the economic impact and consequences, which we have seen over a number of years, of low pay and insecure hours, and how they have contributed to high turnover and sickness absence in businesses? I believe that those problems are substantially addressed by the provisions of the Employment Rights Bill.
Rachael Maskell
My hon. Friend has spoken powerfully and brought that observation to the attention of the House. Low productivity was also a major feature of the last Administration.
The letter goes on to highlight how worker protection positively impacts productivity, how investment in skills improves the competency of workers, and how collective bargaining raises wages and stabilises employment. Over time, that positive investment will spill out to the wider economy and Government, so that there can be investment in the public services that have been so broken. If workers have more in their pockets, they are more likely to spend in the local economy, and wage disparities will be addressed so that wealth is more evenly spread, boosting local business. We also still have parts of the Taylor review and its 53 recommendations to implement to help small employers and those in irregular work.
Lincoln Jopp
A few months ago, The Times invited the Chancellor of the Exchequer to address its CEO summit. Just before the Chancellor was called up to the stage, the host reminded the audience that the Chancellor had promised that this would be the most pro-business Government ever. The host then invited the chief executive officers—I think there were 200 of them—to say how many of them, having seen the Labour Government at work, think that it is pro-business. Not a single hand went up. Is the hon. Member aware of that?
Rachael Maskell
In the first of five years, we have had to repair the economy. That has been our focus, but as we move forward, businesses will see the vision that Labour has for rebuilding the economy. In my constituency, I see the vibrant boom of entrepreneurs and their business concepts coming to fruition. People want to start a business and see its success. We will certainly build the wider infrastructure needed for that.
There is much more that we need to do to advance the rights of workers. Sector bargaining is a must, with standards and terms to boost economic sectors across the economy, address labour shortages and provide sector security. I would like to see workers on company boards, co-producing with businesses and seeing the success of workers. A single status for workers is really important as we move forward. That is an issue that I have worked on for many years.
On changing the culture in workplaces, I want to ensure that workers no longer have to fear negative behaviours at work. An issue close to my heart, and one that I have worked on for many years, if not decades, is bullying at work. In two different parliamentary Sessions, I have introduced a Bullying and Respect at Work Bill, addressing negative cultures in the workplace. Bullying costs business £18 billion, and 17 million working days are lost.
We need a legal definition of bullying, a route to an employment tribunal and a positive duty to prevent, as in Australian legislation. I hope the new Minister, who I welcome to her place, will be willing to meet me and campaigners to discuss such legislation to ensure that we can introduce such a measure on one of the biggest issues blighting business today.
If workers are not subjugated and their wages are not extracted, we will build a more equitable society, a strong economy and flourishing businesses. A cohesive society is certainly something that I know working people long to see under this Labour Government.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) for his passion on this topic, which he illustrated incredibly well in his contribution. The issues that he raised are the ones that were in my speaking notes to highlight to the Government yesterday during the Employment Rights Bill debate.
What a pleasure it is to see the Minister in her place. I wish her all the best for the future. I am sure her energy and enthusiasm will help her along the way.
We are all very aware that small businesses are the backbone of the British economy, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne said. In March 2025, some 89.3% of businesses in Northern Ireland—72,465, to be precise—were micro-sized, with fewer than 10 employees. Only 2.2% of businesses had more than 50 employees. Four in 10 businesses —some 39.6%—had a turnover of less than £100,000, while a smaller 12.8% had a turnover exceeding £1 million.
These are not our Tescos and Waitroses, with their human resources departments and access to civil service occupational health services. These are small shops, for whom paying £250 for an occupational health referral body is a big deal. The impact on small businesses in my constituency is absolutely ginormous and will have great effect. They include local restaurants that cannot afford to pay their staff sick pay and get other staff in to replace them. They either step in themselves and do their own work through the night, or staff all work even harder than they already are to take up the slack, because they understand the financial pressures.
The Federation of Small Businesses has said that sickness absence already costs an average small employer more than £3,500 a year, or £5 billion across the economy. The Employment Rights Bill will see those costs rise dramatically from next April. We need a better focus from the Government and, with great respect, from the Minister and her Department, on helping small firms look after people and get them back into healthy work. I know the Government have said that is part of their policy, and I do not doubt it, but we need to see how that is going to work.
There is a clear impact for businesses, whose national insurance contributions for staff have risen, whose energy costs have spiralled out of all proportion, and whose staff wages have increased while the public’s disposable income has stagnated or decreased. The pressure on the high street is something that I have not experienced for a long time, but I see the pressures there—when people go, they are not replaced, and everyone is working that bit harder to make ends meet.
Tesco can weather the storm with its small profit margin but big reach, because that is how it works, but the local corner shop is not in that position. We must ensure that we support small businesses with the financial help to which the companies with a bigger turnover should not be entitled. I know that the Minister’s reply will give us some hope that I can pass on to my constituents back home and to the small businesses, which are a crucial part of the economic life of Strangford. Staff must be supported, but so too must small businesses. We need to step up now before the backbone of our economy breaks under the additional strain.
Employees deserve rights, but small businesses need support. We cannot have one without the other, so I ask the Minister how we can get that balance. How can we ensure that small businesses can keep employing people and will still be in business next year, while also ensuring that workers’ rights are protected?
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) for securing this debate. The Liberal Democrats support measures that work to strengthen employment rights, so yesterday we welcomed aspects of the Employment Rights Bill, such as boosting statutory sick pay, strengthening support for whistleblowers and increasing support for carers. All those measures move us in the right direction, but as the legislation progresses through Parliament, we remain concerned about the specific way in which many of them will be implemented. We must ensure that the legislation strikes the right balance for both employees and business.
In the debate yesterday, my colleagues and I highlighted several concerns about the absence of detail in the Bill. So many key elements will be left to secondary legislation or subject to consultation. Businesses in my constituency tell me that they are being left in limbo by the Government’s framing of the Bill, which prevents long-term planning. I am disappointed that the Government did not support the Liberal Democrat amendments that would have created more certainty for business in matters such as the definition of short notice when a shift is cancelled, or the changes to the period for making a claim for unfair dismissal.
Any new measures to support workers must go hand in hand with much-needed reforms to support our small businesses, such reforming the broken business rates system, bringing down trade barriers and properly reforming the apprenticeship levy. Although the impact of the Employment Rights Bill will be a significant shift for businesses, there are many other factors that remain challenging.
Small businesses are at the centre of our communities and our local economies, creating the jobs on which we all rely. We are glad that raising the employment allowance will help to protect the very smallest employers, but thousands of local businesses, including many in the hospitality sector, will still feel the damaging impact of the national insurance increase. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have persistently opposed these measures at every turn. Once again, I urge the Government to scrap them.
The Government’s decision to raise the rate of national insurance contributions while also reducing the threshold at which they are levied has significantly raised the cost of employing part-time workers, delivering a disproportionately large blow to the hospitality sector. Just today, the latest labour market figures show rising numbers of people claiming unemployment benefits, alongside many businesses facing workforce shortages. The Government need to scrap this failed tax, or we will not get the growth that we need to rebuild our public services.
It is not just about staffing costs. The Government must take other steps to boost the hospitality workforce, including introducing a youth mobility scheme with much more urgency and properly investing in skills and training. More broadly, they must look at measures that would ease the pressure felt by so many businesses and boost the economy as a whole. We continue to call on them to introduce vital reform to the business rates system. We also know that many businesses are struggling with sky-high energy costs, so I urge the Minister to consider Liberal Democrat proposals that will cut energy bills by a half within 10 years, by breaking the link between gas prices and electricity costs so that households and businesses can get the benefit of cheap, clean power and lower energy bills. I urge the Minister to look at our proposals to give businesses the support that they desperately need.
Most employers want to do the right thing by their staff. I have spoken to many businesses and key stakeholder groups that support the aims of the Bill but have raised significant concerns that some of the measures could backfire, leading to the loss of thousands of flexible, part-time and entry-level roles in particular. So much of the detail of the Bill is still undecided. That will compound the challenges that small businesses are facing, from the Government’s changes to employer national insurance to the reduction in business rates relief and the absence of any meaningful action to bring down commercial energy prices. We must find a way to support and provide clarity for businesses trying to plan ahead.
The Liberal Democrats remain supportive of many of the measures that the Employment Rights Bill will introduce to improve support for workers. However, as we see the impact of the legislation, we will continue to seek the right balance for both employees and businesses.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing the debate. I welcome the Minister to her position; I believe that this is her first opportunity to contribute from the Dispatch Box. I heartily congratulate her on her achievement.
We have had an interesting debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne set out clearly some of the issues with the Employment Rights Bill from his constituents’ perspective. I then heard the completely opposite view from the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who inexplicably has not been readmitted into the bosom of the Labour party. I hope her readmission is imminent, because she put the governing party lines across very clearly.
The clue is in the name of the debate: we have to focus on employment. Today’s labour market data was sobering and should serve as a wake-up call to the Labour Government. Payroll employment has fallen by 142,000—more people than any one of our constituencies contains—and has declined in every quarter. It is not a blip. Sadly, it is a trend, and it is happening on this Government’s watch because of measures such as the Employment Rights Bill and the jobs tax. Vacancies are also falling. My first question to the Minister is how she reconciles that with Labour’s mission to deliver economic growth.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Will the shadow Minister give way?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Does the hon. Gentleman wish to deny the employment facts from the Office for National Statistics?
Andy McDonald
I wish to intervene, not to have the shadow Minister shape the terms of my intervention. She is talking about the impact of the Employment Rights Bill. How can that be? Has it yet been enacted?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman anticipates the rest of my contribution. Has the hon. Gentleman read the impact assessment that the Labour Government have put out for the Bill? It estimates that the cost on businesses will be £5 billion. I ask him how he thinks that will end up. It will not end with a hiring spree, I can assure him.
Against the background of rising unemployment, what is the Government’s answer? It is more regulation, more costs and more pressure on employers, as we saw last night when we debated the Employment Rights Bill. It would be more apt to call it the unemployment rights Bill. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of today’s rising unemployment and slowing job creation on those who really need an employer to give them their first chance, particularly young and entry-level workers?
If the Government are serious about making work pay, they must stop making it harder for businesses to hire, invest and grow. The British people deserve better than a shrinking jobs market and a Government who have clearly let the trade unions take the wheel. Yesterday, the Government chose to vote down all the amendments that had been agreed in the other place. They voted to reject the requirement to consult small businesses about the impact of the Bill. They voted against reinstating the requirement for the trade unions to choose to opt into the political fund. The Bill changes it to an opt-out. It is a vote for endless trade union payments. I hope that the Minister will declare her interest in relation to contributions from the unions to her election campaign.
Yesterday, the Government voted against the reinstatement of a 50% trade union member threshold for voting for industrial action. I am afraid that that is a vote for more strikes. How can the public trust that the Employment Rights Bill serves the national interest when over 200 Labour MPs have taken millions from the unions, and when the Bill appears to prioritise union access and strike powers over the much-desired economic growth?
As I have mentioned, the Government’s own impact assessment says that there will be a £5 billion cost to business. The Prime Minister’s new economic adviser, Minouche Shafik, has admitted that Labour’s Employment Rights Bill will lead to fewer jobs. We need not listen just to her. The National Farmers Union has warned that the Bill ignores the seasonal nature of agricultural work. The UK Cinema Association has said that it is “no exaggeration to say” that this Bill will bring the viability of some operators into question. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has highlighted the risk to small businesses: it is all but guaranteed, it says, that small businesses will adopt more risk-averse recruitment practices in response, if they are confident about taking on any new talent at all.
My heart goes out—my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne made this point passionately—to all those people who need an employer to take a chance on them. I am thinking of the people who are perhaps a little riskier to take into an organisation and who really need someone to give them that chance—possibly their first chance. One well-known employer is exceptional in that regard: the large employer Mitie. It warns of higher costs and tribunal pressures, and that the right in relation to unfair dismissal will cripple smaller organisations. It adds that it is crucial that the Government permit some flexibility for employers that need to adapt to fluctuating demand.
These are not fringe concerns. These are the voices of employers across agriculture, culture, services and finance, who are united in their message that this employment rights legislation will make it harder to hire, harder for the country to grow and harder to serve the public. The Labour Government’s refusal to listen to these voices is not just reckless; it is simply ideological. I think we heard some of that in this afternoon’s debate.
The Bill is not about improving rights. It is about empowering the paymasters, the unions, and about punishing enterprise. What I can say to the country is that under Conservative leadership, we will stand with business, grow jobs and deliver growth in the overall economy, because that is the only way to build a stronger, fairer economy that gives everyone an opportunity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, in what I am proud to say is my first time responding for the Department in a Westminster Hall debate. I thank the shadow Minister and all other Members for their kind words and welcome. I am grateful for all the thoughtful and considered contributions from both sides of the Chamber.
Business impact rightly remains a recurring theme in discussions on the Employment Rights Bill. I pay tribute to the SMEs and businesses that all Members have mentioned today, and particularly to those in my constituency that I have had the pleasure to meet over the past year, as their Member of Parliament. I am delighted to have the opportunity to reiterate this Bill’s positive impact on employers, workers and the wider economy.
I also pay tribute to the work done by those before us, not least that of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders)—
Dame Harriett Baldwin
On a point of order, Dr Murrison. I appreciate that this is the Minister’s first time responding to a debate in Westminster Hall. My point of order is simply that she may wish to consider putting her entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on the record.
Kate Dearden
I was just about to get to that point. I thank the shadow Minister for the reminder.
I pay tribute to my predecessor for all his work and to the officials and colleagues who worked with him. Many Members of this House and the other place engaged constructively with the team, and their insight has materially shaped the Bill. I thank them for their valuable insights. Likewise, the Bill has been shaped by extensive engagement from external stakeholders, businesses, trade unions and civil society alike. I thank them all for their engagement to date, and I reassure them that this Government remain committed to full and proper consultation on the Bill’s implementation.
I declare my interest as a proud trade union member. I look forward to working with trade unions, businesses and all stakeholders, and to continuing the positive engagement that many stakeholders have had with the Department and with this Government so far.
The Government were elected on a manifesto that committed to implementing “Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay” in full and to putting more money in working people’s pockets. The Employment Rights Bill is the legislative backbone of that promise. We will deliver the single biggest upgrade of workers’ rights in a generation. That is good for workers and good for business, because we believe that a strong package of workers’ rights and protections go hand in hand with a strong economy. Many good employers already know that. When staff feel secure, they stay longer, are more productive and help the business to succeed. The Bill will help to make that the norm across the economy.
Our first mission as a Government is to deliver economic growth in every single part of the country. The Employment Rights Bill is a vital step. It represents a cornerstone of our mission to grow the economy, and it is designed to modernise the UK labour market, raise living standards and support long-term growth.
Securing that growth is worth doing only if working people actually feel the benefits of it in their pay, in their security and in their daily lives. Too many people face practices that undermine both their security and our economy, from fire and rehire to zero-hours contracts and last-minute shift cancellations. Those practices breed insecurity, and insecurity stifles productivity.
That is why the Bill is at the centre of the Government’s plans and is so significant. It will benefit at least 15 million workers, or half of all UK workers, protecting them from those practices and providing economic safety for the lowest paid in our labour market.
Let us consider a few of the changes that the Bill will bring. Some 9 million employees will gain protection from unfair dismissal, not after two years, but from day one. Workers in some of the most deprived parts of the country will keep hundreds of pounds a year in their pockets instead of losing them to the hidden costs of insecure work, and nearly 1 million more people each year will benefit from bereavement leave when they lose a loved one.
I thank the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her comments in support of the Bill and of the Government’s work in this area, and for her work on the impact of bullying in the workplace over a number of years. I would be happy to meet her to discuss those matters further.
Economic impacts were a key part of the contribution of the hon. Member for Spelthorne. Some still argue that stronger rights are a cost, but I reject that. Stronger rights are an investment in people, in stability and in long-term growth. As set out in the Government’s published impact assessments for the Bill—I will respond in detail to his points on that—there are clear, evidence-based benefits to tackling issues holding back the UK labour market, which will have a positive impact on economic growth and will help to raise living standards across the country.
Steve Barclay
I join colleagues in welcoming the Minister to her place. She said in her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) that there would not be an additional cost, but the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has raised concerns about the additional costs and the funding gap, given that it will fall on local authorities and will therefore, in turn, require Government support. Could she clarify what she expects to be the extra cost of the Bill in terms of social care?
Kate Dearden
I am happy to come back to the right hon. Member on the particular social care interests and concerns that he might have.
Improving worker wellbeing, supporting productivity, reducing workplace conflict and creating a more level playing field for good employers would grant significant benefits, worth billions of pounds per year. That is why delivering the benefits of the Bill would offset the costs. That assessment is shared by organisations such as the Resolution Foundation. The £5 billion figure from our impact assessment, which the hon. Member for Spelthorne mentioned, is a top-end estimate of that cost, and will largely represent a direct transfer to the lowest paid in society, with the central estimate close to £1 billion. Even if we take that high-end estimate, the costs are therefore likely to be less than 0.4% of our national wage bill, and could even be as low as 0.1%. That is our best estimate at this stage.
Andy McDonald
If workers are in good, well-paid work, they can go on to lead good, flourishing lives, and they will return that as a dividend through their collaboration with their employer. They will also be in a position to be more active in the economy. We know that when working people have money, they are able to spend it and generate activity in the economy. Does the Minister agree?
Kate Dearden
I absolutely agree that all workers will benefit in some way from the Bill and be able to give back to the economy, whether by spending in the local economy or by contributing to other local businesses.
Lincoln Jopp
I think I am right in saying that the impact assessment’s estimate of a cost of £5 billion was at the higher end, but I read out quite an extensive set of quotations from the RPC saying that it was an inadequate impact assessment and that it completely under-gunned the financial impact of the measures. Does she just think that the RPC is wrong?
Kate Dearden
I will come back to the hon. Member’s point in a moment. A number of the measures already have strong support from businesses. An Institute for Public Policy Research survey of businesses found that the majority—at least 75%—supported the measures in our Bill, including nearly seven in 10 small businesses.
The hon. Member also mentioned the Regulatory Policy Committee’s opinion. I want to make it clear that that refers to the evidence and analysis presented in the impact assessment, not the policy itself. Our impact assessments provide initial analysis of the impacts that could follow, and we will be updating and refining them as we further develop the policy and continue our consultation and engagement. I reiterate just how important that is in our next steps with the Bill. I am keen that we continue to work with businesses as part of that consultation and engagement.
All in all, with this legislative framework, we need to ensure that we can make work pay, by addressing the challenges that Britain faces today and by including up-to-date employment protections in areas that have cost Britain’s workers and businesses so dearly over a number of years and that are desperate need of updating. For that reason, the package is pro-growth, pro-business and pro-worker. It supports our Government’s objective to boost growth and improve living standards for all.
The scale of the impacts will, of course, depend on further policies, which are ready for secondary legislation. I have already said that we will continue to engage and consult—[Interruption.]
Kate Dearden
Thank you, Dr Murrison. The hon. Member for Spelthorne also mentioned particular groups of workers who will benefit. I am glad he did so, because younger workers, women, people with disabilities and people from ethnic minority groups make up a higher than average share of those workers who will benefit from the package. Flexibility and the rebalancing of security are very important for that section of the workforce, so I am proud that the Bill will help those people to stay in work and that it will make their work more family-friendly, improve their living standards and put more money in their pockets.
Euan Stainbank
I welcome the Minister to her place. She is making an excellent point, but I refer her to specific sectors in which some Opposition parties have called for carve-outs. Does she agree that it is important that we do not carve out, for any particular sector, the strong provisions in the Bill, and that it is both morally and economically wrong to say to a young worker that if they work behind a bar, they should have fewer rights than if they worked behind a desk?
Kate Dearden
I want every single worker, no matter where they work, to have a good standard of rights in their workplace and to know their rights. The Bill will ensure that we can provide that opportunity for so many people, including young workers, and that they benefit from the legislation.
Kate Dearden
I want to make a bit of progress and respond to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I thank him for his warm welcome and his contributions to the debate. Our small businesses are absolutely crucial for our economy, and I pay credit to the businesses in his constituency that he mentioned.
The hon. Member also mentioned sick pay and cost. Our legislation is so important because 1.3 million employees will now be entitled to statutory sick pay. The Health and Safety Executive found that stress, depression or anxiety accounted for 17.1 million working days lost in 2022-23. That is the equivalent of more than £5 billion of lost output annually. That is why it is important that sick pay is extended to so many workers in our economy; it will ultimately benefit businesses, because we can keep people in work, but people do not have to make that decision. The pandemic shone a light on the terrible situation that many workers face; I am proud that we will be extending sick pay to so many people, so they will not have to make that decision. Ultimately, that will help businesses, because we can keep people in work and support them when they need it.
We have listened carefully to concerns raised by business groups, trade associations and individual employers. I have already mentioned my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, who was tireless in his efforts to engage with stakeholders, and spoken of my intention to do the same.
The Bill brings an opportunity to modernise outdated practices and reduce exploitation. It aims to create a level playing field for responsible employers to start to operate and build their businesses. We are also, of course, mindful of the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. I speak as someone with personal experience: I come from a family of small business owners, and I know at first hand the pressures that they face.
That is why many provisions will be phased in, giving time to adapt, and the Department will give clear guidance and consultation. We are committed to ongoing engagement with businesses. The implementation road map, which we published on 1 July, has received high levels of praise from businesses for the clarity that it has provided. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), as she also mentioned it in her remarks.
Decent employers stand to gain when the rules are fair. The shadow Minister mentioned her concerns about the impact of the Bill on growth. In the three months to July, GDP grew by 0.2%, meaning that cumulative growth this year has already exceeded the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast for the whole of 2025. I am absolutely confident in this Government’s growth agenda. We want to be bolder and more creative, and to ensure that every single area of this country feels the benefit of this Government and our growth priority. This Bill is absolutely key to that, as I have already outlined.
Our new Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove and Portslade (Peter Kyle) has already spoken with more than 100 business leaders. He made putting that partnership at the heart of our growth mission a priority on coming into office. That laser focus on implementation, with his priority to double down on growth, is an absolute cornerstone of building powerful partnerships with business. We have shown we are listening; he touched on that a lot in the debate yesterday, so I will not repeat the arguments that he made very eloquently in the House.
To conclude, I reiterate that this Bill is about raising standards. It is about fairness, unlocking growth and future-proofing our economy. Fairness can drive growth. Businesses that treat their workers well can innovate more and grow faster. Stronger employment relations are absolutely essential to that.
As is typical with employment legislation, the technical details of many of the policies in this Bill will be provided through regulations, and in some cases codes of practice, following Royal Assent. We will be consulting extensively, because this Employment Rights Bill is a positive step forward for workers, for employers and for the economy. I look forward to working closely with all hon. Members of this House, and people outside it, to deliver on this landmark reform and make a real difference to workers, employers and our British economy.
Lincoln Jopp
I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister and all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. I fear that it has been a bit of a conversation of the deaf, but we will see whether the number of women employed in this country goes up or down. We will see whether the number of disabled people employed in this country goes up or down. We will see whether these new regulations contribute to growth in the economy, or to further shrinkage and further increases in unemployment. I fear for the British economy; I think we are heading in a really bad direction, and this Employment Rights Bill is going to turbocharge our getting there.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of employment rights on businesses.