Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The measures announced by the Chancellor at the Budget will help families right across Scotland. Scrapping the two-child limit will benefit 95,000 Scottish children. We are putting more money into the pockets of 220,000 people in Scotland through increases to the national minimum and living wage, and the triple lock pension increase will benefit around 1 million Scottish pensioners. We are also cutting energy bills by up to £300 for those most in need.
Graham Leadbitter
While the Labour Westminster Government have been killing jobs, hiking energy bills and exacerbating the cost of living crisis, yesterday the SNP Scottish Government’s budget cut child poverty, boosted funding for the NHS and slashed income tax for hard-working families. A clear majority of workers in Scotland will pay less tax than those in the rest of the UK. Does the Secretary of State support the action in the SNP’s budget, or would he prefer that the lowest earners in Scotland paid more tax, as they do under Labour?
Mr Alexander
What is the reality? The governing philosophy of the Scottish National party is 19th-century nationalism. What is the reality of what we saw yesterday? The 19th budget from John Swinney. The idea that after 18 goes, the SNP will get it right at the 19th is frankly risible. We have the same record of failure with the SNP. If people want a new direction, they will have the chance to vote for it in May.
Liz Saville Roberts
England-only projects such as Northern Powerhouse Rail give the Scottish Government the Barnett consequentials that they rightly choose to use on cost of living support such as the Scottish child payment, but Wales is denied any such extra funding. The Secretary of State’s Government have committed to learning lessons from HS2. Why can Wales not have the same means? I assure him that would allow a Plaid Cymru Welsh Government to spend in order to alleviate child poverty.
Mr Alexander
I think 19th-century nationalism is a bad prescription for Scotland, and it is also a bad prescription for Wales. We are proud of the fact that we are increasing public investment not just in rail, as we have heard today from the Transport Secretary, but more broadly across public services in every part of these islands.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is aware that the Scottish Affairs Committee recently conducted an inquiry into the Thistle safer drug consumption room in Glasgow. I hope that this innovative facility will help to cut drug death numbers in Scotland, but does he agree that the Thistle on its own cannot end the drug crisis? Does he therefore agree that a real-terms cut of £1.3 million to alcohol and drug services was entirely the wrong move in yesterday’s Scottish budget?
Mr Alexander
This is literally and figuratively a deadly serious issue. As we have just heard from those on the SNP Benches, the SNP will be claiming in the coming months that this is as good as it gets for Scotland, but the reality is that its shameful record in Scotland is more than 6,800 drug deaths since it declared a public health emergency. That, let us be clear, is the worst drug-related death rate in Europe. It is a shameful failure by the Scottish Government. Despite all their claims about the budget yesterday, once again it was a missed opportunity to take a better approach. We have provided the resources, but alas we have a Scottish Government who are out of time, out of ideas and failing in terms of public health.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
After 19 years of an SNP Government, does the Secretary of State agree that yesterday’s budget reflects broken public services and decades of economic stagnation? For many families, that means there is just too much month at the end of the money.
Mr Alexander
What is the reality after yesterday’s budget from the Scottish Government? The reality after 19 SNP budgets is that hundreds of thousands of us are stuck on NHS waiting lists in Scotland; over 10,000 children are waking up in temporary accommodation, with no permanent home; and councils are unable to afford even the basics. Members should look at the comments yesterday about what the Scottish Government did to local government. They do not learn, they do not understand and they are out of time.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
One way to lessen the bite of the cost of living for hard-working Scots would be to cut their taxes, letting people keep more of their hard-earned money. Unfortunately, for the nationalists that appears to be anathema. Instead, they are increasing foreign aid spending, which is reserved, to £16 million. They are introducing yet more tax bands and more new taxes, but nothing to incentivise people to find good, well-paying jobs. Conservatives know that you cannot tax a nation into prosperity. Does the Secretary of State agree?
Mr Alexander
Why did the Conservatives deliver a decade of low growth, high inequality and high taxes when they were last in power? Let us take a moment to have a look at their record. There was an 11% rate of inflation under the Conservative Government of which the hon. Member was part, interest rates hit the highest level in 40 years, and mortgages went up by £221 a month for families who were forced to remortgage after the mini-Budget. There are many people who have interesting observations on how to run an economy, but Conservative Front Benchers are not among them.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
Just last week, we launched the UK Government’s £140 million local growth fund, which will help to deliver economic growth to five Scottish regions. Scotland will also benefit from around £700 million of other local and regional project funding over the next three years. In addition, as we pointed out in relation to the Budget, the UK Government have provided the Scottish Government with the largest block grant in the history of devolution.
Alan Gemmell
I thank the Secretary of State for the announcement of £11 million of local growth funding for Ayrshire. Ayrshire boasts internationally successful businesses in the engineering, advanced manufacturing, aerospace, defence and energy sectors, and I have been working with my excellent Ayrshire colleagues and the Ayrshire chambers of commerce to ask businesses what more we can do to grow the economy. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must support Ayrshire’s most successful sectors and ensure this region plays its part in growing Scotland’s economy?
Mr Alexander
Absolutely. I welcome the work of the ambitious Ayrshire consultation, and pay generous tribute to the work that my hon. Friend is doing. When I was Trade Minister, I visited companies including Ecocel and GE Aerospace in Ayrshire, and saw for myself the extraordinary potential for growth-driving sectors such as advanced manufacturing. As part of the more than £200 million the UK Government are investing in Ayrshire, the local growth fund will provide flexible, targeted support to help unlock exactly that potential.
Kenneth Stevenson
After years of increases to the cost of living, my Airdrie and Shotts constituents are understandably impatient for change, and want to see the benefits of economic growth in their communities and in their pockets. Can the Secretary of State provide further detail on how this Government are supporting the growth of local economies in North Lanarkshire, and what role does he see AI, advanced manufacturing and life sciences playing in that growth by helping to develop supply chain resilience locally?
Mr Alexander
Of course, North Lanarkshire has been at the heart of Scottish manufacturing for many decades. Since 2019, it has actually grown faster than the national average in Scotland, due to its highly skilled workforce and ambitious local development plans. I am delighted that large US companies such as CoreWeave have recognised that potential, with CoreWeave having invested £1.5 billion in North Lanarkshire’s growing AI infrastructure. I can assure my hon. Friend that North Lanarkshire has a strong advocate and supporter in the UK Government—we are determined to fulfil that potential.
Liz Twist
Buses are hugely important to our communities and our transport network, so it is vital that Falkirk-based Alexander Dennis Ltd and its supply chain, including Dellner Glass in Consett in my constituency, are supported. It has taken the SNP First Minister over a year to recognise that. Can the Secretary of State set out how he is working with other Departments to ensure that jobs and the company not only survive, but thrive?
Mr Alexander
Of course, I warmly welcome the decision to keep Alexander Dennis’s Falkirk and Larbert sites operational. That will be a huge relief to the talented workforce, not just in those parts of Scotland, but at Dellner Glass and other parts of the supply chain. I recently met the president and managing director of Alexander Dennis, Paul Davies, to discuss its strategic plans and the growth of UK bus manufacturing, and I am also supporting the positive progress made by the Department for Transport’s UK bus manufacturing panel—the first of its kind—which brings industry leaders such as Alexander Dennis together with metro mayors to support manufacturing, boost regional economies and create jobs.
Mike Reader
As chair of the international trade and investment all-party parliamentary group, I am pleased that we are running the power of place campaign to encourage colleagues to highlight incredible small businesses that are exporting out of their constituency. Does the Secretary of State agree that this initiative and others such as Brand Scotland are invaluable for showcasing the power of Scottish products in markets across the world, and will he meet me to explore the ways in which we can improve exports out of Scotland?
Mr Alexander
In my previous role as a Trade Minister, I was proud to promote world-class Scottish products from satellites to whisky. Since 2024, the Government have been working to extend those international trading benefits. For example, the UK-India trade agreement will boost the Scottish economy by an estimated £190 million a year. Both Brand Scotland and the power of place can help small businesses in Scotland and elsewhere to increase their global exports. I pay generous tribute to my hon. Friend and thank the international trade and investment all-party parliamentary group for its important work. I would be pleased to hear more from him about the work we can do together.
Euan Stainbank
In November, I called for urgent intervention to support the Forth valley’s industrial economy. Since then, we have a £150 million deal to protect 500 jobs at Grangemouth’s ethylene plant, £14.5 million in the Budget to unlock hundreds of new jobs quicker at Grangemouth, such as those announced at MiAlgae, and £9.8 million of local growth funding announced at Forth Valley college last week, despite some nationalists moaning that the money should have been sent to St Andrew’s House rather than to Falkirk, Clackmannanshire and Stirling. What further steps will the Secretary of State be taking to support the vast economic potential of the Forth valley?
Mr Alexander
Just last week, I was with my hon. Friend in Falkirk announcing £9.8 million-worth of funding for the Forth valley region as part of the new local growth fund. Meanwhile, the UK Government are working hard to secure further investment for the Grangemouth site. Tomorrow, the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill), will be in Scotland signing a memorandum of understanding for the Forth green freeport, unlocking £25 million in capital funding to support economic growth in the region. That, frankly, is the difference that having a Labour Government with Scots at the heart can make to economies such as Falkirk’s.
Chris Kane
Does the Secretary of State agree that yesterday’s SNP budget, which metes out another round of civic vandalism to local authority budgets, demonstrates a failure to understand that economic growth is built from the ground up and requires well-funded local authorities delivering schools, infrastructure and clean, safe communities? Does he also agree that Scotland needs a Labour Government at Holyrood, with the same ambition for growth being shown by this UK Labour Government, if it is to unlock its full economic potential?
Mr Alexander
I sense that my hon. Friend has forgotten more about local government financing than John Swinney will ever know. The reality is that the First Minister has been writing budgets for 19 years in the Scottish Government, while at the same time Scottish local government has been pushed to the brink of failure. The independent analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that Scottish local government finance is set to see reductions averaging 2.1% a year in real terms. That would require each Scottish council to increase council tax by around 8% just to hold budgets constant. My question for the First Minister is the same the day after the budget as it was the day before: “John, where’s the money gone?”
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Secretary of State will know that the Borderlands inclusive growth deal is an important factor in driving growth in the south of Scotland, and I am looking forward to speaking to the Minister next week about the deal. With such deals, the important thing is getting the money out the door. Over the years, a number of projects originally identified will not now go ahead. Does the Secretary of State agree that new projects should be brought on board, including replacing the bridges at Annan, which have been damaged in storms over recent years?
Mr Alexander
I know from the right hon. Gentleman’s expertise and understanding of his constituency the challenge in relation to Annan and the fact that the bridges were swept away in the floods. I can assure him that my officials are working closely with the Borderlands inclusive growth deal partners to oversee our £65 million investment in projects in that area. We are endeavouring to strike a balance with ensuring that there is effective local leadership, but he makes a powerful case that in recent years we have not seen delivery at the pace that he and we would have wanted. I hope that next week’s meeting is a constructive and useful opportunity to discuss these matters.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The SNP delivered yet another ambitious budget for Scotland yesterday. It saw almost £1 billion for rates relief, £5 billion for energy and climate change and a 10% uplift for Scotland’s colleges. [Interruption.] The SNP has delivered 10.5% growth since 2007, compared with the UK’s 5.1%. The question is not about what the UK Government will do for Scotland’s economy, but what they will do to stop damaging it. [Interruption.]
Mr Alexander
Through the shouting, I heard the claim that yesterday’s announcement in the Scottish budget had helped Scottish colleges. I had the opportunity to visit Forth Valley college last week; I simply invite the hon. Gentleman to talk to the principal of that college, or indeed the principal of West college, or the principals of any of the further education colleges in Scotland. If he were to suggest for one second that the uplift announced yesterday touches the sides of the 20% cut that we saw previously, that would be an interesting perspective. I tell him to look at the numbers and not to judge this on the rhetoric; he should judge the cuts that his Government have delivered, and then come back and, perhaps, apologise to the young people of Scotland.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Business rates are crippling, particularly for the hospitality sector in my constituency, including hotels. We in Scotland have not seen the initiatives that have delivered business rates relief in other parts of the United Kingdom. The UK Government may be U-turning on this issue, but would they consider a cut in VAT for hospitality, so that businesses throughout the UK can benefit?
Mr Alexander
My initial glance at the Scottish budget that was announced yesterday suggests that in 2026 there will still be significant uplifts in terms of business rates across Scotland. That is a direct challenge to the claims that we have heard from the Scottish Government in relation to economic growth. I hope that as well as continuing to advocate and make the case to the UK Government, the hon. Lady and her colleagues will take the opportunity to say that Scotland’s high streets are being let down by the Scottish Government as surely as its public services are being let down.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Putting money back into people’s pockets is vital for economic growth, but today the Government have signed the country up to the highest energy bills for offshore energy for the next 10 years, and to bills that we will be paying for 20 years. Can the Secretary of State explain how this will put more money into people’s pockets for them to spend in high streets, rather than just spending it on higher bills?
Mr Alexander
Let us start with the facts. Our auction today delivers new renewable power, and building and operating that will be cheaper than building new gas. Let me give the hon. Lady the figures. Here are the key facts: the cost of building and operating new gas—£147 per megawatt-hour; the strike price that we agreed today—an average of £91. That means that the price of wind that we have secured is 40% lower than the cost of building and operating new gas power plants. What the hon. Lady has said is simply not true.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Tonight, millions of people will tune into “The Traitors”, which was filmed at Ardross castle in my constituency. I really should have put on my Claudia Winkleman eyeliner for this one. The programme has brought millions of pounds and jobs to the highlands. What plans has the Secretary of State to encourage the screen industry to look at locations in Scotland like Ardross castle?
Mr Alexander
I defer to my Cabinet colleague the Health Secretary, given his expertise and knowledge when it comes to “The Traitors”. He made a powerful case on television that he had watched the series, and I then had to catch up subsequently. Let me simply say that Ardross castle—not just the castle itself, but the scenes surrounding it—is a fantastic advertisement for Scotland. Only yesterday I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) about the huge potential for the film industry in Scotland, and we stand ready, along with our colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to do whatever we can to support screen in Scotland.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
The Secretary of State talks about supporting economic growth in Scotland. Perhaps he should check in with the local authorities across the highlands and islands, which, combined, have received absolutely nothing from the UK Government’s local growth fund. Life is tough enough for our rural communities, and the decision to exclude them from the fund will only make things more difficult. Will the Secretary of State listen to the advice of the leader of Argyll and Bute Council, Councillor Jim Lynch, who desperately wants him to rethink this allocation?
Mr Alexander
I understand that the SNP’s grievance machine does not run on facts, but let me introduce a few facts into the conversation. The highlands and islands are benefiting from more than £300 million in investment, including £80 million to support neighbourhoods through Pride in Place, and, of course, the £25 million for the Inverness and Cromarty Firth green freeport. I can attest to that, because I visited Inverness and announced it.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The Labour Government are doing absolutely nothing to grow the Scottish economy, given the national insurance increase, the family farm tax, the unemployment rights Bill and the gutting of the oil and gas industry. Growth has been halved, unemployment is up and inflation is up. It is total incompetence. However, the Government are not only incompetent but weak—so weak that Scottish Labour announced that it would not oppose the SNP’s budget before its members even knew what was in it. We know that they are not very good at government, but you would have thought that after all these years they might have worked out how to do opposition, wouldn’t you?
Mr Alexander
Let us see whether this Opposition Front Bencher agrees with the Leader of the Opposition, because, of course, he does not need to take my word for the complete chaos left by the last Government. The present leader of the Conservative party is the one who admitted they had “no plan for growth”, so we are not going to take any lectures from a party that delivered not just the Liz Truss Budget, but an economy high in inequality and low in growth.
Andrew Bowie
What we saw yesterday from the SNP was nothing more than the same old tired, stale Government with tired, stale gimmicks, handouts and an addiction to punishing hard-working Scots with the highest taxes for poorer services. There was nothing for growth, nothing for entrepreneurs and nothing for businesses, but what would we expect from the separatist pressure group cosplaying as a Government that is the SNP? Does the Secretary of State agree that, after 19 years, we need change in Scotland, and that the only party with a plan to cut tax, cut the benefit bill, support business and grow the economy is the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party?
Mr Alexander
Unsurprisingly, no. I half agree with the shadow Secretary of State in that, frankly, Scotland deserves better than a Government who, after 19 years, are claiming to be the change that Scotland needs. The reality is that, when I am on the doorsteps in Lothian East, I ask people inclined to vote SNP a single question, “Can you name a single area of Scottish public life that has got better over the last 19 years?” We have had two decades of talking about independence, and what do we have to show for it? That Budget is not the change that Scotland needs; the change we need is Anas Sarwar and Scottish Labour.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I congratulate the Government on the successful seventh round of the allocation of green energy in contracts for difference, nearly 20% of which are going to Scotland. It is good to see that, even amid their U-turns, a Liberal Democrat system from over a decade ago is still delivering. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the benefits are passed on to the Scottish people through skilled jobs, working to upgrade the grid and, crucially, protecting and defending our offshore infrastructure?
Mr Alexander
I was last in touch with the Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary about an hour ago. I talked to him after the Cabinet, and I discussed these issues with him in the Cabinet. It is a very serious question, and it deserves a serious answer. The choice is not whether to build, but what to build, and our answer is clean home-grown power that the United Kingdom controls. Our answer is that we should build new renewables, because they are cheaper to build and to operate than gas.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I wish the Secretary of State the best for 2026. I am glad he caught “The Traitors”, because I am so sorry to have heard the language used about Scottish Labour MPs by Labour MPs in the press recently. If what he is saying is the best way to improve our lives and our economy, why is Scotland the only part of the UK where child poverty is going down?
Mr Alexander
In part, child poverty will be falling because of the 95,000 kids we will help by abolishing the two-child benefit cap. It is not a coincidence that, in a single afternoon, our Chancellor of the Exchequer took the mantle from Gordon Brown as the politician who lifted the most kids out of poverty across the UK in a single Parliament. Gordon Brown had taken that mantle previously from Denis Healey. It is not a coincidence that Labour Chancellors lift kids out of poverty. That is what we do, and we are proud of it.
Stephen Gethins
I would take the Secretary of State a little bit more seriously if so many Labour MPs had not lost the Whip for backing our vote on tackling the two-child cap. The Scottish child payment, which has been described as “game changing”, has been extended to provide additional funding for babies, meaning that those from deprived communities in Scotland get the best start in life anywhere in the UK in Scotland, so why on earth is Labour abstaining on the Budget? [Interruption.] Just as the Prime Minister turns up, maybe Labour can explain why it abstains and why it does not stand for anything.
Mr Alexander
We are not spending our time indulging in the games of opposition; we are getting on with the serious job of government. That includes delivering a record package of employment rights to help raise pay, because the critical point the hon. Member failed to mention is that three quarters of the kids in poverty in our country today are in working households. That is why the Employment Rights Bill matters, and that is why the 220,000 people being lifted out of poverty as a consequence of increases in the minimum wage matter. We have a comprehensive approach, which is why we have a comprehensive strategy.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s very passionate advocacy for higher education in Scotland. He will be well aware that the Scottish Government have received an additional £11 billion since the general election, money that could have been spent on Scotland’s world-class universities and colleges, but as a recent Audit Scotland report shows, those institutions have been put under immense stress, with Scottish colleges suffering a 20% cut in real-terms funding since 2021. That is utterly shameful.
Dr Arthur
Scotland’s universities have been facing a funding crisis that has been many years in the making. Funding for students in Scottish universities is currently over £2,000 less than it is in England. Universities Scotland yesterday, in response to the SNP Budget, made it clear that it will have little impact on this problem, as
“it does not adequately address”
the situation. No Government in Europe cares less about the education of their young people. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister make time to visit Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh South West to meet the vice-chancellor, Richard Williams, the staff and the students to hear about the impact of this situation?
Kirsty McNeill
I agree with my hon. Friend that Scotland’s young people have been appallingly let down, which is why it is time for a new direction. I would, of course, be delighted to meet him and representatives of Heriot-Watt to discuss Scotland’s desperate need for a new direction.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
May I start by condemning, in the strongest possible terms, the sickening repression and murder of protesters in Iran? The contrast between the courage of the Iranian people and the brutality of their desperate regime has never been clearer. We have called out this brutality face-to-face. We are working with allies on further sanctions and doing all we can to protect UK nationals.
Time and again under the Conservative party, towns and cities across the north were failed. Today, this Labour Government deliver change: a major new rail network across the north and a new northern growth strategy. That is the renewal that this country voted for.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Lincoln Jopp
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks, particularly about Iran.
Visiting schools in my Spelthorne constituency is one of the great joys of this job, so I was, frankly, appalled to hear that the Labour Member of Parliament for Bristol North East (Damien Egan) was prevented from visiting a school in his constituency because he is Jewish. This is antisemitism and it is happening in plain sight. With all due respect to the Prime Minister, I do not want to know how he feels about this; I want to know what he is going to do about it.
The Prime Minister
Can I start by thanking the hon. Gentleman for raising this case, because it is very serious and very concerning? All Members of Parliament should be able to visit anywhere in their constituency, schools or other places, without any fear of antisemitism. We do take this seriously. We are providing more funding for security and support that we are putting in across the country, and we will be holding to account those who prevented that visit to the school.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. The Hillsborough law will right wrongs of the past, changing the balance of power to ensure the state can never hide from the people it should serve. I think some of the families are with us in the Gallery here today, and I will be meeting them later on this afternoon. I have always been clear that the duty of candour applies to the intelligence services. I made a commitment that we would not water down the Bill, and the amendments we have put forward strengthen it. It is right that there are essential safeguards in place to protect national security, and we have got that balance right. We will meet the families and outline the next steps on Monday in relation to that crucial balance.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I agree with the Prime Minister’s comments on Iran. Today, Erfan Soltani faces execution for protesting in Iran. I am sure the whole House will be united in condemning that; our thoughts are with him and his family and the brave protesters fighting for their freedom against an evil regime.
I know the Home Secretary will be making a statement today on the West Midlands police. The first thing she should be announcing is the sacking of the chief constable. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) for relentlessly pushing this issue.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s latest U-turn—I feel like I say that every week. Mandatory digital ID was a rubbish policy, and the Opposition are glad to see the back of it. Yesterday, the Health Secretary said that the Prime Minister’s new year’s resolution should be to try to get it right first—[Laughter.] It should be to
“try to get it right first time”.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
indicated dissent.
Mrs Badenoch
Yes, you did say that. My question to the Prime Minister is: does he agree?
The Prime Minister
I am determined to make it harder for people to work illegally in this country, and that is why there will be checks, which will be digital and mandatory. I will tell the Leader of the Opposition what this Government are doing: whether it is on planning, child poverty, employment rights or investing in our NHS, we are taking the right choices for Britain, but the Opposition oppose every single one. She talks about U-turns and consistency, but her party, which used to recognise the challenge of climate change, now runs from it; it promised to cut immigration, but then lost control of it; it once took great pride in our diversity, but now talks of deporting our neighbours to achieve “cultural coherence”. Don’t get me started on consistency: the Tories had five Prime Ministers, six Chancellors, eight Home Secretaries and 16 Housing Ministers—they had more positions in 14 years than the Kama Sutra. No wonder they are knackered; they left the country screwed.
Mrs Badenoch
A lot of waffle, Mr Speaker, but it is still a U-turn. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner)—this is so interesting—has said:
“Labour MPs must think very carefully before defending policy decisions publicly. This stuff leaves us looking really stupid.”
I am sorry to tell him that Labour MPs have been looking stupid for a long time. Let us look at some of the other things the Prime Minister did not get right the first time, starting with the family farm tax. Some farmers were so terrified that they sold their farms last year, only for the Prime Minister to U-turn two days before Christmas. Will he apologise for the misery he has caused countless farmers?
The Prime Minister
The principle we put in place on inheritance tax is the right one. We listened, and we made an announcement. What we are doing is turning the country around. [Interruption.] Yes, we have changed the country; we have changed the failed approach of the Tory Government, who crashed the economy and sent mortgage rates through the roof, left millions stuck on NHS waiting lists and presided over the worst Parliament for living standards on record. We are turning that around and changing that: inflation and interest rates are coming down, waiting lists are coming down and wages are up more in the first year of a Labour Government than in 10 years of a Tory Government.
I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is taking advice on change. She had in Nadhim Zahawi to ask his advice on how to change and how to save her party—please don’t tell me she listened to his accountant! The next day, after giving her advice, he jumped ship to Reform—the 23rd former Tory MP to do so. I do not know which is more pitiful: the flood of former Tory MPs deserting her sinking ship or the Reform party so desperate to launder any old failed Tory politician.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister does not need to worry about me—I’m all right. I did not hear an apology to the farmers; has he even apologised to the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), who stood up for farmers only to have the Whip removed? The Prime Minister treats his MPs so badly. They follow his lead, and he hangs them out to dry every time.
Let us turn to another area that the Prime Minister has got wrong. His Budget doubled business rates for thousands of pubs. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether there is going to be any change to his business rates policy?
The Prime Minister
We are working with the sector to ensure that it gets the support it needs. I have to say that the Leader of the Opposition’s new-found concern for pubs will come as a surprise to anyone who remembers the 7,000 pubs that were closed under the Tories. As Business Secretary, she did not say a word about it.
We support business, and we also support workers, which is why we have passed our Employment Rights Act 2025. On Monday, the Business Secretary and I went to Croydon to discuss the Employment Rights Act with workers there, who were very keen on the paternity and maternity rights that the Leader of the Opposition opposes. While we were at Ikea, they showed me their new prototype: the Ikea shadow Cabinet. The trouble is that nobody wants to buy it, it is mainly constructed of old dead wood, and every time you lose a nut it defects to Reform.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister did not answer the question about business rates. It sounds like he does not know what his policy is. It has been a farce from start to finish. On Monday, the Business Secretary said that the Chancellor did not even realise the impact of her business rates policy—no surprise there—and yesterday the tax office said that it did tell the Government what the impact would be. Can the Prime Minister be clear? Did he understand the impact of his own policy on pubs?
The Prime Minister
We are working with the sector. The right hon. Lady has not explained why she said nothing about the 7,000 pubs that closed on her watch. We are doing other things on the cost of living to help people and to make sure that they can get out and spend money in pubs and hospitality. We are boosting the minimum wage. What did the Tories do? They opposed it. We are freezing rail fares and prescription charges. What did they do? They opposed it. We are taking £150 off energy bills. What did they do? They opposed it. She said nothing when pubs were closing and she opposes every measure now.
The right hon. Lady said a moment ago, “I’m all right.” She clearly did not listen to the advice of Nadhim Zahawi, because what he told her he has now made public. He told her that the Tories failed on mass migration and failed on our armed forces, and he told her that she is leading
“a defunct brand…that the nation…can no longer trust.”
No wonder he has joined the Tory migration to Reform—it is the second Boriswave.
Mrs Badenoch
I asked the Prime Minister whether he understood the impact of his own policy; he did not say yes. The reason why he U-turns all the time is because he is clueless. He is blowing around like a plastic bag in the wind, with no sense of direction whatsoever. Let us be clear: this mess goes beyond pubs. The whole hospitality industry—cafés, hotels and restaurants, they are all being clobbered by Labour’s tax hikes. There is an answer to this: Conservatives would abolish business rates for small businesses on the high street. [Interruption.] Government Members are all chuntering, but the Prime Minister is already agreeing with us on the family farms tax and he is already agreeing with us on digital ID; why does he not make it a hat trick and abolish business rates for the high street?
The Prime Minister
The Tories crashed the economy and now they want to give lectures. The right hon. Lady is wondering why nobody is listening to them—nobody is ever going to listen to them on the economy ever again. In 18 months, because of the decisions we have made, inflation is falling and the Bank of England says it is coming back down to target; we have had six interest rate cuts in a row; wages are up more in the first year of a Labour Government than under the first 10 years of the Conservative Government; and we beat the forecasts on growth for 2025. We are turning this country around after the appalling mess they left it in.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister says that no one is going to listen to us—who is going to listen to him? The winter fuel allowance? U-turn. WASPI women? U-turn. The two-child benefit cap? U-turn. Grooming gangs inquiry? U-turn. The family farms tax? U-turn. Digital ID? U-turn. Jury trials?
Mrs Badenoch
We hope so. I think that is going to be the next one. Week after week, the poor people sitting people sitting behind the Prime Minister have to defend the indefensible, only for him to U-turn a few days later.
One of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet Ministers told a journalist that
“What’s happening at the moment is extraordinarily bad.”
Another said:
“We’ve gone through a catastrophic series of mis-steps.”
Yet another Minister said
“we are so unpopular at the moment I’ve come to the conclusion it’s worth rolling the dice”
on a new leader. They are right, aren’t they?
The Prime Minister
Here is the difference: I changed my party, and that is why we stand here with a majority Labour Government. The Leader of the Opposition sits there with her party that lost two thirds of its MPs at the last election, and she is losing more every week. They are queuing up to join the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and his laundry service for disgraced Tory politicians. Meanwhile, inflation is down, wages are up and waiting lists are down. Labour is turning the corner and changing this country for the better.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend draws attention to the important work of the Mayor of London. Nobody should be talking our country down or talking London down. She is right to say that since we came into office the number of knife crime offences is down, but there is more to do. We are introducing new powers to seize knives and increasing the penalty for selling knives to under-18s. [Interruption.] What did the Conservatives—they are chuntering—do? They voted against those provisions. What is obvious about London and Reform is that it has got a candidate for mayor who does not like London, a new ex-Tory recruit who struggled to pay his taxes in this country and a leader who spends more time in France than in his constituency.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I associate myself and my party with the Prime Minister’s comments on Iran. I encourage him to go even further on sanctions and proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Sandra is 71. She has bladder cancer. Just after Christmas, she went into her local A&E. She had to wait 31 hours on a trolley or on a plastic chair to be admitted. Last year, more than half a million people waited for over 12 hours in A&E to be admitted—more than any year in the history of the NHS. This corridor care crisis was created by the Conservatives, but it has got worse under Labour. Will the Prime Minister end this scandal by taking up our plan to end all 12-hour A&E waits this year?
The Prime Minister
May I first say through the right hon. Member to Sandra that that is simply not acceptable for her or anybody else? I would appreciate it if he passed that on to her directly. We have put record investment into the NHS so that we can turn this problem around, and we are turning it around.
The right hon. Member puts forward his plans for change, but he never votes for the increase in investment and the measures needed to put them into practice. You cannot change things without investing in them. You cannot call for change and vote against a Budget that puts record investment into the NHS.
Ed Davey
We saw what happened to the last Government when they failed to improve the NHS, and if the Prime Minister is not careful, that will happen to his Government.
Last month I asked the Prime Minister to get a grip of South East Water, which had left thousands of people in Royal Tunbridge Wells without water. Now it has happened again, not only in Tunbridge Wells but in East Grinstead, Burgess Hill, Haywards Heath and other parts of Kent and Sussex. Families, pensioners, schools, care homes and businesses have been without any water since Saturday, and the water company bosses involved now stand accused of misleading Parliament over their failures. South East Water keeps failing its customers over and over again, so will the Government immediately strip it of its licence?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this, because the situation is clearly totally unacceptable. He will want to know that Ministers have chaired daily emergency meetings to hold the company to account to deliver on the change that is urgently needed in all the areas that he mentioned. We have also doubled the compensation rates for individuals and businesses and we are absolutely clear that the company must urgently invest in infrastructure. We will publish the water White Paper in due course, but we are holding those daily meetings to hold the company to account.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend as a dedicated campaigner on this and so many other issues. I am delighted that today we are announcing a transformation in journeys across the north. Of course, this was promised many times by the Conservatives but never delivered. We are taking action and delivering. We are working with Kirklees council to prepare the business case for the first phase of upgrading the line, and I know that the Transport Secretary will be happy to discuss the details of that with my hon. Friend.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
At question time last week, the Prime Minister seemed to intimate that the Government were bringing forward amendments to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Within hours of him saying that, the Irish Government’s Minister for Foreign Affairs said that any “significant changes” must have the
“full agreement of both Governments”.
Is the Prime Minister intending to bring forward amendments to the flawed Northern Ireland Troubles Bill? Will he give me a reassurance that the Irish Government do not have a veto over legislation in this House?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that. I spoke to the Taoiseach about it in December, and I know that he is committed to delivering on this issue. The new legacy unit has been established in the Garda, and I am confident that the Irish Government’s other commitments will be delivered as set out in the joint framework. For the first time, information held by the Irish authorities is being shared with the reformed legacy commission, meaning that more families and victims of terrorism are getting information about what happened to their loved ones.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am proud of what we are doing on child poverty, lifting half a million children out of poverty. The Conservatives’ policy is to plunge them straight back into poverty, and they should be ashamed of that. The situation my hon. Friend draws my attention to is appalling. Parents and teachers are furious that the Conservatives left schools literally crumbling. We invested £20 billion to rebuild around 800 schools, and our aim is that all schools and colleges in England that are not being fully or substantially rebuilt are free from RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—by the end of the Parliament. I will ensure that a Minister meets her to discuss this issue.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising that. He knows we inherited a terrible situation: waiting lists, missed performance targets and hospitals such as Stepping Hill left to crumble—the Conservatives should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. I am pleased that the new out-patients building is open, and because of our decisions, the local trust will receive £75 million in capital funding. Progress is being made. His local trust has seen waiting lists fall by almost 3,000, and the number of waits of over a year is down by 67%. I will ensure that he gets the meeting he wants to discuss the details further.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. The actions of Grok and X are disgusting and shameful. Frankly, the decision to turn it into a premium service is horrific, and we are absolutely determined to take action. We have made it clear that X has to act and, if not, Ofcom has our full backing. We will introduce, and are introducing, legislation. To update the House, I have been informed this morning that X is acting to ensure full compliance with UK law. If so, that is welcome, but we are not going to back down. X must act. We will take the necessary measures. We will strengthen existing laws and prepare for legislation if it needs to go further, and Ofcom will continue its independent investigation.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising that. It is astonishing that Reform defends Musk on this issue. I said that the images are disgusting; Reform’s position on this issue is disgusting. This is weaponising images of women and children and they should never be made, and that is why we are acting. Reform refused to do anything about it, but more than that, on the point she raised, it would scrap the Online Safety Act 2023, which stops children accessing pornography and content on suicide, self-harm and eating disorders. Reform is an absolute disgrace and knows nothing about protecting children.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are only on Question 11. If we want to get MPs in, the House is going to have to work with me.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
This is a question of values and freedom. I am proud of the British workers, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency, supporting our Ukrainian allies. Ukrainian soldiers are defending European values on the frontline every day. In the event of a ceasefire, a multinational force will carry out defence and deterrence operations and conduct training, planning, recovery and regeneration of Ukrainian forces. This week, the leader of Reform said that Russia had a casus belli—that means a justification for war—in invading Ukraine. He is a Putin apologist using Russia’s talking points.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Diego Garcia is a vital military base with important capabilities for our allies. It is integral to our security. Our decision was welcomed by our allies, the Five Eyes, India and the United States. It was opposed by our enemies, including Russia. Now we can add the Tories and Reform to that list. The Tories are following Reform; Reform is following Putin.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My thoughts, and the thoughts of the whole House, are with all those so awfully impacted by the terrible road traffic accident in my hon. Friend’s constituency over the weekend. On her question, we are determined to restore the dream of home ownership. That is why there has been £39 billion of investment to deliver the biggest boost in social and affordable housing in a generation. Through planning reforms, the new homes accelerator and new towns, we are determined to deliver the homes that people need.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for what we are doing about violence against women and girls. I agree that this is not about women or men, or boys or girls; it is about both. That is why I was very pleased to bring forward our men’s health strategy, one of the first of its sort, to deal with the challenges that young men in particular, in my view, have growing up, particularly to do with social media, and to go further on the question of suicide, which I know the whole House is prepared to work together on—and quite right, too.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
As trade envoy to New Zealand, I visited Eden Park in Auckland last year to hear about the exciting plans to bring the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo to New Zealand. Next month, that plan becomes a reality, and one of Scotland and the UK’s greatest military displays will take place in Auckland. That spectacular event is testament to the exciting and successful trading relationship between the UK and New Zealand. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating and thanking everyone who has made it a reality?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo, which is absolutely brilliant, as anybody who has seen it will attest. I am so pleased that it is heading to New Zealand. That is another example of Scotland’s unique contribution to our international image, our culture and our tourism. We all wish them the very best of luck in their performance. I know that it will be very well received.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I disagree, as the hon. Member knows, with the decision of the West Midlands police. The Home Secretary will today make a statement in relation to that. Home Secretaries used to have the power to remove chief constables. That power was stripped by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. The hon. Member knows who was making decisions in the Home Office at the time—it was he, working for Theresa May, who stripped that power away.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I wish you a belated happy new year, Mr Speaker. However, for the 4.8 million leaseholders across England, it is not a happy new year; they will receive large bills in a matter of weeks. They have been waiting patiently for us, a new Government who said we would deliver change, to bring forward legislation on leasehold and commonhold. When will we see that legislation, so that we can put those leaseholders out of their misery?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. We will bring forward proposals very shortly.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the case of Clover. NHS England and the National Institute for Health and Care Research recently agreed funding for two world-first clinical trials relating to the use of cannabis-based products. That could help these medicines to become more routinely available in the NHS. I will ensure that she gets the meeting that she wants with the relevant Minister to discuss what else we are doing.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
The people I represent are fed up with Southern Water, when it comes to everything from sewage and broken pipes to water outages, even on Christmas day. In November, millions of plastic beads washed up on our beaches, and we discovered that they came from a Southern Water treatment plant. I am campaigning for water companies to stop using this outdated plastic bead method, and to bin the beads. We are really concerned about the impact on wildlife, and have a massive clean-up operation on our hands. More than 5,000 people have already supported my campaign with the Sussex Wildlife Trust. Does the Prime Minister share my horror about this dereliction of duty by Southern Water, and will he join me in calling for it to face the full force of the law for that terrible pollution incident?
The Prime Minister
I credit my hon. Friend with having helped to expose this scandal, and with working with everyone in her community to volunteer to clean up the beaches. That is the very best of who we are. People are right to be furious that, for far too long, water companies were allowed to get away with polluting our seas and beaches. The Environment Agency is leading a full investigation. More generally, we are ending unfair bonuses for polluting water bosses, abolishing Ofwat, and introducing tougher penalties to hold companies to account.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
There are no done deals here; we are going through the proper process.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The staff at West Hertfordshire teaching hospitals NHS trust, which operates Watford general hospital in my constituency, have been very busy bees. They recently won trust of the year and a performance recovery award at the 2025 Health Service Journal awards. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the amazing team at Watford general, and thank them for all the hard work they have done to achieve this admirable accolade? Imagine what further achievements they will make when they have their new hospital and new facilities.
The Prime Minister
I will join my hon. Friend, and thank not only the staff in his hospital, but NHS staff across the country, who worked so hard over Christmas and new year, which is a notoriously difficult time.
Northern Powerhouse Rail
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail. I realise that I am not the first Minister to talk about transforming infrastructure in the north of England, and I get why people there are sick to the back teeth of Westminster politicians promising the earth and delivering absolutely nothing because parties, whether that means the Tories or Reform, lack ambition and are incapable of doing, or are unwilling to do, the hard yards of delivery. That ends today.
It has been over a decade since the then Conservative Chancellor pledged a transport system fit for a northern powerhouse, and what came of it? We had High Speed 2 to Manchester and Leeds—both promised, both axed—rail services have let down commuters, and we have a railway still reliant on diesel trains and two-track Victorian infrastructure. We had levelling up, the integrated rail plan and Network North—just empty slogans, and emptier pockets to pay for them.
That gulf between rhetoric and reality has consequences. An unbalanced economy does not just affect growth; it strikes at the heart of the fairer country that we want to be. Political choices made over decades mean that a 40-mile commute to Manchester is a world away from a similar journey into London. Take Liverpool, which has only two fast trains an hour to Manchester; a direct rail journey from Liverpool to Manchester airport takes an hour and 25 minutes, when it is only 28 miles away. Or take Leeds, which is still the largest city in western Europe without mass transit; only a third of the population can reach the city centre in 30 minutes.
We are finally consigning this sorry political legacy to the bonfire of history. No previous Government have acted as swiftly and decisively to back northern leaders. We have made the largest ever investment in local transport. We have given the go-ahead to road and rail projects across the north, and we are allocating billions of pounds in pothole funding to local leaders across this Parliament. Today, Mr Speaker, we are going further. After years of under-investment in the north’s rail network, I am proud to announce that we will deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail.
This is a generational commitment, building on the ongoing trans-Pennine route upgrade. We will invest up to a further £45 billion to create a turn-up-and-go railway along the northern growth corridor of Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds and Sheffield, as well as York. There will be regular services onward to Newcastle and Hull, and to Chester for connections to north Wales.
Make no mistake: NPR will transform how people travel. We will end the hour-long waits if people miss their train. We will attract more people to a railway that will be faster, more accessible and more frequent than ever before. For northerners who have long complained about being treated as second-class citizens, my message is simple: those days are over.
This is an ambitious long-term programme, but it is not HS2 reheated. I stood at the Dispatch Box last year and said that we would learn the lessons of that infrastructure project, and I meant it. Unlike the previous Government’s Network North plan, which was announced without so much as a phone call to the mayors, we have been working directly with them on developing the proposals. I am proud to announce that every single one of those mayors is backing the plan today.
I am clear that NPR will not be a central Government vanity project. It will be rooted in northern communities, and designed, developed and delivered from the bottom up. We will also take the time to get this right. That starts with agreeing mature, stable designs as well as consents, all before construction. Finally, unlike HS2, this is not about the fastest line at any cost. Northern Powerhouse Rail will be the shoulders of this nation’s rail network, improving services across the north and beyond.
Let me now turn to delivery. We are making £1.1 billion available to develop NPR over the next four years. This will proceed in three phases, sequenced so that passengers experience a better railway as soon as possible. The first phase will prioritise electrification and upgrades east of the Pennines for delivery in the 2030s. That covers the Leeds-Bradford, Sheffield-Leeds and Leeds-York corridors, including the stations. Alongside NPR, we will develop the business case for the Leamside line, as part of our broader plans for the north. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who has been campaigning on this for over 20 years.
Phase 1’s benefits will be clear. It means pressing forward with plans for a new station in Bradford, with funding secured to take it forward subject to business case, and it means working with local leaders on a redesigned York station masterplan. I would like to recognise the work carried out by Lord Blunkett in his Yorkshire plan for rail. It was his vision, endorsed by the white rose mayors, that informed our plan for phase 1, and I am proud that Lord Blunkett is backing our plans today.
Work also starts now for the second phase, west of the Pennines, with major construction planned for the 2030s. It includes a new route, and a predominantly new line, between Liverpool and Manchester. This will run via new stations, improving access to Manchester airport from across the north and north Wales, and to Warrington Bank Quay, with plans to deliver thousands of new homes. I have today instructed my officials to immediately resume work on the adapted hybrid Bill, so that we can reach planning consent for the parts of the route in Manchester. These plans align with the prospectus of the Liverpool-Manchester Railway Board, and I would like to thank all of the board’s members, including the chair, former Rail Minister Huw Merriman, who is also backing our plans today.
The third phase, which takes us to the 2040s, will improve connectivity across the Pennines, over and above the trans-Pennine route upgrade currently under way. I see Bradford to Manchester, Leeds to Manchester, and Sheffield to Manchester as key routes that we will upgrade.
If we are to secure Britain’s long-term growth, we must also recognise that future capacity and connectivity is needed along other major routes, such as the west coast main line, and ensure that this is reflected in our decision making now. I can therefore confirm this Government’s long-term aim to see a full new north-south line from Birmingham to Manchester. That is one of the reasons why we have chosen the Liverpool to Manchester route, as put forward by local mayors, because it is the only route that properly preserves our ability ultimately to build a new line south to address longer-term congestion and crowding challenges on the west coast main line.
Again, this plan will not be a revival of HS2, and no decisions have been taken on the specification or timetable. In the meantime, we will retain land that the Government have already purchased between the west midlands and Crewe. This will be an incremental programme of change, and delivery will be taken forward after NPR has been built. Nevertheless, I believe that laying out our strategy now is sensible, responsible and in the long-term interests of the country.
Today we are announcing a second rail revolution in the very region that gave us the first. The north powered Britain’s past, and it can lead this country’s future. This plan is a downpayment on the north’s potential and part of a broader growth drive to lift the region’s productivity, boost living standards and add tens of billions to the UK economy. At the heart of this lies connectivity, because only by strengthening the links between our northern cities and bringing their pools of talent closer together can the region begin to rival the other major growth corridors in Europe.
Too many northerners still face the choice of either staying at home and putting aspiration on hold or moving away in search of a better future. I say no more unfair choices and no more missed opportunities. Today we start delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail, and I commend this statement to the House.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
May I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement? She started the statement by saying that people are sick to the back teeth of Westminster politicians promising the earth and delivering absolutely nothing—and then she did exactly that. We on the Opposition Benches know what the right hon. Lady’s statement marks today. It is not a strategy for the north or a genuine commitment to a project costed at £46 billion back in 2019, as the current Prime Minister then promised; instead, it is a flagrant attempt to silence their party’s restless northern mayors, while Labour Ministers, who came into office with no plan to deliver on their promises, butcher the Budget.
Let us get straight to the point. The Secretary of State can bluster all she likes, but where Northern Powerhouse Rail is concerned, we have no construction start dates, no completion dates, no published or costed route map, no sequencing, no idea who will pay, or by how much, and no certainty at all, except that it will not be what Labour promised ahead of the election. She says that this is a generational commitment. Well, at this rate it will turn out to be a multigenerational commitment. If the Prime Minister wanted to deliver what he actually promised in opposition, he knows that he would have another black hole of billions, such is the genuine uncertainty caused to the sector by this announcement.
What we have is a commitment to fiddling with the paperwork without any secure investment for the actual project, yet the right hon. Lady expects this House to believe that this is some sort of investment in the north. She and her Ministers must be delighted that the Mayor of Greater Manchester overplayed his hand at the Labour party conference last year. Today he feels constrained to profess loyalty to the Prime Minister, perhaps with wonderment at his generosity—that is in public, but we all know what he is doing in private.
Does the right hon. Lady take this House, her own Back Benchers and the voting public for fools? Whether she does or not, the Prime Minister certainly does. He wrote in The Yorkshire Post, with some gall, that this announcement is
“a serious plan backed by billions of pounds of investment”,
when we know from this statement that it is not. Can the right hon. Lady confirm how a £45 billion cap on a scheme costed as being way more expensive than that back in 2019 can possibly deliver projects already estimated to cost so much more than that value? What guarantees exist that schemes will be completed in full? When will this House finally be given the detail that it deserves? Perhaps she ought to remind the Prime Minister what he told The Yorkshire Post back in 2019, when he promised to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail in full.
Today’s announcement offers nothing better than dither, delay and a further decade away from spades in the ground. How can the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister pretend that this is the delivery of Northern Powerhouse Rail when it is anything but that? By their own admission, no budget has been set out. The cap in funding gives no confidence that funding that will have to be raised from the private sector or through local taxes is in place. Can the Secretary of State tell the House which local taxes will have to rise, and by how much, to fill the gap created by her own £45 billion cap?
I know that the Secretary of State, like me, cares deeply about ensuring that Parliament is told the whole truth, but perhaps on this occasion it is the Prime Minister himself who should be lauded. He has said, time and again, that the cuts and downgrades that this Government have foreshadowed today represent nothing more than
“a betrayal of the North”.
Is it not the case that this is a strategy from a desperate Government to make a cut appear to be an investment, and to attempt to save face with the British public? Spending months and months hiding their mealy-mouthed plans, only to reveal them with bluster and misplaced confidence, is a sad indictment of a sorry Government.
To come to this House today without dates, budgets or a plan for how to raise shortfalls after the cap is, frankly, pitiful. To spin this as a plan for the future is a disgrace, and one of which the Secretary of State should be ashamed. She cannot escape the fact that her party came into power with no plan on how to deliver on its promises, and its complete ineptitude in managing the public finances means that it is now having to U-turn on those promises. If the metro mayors and Back Benchers had any backbone, then rather than gelatinously jostling for position under the next Labour leader, they would acknowledge the truth in what I have said and call out this betrayal.
Heidi Alexander
I cannot believe what I have just heard, to be honest. I know that the hon. Gentleman is standing in for the shadow Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), but I really hoped that he would have done a bit better than that.
The hon. Gentleman talks about no budget being set out. We have set out £1.1 billion to be spent over the next four years, which is far more than his Government ever spent on Northern Powerhouse Rail in the 14 years in which they had an opportunity to make improvements to the rail network in the north of England. If that is the way the Conservatives approach basic maths when we are spending more than £1 billion, I can see why the public booted them out of office at the last election.
We are working in collaboration with local mayors. We have agreed with them that where they see opportunity to boost economic growth beyond the core scope of the Northern Powerhouse Rail proposals, we will work with them to agree local contributions so that the full benefits of this investment can be realised.
More generally, this is a classic case of the hon. Gentleman writing the questions without listening to the announcement. We are delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail in full. We have set out our plans in full, we are funding NPR in full, and we will deliver it.
The hon. Gentleman mentions the previous Government and their aspirations. Let me remind the House of what that actually amounted to—the plan that got the location of Manchester wrong on a map, promised new tramlines that had already been built, and diverted funding away from the north to fix potholes in the south. That plan was not worth the paper it was written on, so we will take no lessons on this matter from the Conservatives.
If the hon. Gentleman will not listen to me, maybe he will listen to the people who run our great city regions in the north. The Mayors of West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and North Yorkshire said that
“we welcome the government’s once in a generation commitment to improving transport across the North”.
The Mayor of the Liverpool City Region said:
“After more than a decade of dither, delay and broken promises, this is the start of a new era, with a genuinely strategic approach and a government finally backing Northern Powerhouse Rail in full.”
The Mayor of Greater Manchester said,
“Finally, we have a government with an ambitious vision for the North”
and a
“firm commitment to Northern Powerhouse Rail”.
Let me quote one more person:
“NPR is a project I’ve long championed…so it is excellent to see the government backing it in full”.
Those are not the words of a Labour mayor or a Labour Minister; they are the words of former Conservative Rail Minister Huw Merriman. Our plans are backed by the mayors, by business leaders, and by the Conservatives’ own former Rail Minister. That tells us everything we need to know about who is delivering for the north and who never did.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
This is another hugely welcome transport statement from the Secretary of State for Transport and her team. Today’s announcement promises levels of rail connectivity for communities from Merseyside to Tyneside that will compare to those of the London travel to work area. The question that I and many others have is: when will we see more details about the timescales and potential funding sources for phases 1 and 2 and, most importantly, phase 3—linking Birmingham with the Northern Powerhouse Rail network, which is so desperately needed and was so cruelly and ridiculously cancelled by the Conservative party in government—so that we can relieve the pressure on the west coast main line and link up London and Birmingham with the cities of the north?
Heidi Alexander
The Chair of the Transport Committee is completely right that the proposals we are announcing today will deliver rail services for the north that are comparable to those in London and the south-east—a “turn up and go” railway where people do not have to check the timetable before they go to the station, because they know that a train will be there within a reasonable timeframe and that if they miss their train, they will not have to wait an hour for the next one. She is right to press me on when more information about the different phases will become available. The first phase of improvement relates to the corridors into Leeds from Sheffield, Bradford and York; we will be progressing with urgency on those, as well as the plans for the new line between Manchester and Liverpool. Phase 3 of NPR relates to further trans-Pennine improvements beyond the trans-Pennine route upgrade, and we will say more in due course about our plans for Birmingham to Manchester, noting that the delivery of those plans will come after NPR has been completed.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I have read the statement—I am very grateful for early sight of it—and have listened to the Secretary of State carefully. The Liberal Democrats are massive supporters of Northern Powerhouse Rail, but all that is really concrete in this statement is just over £1 billion so that we can spend the next four years planning to perhaps come up with another plan.
The failure of the previous Conservative Government to deliver infrastructure projects such as this and HS2 was utterly depressing and embarrassing. However, I hope the Secretary of State will understand the scepticism of many of us in the north—not just Liberal Democrat Members—who fear that this Government are also being worryingly pedestrian, lacking the determination to deliver vital projects such as these, and that high-speed rail for the north will be delivered at a snail’s pace if we are lucky. Would I be right to surmise from the Secretary of State’s announcement that while we will see upgrades in the 2030s—still a long time away—we will not see trains running on the new track much before 2045? What confidence can she give us that we will not see even more slippage in that timetable? What guarantees can she give us that we will not see a repeat of the Conservatives’ approach of stop-start, stop-start, stop-start, and then cancel?
Finally, I remind the Minister that the north of England does not stop at the M62. While we are proud of our cities of Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool, the biggest visitor destination in the north of England is Cumbria, yet there is not a single mention of either Cumbria or Lancashire in the statement. It contains nothing about the vital upgrades needed to the west coast main line north of Warrington, especially in light of the recent derailment at Shap, and we continue to wait for the Government to invest in the all-important lakes line to Windermere, where a simple passing loop at Burneside would double the line’s capacity at a fraction of the cost of Northern Powerhouse Rail, directly connecting Manchester airport to the heart of the English Lake district. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss these vital projects, to help prove that this Government’s concern for the north includes the actual north?
Heidi Alexander
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are getting on with this, and we will see these improvements delivered. I do not share his cynicism that we will spend the next four years simply coming up with a plan; the £1.1 billion that has been allocated is for land acquisitions and early preparatory works on the Yorkshire schemes. We will see delivery in the 2030s, with passengers seeing the benefits of some of those schemes, but I will not make the same mistakes as the last Government made with HS2. They let contracts before the scope of schemes had been finalised, which was essentially a free meal ticket for building contractors. We will take the time to do this properly and spend taxpayer money wisely. Of course I want to see the delivery of rail infrastructure speeded up, but I also want to ensure that every single penny that this Government spend is well spent.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I could reassure him about the stop-start nature of plans being drawn up and then delivered. We have taken our time to come up with a credible, sequenced, prioritised programme of improvements, in stark contrast to the previous Government. I can assure him that this is a plan for the whole of the north of England, and when it comes to our Government’s commitment to Cumbria, I gently remind him that the Department for Transport has invested over £13 million in Carlisle station, Cumberland has received an £18 million multi-year bus funding deal, and £10 million has been spent on a Borders rail viability study. The hon. Gentleman should remember that we are investing across the north of England in improving public transport for the travelling public.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker—it is nice to speak from the Back Benches for the first time in a very long time. I strongly welcome this commitment to Northern Powerhouse Rail and the vision that underpins it. This will be game-changing for the north after decades of under-investment and poor connectivity; after years and years of indecision by the Conservative party, this really is going to transform lives. Does the Secretary of State agree that in order to ensure long-term reliability and capacity for generations to come, we have to solve the problem of Manchester Piccadilly station? That station finally having through capacity in an underground station will truly unlock connectivity between Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester airport and unlock the real potential of all regions across the north.
Heidi Alexander
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her contribution. She talks about Manchester Piccadilly; I am reminded of the words of Mayor Andy Burnham, who has said to me that he sees the potential of that station to be a King’s Cross for the north. I agree with my right hon. Friend that we need to resolve the issue of throughput through that station, and I will be working very closely with the mayor on plans for that station, to ensure we unlock the regeneration at the heart of the great city of Manchester that we are all united in wanting to see.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I have spent years fighting to ensure that Bradford is at the heart of the north’s rail network, so I very much welcome today’s announcement. However, after decades of empty promises for the north from Whitehall, my constituents also need clarity. We have seen 13 U-turns in 18 months from this Government, including on the West Yorkshire tram network, so how much will be spent specifically on the Bradford station project, and when will that project be completed? With at least four general elections between now and 2045, which is the period of time that this statement relates to, my constituents and I are worried that this is simply another future U-turn.
Heidi Alexander
I can wholeheartedly assure the hon. Member that this announcement is good news for Bradford station. I have been working closely with Councillor Susan Hinchcliffe, the leader of Bradford Council, and Tracy Brabin, the Mayor of West Yorkshire. We will be pressing forward with the work that is already under way with the council on a business case for Bradford station, and I am conscious that in doing so, we will be putting a young, dynamic city of 500,000 people at the heart of the northern rail network. We expect to reach decisions on the station by summer of this year, and we have made funding available to then move forward into detailed design, subject to the conclusions of that business case.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
February will represent the 25th anniversary of the opening of the second runway at Manchester airport in my constituency, with capacity for 60 million passengers. Does the Secretary of State agree that his announcement will finally allow the airport to achieve its full potential?
Heidi Alexander
I wholeheartedly agree with my good friend. The selection of the route between Liverpool and Manchester was to a large degree determined by the importance of providing better connectivity to Manchester airport, not just for people in the north-west, but those travelling across the Pennines from other parts of the north of England. It has the potential to be a real generator of economic output, and I look forward to working with him further on the proposals, given how dear that airport is to him and his constituents.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I completely disagree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) in his comments about the betrayal of the north by this Labour Government. While this plan is not by any means perfect, it is a damn sight better than what we saw from the last Government. At last week’s Transport questions, I pressed the Minister about the improvements to the York area capacity scheme and was told that it was not ruled out. I was surprised to see no mention in the statement and the documents circulated today of that York area capacity scheme, which would relieve pressure and congestion at Skelton junction. That would improve the rail network and connectivity across the north. Will the Secretary of State rule out the cancellation of the Skelton junction improvements, commit to ensuring that they are part of the scheme going forward, and tell us why they were not mentioned today?
Heidi Alexander
In the announcement today, we are ruling things in; we are not excluding funding things through other funding sources. We will be setting out in the normal way such things as future rail network enhancement programme funding. I am happy to continue the conversation with the hon. Member about the further benefits we can bring to the York area. One benefit of NPR in particular will be to work with David Skaith, the Mayor of York and North Yorkshire, on the masterplan for York station and the massive brownfield regeneration opportunity—one of the largest in Europe—that lies directly next to that station.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to help everybody. Those Members whose constituencies are involved in this programme are the ones who I want to get in. We have got three statements. I know this statement matters, especially to the north, so we have got to get the people in. Please, if we can help each other, that would be useful.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
This statement is welcome. The north of England has been held back for far too long, with our people and economy not being allowed to realise their full potential. The commitment to properly review the Manchester Piccadilly underground proposal alongside the Mayor of Greater Manchester is also welcome. Without that scheme, it leaves one route in and one route out, with trains forced to turn back on to the network. It is slower, second rate and not something the north can support. First, can we have more detail on the Manchester airport local contribution and how we will ensure it is fair and at a level that can be raised locally? Secondly, can we have a clearer idea on the timescales for the Birmingham to Manchester line?
Heidi Alexander
I can assure my hon. Friend that we will be having detailed conversations with local partners, including Manchester airport, and we will ensure that any contribution is fair and locally agreed. It is important that organisations that will benefit directly from the improvement of rail links make a contribution, and I look forward to those discussions happening in the coming months and years. He asks about the timing for the Manchester to Birmingham element of the route. I have been clear that the priority for investment is the three stages of Northern Powerhouse Rail. The improvements to Birmingham to Manchester would come after those schemes have completed construction in the 2040s.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Sadly, we have heard all this before. I admit that some of the last Government’s ambitious proposals have not come to fruition, but the Labour Government are now finding that it is easy to criticise. I do not recall that the criticism coming from Labour Members when we were in power was, “Don’t worry, by 2050 we can solve the problem.” They were saying that they had immediate answers. I suggest that, instead of these ambitious proposals, the Secretary of State announces something that she can deliver. If she shook her petty cash tin, she could find the few thousand pounds she would need to extend the King’s Cross to Lincoln service through to Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and so boost the local economy there—
Mr Speaker
Order. Come on! The hon. Member seems to be making a statement—there is not even a question in there. Secretary of State, I am sure you can rustle up a quick answer.
Heidi Alexander
I will ask the Rail Minister to write to the hon. Gentleman and update him on the particular scheme that he is advocating.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
I welcome this fantastic announcement, particularly regarding the Leamside line, which runs from Pelaw in Gateshead through my constituency in Washington and on to Ferryhill in County Durham, and it is the line that will finally bring the metro to Washington, which I have campaigned on since I first stood to be an MP back in 2005. This investment will be transformative for my constituents and the whole north-east, so although we are still a little way off spades in the ground, does the Secretary of State agree that this truly is the difference that a Labour Government—together with Kim McGuinness, our Labour Mayor of the North East—make?
Heidi Alexander
May I just pay tribute once again to my hon. Friend for campaigning for the Leamside line over a long time? I recall her excitement when we announced the extension of the Tyne and Wear metro to Washington as part of the spending review, and I look forward to working with her further as we look at the business case for reopening the Leamside line, which closed many decades ago.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Safe, reliable and affordable railways are vital for economic growth in communities like mine. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, because for too long we have not seen that investment in our northern communities. For too long, our infrastructure has been neglected and, as a result, our northern communities have not been able to fulfil their potential. I will build on what some Greater Manchester colleagues have been asking about Manchester Piccadilly. Some of the enabling work around Ardwick and Ashburys would unlock improved services to communities like mine on the Rose Hill line, or maybe even a tram-train to Marple. How can the Secretary of State ensure that communities like mine can feed in, so that this project reaches its full potential and gets a 10 out of 10, rather than a mediocre “meh”?
Heidi Alexander
One reason we have taken our time to work with the local mayors is so that we can properly ensure that the improvements to inter-city connections that will be delivered through NPR can be integrated with local improvements. Mayors in the north of England have had a multibillion-pound settlement through transport for city regions funding. To unlock regeneration in many of the towns and cities with untapped potential, we need to that integration right.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I strongly welcome this statement, which recognises that Bradford, one of the largest and youngest cities, cannot be left behind any longer. I, along with my colleagues Madam Deputy Speaker—my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins)—and the leader of Bradford council, have campaigned for more than a decade for a new station and better connectivity. We cannot have Bradford waiting another two decades. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the new station and that connectivity will be part of phase 1 of this programme?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend has championed the station in Bradford enormously over recent years, and I can assure him that we will press forward with the work that is already under way with the council on a business case for the station. We will reach decisions by the summer of this year. We have made funding available to then move forward into detailed design, pending those decisions.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
As a north-west MP, I of course welcome all efforts to improve connectivity across the north for my constituents, but the devil is always in the detail. I have looked at the Liverpool to Manchester proposals, and the journey would actually be 20 minutes slower than it is currently. The Secretary of State also talked about improving access to Manchester airport, but the link stops a mile outside the airport, and people have to take a bus from there. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that she will review the points that I have made?
Heidi Alexander
I was interested to hear the hon. Lady’s contribution. She claimed that she supports anything that improves the public transport network in the north of England, but in September last year Reform came out with a clear objection to the Northern Powerhouse Rail scheme, telling the public that they should just accept their lot and be grateful. I look forward to hearing from her colleagues in future whether they have reversed their position on Northern Powerhouse Rail and finally seen the light.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
I appreciate the Secretary of State’s recognition of the lack of investment that there has been in the north of England, but it is not as though there has not been jam to go around. While there has been almost zero new investment in the north, in the south we have seen Javelin trains, the Jubilee line extension, Thameslink, the Elizabeth line and all the expenditure on HS2. Given that all that money has weighed down the south, and given that a crucial part of this scheme—I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for recognising this—is the underground station at Manchester Piccadilly, does she think it fair for local contributions to be expected for that, when most of the other schemes have been paid for through direct taxation? Why should the north not be treated in the same way as the south? Is it fair for local taxpayers to have to pay for what is part of the national infrastructure?
Heidi Alexander
I agree with my hon. Friend that the public in the north of England have had to put up with a second-rate transport system for far too long. We are determined to right that historic wrong, invest in the necessary upgrades, and get spades in the ground. I would just observe that when it came to Crossrail and the delivery of the Elizabeth line, there was a local contribution through a business rates retention scheme, and other investments in the capital have involved enterprise zones and land value capture. Those are some of the ideas that we would like to discuss with northern mayors.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Today’s announcement directly affects Wales, given that it is footing the Bill for the Northern Powerhouse Rail project, along with HS2 and the Oxford-Cambridge railway—although I have to say that I am delighted for my northern friends. The price tag now owed to Wales amounts to about £6 billion, yet the Government expect us to be satisfied with £445 million over 10 years. How much longer does the Secretary of State think this farce can go on? Is it not time that rail is devolved so that funding can be directed back to the people of Wales, instead of to anything that is classified as an England and Wales project?
Heidi Alexander
The £445 million investment that was announced in the spending review is historic, and we recognise that there has been under-investment in Welsh infrastructure. However, this is really significant investment that will deliver new stations, faster journeys and better services for passengers, as well as connecting people to jobs and driving economic growth.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the improvements announced to the Sheffield-Leeds line and for some of the improvements to the Sheffield-Manchester line, although I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) that we need a through route to Manchester airport as well.
I particularly want to ask the Secretary of State about the tram-train project. She and the Mayor Oliver Coppard have committed to working on the business case for that project, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) has been fighting for it as well. Germany has been running tram-trains for 40 years, and the one pilot scheme in this country, involving a service between Sheffield and Rotherham, has been a success. Can the Secretary of State now see the development of tram-trains generating growth, housing and jobs in Sheffield as a precursor to rolling them out across the country, which would benefit a lot more areas?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend and I have been speaking about the issue of tram-trains in recent months, and I have also had more recent conversations with the Mayor of South Yorkshire about his aspirations in that regard. I look forward to working closely with him to ensure that we integrate properly the benefits that will be brought through Northern Powerhouse Rail, including schemes that my hon. Friend wants to be promoted in the South Yorkshire combined authority area.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My constituents stand to benefit enormously from the improvements in capacity and connectivity for Manchester airport and, indeed, Birmingham. The Secretary of State talked about growth in her statement. Does she agree that one of the big benefits will be a reduction in congestion on the roads and the pollution that it produces? That is massively important, in relation to NPR and to the Birmingham to Manchester—and, I would add, Liverpool—part of the link in the north-west. The big difference we are seeing with this announcement is that the Secretary of State has set out an outline plan; in the dozens of announcements that were made by the Conservative Government from 2014 onwards, we never heard of such a plan.
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend is entirely right. A reliable, affordable, frequent public transport service, including the new rail line between Liverpool and Manchester, will enable and encourage more people to leave the car at home and make their journeys in a more sustainable way. It strikes me as ludicrous that at the moment it takes an hour and 25 minutes to travel on a direct train from Liverpool to Manchester airport—a journey of less than 30 miles—when it is possible to travel from Paddington to Reading, a journey of similar length, in 22 minutes.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire, I absolutely welcome the news that phase 1 of the Northern Powerhouse Rail project prioritises Yorkshire. It will generate growth and opportunities for people in my region, and it is a development for which members of the APPG, on both sides of the House, have long campaigned. With my city of Leeds in mind, may I ask when my residents will benefit from the phase 1 investment? May I also ask whether the Secretary of State agrees that we should accelerate the delivery of the West Yorkshire tram project, so that my constituents can benefit from both better railways and a mass transit system?
Heidi Alexander
The improvements for Leeds and the surrounding area that we have announced today are in addition to the existing improvement plans for Leeds station. The Government are considering Leeds South Bank as a potential location for a new town in an existing city, and I am very aware that Leeds is now known as the northern square mile because its attractiveness to financial services. I am working closely with Mayor Tracy Brabin to ensure that we deliver the mass transit system. I believe that Leeds is the largest city in western Europe without such a system, and we have to put that right.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I warmly welcome the news today that we will finally get Northern Powerhouse Rail, and the news that it is starting in Yorkshire is historic. The world’s oldest continuously working railway, Middleton railway, has operated since 1758, and the lines that are to be improved will be just metres away from it. That railway helped to kick-start the industrial revolution, and this project could kick-start a new revolution for the north of England. Is the Secretary of State working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to look at housing growth, at jobs growth and at maximising the benefits of Northern Powerhouse Rail in the same way as our Victorian forebears?
Heidi Alexander
Very much so, and if we were able to bring productivity in the north up to the average level, the UK economy would grow by about £40 billion a year. This is not just about trains or tracks; it is about leveraging in private investment, new jobs, new homes, city centre regeneration and breathing life back into our town centres. I look forward to working further with my hon. Friend on that.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State said, this is evidence that cross-Government working is in action, with the Treasury, the Department for Transport and the MHCLG setting the case, and establishing confidence that the north is open for business as the place to invest, to build and to live. We have a Government who have the self-assurance to shift away from the well-trodden path of growth traditionally centred on London and the south. The record is clear: the Tories under-invested in the north time and again, and Reform has already opposed everything that Northern Powerhouse Rail stands for—
Sarah Pochin
Yes, I do withdraw that. I am sorry. I apologise. However—[Interruption.]
Jo White
Reform’s betrayal of the north must never be forgotten.
For this to work, we need our council leaders and mayors to play their part. For constituencies such as Bassetlaw, Bolsover, North East Derbyshire and Chesterfield, our East Midlands Mayor must be part of the dialogue on the investment strategy for transport planning and connectivity. We all want to open our doors to businesses on the back of this, so will the Secretary of State ensure that Mayor Claire Ward has a place at the table?
Heidi Alexander
I work closely with Claire Ward, and I have enormous respect her work in the east midlands.
I recognise my hon. Friend’s point about Reform’s position on rail investment in the north of England. She had to deal with some chuntering from the other side, and I would just observe that the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) may like to google what one of her colleagues said back in September, when he was absolutely unequivocal that he would not back Northern Powerhouse Rail and that he would not back better public transport in the north. This Labour Government have exactly the opposite ambition.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which did an inquiry into HS2, I must warmly welcome the Secretary of State taking such a disciplined and clear approach to ensuring that this scheme is delivered, and delivered on time and with value for money, as the trans-Pennine upgrade was. As a Bradford MP, I would like—with others, I am sure—to join in thanking her for backing Northern Powerhouse Rail, but particularly for backing Bradford. The new station and the improved link to Leeds will make a massive difference not only to the city of Bradford, but to the wider district. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the transport investments by this Labour Government will deliver not only better connectivity, but jobs and new homes to the whole of Bradford district?
Heidi Alexander
One of the things we have to achieve through Northern Powerhouse Rail is making sure that young people growing up in towns and smaller cities around the big conurbations can easily access the high-quality jobs in places such as Leeds, Manchester and Newcastle. I assure my hon. Friend that this Government’s approach is about investing in skills, investing in transport and investing in opportunities for the future.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
A little more than two years have passed since the last Prime Minister chaotically took the axe to HS2 north and east of Birmingham, and the mayor at the time, Andy Street, failed the test of leadership and failed to stand up for our region. There is an obvious link between the east-west connections the Secretary of State has been talking about, and the south to north connections along the west coast main line. Will she and her Ministers meet and engage with west midlands MPs about the capacity issue she has set out, and can we not lose sight of the importance of the west midlands to east midlands connection, which is as slow as the connections in the north?
Heidi Alexander
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and other Members to discuss this matter further. I would also like to pay tribute to Mayor Richard Parker for working collaboratively with us in the west midlands, alongside Claire Ward in the east midlands, to make sure that we can improve not only inter-city connections, but the connections within big cities that are so important.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement confirming the biggest investment in rail connectivity in a generation, including £7.5 million for the South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority to kick-start plans to extend the South Yorkshire Supertram, including looking at a tram-train extension to Stocksbridge via Oughtibridge, Wharncliffe Side and Deepcar in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this tram-train extension will build on the Government’s commitment today to finally give Yorkshire the transport network our communities deserve?
Heidi Alexander
We are committed to giving everyone in Yorkshire the transport networks they deserve. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), we want to work with Mayor Oliver Coppard to explore further the potential of tram-train. I know she has been a fearsome advocate for the Penistone line in her constituency, and further engagement is going on with Kirklees council on that issue.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Like my Sheffield colleagues, I strongly welcome the Government commitment to upgrading our Sheffield station and putting in place faster and more frequent trains to Leeds and Manchester. This will increase our city centre regeneration, and will be of strong benefit to our universities and students who commute into the city. Will the Minister meet me and other South Yorkshire MPs to discuss timescales and to ensure that our infrastructure plans match the economic ambitions for growth and regeneration in Sheffield?
Heidi Alexander
I will certainly ask the Rail Minister to meet my hon. Friend and her colleagues. I do think that two fast services an hour between the key cities of Leeds and Sheffield is simply not good enough. We are committed to improving those services and to providing the capacity that is required at Sheffield station, and I look forward to discussing that further.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
This announcement is excellent news for northern towns and cities. Manchester airport is a large employer in my constituency, but since covid we have sadly lost direct connectivity from Stockport station into Manchester airport, so I think it is important to restore some of the pre-covid timetables. Can I also encourage the Secretary of State to look at the Access for All scheme? Unfortunately, it is far too slow, and far too many train stations do not have disabled access. To make rail better for everyone, we need to make it friendly for people with mobility issues.
Heidi Alexander
I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of accessibility at rail stations, and I note the case he makes about Manchester airport. I would point out that, in addition to the new line between Liverpool and Manchester via the airport, which I have announced today, over £100 million of funding is going into Manchester airport station at the moment to lengthen the platform, so longer trains and more frequent services can call there. That investment is happening now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I ask Members to keep their questions short. Otherwise we will not be able to get everybody in, so please help each other out.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Can I begin by expressing my sincere and enthusiastic thanks to the Secretary of State for today’s announcements? I have been campaigning, and some would say badgering Ministers, throughout my entire time in this place to address capacity challenges on the west coast main line arising from the steaming pile of mess left for this Government on HS2. I welcome the announcement that the Government intend to build a new rail line between Birmingham and Manchester, but following 14 years of mismanagement of projects such as this, how can the Secretary of State assure me and my constituents that these projects will actually be delivered, and how will they be insulated against the backwards, anti-growth, populist forces that we know would reverse these plans in a heartbeat?
Heidi Alexander
We are going to give the public the confidence that when it comes to rail infrastructure, we are spending taxpayers’ money wisely. We will learn from the mistakes of HS2 and make sure we do the work properly to start off with, so we are not wasting taxpayers’ money in the way that the previous Government did with their oversight of HS2.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
By my reckoning, York is the biggest winner of this new rail revolution. The new Haxby/York North station; the York station masterplan upgrade; the trans-Pennine route upgrade; and the fantastic NPR new connections—which does my right hon. Friend think delivers the most for my constituents?
Heidi Alexander
I am not entirely sure how to answer that question, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend has been a fearsome advocate for his constituents, and for improving public transport in York and the surrounding areas. I was delighted that we could confirm at the spending review that we were going to progress Haxby station in his constituency. I look forward to working with him further to unlock the potential in the city and region as a result of today’s proposals.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I welcome today’s announcement, which will unleash the potential of our northern regions and open the door to opportunities that have historically been denied to my constituents and so many across the north. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that bold and ambitious schemes such as Northern Powerhouse Rail will silence the north’s detractors—not that many are in their places today—from the Tories, who left our rail network in the north of England on the brink of collapse, and Reform, who do nothing but talk down the promise of our proud and pioneering region?
Heidi Alexander
I could not have put it better myself. My hon. Friend is right that the public want us to be ambitious for the north and to make sure that the benefits of economic growth are spread fairly across the country. That is precisely what our announcements today on Northern Powerhouse Rail will do.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
For 17 long years, constituents across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages have had to deal with the complete failure of HS2 Ltd while Ministers were asleep at the wheel. The chaotic Conservative cancellation of the scheme did nothing to alleviate those problems and instead replaced them with uncertainty on uncertainty on uncertainty. Unfortunately, all today’s statement does is confirm that that uncertainty will continue for at least another two decades. Can the Secretary of State confirm to me that HS2 Ltd, which is so hated by my constituents, will have absolutely no part in any rail infrastructure project north of Handsacre, that she will urgently ensure that me and other Staffordshire MPs have an opportunity to meet the Rail Minister, and that we can commit to the quick completion of the Handsacre to Manchester leg of HS2, with a view to releasing as much safeguarded land as possible as quickly as possible, so that constituents across my constituency, Staffordshire and further north do not have to continue to deal with the problems they have faced for so long?
Heidi Alexander
I will ensure that the Rail Minister meets my hon. Friend and regional colleagues. In taking the right long-term strategic decision about providing more capacity on the west coast main line, I recognise that some people will be dealing with more uncertainty today. I want to work with him and HS2 to make sure that we treat those people with the respect they deserve and that we seek to minimise the disruption to people’s lives as far as possible.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
Under the previous Conservative Government, Telford became one of the largest towns in the country without a direct link into London, we had a trainline into Birmingham and mid-Wales that was overcrowded, and private operators, who were falling over themselves to provide a solution, were being blocked by the Office of Road and Rail. I welcome today’s announcements, particularly around the links between Birmingham and Manchester, but will the Secretary of State or the Rail Minister meet me to explore all options to get Telford connected to the capital?
Heidi Alexander
I would be very happy to organise a meeting between my hon. Friend and the Rail Minister. He refers to some of the congestion challenges on the west coast main line with regard to train paths and putting on new services. That is why we have taken this long-term strategic decision today, recognising that we will have to address congestion and capacity challenges in that part of the rail network. As I say, I will be happy to organise that meeting for him.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, like you, I am a proud northerner. For too long, we have had to face challenges of under-investment in the north, so this is good news, particularly for Yorkshire. The plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail, alongside the upgrades to the trans-Pennine route, which are on time and on budget, will be a game changer for our communities and our economy. Will the Secretary of State outline how they will support regeneration and communities in northern towns such as Huddersfield, and how NPR will build on and connect to the trans-Pennine route upgrade?
Heidi Alexander
Phase 3 of the plans we have announced today will deliver improvements above and beyond the work that is happening at the moment with the trans-Pennine route upgrade. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the success of that programme in being on time and on budget—very different from the mega-project of HS2. I am very keen that we emulate the successes of the trans-Pennine route upgrade through Northern Powerhouse Rail. Of course, it also provides great opportunities to the thousands of people who are currently employed on the trans-Pennine route upgrade, who can get jobs working on the Northern Powerhouse Rail programme in future.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
This is brilliant news today, not just for the north of England but for north Wales too. With investment already in place for the north Wales main line, it will give us better connectivity for tourism, employment and leisure to our great northern cities and beyond. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that we must continue to work together cross-border to give my constituents the seamless transport system that they deserve?
Heidi Alexander
I do agree with my hon. Friend. I have a very close working relationship with Ken Skates, the Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales. He and I are working on how best to prioritise the record £445 million the Government committed at the spending review to improve Welsh rail infrastructure. I am always happy to talk to my hon. Friend about her ideas on what more we can do to improve the experience of the travelling public in Wales.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
As a Yorkshire MP, I could not be more proud of the fact that it is a Labour Government who are delivering this change. I urge the Secretary of State to look again at the Calder Valley line. It needs electrification, perhaps as part of phase 3, which was promised by the Conservative party in 2015 but then dropped after the election. Could she please look at that again?
Heidi Alexander
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the Calder Valley line and the importance of further electrification of the network. If I may, and in the interests of time, I will ask the Rail Minister to write to my hon. Friend with further information on that, but I appreciate that it will be important for his constituency.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
Northern Powerhouse Rail will be great for economic growth across the north and that will very much benefit my constituency. My constituency is geographically located in such a way that it should be great for travel to London, Liverpool and Manchester. Sadly, at the moment it is usually terrible for travelling to any of them. Will the Minister please meet me to talk about accessibility at Sandbach station, the quality and regularity of services across all those areas, and how we can make Northern Powerhouse Rail deliver for Cheshire?
Heidi Alexander
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution and appreciate how important it is to improve the quality of rail services to all the destinations she mentioned. Some benefits of the plans we are proposing today are, for example, that in parts of Yorkshire—I appreciate that that is a different part of the country—we could see enhanced services to London. I would be happy to have a meeting with regional colleagues to discuss the specific issues she has raised.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I understand why the Secretary of State has today taken the sensible long-term decision on the future capacity needs on the west coast main line, but for residents in Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, who have had 17 years of worrying, it means more years of worrying for them. Can she assure me that she will listen to the concerns of businesses and nearby residents when making decisions about land powers, and will she meet me and other impacted Staffordshire MPs to discuss this matter further?
Heidi Alexander
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for the measured way she has put it. I know that the issue is close to the heart of her constituents, and I know that the Rail Minister is very keen to engage further with her and other affected Members on this issue. I can assure her that he will be in touch shortly to discuss the issues and a way forward.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to improving connections to Manchester airport, and I hope she will support my calls for a direct line between Stoke-on-Trent railway station, which serves most of my constituents, and Manchester airport. As the Secretary of State has heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), although we welcome the intent and ambition of this statement, a number of Staffordshire MPs have concerns and questions about the impact locally. I have heard from countless people in Newcastle-under-Lyme about their experience of the disgraceful and failed HS2 project; people in my constituency want clarity, to be heard and to know that there will be no repeat of the distress and destruction they were forced to live with. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for offering us a meeting with the Rail Minister, but we would benefit hugely from a meeting with the Secretary of State herself as soon as possible.
Heidi Alexander
I would be very happy to join the meeting I have already committed to on behalf of the Rail Minister; I think that would be appropriate, given the breadth of issues that have been raised today. On the issue of a direct service from Stoke to Manchester airport, I know that West Midlands Railway is considering the feasibility of amending its Stafford to Crewe service.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that we are delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail—promised by the Tories, abandoned by the Tories and now delivered by this Labour Government. It will make a big difference to my constituents. However, it would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to put on the record my ask that the Secretary of State work with the Mayor of Greater Manchester on extending the tramline to Bolton North East and ensuring better services on both Northern and Avanti West Coast.
Heidi Alexander
I know that we need to improve the performance on both the Avanti West Coast and Northern routes; the Rail Minister and I are seized of the importance of doing that. I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to work with the Mayor of Greater Manchester to ensure that the inter-city improvements we have announced today are properly integrated with the local mass transit improvements that she is advocating.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I very much welcome this generational investment, which will benefit not just rail in the north of England but the whole country through economic growth and regeneration. I particularly welcome the investment going to Sheffield, which is a city used by my constituents not just as a destination but as a connection to elsewhere. Bearing Sheffield in mind, I invite the Minister not to lose sight of the benefits of electrifying the midland main line south of Sheffield—it remains unelectrified down to South Wigston—which would drive significant growth for people in Mid Derbyshire and benefit the country as a whole.
Heidi Alexander
We had to take some difficult decisions on electrification as part of the spending review this year, but we continue to keep the potential of full electrification of the midland main line under review as part of our plans to decarbonise the railways.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s announcement today on Northern Powerhouse Rail. However, in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent we are still in stasis, with legacy issues such as the HS2 compound at Yarnfield, which is costing millions. I ask the Secretary of State for clarity on plans for our railway services in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent and for HS2 legacy issues such as the Yarnfield compound.
Heidi Alexander
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of the Yarnfield compound; I am not sure that she and I have actually spoken about it directly before. If she could write to me with more detail, I would be happy to come back to her to let her and her constituents know what more we can do to provide certainty on the way forward.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Our region, from our big cities to our small towns, is ambitious for our future. We are hungry to play our part in our country’s economic recovery and have been impatient for the Government to see our potential after so many years of undelivered promises. Today’s announcement to invest in NPR shows that this Government will meet that ambition head-on.
The previous Government issued an instruction to the HS2 Phase 2b hybrid Bill Committee to remove the Mid Cheshire sections of the route from the Bill. Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether this Government intend to retain or withdraw this instruction? If they intend to withdraw it, will she write to me with details of the status of any undertakings and assurances made by HS2 to my councils and constituents as part of the petitioning process, which would not be delivered for more than a quarter of a century and by an organisation that may, by then, no longer exist?
Heidi Alexander
I understand the importance of these issues to my hon. Friend and his constituents. I have instructed officials today to resume work on the adapted hybrid Bill. If I may, given the detailed nature of his question, I will respond to him in writing to ensure that I get the information correct.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
We on the Labour Benches are from the north and fight for the north, and this Labour Government will deliver the economic justice that we deserve in the north. As the Secretary of State will agree, I am sure, Darlington is the home of the railways, with our proud industrial history of British rail manufacturing. Will she outline how this investment and this plan will deliver for British rail manufacturing in my constituency and the rest of the north?
Heidi Alexander
I am left under no illusions that my hon. Friend is from the north and will fight for the north. Having enjoyed a very hospitable evening with her in Darlington at the Hitachi rail manufacturing plant, I know how critical that employer is to her region. I am pleased that today’s announcement is not only an investment in rail infrastructure, but a downpayment on that manufacturing base and its future in order to realise the full economic potential of the region.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Over the past five years, per-head transport spend in the east midlands has fallen to just 54% of the UK average—the lowest of any region or nation. Rail funding is even more unequal, at £175 per head in 2023-24, which is barely 40% of the English average. With the Tories scrapping the east midlands leg in October 2023, HS2 will not be coming to my constituency, so while I welcome the ambition and scale of today’s announcement, I ask the Secretary of State to look once more at electrification of the midland main line, which will have an immediate economic impact and can be delivered in this Parliament.
Heidi Alexander
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies), we are keeping this matter under review. We had to take the difficult decision not to fund it in the spending review. That is not to say that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) are not benefiting from improvements on the railway—I know that the Minister for Local Transport is particularly excited about the new fleet of East Midlands Railway trains, which are providing a much better passenger experience for my hon. Friend’s constituents. We are determined to keep building on those sorts of improvements.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe that the Secretary of State has inadvertently misled the House on Reform’s voting record. We have always supported more transport in the north. I ask your advice on how we can correct the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for letting the Chair know that she wished to raise this matter. However, the Chair is not responsible for how the Secretary of State answered her question.
West Midlands Police
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With permission, I will make a statement on the decision to ban the travelling fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv from attending a game at Villa Park in November last year. The decision was taken by Birmingham city council, following the advice of the safety advisory group, which acted on a recommendation by West Midlands police.
The House will be familiar with much of the detail, not least as the Home Affairs Committee has applied itself to the matter with its customary forensic focus, but it is important to begin this statement by laying out the facts. On 8 October, at a meeting with a number of chief constables from across the country, I was informed that West Midlands police force was considering its options to ensure the game could be conducted safely. As the minutes of the meeting show, a ban on fans was one of the options under consideration.
Such policing decisions are subject to operational independence. Politicians cannot dictate how the police choose to manage risk, so although my Department sought information thereafter on what decision was to be taken, I did not seek to influence it. I did not because I could not while a range of options were still under consideration. All options remained on the table until a decision was eventually taken by the safety advisory group on 16 October. The decision taken that day to ban the travelling fans was clearly of considerable national and even international importance. Maccabi Tel Aviv fans who sought to travel to this country to enjoy a football match were told that they could not, because the game’s safety could not be guaranteed. This came, lest we ever forget, just two weeks after the most horrific antisemitic terrorist attack this country has ever known. On 16 October, the day the decision was taken, the Prime Minister and I both voiced our considerable concern, setting out our belief that the game should go ahead with all fans present.
The Government sought further information from West Midlands police and offered the resources required to ensure that the game could go ahead. A subsequent meeting of the safety advisory group was then arranged, on 24 October. At that moment, its chair requested
“a wholly fresh consideration of the issue”,
at which point the intelligence provided by West Midlands police hardened, and the recommendation to ban fans was upheld.
In the days that followed, it was clear to me that an external review of the decision was required, as well as a review of wider questions around safety advisory groups. On 31 October, I commissioned a rapid review by His Majesty’s inspector of constabulary and fire and rescue services, Sir Andy Cooke, and on 27 November, as the intelligence that the force provided was called into doubt, I asked him to look specifically at that issue.
Today, I have received Sir Andy’s interim report, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Sir Andy’s findings are damning—there is no other way to describe them. The force, we now discover, conducted little engagement with the Jewish community, and none with the Jewish community in Birmingham, before a decision was taken. As Sir Andy says, it is no excuse to claim, as the force now does, that high holy days during the relevant time prevented engagement.
Most concerningly, Sir Andy describes, in the approach taken by West Midlands police, what he characterises as “confirmation bias”. This means that rather than following the evidence, the force sought only evidence to support their desired position, which was to ban the fans. This saw West Midlands police speaking to Dutch police following a game in which there had been fan violence, while failing to speak to police in other countries—Greece, Ukraine and Denmark—where Maccabi Tel Aviv had played more recently, and where things had gone more peacefully.
The West Midlands police engagement with the Dutch police is one of the most disquieting elements of Sir Andy’s report. The summary provided as evidence to the safety advisory group ahead of its crucial meeting on 24 October was inaccurate. Claims including those about the number of police officers deployed, the links between fans and the Israel Defence Forces, the targeting of Muslim communities, the mass tearing down of Palestinian flags, and attacks on police officers and taxi drivers were all either exaggerated or simply untrue.
In his report, Sir Andy is clear that the force’s validation of intelligence was a cause for “significant concern”, and that record keeping within the force was “poor”. He was “especially concerned” about the handling of sensitive information that should never have been shared without redaction. Sir Andy also points to a series of public statements from West Midlands police that we now know to have been misleading. He shows that the police overstated the threat posed by the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, while understating the risk posed to Israeli fans if they travelled to the area. The term “misleading communications” also extends to the words of the chief constable himself at his appearance in front of the Home Affairs Committee; he claimed that artificial intelligence tools were not used to prepare intelligence reports—a claim since refuted by one of his own officers, who blames incorrect evidence on “an AI hallucination”.
I know better than most that West Midlands police officers do their duty bravely, day in and day out. Sir Andy’s report does not argue that the entire force is failing, but it is clear from the report that on an issue of huge significance to the Jewish community in this country, and to us all, we have witnessed a failure of leadership that has harmed the reputation of and eroded public confidence in West Midlands police, and policing more broadly.
Faced with a game of such importance, the chief constable of the force, Craig Guildford, should have ensured that more professional and thorough work was done. As Sir Andy says, the shortcomings detailed in his report are
“symptomatic of a force not applying the necessary strategic oversight and not paying enough attention to important matters of detail, including at the most senior levels.”
The ultimate responsibility for the force’s failure to discharge its duties on a matter of such national importance rests with the chief constable. It is for that reason that I must declare today that the chief constable of West Midlands police no longer has my confidence. It has been, as I understand it, over 20 years since a Home Secretary last made such a statement, but on the evidence provided by Sir Andy Cooke, the chief inspector of policing, that is now the case.
Until 2011, the Home Secretary had the authority to dismiss a chief constable, but the power was removed by the previous Conservative Government. Today, only police and crime commissioners hold that power, so the chief constable’s future rests with the local police and crime commissioner, and not with me. I am sure that Simon Foster will now follow all due process as he considers the question for himself. However, I believe that this case illustrates that Home Secretaries should, in future, have that power restored to them. When a chief constable is responsible for a damaging failure of leadership, the public rightly expect the Home Secretary to act, and I intend to restore their ability to do so. I can announce today that the Government will soon reintroduce the Home Secretary’s power to dismiss chief constables in the light of significant or persistent failings, and that this will be part of the Government’s upcoming White Paper on wider police reform, with legislation to follow. I do not expect the power to be used often, but it must be available at those rare moments when it is warranted.
Sir Andy Cooke’s report is devastating. It catalogues failures that did not just affect the travelling fans but let down our entire Jewish community in the west midlands and across the country. I speak today not just as Home Secretary, but as a Member of Parliament for a Birmingham constituency. In his report, Sir Andy says that he believes that the police acted in an attempt to avoid long-term damage to local community relations; if that is the case, what a grossly misguided effort it was.
Peaceful, harmonious communities rely on a police service that, above all else, pursues the truth. We live in a world where misinformation flows freely and dangerously; in this case, the police added further misinformation to the public debate, when they could and should have provided the truth, which could have allayed fears. In doing what it did, West Midlands police force did not support community relations; instead, it inadvertently made things worse. This must serve as a lesson to police forces throughout the country—a reminder that they are called to their profession to serve truth and the law, and to police our streets without fear or favour, and that community trust and cohesion depend on them doing that above all else. With that, I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
This is a shameful episode. West Midlands police had evidence that Islamist extremists based in Birmingham planned to attack Maccabi Tel Aviv fans. Let us call that what it is: vicious antisemitism. We cannot allow violent Islamists to impose their will on our country, yet that is exactly what West Midlands police, through weakness and fear, allowed to happen. The force should instead have confronted the Islamist extremists. In fact, it should have investigated the extremists for inciting racial hatred, as Jonathan Hall KC said only yesterday. Instead, the force capitulated to the Islamist mob by banning the Maccabi fans.
But it gets worse. The West Midlands police force then tried to hide what it had done. The police fabricated a claim that it was the Maccabi fans who were the dangerous ones. They claimed that a previous game in Amsterdam had led to violence by the Maccabi fans. That claim was a pack of lies from start to finish. The Mayor of Amsterdam and Dutch police have now confirmed that West Midlands police simply made the whole thing up. The chief constable must be fired.
A moment ago, the Home Secretary claimed that she has no powers to dismiss the chief constable, but she failed to mention section 40 of the Police Act 1996, which remains in force today. Under that, she as Home Secretary has the power to direct the police and crime commissioner to do things—including dismissing the chief constable—where
“any part of a…force is failing to”
act
“in an effective manner”.
That test is clearly met: part of the force—the chief constable—is indeed failing to act in an effective manner, by the Home Secretary’s own analysis. If she is unfamiliar with that legislation, I have a copy of it here. The Home Secretary must today use her section 40 powers to direct the police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, to dismiss Craig Guildford. She must stop pretending to have no power and actually act.
We now come to the role of the Home Secretary in this scandal. In a briefing to the BBC on 17 October, a source close to the Home Secretary—we all know that means her special adviser, acting with her authority—said that the Home Secretary first knew about the possibility of a ban on 16 October, the previous evening. We now know that is untrue. From evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee last week, and from the Home Secretary’s own admission just now, we now know that Chief Constable Guildford personally briefed the Home Secretary on 8 October that it was likely that away fans would be banned, and that that was the police’s recommendation. Will she apologise for allowing her adviser to give the BBC untrue information on 17 October?
The Home Secretary must now answer this. She knew on 8 October that it was likely that away fans would be banned. That was over a week before the final decision was taken on 16 October, yet in those critical eight days, it appears that she did nothing to investigate further, or to try to stop the ban. In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee last week, the chief constable said that when he briefed the Home Secretary on 8 October about the likelihood of the ban, she merely “noted”—that was his word—what he said; she did not ask further questions, or show curiosity about what she was being told. She did not personally convene any meetings attended by her in the following eight days, or take any personal steps to clarify the situation. She expressed concerns and took action only after the decision became public on 16 October, by when it was too late. She was asleep at the wheel at the critical time.
Given the disgraceful events that followed, does the Home Secretary now accept that she was wrong to personally ask no questions—officials may have done, but she did not—between 8 October and 16 October? Does she accept that it was wrong to stand by and do nothing during those critical eight days? By the time she did take action—after 16 October—it was too late. By standing by during those critical eight days, she allowed the ban to happen and let the Islamists win. Will the Home Secretary apologise to the House for that inexcusable inaction during those critical days? Will she also commit to exercising her section 40 powers to direct the police and crime commissioner to dismiss the chief constable?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me first say to the shadow Home Secretary that I have long and very personal experience of standing up to extremists in Birmingham, not least in the last general election campaign. I think my track record speaks for itself, and I am a woman who knows of what she speaks—clearly unlike him. He appears to be unfamiliar with the law, and indeed with Sir Andy’s findings in his report. Let me remind him of a few things.
First, it was the Conservative Government who removed the Home Secretary’s direct power to remove a chief constable. That power used to be in section 42 of the Police Act 1996, but it was repealed by the Conservatives; the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 explicitly removed the power. I will quote from the explanatory notes to that Act. I suspect that the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) drafted and approved them when he advised the former Home Secretary, Baroness May, so he will be aware of what is in them. They say:
“The Secretary of State does not have power to direct a police and crime commissioner to suspend or remove a chief constable.”
That is the law passed by the previous Conservative Government.
Shabana Mahmood
If the shadow Home Secretary made himself familiar with how the law is to be interpreted and implemented, he would well know that section 40 of the 1996 Act, which remains in force following the 2011 Act, cannot be read in isolation. When such matters are litigated before a court, a court would be aware of the direct powers removed by the repealing of section 42—we cannot read the two sections in isolation. If he paid any attention to the detail, he would know that, and he would know that the Home Secretary does not have the power that he claims I have.
Secondly, I suggest that the shadow Home Secretary and other hon. Members, in their own interests, pay attention to what Sir Andy has written in his report of today. On page 11 he deals with what the chief constable has suggested was the reading of the meeting that took place on 8 October. Let me give the House a bit of context. That was a meeting of police chiefs that I called following the attack in Manchester on 2 October. I had already announced that I was going to look at police protest powers and I had asked the most senior chief constables in the land, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing and, indeed, Sir Andy Cooke to attend a meeting with me.
Towards the end of that meeting, we did some horizon scanning of other difficult decisions coming up that might have public order consequences, and this was one such matter. It was mentioned briefly by the chief constable, and his recollection of it is absolutely untrue. The chief constable did not say to me, or indeed to anybody else in that room, that West Midlands police had already made the decision to reduce the allocation of tickets for Maccabi Tel Aviv fans to zero but that it was ultimately a decision for the safety advisory group when it next met—that is categorically untrue. If that had been the case, given the seniority of everybody who was in the room and heard what was said, that would have elicited a reaction not just from me and my officials but from many of the other senior policing officials present.
What was made clear to me was that the ban was a possibility but it was one of a number of options being considered. As late as 15 October, the football policing unit made it clear to Home Office officials and the Policing and Crime Minister that all options were still on the table. The next thing that we or anybody else knew about it was when the decision was taken on 16 October.
It is important that all hon. Members stick to the facts on this matter. As Sir Andy has made clear in his factual findings in his report, there will be those who wish to play politics with this matter, but I am afraid that does not meet the test of evidence as set out in the report. I recommend that the shadow Home Secretary pays some attention to the detail.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
Is the Home Secretary able to say who was the most senior police officer who reviewed all the evidence—AI or otherwise—and signed off the decision?
Shabana Mahmood
Ultimately, the final decision on the West Midlands police’s recommendation to the safety advisory group was from the chief constable.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The recommendation by West Midlands police to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans was clearly an incredibly serious mistake. That has been shown in evidence by Sir Andy Cooke’s damning report. Not just the decision but how it was made and the fact that misleading statements were covered up is damning. The latest examples of how artificial intelligence was used in coming to the decision, after multiple denials, beggar belief and risk seriously undermining public trust in the police, and not only in the west midlands but across the whole country.
The chief constable of West Midlands police does not have the Home Secretary’s confidence. He does not have mine, and I assume that he does not have that of most of the House. He needs to consider his position and go now. I am pleased that the Home Secretary went to quite unprecedented levels to say that he should go, and I am pleased that she has spoken to the House first. Will she meet the police and crime commissioner later today to call for the chief constable to go?
We need the Independent Office for Police Conduct to investigate what has gone on in West Midlands police. Will the Home Secretary ensure that takes place? We have already seen delays to the Hillsborough law and its duty of candour, including just this week. Does the Home Secretary agree that this incident shows the need to put the Hillsborough law on to the statute book as soon as possible? Finally, we need urgent transparency and clarity on the use of AI by police forces. Does the Home Secretary agree, and what plans does she have to ensure that guidance is given to police forces?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson for his remarks. I have, as a matter of courtesy, informed the police and crime commissioner in advance of making this statement that I would be saying that I do not have confidence in the chief constable of West Midlands police. I have also reiterated and made it clear that any statutory process, and any decision under the statutory process on further action against the chief constable, would be a matter for the police and crime commissioner himself. He must consider that on his own terms, and I am sure that he will be making his own statement once he has had a chance to absorb the findings of Sir Andy’s report. Given that there could be a statutory process, I will not be commenting on what may or may not be happening, in order to respect the independence and integrity of any future decisions.
On the IOPC, I expect that the police and crime commissioner will consider his position on this matter and approach the IOPC if he deems it necessary, but that is a judgment for him. I also expect the IOPC to consider whether these findings mean that it should use its own power of initiative to conduct an investigation. The hon. Member will know that it is independent, and it would be improper for me to seek to direct it in any way, but it does have those powers and I believe it has already indicated that it will consider the position again, once it has had a chance to absorb the findings of Sir Andy’s report.
I agree with the hon. Member that this case proves why we need a duty of candour on all public officials, and I look forward to the Hillsborough law becoming an Act of Parliament at the earliest opportunity. On the use of artificial intelligence by police forces, I will be returning to these matters when I publish—I will come to the House to make a statement—the policing reform White Paper. This is important because AI is an incredibly powerful tool that can and should be used by our police forces, but regulating it to make sure it is always accurate is a matter of legitimate concern to us all, and I will be saying more about that in due course.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. It is disappointing, but perhaps unsurprising, that some of the evidence presented to the Home Affairs Committee was an AI hallucination. As I look to the back row of the Opposition side of the Chamber, I ask the Secretary of State whether she shares my suspicions that there was indeed political interference with the work of the Birmingham safety advisory group. What will happen if that turns out to be the case?
Shabana Mahmood
Having commissioned Sir Andy to investigate these matters, I think it is important that we reflect on his findings. He found that there was no evidence that police officers were motivated either by antisemitism or as a result of political interference, or were otherwise behaving with malign intent. It is important that I follow those findings from the independent inspector and act accordingly.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
This is truly a sad day for British politics. Despite all the rhetoric in this House, Brummies know the truth: this is nothing but a witch hunt and the chief constable is being thrown under the bus. The Home Secretary knows all too well that West Midlands police have a reputation for working with all communities; it has never caved in to community pressure. We all know this because we regularly have far right protests and marches in our city. The police could have done a better job in terms of procedure, yes, but their reason for banning Maccabi fans was the same from day one. We all know about the unashamed racism and violence, and that is the reason they were banned, because that would have been brought to the streets of Birmingham—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is getting to his question.
Ayoub Khan
The police did their job and now they are being punished for it, so I ask the Home Secretary: is it worth throwing our chief constable under the bus just to show that the words of the right-wing media and Dutch officials, under pressure from Amsterdam city hall, matter more than our British police?
Shabana Mahmood
You would think that the hon. Member, who I believe used to be a barrister, might be more cognisant of the actual facts in this matter. I am responding to findings made by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services—that is, the independent inspector of policing. It is a sad day for all those who believe that policing should occur without fear or favour. I would encourage him to read the letter from Sir Andy Cooke, published today, in detail and reflect on whether he believes that we as a country should be able to rely on and trust all information put out by the police. The hon. Member purports to speak for every Brummie in the city, but I think other Brummies in this Chamber know that is simply not the case. I will tell him what every Brummie, and indeed every citizen of our great country, needs and deserves: that when the police carry out a risk assessment, we can trust it and rely on it, and that they will always be open and frank about what is really going on. That is not what happened in this case, but it is what we all should expect and deserve, whichever community we belong to. It is what we all need for our collective safety and for the cohesion of our country.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
It is absolutely clear that, by lies and conspiracy, the chief constable of the West Midlands created a no-go area for Jews in one of our major cities. He cannot, by whatever mechanism, continue in office, but will the Home Secretary consider prosecuting him for malfeasance in public office, or in some other way, because we cannot let such an appalling activity by a public servant continue in this way by just sacking him?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend will know that it is not for me to make decisions on prosecutions. I am sure that the IOPC will consider all the findings made by Sir Andy Cooke and act upon them, once it has had a chance to make that assessment. The IOPC is independent and it would be inappropriate for me to say anything further from the Dispatch Box about what it, or indeed any other prosecutorial authority, might do. That is not a power that the Home Secretary has.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary—who, like me, is a local west midlands Member of Parliament—for her well-judged statement, but is not one of the villains of this piece the police and crime commissioner himself? When we, in government, set up the PCCs in 2010, the aim was that they should represent our constituents to the police. Sadly, the reality has been the reverse, and nowhere more so than in the west midlands, which is why I strongly support the Government’s decision to abolish the PCCs. Can we please ensure that this is not yet another policy announcement upon which the Government will U-turn?
Shabana Mahmood
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will be pursuing the policy that I have set out, which is to abolish the post of police and crime commissioner. I will return to the House with a White Paper and will make an oral statement in the not-too-distant future, setting out what we consider to be the best mechanism for oversight of policing at local level, as well as a reset of where some of those powers sit and another reconsideration of the Home Secretary’s powers. I am sure that we will be discussing these matters in detail in the weeks to come. Sir Andy makes some of his own remarks in relation to the police and crime commissioner, but I think it is known that the commissioner was not briefed in the way that we might have expected on these matters. I am sure he will be setting out exactly what he knew and when, when he responds to Sir Andy’s report.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I welcome this statement and this clarity. The findings are damning. I was born and bred in Birmingham and I am a local MP, and I know that in my community there is very little trust in the police. Does the Secretary of State agree that, in an increasingly political world, it is important that in future all chief constables have the skills to work in this new world and that they are able to engage with all communities?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Birmingham colleague for her question. That is exactly why I have made the statement I have, because I believe all of us in this country need to be able to trust the police when they come forward and say that they have risk assessed an upcoming event and come to a professional judgment as to whether the event can take place safely. We all need to be able to trust that they have gone about making that risk assessment in a way that is robust, consistent, in line with the law and, frankly, just plain old truthful. That is not what has happened in this case. It is why it has been debilitating to public confidence in policing in our great city and across our region, but also across the country. It is why I set out what I have said about losing confidence in the chief constable and why I believe some powers for oversight of policing need to return to the Home Secretary directly.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
The Home Secretary is right to talk about the need for the information to be out there and for openness. In the light of that, can she clarify whether any Government officials talked to Maccabi Tel Aviv as a club or through either of the embassies to discuss the decision by the club to say that away fans would not travel even if the ban were lifted?
Shabana Mahmood
I think all the conversations that have happened were set out by one of my officials and by the Policing Minister when they gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. I am not aware of any other discussions, certainly not from the Home Office. I can write to the right hon. Member in case there were discussions in other Departments that might also have had an interest.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
It was right and proper to have an independent report commissioned, the findings of which no one can challenge because it was done independently. We need to be cognisant that it is not just the chief constable who is made the scapegoat in all this; the safety advisory group had a huge part to play, and members of it were biased and had an agenda. Some of them, I am ashamed to say, belonged to my party. Will the Home Secretary agree that tough action needs to be taken against the individuals who set out to influence the decision on a personal basis, rather than as an independent member of that safety advisory group?
Shabana Mahmood
Sir Andy Cooke will return to the wider questions as to how safety advisory groups function, who is on them, the role they play and the way in which they should carry out their duties, so we will return to that part of my hon. Friend’s remarks in a later session in this House when the rest of Sir Andy’s report is completed and he makes his final findings on safety advisory groups. But I share his concern that it is incumbent on us to ensure that the arrangements we have in place are capable of delivering a dispassionate, fact-based finding as to what risk an event poses and that other political agendas are not brought into play when what we are talking about is the proper functioning of the cultural life of our country.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
This has been a dark moment for policing in the west midlands. I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for putting on the record her belief that the chief constable of the force should go. For the avoidance of doubt, I agree with her. This has always been about the police being able to fulfil their role objectively without fear or favour. Repeatedly, the Jewish community are made to feel that they are the ones who are the problem. That cannot go on. We have seen in this instance that the police have surrendered to the pressure placed on them by an Islamic community that sought to create a no-go zone for Jews within the west midlands. That is not acceptable. Will the Home Secretary update the House on what the Government are doing to flush out antisemitism across public institutions and society at large? If she has not got time to expand on that today, will she come back to the House and give a statement as soon as possible?
Shabana Mahmood
Antisemitism is a terrible stain upon our country, and it is incumbent on all of us to work together to stamp it out wherever it occurs. Sir Andy’s findings, of course, do not suggest that anybody at the police force level acted because they were motivated by antisemitism or with malign intent, but it is undoubtedly the case that some individuals making representations to the police may well have been motivated by antisemitism. I also know others made, or wanted to make, good faith representations to the police about the fear of public disorder on the night, but some individuals will have been motivated by antisemitism. That is why it is so important that when the police carry out their duties, they follow the facts and that when they make their risk assessments, they do so on the basis of facts and their professional judgment as to whether something can go safely ahead. We all need to be able to trust the police when they assert what their risk assessment has told them. That has not happened here. Sir Andy will come back with further findings about the functioning of safety advisory groups. I am happy to discuss those with the hon. Member and others in this House, as well as wider policy measures that we will need to take as a Government and as a country to stamp out antisemitism once and for all.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. The west midlands is an incredibly diverse area, and this whole episode has had a significant impact on community cohesion and confidence in West Midlands police, particularly among the Jewish community but among all communities. I therefore add my voice to the calls for the chief constable to resign his position forthwith, and others involved in this shameful episode should also consider their position. The police have a duty to act without fear or favour. Engaging with selected people or organisations is always a recipe for disaster, particularly as community groups very often have their own agendas. As somebody who has engaged in many safety advisory groups over the years as an event organiser, it is clear that the rules need changing, that there must be more transparency and that the ability to manipulate their proceedings must be removed. Will the Home Secretary provide more information about the review into safety advisory groups that she has announced?
Shabana Mahmood
I expect to receive Sir Andy’s further findings, particularly in relation to how safety advisory groups function and what changes we might need to make, within the next couple of months—no later than that. I will return to the House to enable all Members to take part in a debate once those findings are out. I agree with my hon. Friend—in the end, we are all safer when we know that we can rely on the police to do their job without fear or favour. We do none of our ethnic minority communities, or indeed any minority community of any description, any favours if we allow a suggestion to take hold that the police change their responses to things based on which community is involved. Everybody is safe when we know we can trust the police to follow the facts and do their jobs properly.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
The Jewish community in this country, including many in my constituency, feel under siege right now. Sadly, this is not an isolated example; it is just another example of where elements of the British state appear to err on the side of the aggressor in the name of community cohesion. We have another example before us. Will the Home Secretary, in her capacity as a senior member of the Government with responsibility for tackling extremism, take the same robust approach to schools that are banning Jewish Members of Parliament from visiting them on exactly the same community cohesion grounds? It has to stop, and a more robust approach must be taken by the Government.
Shabana Mahmood
The incident of banning a Jewish Member of Parliament from the school is obviously disgraceful, and the right hon. Member will know that other senior members of the Government have already spoken out about this case. It is unacceptable. I hope he will see that the approach I have taken since I have been Home Secretary is to ensure that the law of our land is applied equally without fear or favour and in a consistent manner that gives every community across the country a sense of what they can expect from their local police, without feeling that they are in a postcode lottery and that it very much depends on the nature of the particular chief constable and the approach they take locally. That is exactly what I am trying to achieve with protest powers and with wider thresholds in relation to the Public Order Act where I have asked for an independent review by Lord Ken Macdonald KC, which will report soon. My intention is to ensure that every citizen of our country knows when it comes to all matters of law and order that we are all on exactly the same footing, and that is right for all our citizens.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. The picture Sir Andy paints of serious failings in the West Midlands police is utterly shocking, and the Home Secretary is completely right to withdraw confidence. Given the huge damage this saga has caused, what does the Home Secretary think can be done to ensure something like this never happens again?
Shabana Mahmood
This matter has been of interest to all policing leaders across the country, and it is why I addressed the final remarks in my statement to policing leaders everywhere because it is important that we learn the lessons from this event, and I hope that everybody will hear that message loud and clear. Operational independence will always be respected, but we all as a country—every citizen and every one of us as parliamentarians and members of the Government—need to know that when the police make a risk assessment, we can trust that assessment and rely on it.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I am proud that my father was a West Midlands police constable for 29 years, policing football matches during some of the darkest days of English football, but the Home Secretary is clearly right that there has been a failure in the leadership of West Midlands police over recent months. The Prime Minister rightly said that oversight for the police ultimately lies with the police and crime commissioner, which does not seem to have been the case here. The police and crime commissioner also has a specific responsibility for improving local relationships by building confidence and restoring trust in local communities, but both confidence and trust in West Midlands police have clearly collapsed. The Home Secretary is right to say that the chief constable needs to go, but should the police and crime commissioner not also consider his position?
Shabana Mahmood
I direct the hon. Member to Sir Andy’s findings about what the police and crime commissioner knew—in fact, he was not kept up to date—but I am sure that once he has absorbed Sir Andy’s findings, he will set out himself what he thinks on these matters and what he intends to do next. It is not for me to put words into his mouth.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Although I am a proud Wolverhampton Wanderers fan and, as a season ticket holder, regularly go to football games, for much of my life I was prevented and discouraged from going to a football game. I was told that because I wore a turban and because of the colour of my skin, I would be attacked. Can the Home Secretary assure the House that we will never again have a situation in this country where football fans cannot go to a game because their safety cannot be guaranteed?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes that point very powerfully. That is why it is so important that all police forces always do everything they can to ensure that matters of great cultural and sporting significance in this country can go ahead safely, and that people are not prevented from going to and enjoying a game just because of who they are or their faith.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Among the catalogue of failure here is the news that the decision was partly made on the basis of a hallucinated AI report about an entirely fictitious football match. What assessment has the Home Secretary made on the extent to which AI is being used by police forces across the country? Does she know of any other consequential decisions that may have been made using unverified AI? Finally, last month, after two months my Select Committee, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, finally received a response to our letter on this issue from the assistant chief constable Mike O’Hara, who said that he was
“satisfied that the policing operation conducted with communities and partners was effective, proportionate and maintained the city’s reputation as a safe and welcoming place for everyone.”
What is the Home Secretary’s message to him?
Shabana Mahmood
The contents of that letter have now been superseded by Sir Andy Cooke’s august report and findings. I hope that everybody who asserted that there was no problem here, and that everything worked exactly as it should, will now reflect on what they have said and done and give the rest of us confidence that these mistakes will not happen again.
AI is an incredibly powerful tool and has a big role to play in assisting the police, particularly when it comes to sifting through evidence at speed and improving other productivity measures so that they can get on with the job of finding criminals and bringing them to justice. It is important that it is used accurately, does not lead to misleading statements, as we have seen in this case, and protects the validity of evidence, which ultimately has to be strong enough to hold up in a court of law. I will be saying more in just a few weeks’ time in the policing reform White Paper, which will set out the Government’s approach and expectations of the roll-out of AI to policing more broadly.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. As a Birmingham MP, I have set out on a number of occasions in the Chamber my serious concerns about both the decision and the way in which it was made. It is clear that the chief constable’s position is untenable. I pay tribute to the many police officers who are working hard to make Birmingham safer for all its communities.
However, this decision did not arise in a vacuum. Put simply, if a sufficient professional culture had been followed at every level and by every individual in West Midlands police, this decision would never have been made. Does the Home Secretary agree that there must now be sufficient assurance that other decisions, including those that may not have the same national profile, but are important to my constituents, have not been tainted by a similar failure of process? If the chief constable resigns or is removed, does she agree that measures must be put in place to ensure that the highest operational standards are maintained for everyone in Birmingham?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my fellow Birmingham Member of Parliament for his comments and questions. There is no broader finding of systemic failure in Sir Andy’s report. The failures that have been highlighted in the approach to evidence and the way in which the risk assessment was carried out relate to this specific event. He gave us no cause for concern about broader West Midlands police practice. However, I am sure that the police and crime commissioner and others, myself included, and all Birmingham MPs will want to assure themselves of the robustness of the procedures that the West Midlands police have in place. I am sure that we will return to these matters as this case develops further.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I commend the Home Secretary for her robust statement and the leadership she has shown this afternoon. On community relations, can she assure me and other Members that lessons will be learned from this report and that other chief officers of other forces will look upon it as a reminder that they should be acting on behalf of the whole community that they seek to serve? She said that she was not able to direct the west midlands PCC to dismiss the chief constable, but is she confident that there will be no conflict of interest and that the PCC will not feel conflicted in removing the chief constable? Of course, I am sure that the chief constable still has honour, and therefore might choose to resign.
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman is right about community relations. Many people acting in bad faith and with malign intent across our country want to set Britain’s Muslims against Britain’s Jews. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that we do not allow those efforts to succeed. On the police and the approach to community relations, I am clear that all of us, whoever we are and wherever we are in the country, must be able to rely on the police when they tell us that the foundation of their risk assessment is robust and secure. If we cannot trust the police on that, we have lost much more than just good and effective policing.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that I do not want to comment from the Dispatch Box on what the police and crime commissioner might wish to do; that is a matter entirely for him. He will make that choice independently. I am sure that he will have to ask questions about that. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no conflict of interest simply because I have set out a view. It is important that I set out my view in the House, having commissioned a report from the independent inspector, but the police and crime commissioner is unfettered in how he approaches things. That is a matter for him, as I have made clear to him and as I am sure all his legal advice will tell him.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for her words, particularly about the dedicated frontline police officers of West Midlands police who serve my community and hers. It is clearly time for the chief constable to go. It is right that we expect a high standard of community engagement across all our communities from all our senior public servants, which has clearly not been met in this case, as we have explored thoroughly in this statement. More broadly, will the Home Secretary urgently bring forward a community cohesion strategy that tackles extremism and antisemitism and sets out clear expectations for how we live together in this great country of ours?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me assure my hon. Friend that all matters of community cohesion are under intense discussion across Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has already set up a taskforce to deal with antisemitism. I am sure that the Prime Minister and I will have more to say in the coming weeks about how we might take a fresh approach, but this is a question for wider Government, because although the Home Office interest is in countering extremism, as it should be, our broader interest in community cohesion sits across the rest of Government. I can assure her that it is a cross-Government effort.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Home Secretary has rightly lost confidence in the West Midlands chief constable, who kowtowed to thugs, abandoned the Jewish community and blamed Jewish fans. The question for the Home Secretary now is this: if the police and crime commissioner fails to fire the chief constable, will she still have confidence in that commissioner, and will she make the new legislation retrospective, to ensure that action is delivered?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman will know that we do not generally use retrospectivity in our legal system, and to take such a step would be a new innovation. He should wait for the full proposals, which I will publish in the policing reform White Paper. The next decision—if a further decision is made—is for the police and crime commissioner. It would be completely wrong for me to try to influence, comment on or get ahead of that decision from the Dispatch Box. As we have discussed, the police and crime commissioner has those powers under the 2011 Act, and it will be for him to reflect on whether he wishes to use them.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
This sorry saga with West Midlands police reveals a serious story about public life in Britain. It has become clear that employees in our public institutions do not recognise, understand or perhaps care about antisemitism in the police, local government, universities, political parties and elsewhere, and they are all too willing to accept at face value the claims by antisemites that their real objection is to the Israeli Government. They are unwitting agents of an agenda from the far left, the far right and Islamists. Antisemitism is rampant and unrelenting. Does the Home Secretary recognise the urgent need to take action, and will she consider a cross-departmental extremism strategy to address ideological antisemitism and other forms of extremism?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her point, which was well made, about the stain of antisemitism in our country and the breadth and depth of ways in which it presents itself. I am well aware of those problems and working hard to resolve them. A cross-Government effort is under way, and we will have more to say in due course. I assure her that, as Home Secretary, my duty is to ensure that our legal system—law and order, and policing—is robust enough to withstand attempts to frustrate or improperly influence that system. It is important to remember that Sir Andy Cooke did not find that antisemitism was a motivating factor for the police officers who made the decisions in this case—nor were they subject to improper political interference or acting with malign intent. I accept her broader point, however, and reassure her that we are working on that carefully.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
To build on the comment from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), the Jewish community in my constituency have felt under siege for a decade now. It is worth paying tribute to the Prime Minister, who, when he was Leader of the Opposition, drove out of the Labour party the people who had given antisemitism a safe space. Let us not be under any illusion, however, because many people still feel that they have a safe space for antisemitism—be it in our universities, where huge numbers of students believe that they can hassle Jewish students with impunity, or in our hospitals, as outlined in the Lord Mann and Dame Penny Mordaunt report, which I know the Secretary of State is trying to address. Antisemitism is blatant and people are allowed to get away with it.
We must call out antisemitism at all levels, so I call out the deputy leader of the Green party, who I am ashamed to say is a Leeds city councillor. He drove the Jewish priest of the University of Leeds into hiding, and he is still hiding. That must be called out. Will the Home Secretary use every effort of her office and across Government to ensure that where antisemitism is still given a safe space and is not addressed, the Government call out the leaders of those institutions and consider what action may be taken? This is another watershed moment—as odd as that sounds—and this time, something really must be done.
Shabana Mahmood
Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are taking action across a range of different Departments—Education, Health and the Home Office—to drive out antisemitism in every way it presents itself. I am particularly cognisant of the impact on our institutions and of how the democratic underpinning of our society can be overcome, frustrated and thwarted by antisemites undermining the very basis on which we run our country. I assure him that every effort is being made.
As someone who has suffered racism and discrimination because of my faith and race background, I think I can speak for most ethnic minority people on the view that we generally take on these matters, which is that none of us is safe until all of us are safe. There has to be solidarity across our country and for every one of our communities. It is the collective whole that makes this country great.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I have been following this matter closely. Last autumn, safety advisory groups from Birmingham and Leicester banned or scaled down Diwali events. Does the Home Secretary agree that councillors should be removed from SAGs, and that there should be greater transparency to ensure that there is no reliance on confirmation bias, which is, in my view, intertwined with the risk of predetermination that local authorities have a duty prevent when carrying out judicial duties?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend and other members of the Home Affairs Committee for their work on this and other matters. There are question marks over the way in which safety advisory groups function. As she remarks, there have been other incidents in which people have asked questions about how controversial decisions came to be made. That is why I asked Sir Andy to look more broadly at the functioning of safety advisory groups and to come to a view on their make-up, the transparency required of them, and the process by which they should make decisions. It is a little early to make determinations about whether any politician should be represented on those groups. If the system works well, local politicians can bring a local perspective with knowledge that only they have, but if that turns into an improper attempt to force their own political agenda, it cannot be tolerated. I hope that when Sir Andy publishes his findings, we will be able to return to where policy or legislative change is needed.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I welcome the tone and content of the Home Secretary’s statement. She will be well aware that when Maccabi were drawn to play at Villa Park, there were attempts by extremist elements in the community to prevent the fixture from taking place at all. When those attempts failed, they moved on to trying to get fans banned because the club comes from Israel and the fans are Jewish. I have been to Villa Park on multiple occasions. It would have been perfectly possible for those fans to be escorted by coach from the airport to right outside the ground, and then away from the ground immediately afterwards. It was clear that Aston Villa fans were not going to attack Maccabi fans, but extremists elements in the community were. It is clear, then, that the police concocted evidence to support that case. Although I completely agree with the Home Secretary about the chief constable, the senior leadership of West Midlands police also have questions to answer about who fabricated that evidence and whether it was done under orders. If the chief constable has to go, surely they have to go as well.
Shabana Mahmood
I know Villa Park well because, until the general election, it fell within my constituency boundary. After the decision was made, the Government and I—through my officials—asked West Midlands police whether the match could be policed in other ways to enable it to go ahead. We were clear that banning fans is an extreme action and that, in the general run of things, we should want cultural events in our country to take place. I recognise the picture that the hon. Gentleman paints. The findings are damning, as many hon. Members have said.
On the wider issue of other officers, I made the remarks today about the chief constable because he is the individual who leads the force. These events have happened on his watch. It was for him to set a culture in which all the risk assessments were done properly and where confirmation bias could not have taken hold, and it is he, of course, who made assertions and gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee in the way that he did. It is now for him to reflect on that; he may have things to say in the coming days. It is now for the police and crime commissioner to consider what further actions he might wish to take, including under his broader responsibilities to make sure that the force is functioning as it should.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
As an alumnus of the University of Birmingham and former resident of Selly Oak, I have found this whole saga pretty astonishing from the start. We have had mistake after mistake and evidence that turned out to have been made up, and meanwhile the bond of trust with our Jewish community, which had already been under increasing pressure, has been caused further damage. Mistakes are made, but when they are this serious and include presenting falsified evidence to a Committee of this House, somebody has to take responsibility. I echo the calls made by Members across the House for the chief constable to do the decent thing and resign, and to do it today.
Shabana Mahmood
I have set out in my statement what I think. Others will need to reflect on their positions and what further steps they might take. I agree with my hon. Friend, however, that the findings of Sir Andy Cooke’s report are damning and devastating, and once the bond of trust between a community and the police breaks for one community, it breaks for every community, which is why these findings are so serious and why I have had to say today what I have said about confidence in the chief constable.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
If I understand correctly the presentation of Sir Andy’s independent report by the Home Secretary, it says that the police knew that the visiting fans were not likely to attack the home community. Does it make clear whether they thought that the home community were likely to attack the visiting fans, because if they thought that and then inverted reality to blame the visiting fans, that would surely put the chief constable in an absolutely impossible position.
Shabana Mahmood
The findings in Sir Andy Cooke’s report are about an overstating of the risk posed by the travelling fans and an understatement of the risk posed to those fans by others in the local community, so it is not a case of one thing being presented as fact and the other not. There has been an overstatement and an understatement, and the effect has been a risk assessment that was imbalanced, wholly skewed in one direction and did not adequately deal with all of the risks posed. I believe that one of the reasons suggested for a possible attack from home local individuals against the travelling fans was community relations. It is why I stand by what I said in my statement: community relations in this country are not served by overstatements and understatements and by hiding the full picture in order to keep things calm; the truth is what helps us all to stay safe, and that is what the police should have held to in this case.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I genuinely welcome the content of the Home Secretary’s statement and her answers to other Members. It is clear that the west midlands chief constable’s position is no longer tenable, but I accept the Home Secretary’s explanation of why she cannot remove him today and I am pleased that she will reintroduce that power in the near future. It is a national scandal that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were not able to attend a football match in the UK’s second city for what we now know were totally fabricated reasons. What does the Home Secretary say to them, and how can she reassure Israeli fans of any sport that this will not happen to them again and that the law will be applied equally without fear or favour?
Shabana Mahmood
The message needs to go out loud and clear to everyone that our expectation is that every police force that is making a decision on any cultural or football or other sporting event in our country has to do so by following the facts and acting without fear or favour. If the police do their job properly, we will always be able to put on events, police them safely and allow people in our country and from abroad to enjoy the great spectacle of football, a pop concert or other things. They are important parts of how we function as a country and they can only carry on being that if the police do their job properly.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary confirm that the Prime Minister was also told that a ban was likely in advance of the announcement? The Home Office and No. 10 were in touch according to the official documents. Was she told of the intelligence of 5 September that armed Islamists intended to attack the Israelis? On the point about operational independence, I worry she is overstating things: it is obviously wrong for politicians to tell police officers who to investigate or arrest, but for public order situations there is often a role for the Home Secretary when the planning work is under way before the operation. That is recognised in law and it is why the Prime Minister himself has called for particular policing decisions in public order situations in advance. Will the Home Secretary therefore confirm that, when she was told that the police would seek a ban on away fans, she did not ask to see the intelligence to justify the ban? Did she test the logic? Is it really true that she did nothing at all?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is presenting a particular picture of operational independence, which he knows is a difficult line to tread for all Home Secretaries and something that is guarded very closely by police. It would have been wholly inappropriate for me to try to carry out my own risk assessment, and if I were to challenge West Midlands police on the basis on which those decisions were made—as I was subsequently able to do once a decision was made—I would have been dependent on what they were telling me in the first place. I was not told that they would seek a ban on visiting fans; I was told that all options were on the table and that that was one of the things that was being considered. I was not told that it was going to be done. I refer the hon. Gentleman to Sir Andy’s letter: the first paragraph of the final page of that letter sets out what actually happened and I absolutely refute any suggestion that I was told definitively on 8 October in the way that the chief constable has suggested. That did not happen.
On contact between the Home Office and No. 10, that would have happened in the usual way, but the first any of us were aware of the decision being brought forward and being made earlier than anticipated and that a ban was going to be pursued was on 16 October. I was not aware of any intelligence about any planned armed attacks by local people; that was never put to me.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I asked Chief Constable Guildford on two occasions whether AI was used in the preparation of the police report and he denied it both times, so I am pleased the truth has emerged and he is now considering his position. However, may I press the Home Secretary on the use of AI? I hear what she said, but while we await the Home Office’s guidance, will she issue preliminary instructions to chief constables asking them not to use AI in such circumstances?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the hon. Gentleman particularly for his assiduous work on the Home Affairs Committee in relation to the hearings on this matter. I would hope that all police leaders have heard loud and clear the issue in relation to AI. I do not think any of them would want to fall foul of an AI hallucination. At best that is a deeply embarrassing finding, but it is also pretty damning of the overall approach taken in this case, and I am sure all police chiefs will want to make sure they do not get into the same position. The Home Office will set out our broader vision for how AI should be used in policing, because it clearly has a role to play, and how the police should hold themselves to account and the regulations under which the use of AI should be monitored, so that we can all have confidence that it is being used appropriately.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Any procedural failings by our police force or any public authority must be investigated, corrected and prevented. The letter from Sir Andy Cooke mentions that certain risks were overstated and understated, and that should be weighed, but statements in this House that incidents in Amsterdam were “completely fabricated” are also fabricated statements. Sir Andy acknowledges:
“There is evidence that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans targeted Muslims and pro-Palestinians”
in Amsterdam. A report by Kick It Out Israel identified 118 incidents of racist chanting by Maccabi Tel Aviv fans during 2024 and 2025, which is the highest for any club in the Israeli premier league. UEFA fined Maccabi Tel Aviv €20,000 and imposed a suspended away fan ban for their match against—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I ask the hon. Member to sit down while I am standing. There needs to be a question to the Home Secretary.
Iqbal Mohamed
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is open season on Islamophobia in this Chamber. I am completely against any kind of racism, and antisemitism must be quashed, but so too should Islamophobia. Will the Home Secretary confirm that there is no reference to antisemitic decision making by the police in Sir Andy Cooke’s report and that there is no mention of any Islamist influence in his report? I have the report in front of me—
Shabana Mahmood
I say to the hon. Gentleman and all Members of the House that we should be led by the findings of the independent inspector, who has been very clear on where evidence was overstated and where it was understated. He has said that he believes that confirmation bias was at work and that there have been significant failings by West Midlands police in this matter. That is why I have said what I have said in my statement today.
I reiterate more broadly to the hon. Gentleman and everybody else that there are people in this country who want to set our minority communities against one another. Every Member of this House should want to police that boundary and to make sure that that does not take hold in our country. We can only be confident that we are subject to the same law, wherever we are in this country, if we all trust that the police will apply themselves without fear or favour. It is in everyone’s interests to make sure that these issues are dealt with properly. Every citizen deserves the same sort of response from the police, so that when they tell us that something is true, we can believe them. That has not happened in this case and it needs to happen in the future.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on whether it is appropriate for Members of this House to call into question the intentions of Members when asking questions of the Home Secretary on this issue and to accuse us all of peddling Islamophobia.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I remind all Members to be careful and moderate in their language and to treat this Chamber and Members within it with respect. If we do so, we cannot go far wrong. Although that is not a point of order, it is a matter for the Chair and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising it. That concludes the statement.
I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025—[Interruption.] Order. The Ayes were 301 and the Noes were 110, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Offshore Wind
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
With permission, I would like to make a statement about the seventh contracts for difference allocation round and the results for offshore wind. Eighteen months ago, the Government set out on our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. That was a mission rooted in a simple argument: if we want to take back control of our energy from the petrostates and dictators, if we want to bring down bills for good and if we want to create a new generation of secure, well-paid jobs, the right choice is to get off the rollercoaster of international fossil fuel markets, which caused the worst cost of living crisis in memory. For a year and a half, that mission has faced determined opposition from a well-funded band of doomsters and defeatists. Today, we publish the results of our latest offshore wind auction and with it we prove those doubters and naysayers wrong. Let me set out the results to the House.
On coming to office, we inherited the fiasco of the fifth allocation round—a failure of the Conservatives’ making that trashed the crown jewels of our energy system—in which not a single offshore wind project was secured. That is their legacy; that is the legacy of the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho).
Our last auction round, allocation round 6, got the industry on its feet again. Today it roars back stronger than ever. We have secured 8.4 GW of offshore wind, enough to power the equivalent of more than 12 million homes. There are winning fixed offshore wind projects in every part of Great Britain: Dogger Bank South off the coast of Yorkshire and Vanguard off the coast of East Anglia, two of the largest offshore wind farms in the world; Berwick Bank in the North sea, the first new Scottish project since 2022; and Awel y Môr, the first Welsh project to win a contract in more than a decade. On floating wind, the emerging technology of the future, we have successful projects in Wales and Scotland—the Erebus project in the Celtic sea and Pentland in Scotland—backed by pioneering investment from Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund.
Taken together, that is a record-breaking amount of offshore wind capacity procured in a single auction. It is the most successful offshore wind auction in British history and the most successful ever to be carried out anywhere in Europe. That is what it means to deliver on the promise we made to the British people. Against the backdrop of the global headwinds facing the industry, this is a huge vote of confidence in Britain’s drive for energy sovereignty and abundance.
Let me explain why these results are so important for the country. First, they are a major step forward for our clean energy mission. Alongside our work driving ahead on onshore wind, solar, batteries and nuclear, they put us firmly on track to take back control of our energy and deliver clean power by 2030. We have only to look at events around the world to see that we live in increasingly unstable and uncertain times. Fossil fuel shocks have caused half of the UK’s recessions since 1970. Last year, wholesale gas prices spiked by 15% in a single week after global instability in the middle east. We must also never forget the impact of Russia invading Ukraine; family finances, business finances and the public finances were wrecked as a result of our being left exposed to fossil fuels. This exposure leaves us incredibly vulnerable as a country, and we do not have a moment to waste in ending it. That is why our mission is so important.
Our record-breaking results show that our approach to building things again in this country is working. We are more secure in our energy system today than we were yesterday thanks to these results, and we look forward to building on this momentum as we look ahead to AR8, which we are on track to open later this year.
Secondly, on cost, the results show that offshore wind is cheaper to build and operate than new gas. Today we publish updated estimates of the levelised cost of electricity, the standard industry metric, which includes the cost of building and operating new gas-fired power stations—the same metric as was published under the last Energy Secretary. These estimates show that the cost of building and operating a new gas-fired power station is £147 per megawatt-hour. By contrast, I can inform the House that the average price for fixed offshore wind in today’s auction was £90.91 per megawatt-hour. In other words, it is 40% cheaper than the cost of building and operating new gas, but do not take my word for it. This is what the head of Energy UK, which represents gas, nuclear and renewable generators, said of renewables this morning:
“We need to invest in new power generation, and this is the cheapest form.”
I know that some people want to pull the wool over our eyes on this, but they can only do so by comparing the cost of building and operating new renewables with the cost of operating but not building new gas.
Here is the reality: faced with years of under-investment in our energy system under the previous Government, and with power demand set to increase by at least 50% by 2035 and to more than double by 2050, there is no alternative to building new energy infrastructure in this country. We can choose to stop building renewables and just build new gas plants, as the Conservatives want to, but it is clear that offshore wind remains significantly cheaper to build and operate. Credible, independent research confirms that the renewables that we have already built are bearing down on wholesale electricity costs, having reduced wholesale prices by a quarter in 2024. Our mission is right: clean power is the route to bringing down energy bills for good.
Thirdly, today’s auction cements the offshore wind industry’s position as a jobs and growth engine for Britain. It is at the heart of our industrial strategy. These projects will unlock £22 billion in private investment and support at least 7,000 good jobs across the country, from the Scottish highlands to the Suffolk coast. Members across the House know that so many people in our country ask where the good jobs of the future, for themselves and their children, will come from. Clean energy is central to the answer. The previous Government failed to act to ensure that offshore wind generated jobs and supply chains in this country. By contrast, we will use every tool at our disposal to ensure that turbines, foundations and cables are made and built in Britain, creating good, well-paid jobs with strong trade unions. That is why this auction, for the first time, included a clean industry bonus to reward investment in ports and factories in the areas that need it most.
I can inform the House that in this auction, the industry has responded with ambition. The clean industry bonus will crowd in billions of pounds of private investment and support thousands of jobs in supply chains across the country. We look forward to setting out the full results in due course, as we drive forward on the 100,000 offshore wind jobs that our mission will support by 2030.
Let me close by saying that Britain faces a choice over the coming years. We can seize the opportunities of clean, home-grown energy to cut bills and create jobs, or we can double down on our exposure to fossil fuels. In calling for us to cancel this auction, our opponents made their choice: they are setting their face against cheaper, clean, home-grown power, against 7,000 jobs supported today and thousands more to come, against taking back control of our energy sovereignty, and against action on the climate crisis to protect our children and grandchildren. This Government have made our choice: we choose energy security, lower bills, good jobs and the climate. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
What the Secretary of State has done today has given a massive boost to the profits of multimillion-pound energy companies, but will be paid for by consumers through their bills. What do the prices show us? First, wind power is not getting cheaper as promised. These are the highest prices that we have seen in a decade. Today’s strike prices, in a like-for-like comparison, are much higher than last year’s prices. If we use the Secretary of State’s own figures on the worth of the contract extension—he extended it to 20 years—the prices are 24% more expensive than last year’s. That is an enormous year-on-year increase, which is much higher than inflation.
Can the Secretary of State explain why building a wind farm has suddenly got so much more expensive? Well, I can. It is because by setting himself completely unrealistic targets, he advertised to multimillion-pound wind developers that he would be buying whatever they were selling, no matter the cost. He flexed all the rules, he extended their contracts, and he gave the wind developers everything they wanted, and they repaid him with the most expensive prices for wind power that we have seen in a decade.
The Secretary of State wants us to celebrate the fact that he bought a bumper round—in his own words, the “biggest in history”. Let us take his key argument on levelised cost of electricity. If he had looked at or replied to any of the letters that I have sent him, he would know that I did not agree with using a LCOE to compare wind power and gas power. He will know that I started—[Interruption.] He might want to listen to this; he might learn something. He will know that I started a full systems cost, which he cancelled, even though I urged him to continue it. That is because the full cost of these contracts to the consumer is £95 in today’s money, plus inflation and the extra costs that come with wind, such as turning off the turbines when it is too windy, having a back-up gas plant when it is not windy enough, and connecting the turbines to the grid. He has underplayed the true cost of wind in people’s bills. By the way, it is not just me saying that this is how we should look at cost; wind developers say the same. Sir Dieter Helm and senior economists say that we should look at the full systems cost.
When the Secretary of State talks about the comparison with a new gas power plant, he is wilfully ignoring the fact that he needs to build new gas plants anyway. What does he think will power the country on wintry days when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow? Even his own plans acknowledge that it is gas power. In his plans, he will build the same amount of gas plants anyway, but he will just run them 4% of the time. Would anyone here buy a house that they use 4% of the time? Well, I guess out of all of us, it is probably the Secretary of State who would.
Here is the problem: the Secretary of State is having to build more and more capacity, lots of which will sit idle most of the time, which means higher costs for a less productive energy system. These are all costs that the Secretary of State is choosing to ignore, but even if we use the figures that he is quoting today, which underplay the cost of wind, the truth is there. If we take out the carbon tax that he is choosing to impose, the cost of a gas power plant running fully is roughly a third cheaper than offshore wind. That is written in black and white on page 33 of the report, if hon. Members would like to check. He is hoping that Labour Members will not read what he has published today, but I hope that they do, because it should be facts, not ideology, that drive the decisions that we make for our energy system.
People out there are at breaking point. They get up every day, they go to work, and everything they earn is being eaten up by Labour’s taxes and their bills. Last time we spoke across the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State tried to tell me that people’s energy bills are going down, not up. Nobody out there believes him. Energy bills have gone up five times under him because of his policies, and now he is celebrating this botched wind auction that has seen him sign up to the highest prices for wind power for a decade—prices close to 20% higher than the cost of electricity.
The question is: how on earth can the Secretary of State bring bills down with these higher prices? That is what people were promised. This will be the private finance initiative of the energy system, and it will be in place long after he has gone from this place. I warned him that if he set himself completely unrealistic targets, the wind developers would have him over a barrel, and that is what has happened. He talks about fossil fuel spikes, but he does not talk about the ongoing de-industrialisation of this country because of uncompetitive electricity prices—prices that he is locking us into for two decades.
I have three simple questions for the Secretary of State. Will he finally publish a full systems cost of clean power 2030? Will he confirm that he will still need to build gas power plants for dispatchable power? If that is not his policy, what will keep the lights on when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine? Does he have a forecast for the constraint payments, and how much does he expect to pay wind developers to turn off when it is too windy?
Ed Miliband
That was a lot, as they say. Let me deal with what the right hon. Lady said point by point. First, we will take no lectures from her on energy bills. She presided over the worst cost of living crisis in history, and not once have we heard a word of apology. This Government are taking £150 of costs off bills. How are we doing that? By raising taxes on the wealthy. She opposes every one of the measures that we are taking.
Secondly, I know this is painful for the right hon. Lady, but I am using the same metric that she endorsed in November 2023, when she was Energy Secretary. She published the document, and she knows the truth about that metric: offshore renewables today are 40% cheaper to build and operate than new gas. However much she tries to struggle or flail around, those are the facts, I am afraid. She asks about carbon pricing. It is very interesting that even when we take off carbon pricing, gas is still more expensive, on the figures we published today. Her sums simply do not add up.
What is really rich is that the right hon. Lady asked about constraint payments. Why do we have constraint payments? [Interruption.] I am answering the question. We have constraint payments because the Conservatives failed to build the grid when she was the Secretary of State. Get this, Madam Deputy Speaker: now she comes along, complains about constraint payments, and opposes every piece of energy infrastructure that we try to build in order to bring down the constraint payments. It is extraordinary. Here is the right hon. Lady’s big problem. She is making a massive gamble on fossil fuels, which is exactly what the Conservatives did when they were in office, and we know where that led: the worst cost of living crisis in memory, leaving us at the mercy of petrostates and dictators, and leaving the British people to pay the price.
We were elected with an historic mandate to end the Conservatives’ record of failure, and that is what we are doing. We are ending the sell-out of our energy security, cutting bills, creating hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs and protecting future generations. Let me sum it up: the right hon. Lady failed, and we are delivering.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call the first Back-Bench Member, may I remind Members that we have an important debate on Ukraine later this afternoon? We will look to finish this statement at about 4 pm, which leaves us with around 30 minutes. Please keep questions and answers short.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Energy Secretary deserves enormous congratulations on moving from the “botched” auction round 5, to use the words of the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), to the record success of auction round 7. The strike price will see no increase in consumer bills—indeed, Aurora says that it is likely to see a reduction in bills—and it is 40% cheaper. The Secretary of State set out in great detail how this will be cheaper than gas. Does he agree that demonstrates once and for all that renewable energy is good for bills?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People can have incredibly short memories in this House, particularly the Opposition. We are only five years on from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We know—
Ed Miliband
The right hon. Lady says from a sedentary position that gas is falling, but she is just making a gamble. At the time of the greatest geopolitical instability in a generation, she is gambling on stability. I am not going to make that gamble. We will have home-grown clean power, and we are going to take back control.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I welcome the results of the AR7 allocation. This is about protecting working families from volatile fossil fuel prices set by foreign powers that have repeatedly used oil and gas as geopolitical weapons. Relying on Trump’s America or Putin’s Russia to keep the lights on puts us all at risk. Renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy, and it is only through renewable energy that we can deliver permanently low and secure energy prices and help with the cost of living crisis, and not just today but in the long term. While procuring 8.4 GW of offshore wind puts the country on track for the Government’s 2030 clean power target, research from RenewableUK shows that is the minimum needed, leaving very little room for delays—
Edward Morello
It is a source none the less.
That places even greater importance on AR8. I hope that the Government will commit to their timetable to open AR8 by the summer and to announce the results by the end of the year. Meanwhile, there is still work to be done to bring down bills for working families and businesses, which is why I urge the Secretary of State to look at Liberal Democrat proposals to phase out the outdated renewable energy certificate scheme and replace it fully with a contracts for difference scheme.
We must also be honest about the impact of Brexit on energy bills. [Interruption.] We cannot get through this without mentioning it. Will the Government commit to accelerating negotiations to re-engage with the EU’s internal energy market to ensure access to cheap electricity when we need a guaranteed energy source and an export market for when we over-produce? [Interruption.] Despite the noise from the science-denying, fossil fuel lobbyists on my right and the Putin apologists behind me, this is good for Great Britain and the right decision for consumers, and it promises a better and cleaner future.
Ed Miliband
Good lines.
Let me deal with that question briefly, following your injunction, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, AR8 is important, and we absolutely want to stick to the timetable—the hon. Gentleman is right—and we are rebuilding confidence in the industry. Secondly, we continue to look at proposals from him and others on doing everything we can to cut the cost of electricity, which he is right about. His broader point is also right. This is about how we make the right long-term decisions for the country, and I am grateful for his support.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I am old enough to remember when a Conservative Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, said that he wanted Grimsby to be the Riyadh of offshore wind. I also remember the shadow Energy Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), attending offshore wind conferences and championing the sector, so where she stands now is in direct opposition to where she was just a few years ago.
I, for one, am pleased to see the east coast offshore wind industry strengthened through today’s announcement. It will help to deliver energy independence for the UK and secure existing jobs in the sector—there are 12,000 jobs related to clean energy in Lincolnshire. How does the Secretary of State see today’s announcement benefiting growth in the supply chain and delivering new industrial investment in places such as Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is right—bandwagon-jumping is basically the Conservatives’ policy, and they have jumped on the anti-net zero bandwagon. She makes serious and important points about the future. Indeed, she is a brilliant champion for this industry and for her area, because there are huge opportunities for Grimsby as a result of this auction. She will know that RWE was particularly successful in the auction, and we look forward to working with her and RWE to ensure that we deliver for her constituents.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
How are the figures that the Secretary of State has announced today compatible with the Climate Change Committee’s seventh carbon budget last year, which said that the cost of offshore wind at 2023 prices would be £37.80 per megawatt-hour in 2035? He has just announced £90.91 per megawatt-hour, so how can that be a bargain basement price? Is this not a rip-off of the consumer, who will now face extortionate energy prices for at least 20 further years?
Ed Miliband
No, I do not agree. The hon. Gentleman, in all seriousness, should look at the need to build new energy generation in this country—we are going to have a 50% rise in electricity demand by 2035, and we have to build something. If he wants to build a whole fleet of new gas-fired power stations, he can decide to do that, but the figures we have published today show the costs of that, and those power stations would be more expensive to build and operate than the offshore wind that we have announced today.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. In particular, the Government are delivering for Scotland once again with more renewable energy investment. He also talked, rightly, about Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine and why they have had a direct impact on ordinary people in this country, who we must protect now and in the future. We must protect both these new projects and existing infrastructure from outside attacks, so can the Secretary of State say a little bit more about how he is ensuring that as much as possible of the technology for these excellent projects will be made in the UK, and how he will protect them, as well as existing infrastructure, from foreign actors?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We have about 20 minutes left. Questions need to be shorter, and answers need to be just as short.
Ed Miliband
That is why the clean industry bonus is so important. We will be announcing more about this tomorrow, because it is going to lever in massive amounts of private investment, including in supply chains.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Secretary of State mentioned the rollercoaster of prices. We obviously understand that gas prices go up and down, but they do come down. We are now stuck at the top of the rollercoaster he has talked about for 20 years. How is that going to reduce bills?
Ed Miliband
I just disagree with the hon. Lady. She is making a massive gamble on the future—she is gambling that gas prices will fall. We are giving this country the assurance that we can have clean, home-grown power and lower bills for good.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on structuring the auction to drive down the strike price and reduce consumer energy bills. It is worth reiterating that this means renewable energy will be 40% cheaper than gas. Importantly, though, this is also about creating jobs, specifically in coastal industries. Could he elaborate a little on the clean industry bonus and, in particular, how he might be able to support supply chain jobs in our coastal communities?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks very well on these issues, and she is absolutely right to ask that question. The great thing about the clean industry bonus is that for the first time we are rewarding manufacturers for investing in Britain. It is going to leverage in multiple amounts more private investment compared with public investment, and I believe it can be of massive benefit to our coastal communities.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, but it is important that my constituents can feel the effect in their pockets. Does he accept that the biggest reason why people are not benefiting from cheap renewables is that electricity prices are still set by gas most of the time, and what steps is he taking to break that link, beyond simply building more renewables?
Ed Miliband
That is an incredibly important point, and the great thing about clean power 2030 is that it will mean gas sets the price much less of the time. With contracts for difference, the reduction in prices feeds through to bills.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
This is a fantastic announcement for the UK, and it is also fantastic to hear that the Secretary of State is already preparing for AR8. Can he assure the House that his Department is going to focus as much on the mid-term and long-term storage that we need to support all this growth in generation?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Battery storage and long-duration storage, for example, are things that we are working on as a Department, as is Ofgem—they are crucial parts of the jigsaw.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Secretary of State is going to pay a floating wind farm £216 per megawatt-hour. Can he explain how that will lower fuel prices for my constituents?
Ed Miliband
This is about an innovative technology. The hon. Member is right that it is expensive at the moment, but the experience we had with offshore wind, onshore wind and solar was that by investing in it at the front end, we then lowered the price through deployment, and that is what has meant it is a cheaper technology. We are supporting floating wind, and we think that is the right thing to do. It is a crucial next frontier when it comes to the offshore wind industry.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Despite representing an entirely landlocked constituency, offshore wind matters greatly to me, as the largest employer in Stafford, GE Vernova, produces critical components for the sector. Can the Secretary of State assure me that any and all future manufacturing requirements for this sector will recognise those companies that are investing in the UK, building skills and providing good jobs? Can I again ask him to join me in Stafford?
Ed Miliband
I have a long-standing promise, which I will fulfil—[Interruption.] Everyone seems to know about that promise to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency to see what GE Vernova is doing. She makes an important point about ensuring that procurement, in which I know GE Vernova has a particular interest, should as much as possible be from the UK. My Department is working on that through not just the clean industry bonus, but many other things that we are doing.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Although the news on Berwick Bank and Pentland is hugely welcome, it risks masking serious jeopardy for Scotland’s offshore wind sector. There is great worry that today’s news represents a longer-term shift in the renewables industry from north to south, due to the unfair and disproportionate transmission charges regime. If Scotland’s offshore wind sector is to have a future, we need to see reform of transmission charges before auction round 8—will we?
Ed Miliband
Even by the standards of the UK all-comers record for SNP miserabilism, that question takes some beating. I think the hon. Member gets the award. This is a great news story for Scotland, and not just in terms of Berwick Bank but in relation to floating wind. We want to carry on with that progress in AR8.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
This is a fantastic announcement for Mid and South Pembrokeshire, as it enables Wales’s first floating offshore wind farm. How will the Secretary of State work with developers to maximise their use of local supply chains, so that communities such as mine can see the real benefits in jobs and local economic growth?
Ed Miliband
I congratulate my hon. Friend, because he has been a brilliant champion of this industry, and I am so glad about today’s announcement. He is absolutely right. I want developers and all of the businesses involved to hear his message and his question loud and clear: we want to see this development built in Britain, and it is incredibly important that we work with those businesses, and we will, to ensure that it happens.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Secretary of State has inadvertently misled the House. I have gas-fired power plant developers willing to build and operate at last year’s price of £79 per megawatt-hour. Will the Secretary of State admit that, with inflation, the bids today are some 25% higher than that £79? By the time that capacity is built, the cost will be almost 50% higher than £79 per megawatt-hour.
Ed Miliband
With the greatest respect, I trust our analysts in my Department more than I do the hon. Gentleman when it comes to arithmetic. As he is somebody who I think has had an interest in the past in solar panels—
Ed Miliband
Ah, so it is all right for him, but just not for anyone else. That tells us a lot.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Celtic sea, I welcome the floating offshore wind test and demo model awarded a contract for difference in the Celtic sea. It will open up the Celtics sea to investment. There are other test and demo models in the Celtic sea. What can the Secretary of State say about the role of GB Energy to kick-start these test and demo models, as well as supply chains?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes an important point. GB Energy has invested in the Pentland project in Scotland. GB Energy is operationally independent from us, so it makes its own decisions, but it shows that combined with the CfD, GB Energy can play a nurturing role for this technology, and that is incredibly important. It is what other countries have done for a long time, and it is now starting to happen here.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
The price that has been fixed today is higher than gas with the reduction of carbon tax and higher than the average for gas for all of last year. South Shropshire residents’ energy bills have been going up since the Secretary of State has been in post. Can he promise when energy bills will come down for my constituents?
Ed Miliband
We will be taking £150 off bills in April, but let me refer the hon. Gentleman to a report produced by the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, which explains that having renewables on the system means that we do not pay for expensive gas whose price is much higher than the average wholesale price. According to the report, by not procuring that expensive gas we have brought down the wholesale price by at least £25 per megawatt-hour. It is an important report, and the hon. Gentleman should read it.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this huge offshore wind investment, which will bring good jobs and opportunities for businesses to south-west Wales, as well as reducing bills and increasing energy security. Will he liaise with appropriate colleagues to ensure that the necessary investment is made in the port of Port Talbot, and can he give any indication of the construction time in the Celtic sea and the proposed time for the delivery of electricity to the grid?
Ed Miliband
I assure my hon. Friend, who is a fantastic champion on these issues, that we are very much engaged with Port Talbot and the port on this issue, and with Associated British Ports, because it is important that we make those investments in the port. She should watch this space.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
As a former offshore wind engineer, I am delighted that the Government have secured record offshore wind capacity, and I say, genuinely, “Well done.” However, what is even cheaper than renewable energy is the energy that we do not need to use because our homes are more energy-efficient, so the Government’s scrapping of an energy efficiency programme last year without announcing what would replace it was less welcome. Can the Secretary of State assure my constituents that when the long-delayed warm homes plan does emerge, it will ensure that everyone can have a comfortable, warm, energy-efficient, affordable home?
Ed Miliband
I am grateful for the tone of the hon. Lady’s question. I will return the compliment, and thank her for her kind words about this auction round. She is entirely right about the importance of our warm homes plan and investing in energy efficiency; the plan will be coming very soon, and that is what it will do.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
This news is very welcome to those of us who believe in a swift transition away from fossil fuels. Can the Secretary of State confirm that as a result of today’s auction round, supply chain jobs, including those in places such as Hayle and Falmouth in Cornwall, will remain at the top of the Government’s agenda?
Ed Miliband
Yes. My hon. Friend, who speaks so well on these issues, is absolutely right. There are huge opportunities for Cornwall in this area of offshore wind. One thing that I have been doing with my Department is transforming it from simply an energy policy Department to an energy and industrial policy Department, because this Government believe in industrial policy.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State give a clear assurance that not a single offshore wind project procured in this round will be built with technology made by Chinese slaves?
Ed Miliband
We will certainly not be doing that. We want as much as possible of this to be built in Britain.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. The port of Leith in my constituency is well placed to support logistics and manufacturing for Berwick Bank, which has been successful today. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss ensuring that every job possible is secured as a result of this investment?
Ed Miliband
I look forward to having conversations with my hon. Friend. I think that there are huge opportunities for Scotland, and the Government intend to maximise them.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Of course we welcome the new offshore wind projects in Wales and all the anticipated jobs, but if only we could guarantee that profits would stay in our communities and the use of local supply chains were contractually hardwired! Will the Government ensure that time is secured for a debate on the Crown Estate Act 2025, so that we can discuss how the people of Wales will receive their fair share of offshore wind profits?
Ed Miliband
I fear that securing time in the House is way above my pay grade. [Interruption.] I promise that it is. Let me say more generally to the right hon. Lady that I agree with her, and that we are looking at the Procurement Act 2023 and how it works. Ensuring that we procure as much of this as we can in the UK is incredibly important, and it is taken seriously throughout Government.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this investment. We are hearing some real chutzpah from the Opposition, who seem to have forgotten that it was they who imposed the ban on onshore wind. We need to remember who is in favour of tackling the issue of green energy and bringing down bills. The other side of this, however, is getting the electricity to constituencies such as mine. What progress is being made on upgrading the grid, and what timeline has my right hon. Friend for conveying the electricity to people who need it?
Ed Miliband
I agree with my hon. Friend. I am old enough to remember Boris Johnson, and he used to trumpet the potential of this. He used to talk about it as the future and how it was going to build future jobs, but the Conservatives have abandoned all that. They are miserable pessimists about our country.
As for my hon. Friend’s question, I think she is absolutely right. She will welcome the fact that NESO has undertaken the biggest overhaul of the grid we have seen in a long time, reordering the queue to ensure that we procure the power we need in the right places and that we give priority to the projects we need.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Today’s announcement of a record-breaking auction securing over 8 GW of wind power—enough electricity to power over 12 million homes—is clear evidence of this Labour Government delivering on our clean power mission, and it will help my constituents have lower bills in the future. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is good for jobs, good for growth and good for energy security?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I think the point about energy security is crucial because we live in an uncertain world. We need our own home-grown clean energy, and that is what we are doing.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The Energy Secretary has talked about the clean industry bonus and supply chain opportunities. What commitment will he make that, for every tower and turbine that goes up, British steel is being used and Teesside jobs are being created?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend, with whom I have discussed this, is absolutely right. We want to do everything we can to ensure we use steel from Britain in this process. Part of this is about what we legislate for, and part of it is about the conversations we have with the developers to ensure they do that. I am setting a very clear expectation on this, and I expect developers to do everything they can to meet it.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the not just one, but two offshore wind projects in Wales, with billions of pounds in investment and thousands of new jobs putting Wales firmly on the map as a clean energy producer. We are delighted to see Awel y Môr in north Wales, and the benefits for Clwyd North are clear—skilled, well-paid local jobs and a huge boost for local supply chains. Along with new nuclear at Wylfa, north Wales is finally getting the clean energy investment it deserves under this Labour Government. May I thank the Secretary of State for this investment in north Wales, and will he join me in meeting the apprentices at Coleg Llandrillo who are already training for these jobs of the future?
Ed Miliband
I would really like to do that. The Prime Minister and I, with the Chancellor and indeed the First Minister of Wales, had a fantastic visit to north Wales when we announced our small modular reactors there, and the excitement among the students at the college about the future we are building was so palpable to see. I must say that that is the difference between the Government and the Opposition. We are embracing that future and building that future for those young people; they, frankly, are selling those young people down the river.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the investment for the Norfolk Vanguard project, which will play an enormous role after being awarded over a third of total capacity under these contracts. The Secretary of State has spoken about the benefits for jobs. Can he speak specifically about how we will ensure young people now at school and in college will benefit with apprenticeships and training in these industries?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. We will be setting up five technical excellence colleges in clean energy, and they will be incredibly important in training young people for this clean energy future. There is a huge number of opportunities out there. Part of this is about the training, but another part is about young people getting to know about these opportunities. I was at an amazing jobs fair in the north-east—organised by Kim McGuinness, the mayor of the north-east—which brought together some of the developers with young people, and the excitement among those young people about this future was so palpable. We need to do more of that.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on proving that contracts for difference for offshore wind really do work. I am particularly pleased to hear how much floating wind is in this contract. I know he is always looking to the future, so could he update the House on what his Department is doing about emerging offshore technologies such as offshore thermal, offshore wave and offshore tidal?
Ed Miliband
Those are incredibly important technologies, and we need to do more to help bring down their cost. Tidal schemes will be in the next auction pot, and we are continuing to look at how we can deploy more of them in our country.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and his team on today’s announcement, not least because it draws such a stark contrast. He has announced the largest ever offshore wind auction in history, whereas one of his predecessors came to this House to announce the largest ever Government energy subsidy to households in history—those were the words from the previous Government’s press release. That £40 billion was necessary, but it was the result of the previous Government’s failure to secure our energy supply. That cost our households thousands and taxpayers billions. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this announcement will secure our energy future and ensure that such a catastrophic failure can never happen again?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks so well on these issues and he is so right. This is about energy sovereignty and our security as a country. When the Conservatives were in government, at least under Boris Johnson, they seemed to understand that. That is why it is so regrettable. Of course, this is about the climate crisis, good jobs and lower bills, but it is also about security in an uncertain and dangerous world. The Opposition are, frankly, surrendering our security and what they are proposing is incredibly dangerous.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I thank the Energy Secretary for the leadership he has shown with this record-breaking step forward for renewable power, which underlines our commitment to delivering the clean, secure energy our country is crying out for. It is important to note that the scale of energy secured—at a 40% lower cost than new gas—was only possible because of reforms to the auction market design. We did not tolerate the mechanisms that failed under the previous Government; we innovated to deliver better value. Will the Energy Secretary ensure that we do not rest on our laurels, but continue to innovate in auction design to ensure that we get the best possible value for money and the biggest possible capacity outcomes from future auctions, too?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks very knowledgeably on these issues and he is absolutely right. We changed the auction design not just to be able to see the so-called bid stack, which they could not under the previous regime, but to allow more projects in to increase competitive tension to get a better deal for the bill payer and the taxpayer. He is absolutely right: we should keep innovating for both fixed technology and other technologies to maximise value for money and deployment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Dr Jeevun Sandher—I hope it has been worth the wait.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Affordability is the biggest issue facing our country and climate change is the biggest issue facing our planet. That is why today’s announcement is such, such good news: wind power 40% cheaper than natural gas. Bizarrely, Reform called that lunacy. The shadow Secretary of State used to agree with us and she used to support the Climate Change Act 2008, but now she agrees with Reform. Does the Secretary of State believe that the shadow Secretary of State may be planning to join the best and the brightest of her former colleagues and become defector No. 21?
Ed Miliband
It was worth waiting for. I will let the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) speculate on her own future and whether she is going to join another political party. In all seriousness, I do think it is sad. The truth is that we used to pride ourselves as a country on competing, between political parties, to succeed when it came to building our clean energy future. It is deeply regrettable. There are many sensible voices on the Conservative side who shake their heads when I talk to them about the direction their party has taken. Fundamentally, my hon. Friend is right: this is central to tackling the affordability crisis, central to tackling the climate crisis in our country, and central to giving us energy security.
Madam Deputy Speaker
We got through that in 48 minutes, which is much faster than we hoped. Well done to everybody.
Points of Order
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I attempted today to submit a written question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government regarding the unredacted plans for the proposed new Chinese Communist party embassy in London. The Table Office, however, refused to table it on the grounds that the Government have effectively issued a block, refusing to answer any questions relating to the proposal in any way. That, of course, follows yesterday’s urgent question, when the Government refused to put up a Home Office Minister, despite the question being about national security. Please may I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. How are the Government able to block answering any questions on a matter of such national importance, and how do we get the answers we deserve if we cannot get them in the Chamber, or in written questions?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for raising her point of order. Responses to questions are, of course, a matter for the Government rather than the Chair, but paragraph 22.19 of “Erskine May” states:
“Questions for written answer are not in order which renew or repeat in substance questions already answered or to which an answer has been refused in that session of Parliament.”
If the Government have refused to answer questions on a specific matter, further questions would therefore not be in order. However, that may not be the case in this instance. I suggest that she seeks further advice from the Table Office on what other routes are open to her to pursue her concerns. [Interruption.] The Government Whips are acknowledging that this is something, no doubt, that they will continue in their conversations as well.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House has already seen the chaotic, last-minute pulling of today’s consideration of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which has been moved to next week. The House will know that the convention is that the Government lay their own amendments ahead of amendments from the Opposition in order to give us time for consideration. The Government pledged to make us aware of their amendments before the House rises today so that we would have at least an hour, perhaps, to consider what we might put forward, but we are still no closer to seeing what the Government wish to amend. On top of that, we were offered a briefing on Privy Council terms, to be attended by myself and a colleague, which was cancelled at the last minute. The handling of this Bill, which relates to matters of national security, is chaotic. How can we ensure that the House is in a position to lay amendments that respond to the Government’s own amendments?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order, which those on the Front Bench will no doubt have heard. The amendments will be available for Members in the usual way after the deadline for tabling has passed—I think he accepts that that has not yet passed. No doubt he has put his point on the record. Discussions between those on the Government and Opposition Front Benches are not a matter for the Chair.
Bill Presented
Hospitals (Accident and Emergency) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Helen Morgan presented a Bill to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that patients spend no longer than 12 hours between arriving at the accident and emergency department of a hospital and being admitted to hospital, transferred for care elsewhere or discharged; to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for measures to eliminate the provision of accident and emergency care services in corridors and other spaces not intended for the provision of such services; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 January, and to be printed (Bill 366).
Banks (Financial Exclusion and Access to Finance)
Wednesday 14th January 2026
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberBanks (Financial Exclusion and Access to Finance) Bill 2024-26 View all Banks (Financial Exclusion and Access to Finance) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require banks to measure and disclose their performance in reducing financial exclusion, including exclusion from affordable credit, and in improving access to finance for small- and medium-sized businesses; to establish a system for rating banks according to that performance; to require banks to cooperate with credit unions and community development finance institutions to address financial exclusion and improve access to finance for small- and medium-sized businesses; and for connected purposes.
I declare at the outset that I am a member of the M4Money credit union.
Dal Dhillon is a great Coventry entrepreneur who runs Dhillon’s Brewery, Dhillon’s Spire Bar and the Sky Blue Tavern, which, together, are helping to fire up Frank Lampard’s growing army of Coventry fans as they push for the holy grail of premier league promotion. When Dal wanted to expand his businesses, he hit a stumbling block that affects many growing businesses: accessing affordable finance. His application was rejected by a mainstream bank, so Coventry and Warwickshire Reinvestment Trust—a community development finance institution or community bank—stepped in. It is not for profit, accredited by the Financial Conduct Authority, community-focused and takes the time to understand the entrepreneur, their business and their ambitions. In essence, it is a proper community bank. Since 2010, CWRT has loaned more than £37 million, helping small and medium-sized enterprises overlooked by traditional lenders in their communities to start up, grow and thrive.
Thousands of small and medium-sized businesses are sadly locked out of access to affordable credit at the moment, meaning, in short, that they cannot get fair banking. This holds back too many people in too many communities from turning strong ideas for new inventions or new services into more jobs, new high street ventures or just great commercial opportunities.
For the entrepreneur who does not have a track record or assets, access to business finance and financial advice is a huge challenge. Indeed, the cost of business finance in the UK is higher than in other comparable countries. When in government, senior figures at one bank told me that the typical business client who received personal sit-down financial advice had a trading income of £10 million or more. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, which is concerned about access to the funding its members need and supports this Bill, nearly half of small businesses recently rated the overall availability and affordability of new credit for small businesses as poor.
At the same time, millions of people across the UK do not have access to affordable credit when they need it most. More than 20 million adults are now classified as financially underserved—a 50% rise since 2016. One in three adults faces barriers to mainstream credit, often leaving them without safe or affordable options. Some 12.5 million people have no savings to fall back on in a crisis and almost 2 million have turned to illegal lenders in the past 12 months alone.
As the team at the excellent London Mutual credit union pointed out to me when I visited last week, not having fair access to affordable credit can mean that people have to use payday loans, forcing those who can least afford it to put up with higher charges and interest rates—paying a poverty premium. It means it is harder to save, and more costly to buy key things like a fridge or to repair a broken boiler. In short, it is harder to pay for life’s unexpected costs.
The financially underserved do not live far away; they are in all our communities. They are among our families, they are our friends, and they are certainly our neighbours. I welcome the work that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have put into establishing a financial inclusion strategy. My Bill seeks to build on that good work. We need to go further if the loan sharks are to feel that their opportunities are shrinking, and if we are to see credit unions doubling in size and community banks unlocking more of the business ambition in our country, especially in the most economically deprived areas.
A fair banking Act would require the Financial Conduct Authority to analyse the performance of mainstream banks, according to their size, on the provision of equitable access to credit for individuals and small and medium-sized enterprises. It would create a published ratings system that showed which banks were doing well and which less so. Banks could improve their ratings by expanding their provision of affordable lending to underserved communities and businesses, and by creating partnerships with community banks or community development finance institutions.
I am not interested in bashing Britain’s banks—they are critical to our economic future, and huge sources of wealth and jobs for British people and for all our communities—but I do think they could do more. There are fair banking requirements in other countries, most notably in the US, where most British banks already operate comfortably under them. There are of course differences between the financial services environment in the US and here in the UK. A UK fair banking Act would need to focus on small business lending and an individual’s ability to access affordable credit, and less so on mortgage lending, which is a key issue in the US.
American fair banking requirements mean that British banks invest in left-behind communities in the US. They invest in and work happily with community banks or community development finance institutions—indeed, British banks are among the largest investors in US CDFIs. They do not lose money and there is often joint lending by CDFIs and banks. In the reports they have to publish they celebrate, for example, their work with women entrepreneurs and with black and ethnic minority businesses.
The question for those British banks is why they will not back such requirements here. Why will they not do more with community banks and credit unions in the UK? To be fair, there is some investment in CDFIs from Lloyds and J. P. Morgan, but it is striking how many other major banks invest in CDFIs in the US but do not invest similarly here. As a result of US requirements, British banks are already used to working with the disclosure requirements that I envisage introducing through the Bill. The majority of the data needed for the disclosure requirements under the Bill will already be collected by the FCA in, for example, its consumer credit product sales data, so it would not be over-regulation.
Following detailed research for the fair banking campaign, conservative estimates suggest that the requirements in the Bill could result in, for example, an increase in the level of annual lending here by CDFIs and credit unions from an estimated £250 million a year up to £3.3 billion a year. That would transform the prospects for thousands of entrepreneurs and financially underserved people in all our communities.
There have been some suggestions that the measures in my Bill might overlap with existing laws and regulations, including the recently introduced consumer duty. Unfortunately, that duty applies only to people who are customers, so people who apply to banks and are turned down are excluded from it. Also, no mechanisms or metrics are currently in place, or being proposed, on measuring banks’ performance on expanding access to affordable credit as a whole.
Specifically, there is no current framework for benchmarking banks’ actions on providing affordable credit or on working with credit unions and CDFIs. There is currently no mandate for banks to expand access to affordable credit, and no incentive for them to work with credit unions and CDFIs to do so. What the widespread exclusion from credit demonstrates is a major market failure. Current measures are not working and voluntary measures are not enough. The measures in my Bill would end that failure.
Talent, and entrepreneurial talent in particular, exists everywhere in the UK. We need to give that talent the chance to flourish, and more affordable sources of credit are key to that. No one in crisis should be forced into punishing levels of debt or worse because the mainstream banking sector has locked them out.
I am grateful for the support of the Federation of Small Businesses, Small Business Britain, Richard Marshall of Pall Mall Barbers, the Building Societies Association, the Association of British Credit Unions, the Co-op party, Responsible Finance and the excellent team at the Finance Innovation Lab. A fair banking Act is a common-sense, proportionate measure that could have transformative benefits for businesses and communities across the UK. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Gareth Thomas, Dame Meg Hillier, Sarah Champion, Liam Byrne, Sarah Owen, David Burton-Sampson, Lloyd Hatton, Bill Esterson, Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, Nick Smith, Anneliese Dodds and John McDonnell present the Bill.
Gareth Thomas accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 363).
Ukraine
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the situation in Ukraine.
Next month marks four years since Russia launched its illegal and barbarous full-scale invasion of Ukraine, but Ukraine has stood strong. We have stood alongside Ukraine and will continue to do so. I am particularly proud that this week also marks one year on from our agreement of a crucial 100-year partnership with Ukraine—I know that it enjoys wide support across the House—which we will celebrate and take further forward this week.
This has been four years in which the Ukrainian people have stood firm, bravely resisting the assault on their sovereign territory, and four years of enduring relentless drone and missile strikes that have killed civilians and torn through homes, infrastructure, hospitals and schools. Like many hon. Members across the House, I have been in Kyiv while such attacks have been under way. I have seen the devastation and damage caused and the implications for the civilians—the ordinary people of Ukraine—who face that. I have been in the bunkers where children have to take their lessons because of the attacks, and I have heard the harrowing stories of those who have been abducted and taken by barbarous and illegal Russian action.
Just last week, Russia launched 252 drones and 36 missiles at targets across Ukraine in yet another attack that killed and injured dozens of civilians and left millions without power or heating as temperatures plunged to minus 20°. The attack also included an Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile that struck critical infrastructure near the Polish border. Russia’s use, for the second time, of a hypersonic IRBM in Ukraine—this time close to NATO territory—is a reckless and dangerous escalation. Moscow claimed that it was responding to an alleged Ukrainian attack on one of Putin’s residences, which is a baseless allegation and yet another example of Russia using disinformation to justify its actions. Just last week I discussed disinformation with hon. Members at the Foreign Affairs Committee. I know that it is an issue that many of us across the House take deeply seriously.
As an aside, I note the absence in the Chamber yet again of one party—we all note that, as there is a strong cross-party consensus on Ukraine. Of course, that party has willingly repeated Russian narratives on NATO and Ukraine, and indeed its former leader in Wales took bribes from Russia to share those narratives. Reform Members might like this to go away, but it is not just their words that speak volumes; their absence does, too.
I genuinely commend the Opposition and the other parties present, because I have had many conversations with the Members here, and I think all of us, whichever side of the House we are on, have stood resolutely with Ukraine since the start of this conflict. That very much represents where the British people stand on this illegal and barbarous aggression on our continent. We know from our own history what such aggression can mean, and we will continue to take that stand. I am proud of those in my constituency and all our constituencies who continue to support Ukrainians in the UK, and continue to stand with Ukraine in its fight against Russia.
Russia’s barbaric actions come against the backdrop of US-led peace negotiations. Time and again, Ukraine has shown that it is the party of peace, and just last week, President Zelensky came together with world leaders and the United States in Paris to discuss next steps. We welcome the significant progress that has been made, and the work of President Trump and many others to take that forward. Alongside France, the UK has led the coalition of the willing, carrying out detailed military planning on the security guarantees that are needed to insure against future Russian aggression in the event of a peace settlement.
In Paris, at the largest meeting yet of the coalition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister joined President Macron and President Zelensky to sign a declaration of intent. That declaration confirms that in the event of a peace deal, the UK and France would deploy forces to Ukraine. It paves the way for a legal framework under which British, French and partner forces could operate on Ukrainian soil, securing its skies and seas and regenerating its armed forces for the future. As the Prime Minister has said, if British troops were to deploy under this agreement, the matter would come before this House for a debate and a vote. The Paris declaration agreed between us and our coalition partners sets out the security guarantees that are to be activated once a ceasefire takes effect.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I have previously suggested that to have an occupied eastern part of Ukraine under Russian control while the western part of unoccupied Ukraine was left as a military vacuum would be a recipe for disaster. However, it is of concern that the alliance that stood firm at the end of world war two to ensure that West Germany did not get encroached upon by Soviet forces from the east is not still in being, as far as Ukraine is concerned, because of the ambiguous attitude of President Trump. Does the Minister have a view on why President Trump is so clear when it comes to dictatorship in and aggression by Iran, yet has such a strangely different view when it comes to the same two features of Russian behaviour?
Stephen Doughty
I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman, as he knows, but I would gently disagree with his suggestion. On President Trump’s leadership, in the important discussions that took place in Paris with the United States and other coalition partners, it was set out clearly how security guarantees would be activated. More broadly, I am proud that we continue to stand with the United States in NATO, and proud of our commitment to article 5 and to defending the security of the alliance. That is absolutely crucial to our security, and the security of all of us in the alliance.
We of course support all the progress towards a just and lasting peace, but it is crucial that we keep Ukraine in the fight. We all know that its armed forces are fighting heroically and with great determination. Like many Members, I have met those who have served on the frontlines in Ukraine, and seen the extraordinary bravery and fortitude that they show, but we must recognise that they are under immense pressure, so we need to get them the support that they need to defend themselves, and to ensure that they have support in the future.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
Today the NATO Parliamentary Assembly has been given an open letter from the Chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament, Ruslan Stefanchuk. He has been here, and I have met him a few times. He is urging
“the immediate delivery of air defence and air-to-air missiles”.
Ukraine is in desperate need of them, and he has asked all NATO members to speed up this delivery as much as possible.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his comments, and for sharing what the Speaker of the Rada has said. I too have met him. He is a remarkable individual, as indeed are all the Ukrainian MPs we have all met. They stood up to defend their Parliament at the most difficult of times: at the time of the invasion. He raises important points. These are all matters that the Secretary of State for Defence, the Minister for the Armed Forces and others are looking at.
We are very much looking at all the immediate needs, and of course, we stand ready to support Ukraine wherever we can. Indeed, that is why we have led the 50-nation Ukraine defence contact group, alongside Germany. We secured £50 billion in military aid pledges last year, and we are going further. In Project Octopus, we have developed an advanced air defence interceptor drone, which is to be mass-produced in the UK. We are developing a new long-range ballistic missile to boost Ukraine’s firepower and defend against Putin’s war machine.
We continue to lead, not only on supporting Ukraine, but on galvanising partners to maintain support. I met my good colleague from Portugal this morning, and discussed the contribution that Portugal has made. Indeed, many countries across Europe, large and small, have stepped up, and it is important to acknowledge that European partners increased aid by more than 50% in 2025, compared to the year before. In December, as colleagues will know, the European Council agreed a €90 billion loan to help meet Ukraine’s needs, and of course we are also providing up to £4.1 billion in support through a World Bank loan guarantee that runs until 2027.
Of course, as well as the military support that we need to provide to Ukraine, now and into the future, so that it can defend against and deter future threats in the event of a settlement, we must rachet up the pressure on Putin to de-escalate the war, engage in meaningful negotiations and come to the table. I am proud that this Government have sanctioned over 900 individuals, entities and ships under the UK’s Russia sanctions regime, including Russia’s largest oil companies and 520 oil tankers. Last week, as colleagues will know, the UK supported the United States in intercepting the sanctioned vessel Bella 1 in the north Atlantic as it made its way to Russia.
We are working with international partners on further measures to tackle the shadow fleet. Those include additional sanctions, steps to discourage third countries from engaging with the fleet, increased information sharing, and readiness to use regulatory and interdiction powers. By choking off Russia’s oil revenues and squeezing its war economy, we are showing Putin that he cannot outlast us.
Our sanctions are biting hard. There is clear evidence of their impact: Russia’s oil export revenues are at a four-year low. We are preparing to implement further significant sanctions this year, which have been announced, including bans on importing refined oil of Russian origin, and a maritime service ban on Russian liquefied natural gas, which a number of Members have rightly called for over past months.
As a result of our actions and those of our partners, Russia’s economy is now in its worst position since the full-scale invasion began. We are also taking the crucial steps to stop the third-country circumvention of sanctions. Whether it is intercepting crypto networks that are flooding resource into Russia, the components and other things on critical lists that it might be using in drones, or the energy revenues that it is generating, we will not cease till we find every way in which Putin is attempting to circumvent our regimes. I am proud to work closely with colleagues in Departments across Government on this, but also, crucially, with European, United States and other partners. That is having a tangible impact, and is as crucial as the direct support that we provide.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I agree that the foreign exchange earnings of the Russian economy have been badly damaged by the sanctions, but we are also coming to the conclusion, are we not, that it is legal for Western powers to intervene on the fake flag fleet—the shadow fleet—as we saw last week? What plans do the Government and our allies have to make the whole business of exporting Russian oil and gas far more risky, by undertaking a large-scale interception of the shadow fleet?
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Member will note that I chose my words about future actions carefully. I will obviously not go into specifics, but let me just say that we know what Putin is doing. We know where he is taking things and what is happening, and we will not hesitate to act where we can, lawfully, to choke off those revenues that go towards fuelling the war against Ukraine. Let us remember that that is exactly what they do. Let this be a warning: we will not hesitate to use the powers we have—lawfully, of course—wherever we can.
Stuart Anderson
I thank the Minister for giving way a second time. In December, I went on a cross-party trip with NATO to South Korea; we heard that its Government have changed their position on Russia and are now looking to open plants in Russia. They spouted the Russian lines against NATO. I have fed that into Government, but we have recently signed a huge trade deal with South Korea. Is it a concern in Government that people we are trading with are now shifting their position on Russia?
Stephen Doughty
We continue to work and engage with all partners around the world about the reality of any loopholes or routes that could be supporting the war. As we all know, troops from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were brought in by Russia to fight. There are also often entities and individuals operating within countries, and we try to bring those to the attention of the authorities of our partners and friends, so that they can take action, but we will not hesitate to sanction and take action, where appropriate.
Turning to the crucial issue of accountability, we are working closely with Ukraine and its allies to hold Russia accountable for its heinous crimes in Ukraine. We are a founding member and chair of the conference of participants of the register of damage, which allows Ukranians to record losses, injury or damage caused by the war. In December, I was proud to visit The Hague to sign, on behalf of the UK, the convention to establish an international claims commission, which will assess claims under the register of damage to determine future compensation. We are also supporting the office of the prosecutor general of Ukraine and the International Criminal Court to ensure that allegations of war crimes are fully and fairly investigated, using independent and robust legal mechanisms.
As I mentioned, tens of thousands of boys and girls have been snatched from their families, deported and indoctrinated by Russia. We are clear that this is a campaign to erase a nation’s future. We cannot allow that to happen, so we are backing crucial efforts to identify those children and bring them home, and we are working with partners on that. We have committed more than £2.8 million to helping to trace and return them. We welcome all that colleagues have been doing to raise awareness of the issue globally.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
Last year, I moved my constituency office into Bosnia House, a former police station that was taken over by Anes Ceric, the CEO of the Bosnia UK Network, and his organisation. The network supports all communities, including Ukrainians, Syrians and Bosnians. There are such facilities not only in my constituency, but across the country. More help needs to be provided to ensure that the Ukrainians who settle in this country are fully supported, not only to achieve a better life, but to integrate with other communities. If any support—for example, any money drawn from sanctions—can be targeted at those organisations, it would be most gratefully received.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is right to point out the contribution of the many organisations across the country that have reached out to support Ukrainian communities. I have certainly seen that in Cardiff, where some fantastic groups have done that; I know that is reflected in my hon. Friend’s constituency. There is a strong heritage in this country of individuals who fled conflict working to support others who have done the same. I have seen that repeatedly in many different groups. I pay tribute to all of them, and to all the people up and down Britain who have brought Ukrainians into their homes and supported these efforts in many other ways.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
While we are on the subject of Russian war crimes, James Scott Rhys Anderson is one of the only Britons to have been captured by the Russians. He was tried—the Foreign Office believes on false charges—and charged with being part of a terrorist group and illegally entering Russia. He was sentenced to five years in a Russian prison, and will then be transferred to a Russian penal colony, rather than being treated in accordance with the Geneva convention. What progress has been made on securing his release?
Stephen Doughty
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of the number of cases. Russia has obligations under the Geneva convention, and we expect them to be upheld. We regularly raise these cases at the appropriate levels. I am happy to talk to him separately about that specific case, but he can be assured that I am well aware of that and a number of other cases. We are clear that international law must be upheld, including the basic principles of treatment of prisoners of war and situations involving children. That goes to the heart of the nature of what the Russian regime has been doing and the lengths it is willing to go to. We urge the upholding of the commitments to basic decency and the treatment of individuals, to which we are all signed up.
We are standing with Ukrainian people on the ground in their hour of need. We have provided more than £577 million in humanitarian support for vulnerable citizens since the invasion began, including those forced to flee their homes. This year we will spend up to £100 million on support, including to help families through this harsh winter. We have upped our support in energy, particularly in response to regular attacks on energy infrastructure. A lot of our work is to help to mitigate that, but the scale of those attacks is severe and they have a daily impact, as Members can see in media reporting and from what we know on the ground.
There is no firmer friend for Ukraine than the UK. Indeed, our commitment runs deep. I have mentioned the crucial 100-year partnership that the Prime Minister signed with President Zelensky in Kyiv. That agreement has enhanced co-operation across defence and security, science, trade and culture.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his update, particularly the in-depth overview that he is giving us. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali), I would appreciate an update on the work that the Minister is doing to support families in this country. I commend to him the work of the Ukrainian community centre in Reading, where there is a Ukrainian language library. It is one of the very few in the south of England, and people visit from west London and Oxford to use it. It is important that families are able to maintain their native language and that children can retain their culture at this difficult time. Will he say a few words about the importance of that form of domestic support?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point. Indeed, there is a similar initiative—a Ukrainian language library—in my constituency. It is absolutely crucial that that support is given, not only because it is the right thing to do for those young people, enabling them to maintain a connection to their culture, heritage and language, but because it stands in stark contrast to the attempts by Putin to wipe out their language, culture, history and heritage—not least through the abduction of children and continued attacks. One of the most moving moments during my visit to Kyiv was in a bunker under a school, where I saw the remarkable fortitude and resilience of young people and their teachers in the face of Russia’s attempts to destroy their lives physically and psychologically. They stand firm and resilient, as Ukrainians do. That should be a lesson to us all.
Under the 100-year partnership, as well as the joint development of drone technology, trading links, digital connection and other matters, we also have important school-twinning programmes. Those things will, collectively, deliver long-term economic growth and security for the UK and Ukraine, and strengthen ties between our nations.
I will end my remarks as I know that many Members wish to contribute. The UK’s support for Ukraine is iron-clad. The Ukrainians’ security is our security. We fully support US-led efforts to secure a just and lasting peace. As we have said repeatedly, only the Ukrainian people can decide their future. We remain committed to the principle that international borders must never be changed by force, and any deal must guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty and security—and, indeed, Europe and the United Kingdom’s security—in the future. In the meantime, we will not hesitate to keep supporting Ukraine and ensure that it has the military equipment to defend itself, while sustaining the economic pressure on Putin to cut off the revenues funding this barbaric war, and ensuring accountability for the appalling scenes of destructions and devastation, be they against children, infrastructure or the whole nation of Ukraine. Slava Ukraini.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
We are at a crucial juncture in this conflict and the stakes could not be higher. It has been nearly four years since Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, a period nearly as long as the duration of the first world war, with many of the same horrors that our soldiers witnessed in those days—trench warfare, a war of attrition—being witnessed today by a generation of young Ukrainians and Russians who are being decimated in their hundreds of thousands. We have also, tragically, seen the horrific mass deportation of 20,000 Ukrainian children. This is nothing short of a war crime. Make no mistake: on the line is the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. The freedom and democracy enjoyed by its people and also the entire security architecture of the west are at stake. The threat is especially acute in the eastern flank, for countries such as Moldova, and in the Black Sea, but this reaches far beyond the region; it is about the security of us all.
European countries are already having to protect their borders from malign Russian activity. We have had to do so for years, and will continue to do so, but I felt that 2025 was a real turning point. We need only look at what has been happening in Poland, whether Russian drone incursions or railway sabotage. Romania and Estonia have both had their airspace outrageously violated by Russia. And the Royal Navy has had to be activated to intercept Russian ships, including the Yantar, and we all know the real purpose of that ship.
Russia is already waging a sophisticated hybrid and sub-conventional campaign against us. The reality is that we must be prepared for sustained tension with Russia for many years to come. But the outcome of the war in Ukraine is central to whether that threat is checked or emboldened, and this extends beyond just Russia. The fact that Putin is now reliant on North Korean personnel and ammunition should shame him, but it should also warn us. The war has become a testing ground for an authoritarian axis that will not stop at Ukraine if it is allowed to succeed.
All of us want to see this war end. It is unjust, unprovoked and entirely of Putin’s making. It is therefore of no surprise that Putin appears completely insincere about wanting to reach a genuine ceasefire. We understand that initiatives to end this war, led by the United States of America, are progressing, at least on the Ukrainian side, and it would be helpful to hear from the Minister, when he winds up the debate, his latest assessment of those talks and their direction of travel.
It is also important to recognise where responsibility lies. Time and again, Ukraine has shown a willingness to engage in discussions aimed at ending the conflict. Russia, by contrast, has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of seriousness and sincerity. If ceasefire proposals are rejected or negotiations undermined, the obstacle to peace lies not in Kyiv, nor among Ukraine’s friends, but firmly in Moscow.
One principle must remain non-negotiable: the Ukrainian people must be sovereign in their own land. They have paid in blood to defend themselves and their homeland, and decisions about their future, their borders and their security arrangements must be made by Ukraine and Ukraine alone. No peace imposed from outside will endure, and no settlement that ignores the will of the Ukrainian people can be sustainable. As we have done throughout history, Britain must continue to show international leadership in defending that principle, so I would welcome an update from the Minister on what the UK is doing diplomatically to that end.
It is crucial that we achieve a just and lasting peace. Putin must not emerge strengthened from a potential settlement; we must not give in to him, because the lesson of the last 20 years is that he always comes back for more, with a persistent desire to exert control over neighbouring states and to challenge the post-cold war settlement in Europe. It is clear from the statecraft he is using that he has his KGB playbook out right now. Putin has not abandoned his territorial ambitions. He wants to subjugate Ukraine lock, stock and barrel.
A lasting peace is not about conceding to aggression. Territorial concessions would mean rewarding Putin’s barbaric attacks on the Ukrainian people. Britain must lead the way again on sanctions and keep tightening the screws on Putin’s war machine. Moscow should be denied safe harbours for its tankers and profits and the EU should step up and ban Russian oil and gas sooner than it currently plans, in 2027. Will the Minister confirm whether he has been pressing his counterparts in the European Union and European capitals to do exactly that? The Atlantic alliance must lead a new pincer movement to further constrain Russia’s energy revenues and stop Putin getting his hands on military equipment.
The issue with Russian oil persists. Countries are allowing the purchase and whitewashing of Russian oil on their watch. We know the businesses, refineries and individuals who are profiting from Russian energy exports, so do the Government plan to take further action against those enablers?
It is clear that we need to go a lot further on sovereign Russian assets. We welcome the £2.26 billion loan made by the UK to Ukraine off the back of the profits from immobilised Russian sovereign assets, but the Government cannot view that as the end of the road. Instead, Ministers need to be working around the clock, including with the City of London and our allies, to find innovative and workable solutions that allow us to go even further and to drive other G7 and European states to do the same. What is the current status of talks with the EU, the United States and the G7 partners? Specifically, what recent discussions has the Minister had with his Belgian counterpart? What is the UK doing to help move things along? Does the Minister agree that when those sanctioned assets are mobilised they should be used not just for the reconstruction of Ukraine but to support the Ukrainian people as fast as possible?
For all the talk of negotiations, we must not lose sight of the fact that the GDP of the UK and our allies combined colossally outweighs that of Russia, and we need to leverage that in every right way. We need to ramp up our defence industrial base now for the long term, because we know that, for Russia, sustaining its war economy will come at an enormous price at a time when it is already reeling from sanctions, with interest rates at high levels not seen in decades and with welfare payments having to be slashed.
Last week we learned of the Government’s vision for British troops on the ground in Ukraine, should a peace agreement be reached. That deployment of British troops is, I believe, one of the most serious decisions a Government and a Parliament could ever take, so there are a number of vital details that we need to understand about what exactly the Government’s plans are for any future deployment. These include the rules of engagement, troop numbers, how rotations could work, the composition of the force, whether any British soldiers will be actively involved in policing or patrolling any border or demilitarised zone, and what air and naval assets would be provided as part of any multinational force for Ukraine. The British people will expect answers to those vital questions before we consider sending our boys out to a conflict zone, potentially risking the lives of courageous British servicemen and women.
The Government must confirm the contributions of other countries and the nature of any security guarantees, particularly with regard to the United States and Germany. We need Ministers to confirm whether soldiers operating in Ukraine will be subject to the European convention on human rights during any deployment. Will the Minister clarify which Government budget such an operation will be funded from? Does he agree that this underscores the imperative of spending 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament? His Majesty’s Opposition have called for that and I hope that the Government will do the same. Kicking the can into the next decade, with no road map, is simply not going to cut it in the world in which we currently live. We must do everything in our power to deter an invasion of this kind of any other country. In principle, Britain must be involved in any and every effort to provide deterrence against such aggression in future.
Two things are also critical in the immediate term. First, Ukraine must continue to receive the military aid it needs to fight back against Russia’s increasingly savage war, and Putin’s ability to wage this war must be further undermined, for example through biting new sanctions. Secondly, any initiatives to secure an end to the conflict must deliver peace on the terms of the Ukrainian people, and with full involvement of Ukraine. We cannot allow Putin to be strengthened. Will the Minister provide an update on how the UK is ensuring Ukraine is able to meet the increasingly savage tactics being used by Russia?
To conclude, in the early days of the war, the previous Conservative Government played a pivotal role in coming to the aid of the Ukrainian people. Just as Margaret Thatcher stood up to the threat of Soviet domination in eastern Europe, and fought for the freedom and the democracy of eastern Europeans, ultimately leading to the fall of the Berlin wall and the break-up of the Soviet Union, my party led at the outset of this invasion, and continues to stand with the people of Ukraine.
As usual, it was British leadership that set the direction of travel for many European countries. It was the British people who provided approximately £12 billion in overall support, including military and humanitarian aid. With our allies, it was Britain that imposed the largest and most severe set of sanctions that Russia had ever seen, to cripple Putin’s war machine. It was Britain that hosted the Ukraine recovery conference in 2023, raising billions for Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction. And it was Britain that established Operation Interflex, which has now trained over 50,000 Ukrainian recruits on British soil since the illegal invasion of 2022. When freedom is threatened, Britain stands resolute.
Today, we feel as passionately as we did four years ago about defending and restoring the freedom that the Ukrainian people earned back in 1991. Long has Britain stood for the cause of freedom, and long may that continue.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I have been complaining at home recently because the heating broke down, and I felt that was not being taken seriously by my other half. It was minus 1°C, I was really cold and I had been moaning about it for a week. Then it was pointed out to me that right now in Ukraine, in Kyiv, it is minus 12°C, although it feels like minus 16°C, and overnight it will be minus 17°C. To stop myself moaning, I have put the temperatures in London and in Kyiv on my phone.
I keep remembering that in Kyiv ordinary men and women are having to battle against the cold, and their infrastructure is being deliberately attacked by Putin to try to undermine their morale. What happened on Monday night? There were 293 drones and 18 missiles in a bombardment. Air defences shot down 240 drones and seven missiles, but there was damage to critical civilian infrastructure in Kyiv and across Zaporizhzhia, Odesa, Sumy, Kharkiv and Donetsk.
There are now several hundred thousand households without any power or heating. There are 500 high-rise tower blocks where people are really cold, and they have acute shortages of electricity. The Russians are doing this on purpose. This is not proper warfare. This is such a basic thing—you are not supposed to target civilians when you are at war; it is against the law. When you are at war, you are at war, so go for the combatants; do not go for the children, nursery schools and housing estates. Do not bomb blocks of flats. That is not right or proper; it is illegal, immoral and wrong.
The people are exhausted. They are about to hit their fourth year of being at war with Russia, but what is so amazing is the strength, focus, fortitude and bravery of these people, which has absolutely hit me in the heart when I have talked to Ukrainians. They are absolutely determined to keep their country Ukrainian, and they will not allow the Russians to win. No matter how hard it is, how cold it is or how many people are lost, they will continue to fight. They stand resolute, and we stand with Ukraine and with those brave people.
On the Foreign Affairs Committee, we have had the honour of not only visiting Ukraine, but having a number of meetings with the Ukrainian Foreign Affairs Committee. Its members have varied over the years. During the most recent meeting, the chair was the only person we could see. I joked about it to start with—I was going, “They ought to turn the lights on.” What an idiot! They do not have any lights or any power. The members were talking to us from their cars, because they could put on the heating and a light in their car and talk to us that way. That was how we had a meeting with the Ukrainian Foreign Affairs Committee, but the members of the Committee showed up and told us what they had to say. We stand with Ukraine—this bravery!
There are many things that we can do. I am really encouraged to hear that we are bolstering the work that we need to do when it comes to the shadow fleet. If anybody does not understand it, the shadow fleet is a fleet of ageing ships of obscure ownership that are uninsured and often environmentally unsound. They are being used to transport sanctioned Russian oil products to get around the oil price cap.
I hope that we can find legal grounds for deploying military assets against the shadow fleet under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and do insurance spot checks on false-flag ships, some of which were expelled by the countries for which they used to wave the flag and claim they came from. Some of those countries do not even have a shipping register, yet the ships still claim that they belong to those countries. If the ships are not insured, we can really take action, and I am glad to hear that we are going to step that up. That sort of sanction busting must stop.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
On that point, two tankers from the shadow fleet were scheduled to go through the channel earlier today. The shadow fleet exists solely to keep money flowing to the Kremlin, while threatening maritime safety and environmental security. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK Government should be mindful of other aspects relevant to this debate as we continue to pursue the shadow fleet that allows Putin to wage his unwarranted and unlawful invasion?
Emily Thornberry
I agree completely. We need to be as creative as possible when it comes to the shadow fleet, and there is always more that we can do. The Foreign Affairs Committee and many of its talented members are always available to give as many suggestions as the Government wish to hear. One thing that worries me is that it is all very well having creative ways of imposing sanctions, but they are only as good as their enforcement. When I push the Government on exactly how much effort they are putting into enforcement and how much investment is going in, I am always concerned that although those sanctions may look good on paper, things may be slipping through the net. We need to ensure that we mean what we say, and that we do it.
There are a couple of other issues that I would like to briefly cover. First, although there is a hot war going on in Ukraine—that is one war that is going on in Europe—we are all agreed that Europe is also at war with Russia on another basis. That is the new hybrid warfare, the sort of warfare that is more difficult to identify, whether Russia is subjecting us to sabotage, cyber-attacks, or misinformation and disinformation. We are at war with Russia, and it is trying to undermine our democracies and our countries. Nowhere is that clearer than around the Black sea, which is of huge strategic importance to Russia. The countries around the Black sea, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia, have all been subjected to a level of hybrid warfare that we need to look at, not just because we need to be of assistance to them—we are all in this together—but because that is a portent of what could happen to us.
Yesterday, the Committee heard from Ana Revenco about the ongoing hybrid warfare that Moldova is subjected to. It is at the forefront of hybrid warfare; it faces cyber-attacks, illicit financing schemes, prolific information manipulation campaigns and political rhetoric espoused by Kremlin-linked actors. Some of us in the Chamber might be thinking, “We already have some of that—in fact, we probably have all of that”, but we only have it at a low level. However, we are heading for elections, and elections are always a time when a democracy is at its most vulnerable. We must not be complacent, but I fear that sometimes we are. We are a great democracy; we have been going for a long time, and we think, “Oh, it’ll be fine”, because of course we are an island. If, like Finland, we had Russia right on our border, we would have a very different attitude, but in modern times, whether or not we have a land border, Russia can still try to influence our democracy by undermining us. If we open our eyes, we can see that there is ongoing disinformation that is trying to undermine our democracy right now, and the problem is that the public are not alive to it. The last thing anybody ever wants to admit is that they have been lied to and they have fallen for it. Trying to explain to them afterwards that they have done so is just impossible, so we need to ensure that we counter that disinformation right now.
For the Russians, Britain is the No. 1 enemy in Europe. Looking at their rhetoric and the sorts of things they say about us, it is Britain they loathe more than practically any other country. I am proud of that, but we need to be mindful of what it means for our country. The Russians believe that we are responsible for triggering the second world war and many subsequent conflicts. In today’s context, that is projected on to the war in Ukraine, where Britain is portrayed as not merely a supporter of Kyiv, but the architect and main driver of the conflict. Listening to some of the things their secret service has been openly saying about us, it is as if everything that is happening in Ukraine is down to us—I wish it were, but the rhetoric is definitely against us. They advance a conspiratorial vision in which Britain is acting as not just Ukraine’s ally but the mastermind behind a proxy war, persuading Europe to fight to the last Ukrainian. The chairman of the state Duma even alleged recently that we were orchestrating specific incidents, such as the shelling of Belgorod, close to the Ukrainian border. So it goes on. Russian propaganda routinely accuses the UK of being involved in terrorist attacks and acts of sabotage targeting Russia, or Russian nationals. The allegations include the poisoning of Litvinenko, the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic sea—it seems that all of this is down to us—and the terrorist attack committed by Islamists at the Crocus City Hall.
Russian propaganda continues to point the finger at Britain. It used to be America, but for some reason America is not in Russian sights so much any more, and we are. In a way, we should be proud of that, but we need to be mindful of it, and we need to stick together and stand with Ukraine. We stand with Ukraine—the Ukranians are fighting the war for us, and we continue to give them every support—and we should be proud of that. I am proud of the fact that in this country and in this House—with the exception of those who are not present in the Chamber this afternoon—we are united behind them. We remain united, and we must remain united until the end—until victory. Slava Ukraini!
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I welcome the time for this debate on Ukraine today, as we meet at a key moment. American peace proposals welcomed by the Kremlin suggested demilitarised zones and buffer areas. Those phrases sound technical, but their consequences could be catastrophic. The Ukrainian people see such proposals for what they are: a ruse to circumvent Ukraine’s defences and continue the invasion later. Russia’s relentless assault in the east has intensified, despite it passing the grim milestone of a million Russian troops killed or injured on the frontline. Zaporizhzhia, a city of 670,000 people, is now under serious threat. Russian drones are striking the city. The emergency services have prepared a plan to evacuate a third of the population if fighting damages the nearby nuclear power station. That is the reality of Putin’s war.
President Trump is unreliable, unpredictable and disdainful of the rule of law—one need only look at his actions in Venezuela. Britain must take an active role in ensuring that Ukraine’s interests remain at the heart of all future negotiations, reinforcing collective deterrence and signalling that European security and Ukraine’s sovereignty remain non-negotiable. That also requires honesty about the United States. What concrete security guarantees have actually been secured, and can the Government seriously assure this House that those guarantees would endure beyond the next conversation between President Trump and Vladimir Putin?
The United Kingdom and France have committed to the potential deployment of troops in Ukraine, should a peace deal be agreed. Any discussion of UK or French troops on the ground must be about deterrence, not escalation, and limited in scope, tied to a political settlement and never an open-ended deployment. It is right that the Prime Minister has committed to putting any deployment of British forces to Ukraine to a vote in this place, but any such commitment must be credible. That means having the personnel, the equipment, the logistics and the funding in place not just to deploy, but to sustain a force over time. Serious questions remain about our current ability to do that.
Will the Minister set out in clear terms how the Government intend to ensure that any future deployment to Ukraine will be fully resourced, properly equipped and sustainably funded, and not announced before the means to deliver it exist? The Government must increase the size of our armed forces, plug gaps in military capability and fix the broken procurement processes. The lack of a clear defence investment plan for our military undermines the credibility of announcements of overseas deployments.
Alongside military deterrence, we must also apply maximum economic pressure. Yesterday morning, residents in my constituency were surprised to wake up to find various fruits and vegetables and cans of milk distributed across our beaches in Seaford and Newhaven. A container ship passing through the channel had shed some containers in the past few weeks, and those have now washed up. Another day, my residents could find their beaches covered in oil leaked from a sanctioned Russian tanker from the Russian shadow fleet also passing through the channel. That is why we must take every action possible to restrict the shadow fleet, not just to prevent the flow of money into Russia, but because it presents an active threat to this country’s economic, military and environmental security. We therefore welcome the Government’s announcement of a ban on UK companies providing services such as insurance or maintenance to ships carrying Russian liquefied natural gas. That is a big step in the right direction and we genuinely welcome it.
Carriers owned or insured by the UK have transported £45 billion-worth of Russian products since 2022. We must do more. The Government’s recent oil price cap reduction is insufficient. Liberal Democrats believe that the cap should be lowered at least to $30 dollars a barrel, with stricter enforcement to ensure that no UK money supports Russia’s war effort. The Government should also be giving serious consideration to a total ban on Russian oil and gas exports. I think that many people would share my astonishment at the news that the UK still imports £1.7 billion-worth of goods and services from Russia, and that the figure actually increased in 2025.
The most impactful contribution that the Government could make is pushing for allied action to unlock frozen Russian assets. My hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) has introduced a Bill to enable billions in frozen Russian assets to be seized and the proceeds to be directed to Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction. It is also welcome that the Government are threatening legal action to secure £2.5 billion from Roman Abramovich’s Chelsea sale. Liberal Democrats have called for that for over a year. It should never have taken as long, but we welcome forward movement. Putin must be punished, not rewarded, and it was deeply disappointing to see the European Union fail to agree on a reparations loan using Russian assets. Britain must show greater resolve and make Putin pay—literally—for his invasion.
We are all appalled by the abduction of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children. That is a war crime. We support the Bring Kids Back initiative and the Yale School of Public Health’s humanitarian research lab, but those initiatives are in danger because President Trump has cut their funding. Again, frozen Russian assets could be used to fund the shortfall. Support for Ukraine also means doing right by Ukrainians here in the UK: Ministers must provide certainty on length of leave to remain and urgently resolve the status of young Ukrainians studying at our universities and colleges, who cannot be left in prolonged legal limbo.
Russia continues to pose a profound strategic threat through its invasion, cyber-attacks and energy coercion. That threat extends far beyond Ukraine, to the Baltic states in particular, and deterrence must therefore be pan-European if it is to be credible. It would be wholly inappropriate to contemplate restoring Russia’s G7 membership, and the UK must oppose its readmission. The UK must also step up its contribution to European defence through NATO, the Joint Expeditionary Force and deeper co-operation with our European allies, and must be unequivocal in defending the sovereignty of all NATO partners in areas including the High North and Greenland. Aggression and violations of sovereignty will not be rewarded.
As we debate in comfort, Ukrainian soldiers man defensive positions in freezing conditions. Ukrainian civilians flee their homes; Ukrainian families live with the daily terror of drone and missile strikes. They are fighting for freedom, sovereignty, and their very existence. They are fighting for principles that we claim to hold dear: democracy, the rule of law and self-determination. Will we stand with them for as long as it takes, or will we allow fatigue and the bullying of autocrats to erode our resolve? Liberal Democrats are clear: we will not look away; we will not accept an unjust peace; we will push for the maximum economic pressure, for seizing frozen Russian assets, for proper support for Ukraine’s defence, and for democratic oversight of any British military involvement.
The unity of this House, with one party a small but notable exception, reflects the strength of the British people’s commitment to our Ukrainian friends. They must be tired, but we must never tire of talking about them in this place. They are fighting for all our futures, and we must continue to stand by their side for as long as it takes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Sixteen Members wish to speak. I do not want to impose a time limit, but if everyone speaks for about eight minutes and monitors their speaking time, everyone will have an equal time in which to speak. Let us try to be mindful.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I shall try to follow your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let me begin by paying tribute to what Members have said already, and also to the fact that a number of Members in all parties have contributed in many different ways in trying to stand up for the Ukrainian people, not only in speeches in the House but through the initiatives that they are taking.
I want to talk briefly about my own motivation, which starts in Syria. Here I should refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes a reference to my role in that regard. As Members will know, I have a deep-seated passion for seeing that the Syrian people have a proper free and inclusive future after years of brutal dictatorship from Assad, and, of course, Putin was central to that. Half a million people died in Syria because of the actions of Assad and Putin, and I question whether Putin would have felt emboldened to invade Ukraine—Crimea—in 2014 if our country and the United States had taken a stronger role back in 2013, when that red line was set.
I want to take a moment to reflect on what the Minister said about parties not being present, because another party is absent too: Your Party. Members of that party and of the hard left look at this conflict in Ukraine and blame the west. Hon. Members may remember the ridiculous statement that blamed NATO expansion for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Let us be absolutely clear: there was no excuse, and there never will be any excuse, for Putin’s actions in Ukraine.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, if anybody has any doubt about Putin’s motives or morality, they should look at who his partners are in this war? Iran is a country that is killing its own people on the streets and is now executing them. Is it not the case that Putin is an absolute disgrace, and anybody who shows any sympathy for him really should look at who his friends are?
David Taylor
I think we know who Putin’s friends are, and that is a matter of public record. I completely agree, and if I had had time during my question on the Iran statement yesterday, I would have spoken about the role that Iran is playing in Ukraine. Shahed drones, which all of us who have been to Ukraine have had to cower from, are being provided by the Iranian regime, so the sooner it falls the better.
I want to praise Conservative Members for the role they played, alongside my own, in the lead-up to the conflict. In particular, I praise Ben Wallace for his role, especially in putting in place the next-generation light anti-tank weapons, because it was so crucial at the start of the conflict that Kyiv did not fall. Much as we may praise the actions of our Government or any other Government, we must of course praise the bravery of the Ukrainian people at the start of that conflict in stopping the tanks rolling into Kyiv.
I am very grateful for the work that Ministers and the Prime Minister are doing to support the Ukrainian people, and we have heard some of the figures about the billions going on defence spending. I am particularly grateful for the £3.5 billion that will be spent on hardware under the defence industry support treaty, and the continued support for Operation Interflex training and for the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, which has over 50 partners, as well as for the British built octopus drones that will be so crucial.
I absolutely welcome the talks towards a ceasefire. Who would not want a ceasefire? I also welcome the commitment with France to deploy peacekeepers at some point in the future. However, we must continue to support the Ukrainian people, because I fear that the Russians will use any pause in fighting as an opportunity to re-group and go again. We cannot be under any illusion about the threat from Russia. Many of us have been part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I had an opportunity to visit our fantastic troops in the Tapa base in Estonia just before Christmas, which really brought home just how real the threat from Russia continues to be.
I have made a couple of trips to Ukraine since the conflict started. The most recent one, almost a year ago, focused on drone technology and the imperative of supporting the Ukrainians in defending themselves. I had some absolutely amazing meetings while I was there, including with Deputy Defence Minister Sergiy Boyev, as well as with Ukrainian MPs who many hon. Members will know, such as Dmytro Natalukha and Oleksander Marikovskyi, who are members of the Economic Affairs Committee. Dmytro referred to the vital importance of drones and the need for what he called the Kalashnikovs of the sky. A Kalashnikov is of course a very durable weapon, and if it does break in any way it is very easy to repair. As well as the most important high tech, the Ukrainians continue to need the everyday drones that can help on the frontline to do reconnaissance, so that they know the Russian positions, and help them as they try to advance. Yes, we need investments in advanced technology, but we also need the Kalashnikovs of the sky—weapons for which parts are easy to come by and that are easy to repair.
On drones, I echo a point made by the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). I agree that we need to look at how we can get more UK finance into Ukraine through joint ventures that can help with the production of drones. If we can work with the City of London to look at ways in which we can unlock any barriers that may exist, that would be a worthwhile venture, because we need to get more capital into the country to help Ukrainian companies, as well as our own, to build drones. The Octopus drone scheme is a brilliant example of our trying to work with the Ukrainians. There is a real opportunity here. The Ukrainians have the data, and the lived experience that can help us to build drones together. That will help us, and will help them in this war. I hope that, in the wind-ups, the Minister can talk about how we can work with the City of London to unlock more capital that will go into the country.
I want to talk briefly about a second trip I made, way back in 2024, when I was but a humble candidate. There are a number of organisations up and down the UK involving ordinary people who are trying to help in a grassroots way, in any way that they can. At a time when there is so much talk about charity beginning at home, and about problems here, it is remarkable that so many ordinary people have stepped up to help people they will probably never meet. Some have gone to Ukraine, and I want to pay tribute to them. I went there with an organisation called Help99. It delivers pick-up trucks that farmers do not need any more. Soldiers use them on the frontline to get from A to B. To go back to an earlier point, long-range missiles and expensive technology are really important, but we also need the things that will help soldiers on the ground. I pay tribute to those organisations. I had the privilege of hosting an event on this subject in Parliament last year, at which over 60 individuals and over 30 organisations from around the country came together.
I encourage the Government to look at ways that any excess vehicles on the Government estate, be they at the Home Office or at Network Rail, can be donated cheaply. Let us get the Treasury to write off these vehicles. It would not cost that much money, and it would make a difference to ordinary soldiers on the frontline.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you want us to keep our comments fairly brief, so to save time, let me say that I associate myself completely with what was said by the Minister, the Opposition spokespeople and the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee in support of Ukraine. Ukraine’s fight is our fight. They are a brave and noble people showing enormous courage. None of us here has any sympathy whatever for Putin and what he has done. We should be reasonably confident and not downhearted. We should be proud of what we have done as a nation from the very start.
We should not assume that Putin will necessarily win. He has an economy the size of Spain, or perhaps Italy. We have vastly more resources. These regimes can seem very strong, but they can collapse very quickly. Who knows what will happen? He is only a prototype dictator. In these four years, he has only marched 30 miles; Stalin marched all the way from the Volga to Berlin. Yes, all right, he is refusing all these peace offers, and he is determined to get the rest of the Donbas. I agree that over four years, with thousands more dying and his economy destroyed, he might get another 30 miles, and get the rest of the Donbas, but so what? What will that achieve for his country? It is so cruel, unnecessary and pointless. There is criticism of Mr Trump, but at least he is trying to get some sort of peace deal. Our influence is limited, but we should support his efforts. One thing we cannot support is cravenly getting a peace deal that allows Russia to grab territory that it has failed to get over the past four years, and get the fortresses that Ukraine needs for its survival.
There is hope. I know that some people think that this is almost as bad as Germany invading Poland in 1939. It is almost worse. I have made it my job over the past 40 years, partly because my wife is half Russian, to try to understand the Russian psyche. It is worse, in a sense, because so many nationalist Russians, who are not the Russians I know or associate with, view Ukraine—Ukraine means “border country”—as part of Russia. They view Kyiv, the source of the Russian Rus, as we view Canterbury, so I am afraid these Russian nationalists will not give up. They want to grab the whole country, so we must remain firm.
I would go along with anything the Government wanted to do in support of Ukraine in terms of sanctions: upping sanctions, stopping tankers—anything they like. However, in the few moments that I have, I want to question the Government on the idea of sending a small force of British troops. We are part of the coalition of the willing; I do not want it to be the coalition of the naive willing.
I have sat through so many of these debates: the debate on Iraq—I was one of only 15 Tory MPs to oppose Blair’s invasion—the Afghanistan debates; and the Syria debate, in which I refused to support Mr Cameron. There is so much danger in deploying perhaps just 7,000 under-resourced British troops to a country the size of France, with a population the size of France’s and an 800-mile front—a country where 7,000 people have been dying every month. Now, if America was prepared to come in, or if there was a NATO operation, I think the House would be very willing to accept our involvement, but compare this with what happened in West Germany. Compare the size of our Army now to the size of our Army then. Do you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we had 120,000 service personnel in Germany? We had 55,000 British troops, excluding the RAF, in West Germany; we had 900,000 NATO troops in West Germany, including the Bundeswehr. America was totally committed.
I noticed what was said by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary). They did not immediately say that they would support the Government. Instead, they asked some quite serious questions. If we have this debate, we have to go on asking those questions. What are the rules of engagement? What happens if I am right, and Putin accepts some temporary ceasefire and then marches in again? What would happen then to our 7,000 troops?
Emily Thornberry
I am listening very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I take on board his points, but we have yet to give sufficient emphasis to whether Putin actually wants peace. I fully understand that plans need to be made in case there is a peace, but that is rather based on the idea that he wants to stop, and I, for one, am not really sure that he does.
Sir Edward Leigh
I agree with that entirely. I am not sure that this will ever happen. I am not sure there will ever be a ceasefire. I think Putin is determined to carry on for another four years and another 30 miles. However, as the national Parliament, and given the size of our Army and the resources that we have, I think that we have a right to question the Prime Minister on this. Now, I quite understand that for the Prime Minister, this is hell. He has to deal with the NHS, the farmers, the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats—much better to grandstand on the world stage and say, “Yes, we are prepared to put our troops on the ground,” but it is grandstanding, and it is extremely dangerous.
I will end on this point. Just imagine—I know it is probably not going to happen—that there is a ceasefire, and we put troops in, and Putin marches again. Does anybody here really, in their heart of hearts, want to be involved in a shooting war with Russia? I have grown-up children. Does anybody here want their son to be called out there, and to be killed by a Russian drone, as thousands of brave Ukrainians have been? This is serious stuff. I am pleased that the two Opposition parties are asking the questions—that is what we all need to do.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
It will come as no surprise to colleagues across the House to hear that the issue I want to focus on is the treatment of the Ukrainian children. When I first visited Ukraine, this was the issue that struck me to my core. Russia has stolen 20,000 Ukrainian children from their home, and Russian authorities themselves report that more than 700 Ukrainian children have now been officially registered in Russia—a heinous war crime that continues unabated today.
Some 1.6 million children in the occupied territories are being subjected to militarisation and indoctrination. In recent months, we have seen clearer and deeply disturbing evidence, and have heard harrowing testimony from Ukrainian children who have been abducted by Russia, and from those trapped in the occupied territories, that the militarisation of Ukrainian children is accelerating at pace. It is no longer about propaganda quietly slipped into classrooms. We now see the deliberate transformation of schools into instruments of war—an $8 billion down payment on Russia’s future military.
Ukrainian children are being placed on so-called specialised tracks and funnelled into paramilitary movements that are now formally embedded in the education system. Children are prescribed mandatory hours of military training and are forced to attend military camps. If they refuse, they risk failing their secondary education, which leaves conscription into the Russian military as the only future left to them.
One child told Save Ukraine:
“They showed us different types of grenades and mines. How much pressure a mine can withstand when it explodes. How to lay mines, clear areas, set tripwires, dig trenches. While I was digging a trench, they deliberately threw in a grenade to make it feel like a real battlefield.”
Another child recently rescued by Save Ukraine reported that Russian soldiers conduct psychological testing, asking them questions like, “How do you feel about killing? Do you enjoy hurting people? Do you want to be a tank operator or a pilot?”. The fear of violence, punishment and forced conscription is not an isolated experience. It has become a daily reality for those living in the occupied territories. This is not education; it is coercion. It is cold, calculated and chillingly familiar from the darkest chapters of history on occupation.
Those children who are not trained to fight are trained to police. They are being shaped into the next generation of law enforcement officials. Whose laws are they being taught to enforce? Putin’s. They are laws that silence dissent through violence, that tear children from families, and that allow children as young as 14 to be prosecuted for terrorism, with penalties reaching life imprisonment, simply for opposing Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.
Children in the occupied territories live under constant surveillance. Their phones are checked, their social media is monitored, and any sign of Ukrainian consciousness is routinely treated as suspicious, disloyal and extremism. Russia’s treatment of Ukrainian children reveals its long-term strategy, with deep security implications for Europe and NATO.
I am proud of the leadership that the United Kingdom has shown in standing with Ukraine, in everything from the arms we have supplied to the sanctuary we have provided, but I am deeply concerned; although reports suggest that we are 90% of the way towards a peace agreement, the language on the abducted Ukrainian children remains disturbingly vague. There is no clarity on how the stolen children will be traced. There is no clarity on how they will be returned, and bear in mind that many have been trafficked to Belarus or North Korea.
What happens to the youngest children who were ripped from their homes, who may not be able to remember a time before they were placed with Russian families? Who will adjudicate if there are disputes about children’s documentation, bearing in mind that many mothers in the occupied territories were forced to register their children as Russian simply to secure maternity care?
There remain disparities between the individuals whom we in this country have sanctioned for the forced deportation of Ukrainian children and those sanctioned by the EU and the US. I have flagged those disparities with the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). I completely understand that he cannot comment on further designations, but I urge him to look again at that list.
I thank the Minister sincerely for his efforts, and I know that he takes this issue incredibly seriously. To that end, I urge him to ensure that the same determination and resolve shown to the international coalition of the willing is now, at this pivotal time in peace negotiations, shown to the international coalition for the return of Ukrainian children. Will he push for a meeting of that coalition again at the earliest opportunity so that it can establish a clear post-war plan to secure international consensus on the fate of the abducted children, and to make it clear that their return must be a non-negotiable next step in any peace deal between Russia and Ukraine? There can be no lasting peace without the return of the stolen children. Slava Ukraini!
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I shall be as brief as I possibly can be. I very much welcome the debate, although it did come as a bit of a surprise. I think one of the reasons why not many Members are in the Chamber is that they were not really prepared for it, the Prime Minister is not here and there is no proper motion. Out of 400 Labour MPs, fewer than 20 are in the Chamber, which I think projects an unfortunate message for a Government debate on Ukraine. I welcome it nevertheless, but I look forward to a proper debate on a proper motion to which everyone will have to turn up—there might even be whipping—to hear what the Prime Minister has to say, particularly about the deployment, which I will come to.
I will not repeat the speech I had the privilege of delivering in the debate granted to me by the Backbench Business Committee on 4 December. However, I will reiterate that Russia cannot win this war militarily; it will only win because of western weakness—our weakness and lack of resolve. If we support Ukraine, Russia cannot win. That is why its diplomatic efforts are so vigorous.
There is far more that we could do. In particular, we could rearm our own armed forces much more quickly. I get smiles from Government Front Benchers when I say that, because they agree with me, but the Government are not delivering the scale of defence spending increases that we need.
Ian Roome
Just today it has been reported that 18 tankers from the Russian shadow fleet have passed through the channel since the Defence Secretary’s statement to the House on 7 January on curtailing Russian oil exports. Does the hon. Member agree that we must show the Russians that we mean what we say?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I completely agree. There should be a NATO operation to intercept every ship that comes into NATO’s operational area in the north Atlantic and the North sea around the north of Scotland. We could choke off a significant amount of this, but we are not doing so; we are letting it carry on. Getting all of Europe’s NATO powers in line with that is a problem, but let us do it. Together, the NATO nations in Europe could show Trump that we are prepared to deliver for European security, but we are not doing that at the moment.
It is essential for us to discuss the so-called coalition of the willing. We all know that there are already some armed forces personnel in Ukraine providing advice, logistics, training and intelligence, and supporting planning and headquarters—that sort of thing. There is probably more that we can learn from the Ukrainians about fighting the Russians than we can teach them. But is 7,500 troops in formed units—a brigade—supporting a combat battalion or two what we are talking about? I have grave doubts about that, including on the rules of engagement and how we would provide core security. Would we not just be presenting a lovely target for the Russians to attack? They might not attack it directly—it might be “accidental”—but it would blur areas and create all sorts of problems if we were so overt. I have my doubts, unless we have a force in there that can actually fight and defend itself against the Russians. How we would respond in such a situation, were Russia to escalate, is a very open question.
I have no desire to be an armchair critic of the Government’s policy, and this brings me to the main point that I want to make. It has become fashionable to believe that Parliament has a right to tell the Government when and when not to deploy troops, but there is no constitutional basis for this whatsoever. In fact, the Prime Minister assumes his office, takes the seals of office and takes the responsibility upon himself about when to direct the armed forces into harm’s way. There is no constitutional impediment to him doing that.
What we saw in the Syria debate—I commend the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) for his excellent speech—was a humiliating abdication of the Government’s responsibility. They knew that it was right to deploy armed force in Syria, but they then volunteered not to do so because of a finely balanced debate and vote in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister stood there and said, “I get it.” This was really O-level politics and O-level statecraft. It was ridiculous, and the hon. Gentleman is completely right to say that it projected weakness when we knew that the Russians were supporting the Syrian Government in deploying chemical weapons and murdering their own people. It was also weak of Obama to say this was a red line and then fail to do anything about it. We projected weakness and we invited Putin to try again, and I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman about the consequences.
The point is that the Government have the responsibility to make this judgment. They cannot pass this judgment on to 650 armchair generals jaw-jawing in the House of Commons when we do not have the intelligence or the assessments. We can express our views and we can hold the Government to account for the outcome of what they decide, but I put it to the Minister that in that debate on Syria we learned that a Prime Minister does not resign when he loses such a crucial vote. Part of that was to do with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. If he had made it a vote of confidence, would he have won it? If not, would there have been a general election? No, there would not have been. He might have had to resign, but there would not have been a general election. We were at a very artificial point.
I put it to the Minister that if the Prime Minister were to bring a vote to the House of Commons this time and lose it, he would either have to resign and hand over to somebody else or call a general election, because we no longer have a fixed-term Parliament. We are back to real accountability, and the accountability that counts is at the ballot box, in the final analysis. The one power the Prime Minister has is to call a general election and ask the King to dissolve Parliament. If he had lost such a vote, that would be the only honourable thing for him to do. He cannot come here and engage in the kind of abject, humiliating abdication of responsibility that we saw before.
On the other experience, the Government of the day won the Iraq vote, and I happen still to think that was right. We have a democracy of sorts in Iraq, and Iraq is no longer a Russian puppet, but who in this House still believes that was the right decision? The polls went in favour of the Iraq war at the last minute, and maybe that helped Tony Blair get the vote over the line. Was that a good basis for making a decision? No, it was not. Either the Government make such a decision for themselves and hold themselves accountable to this House, or the Prime Minister should not accept the seals of office and become Prime Minister, because that is the job.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I would like to start by thanking the Leader of the House for giving us this debate. He could have chosen any topic to fill the space this afternoon, but he chose this debate on Ukraine. It is a privilege to serve as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine. I can see many members of the APPG here. The group is not full, so other Members can still join. We would like to have every Back-Bench Member of the House as a member of the APPG.
I want to start with a first-person narrative about what is happening in Ukraine now, as we approach the midway point of the Ukrainian winter, in the middle of January, and the reality of the lived experience of what midwinter in Kyiv really means and feels like. Russia continues to have the ability to strike on a daily basis and to take out Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Its energy security is constantly under fire.
I spoke with Lesia Vasylenko—I know many people here know Lesia—who chairs the British group in the Rada, and who is in Kyiv. She told me:
“I have had no heating in my flat for four days and it’s minus 10”
—this was yesterday; it is now minus 13°—
“This is the situation in half of Kyiv. No electricity too, apart from a couple of hours in the night. Some buildings have no water. I’m writing this to you in total darkness and wearing four layers. Schools are not working. The sound of generators is less and less heard as they are breaking down en masse, given that they are not designed to work non-stop”
and in such low temperatures. She continues:
“Hospitals are also working at limited capacity. And every night Russia is deliberately hitting more and more power generating facilities and gas infrastructure. The task is to freeze Kyiv out. At one point mayor Klitschko even appealed to the people of Kyiv to leave the city. Putin’s invasion nearly four years ago has resulted in millions fleeing their homes, hundreds of thousands of casualties, and relentless attacks on hospitals, homes and schools. This includes Russian state sponsored abductions of Ukrainian children,”
which my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) spoke brilliantly about,
“and the arrest of my colleagues at the OSCE, Dmytro Shabanov, Maksym Petrov, and Vadym Golda,”
who I know my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) is raising as an Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe rep on Ukraine. Lesia is the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly chair of the parliamentary support team for Ukraine. I am happy that we can support her and continue to support the work going on now. On our support for Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, Octopus signed a significant deal with DTEK, a large private energy company in Ukraine, for £100 million. We need to see much more like that.
I was pleased my hon. Friend the Minister spoke about that bunker under the school on the south bank of Kyiv that we went to together when we were in opposition. We need to think about those children now—not in that school, which has a generator, but in their homes freezing, and all those other millions of people in Kyiv now being frozen out. We need to do more not just to provide emergency energy generation, but that long-term, secure renewable energy. For us, renewable energy is a matter of the energy transition—we just had the statement right before this—but for them, it is national security. It is the difference between being able to heat their homes, keep the lights on and use their mobile phones, and not being able to do so. It is much easier for the Russians to take out a gas-fired power station or a nuclear power station than it is to take out a wind or solar farm. We need to ensure that we do everything we can on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.
As chair of the APPG, I write many letters every week to enable Members of the Ukrainian Rada to visit us here. That is not just about Members of the Rada but right across the piece, because so many Ukrainians have family members here and other ties to the UK. It is still so difficult for Ukranians to get visas. I ask the Minister how we can further reduce bureaucracy for Ukrainians to come here and how we can liberalise those short-term travel visas, which are still difficult to get.
Sanctions are one of the few non-military tools capable of influencing Russian policy. They act as leverage that should not be given away without meaningful concessions. Without conditions, such as a withdrawal to the 1991 borders and binding agreements on reparations, a ceasefire could freeze the conflict in a way that perpetuates instability. Europe and the UK cannot repeat the mistake of 2014, when sanctions over Crimea and the Donbas were limited and political will dissipated. That leniency enabled Moscow to believe that further escalation would be tolerated and led to the full-scale invasion in 2022. Whatever happens—whatever negotiation or agreement —we need to keep Russian sanctions in place and continue to restrict its ability to operate, because my concern is that otherwise we will allow future conflicts to happen, because Russia’s territorial ambitions are not constrained just to Ukraine or to any agreement to freeze the conflict.
Phil Brickell
My hon. Friend is a tireless champion for the UK-Ukraine relationship, including through the 100-year partnership. Does he agree that it is worth commending the Government for the action that has been taken in the past month on issuing a licence through the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation to move the £2.5 billion of Chelsea football club proceeds that have remained frozen for four years now? That money could be used to support the victims of conflict, including in Ukraine. Will he join me in calling on the Government to move faster on unlocking the more than £700,000 of assets that belong to Petr Aven, one of Putin’s closest oligarch friends? They have been frozen for quite some time now by the National Crime Agency and could also be used to support the Ukrainian people.
Alex Sobel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It has taken too long to see that Chelsea money. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) talked about the aid convoys. Imagine what they could do to support Ukraine, the generators we could buy and the energy infrastructure we could build with the billions from the Chelsea sale.
David Taylor
I hope that if that money is unlocked, we look at ways to compensate for the money that is going into Ukraine by freeing up money that might be able to go to other conflicts around the world, where we have sadly made some reductions due to the cut to the aid budget.
Alex Sobel
My hon. Friend is inviting me to comment on our official development assistance cuts, on which we probably share the same opinion. There is a principle here about reparations, whether they are from the Russian state, from individuals who have benefited from this war or from the gangster kleptocracy that runs Russia. We need to do both those things. There is a wider discussion to be had about how we can support Ukraine and retrench some of the money for other areas, particularly Syria and, hopefully, Iran, that need ODA money from the UK now and in the near future.
As my time is nearly up, I will ask a couple of questions that the Minister can answer at the end of the debate. On the much-vexed question of our deployment of troops to Ukraine, it is very early. I want to counsel some Members that when they are talking about this, their language and approach is very reminiscent of the run-up to the second world war and Lord Halifax’s approach. There was an agreement in Munich, Chamberlain said that it would be a peace in our time, and then the war started—it came to us. Russia’s territorial ambitions are not limited; they are unlimited. We need to be cognisant of that. We need to be on the front foot, not on the back foot. I understand all the concerns about our ability to deploy troops. What planning are we doing at this stage? What is the process? What can we do to reassure MPs and the public that we are making the right planning steps towards that?
On what we can do now, the plans announced to develop new tactical ballistic missiles with Ukraine to strengthen its ability to defend itself against Russia are welcome. I am sure the Defence Minister will be able to answer this question: can the Government talk more about how and when we will do that and what the timelines are? Our own air defences are insufficient. We need to think about the future. If this war is protracted—if Putin does not settle and we do not get to a ceasefire—we ourselves could be threatened by drones, missiles and all the things we hear about every day in Ukraine. We need to be ready for our own defence, as well as the defence of Ukraine.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. There are still 12 Members who wish to speak. I was not going to propose a formal time limit. Perhaps, before I do, Members could restrict themselves to about five minutes and learn from each other’s examples?
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I associate myself with the Minister’s comments, for which I thank him.
I have some significant and substantive questions to ask, but I will reflect for a moment on the human side of this conflict, which is important. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) did that very well, as she always does. I have travelled a lot to Ukraine over the past 20 years for work and other purposes. One of the most significant visits was on Thursday night, when I drove into Kyiv during the bombardment. I was reminded that that bombardment, in the early hours of Friday morning, was not aimed at any military target, but at the energy infrastructure, as temperatures in Kyiv reached minus 15°C and minus 20°C. It was nippy, Madam Deputy Speaker, but, unlike so many people, I had somewhere warm to go. What told us perhaps a little more about the Russian Administration, and the way in which they conduct their war, was the double-tap strikes. They hit apartment blocks, and shortly thereafter they hit again, killing the ambulance workers who are reacting.
I then travelled to Sumy—I believe I was one of the first British Members of Parliament to do so since the full-scale invasion—which has a partnership agreement with Angus council in my constituency. The sense of solidarity must go beyond Kyiv, and I am sure that our friends in Kyiv would not mind that. I want to give a shout out to the people of Sumy who welcomed me. As we lay flowers for the 37 people who were killed in an artillery attack as they were out shopping, we were moved on very quickly—we could not even mourn or mark our respects for much longer. As the governor of Sumy told me, that human element is so important. I give a shout-out to Timmergreens primary school in my constituency. Miss Baird’s class, led by Mrs Biesok, wrote letters to children in Sumy. Although I took other gifts, including a tartan scarf—colleagues from Scotland will understand—and mentioned other areas of connection, it was those simple letters from primary school children in my constituency that meant so much to everybody in Ukraine. They were exceptional and beautifully written.
I pay tribute to those children, because their efforts remind us of the more serious issues that we are dealing with. That human element tells us why Ukraine is fighting and why we have a responsibility, across Europe, to help Ukraine in its time of need.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be accountability for those Russians who have carried out massacres and raped, violently tortured and killed people, and they must be taken to court and put in prison?
Stephen Gethins
Accountability is so important, as I know the hon. Gentleman and other Members agree.
On the local element, will the Minister say something about the 100-year agreement? I know that this place has an important role in the response to the war in Ukraine, but the message I received during my travels at the weekend was how important local-to-local solidarity is. Will he say something about the conversations that he has had with devolved Governments and local administrations on the 100-year agreement. Matters such as education are for those administrations, rather than the Government, and it is important to involve others going forward.
The most substantive issue is that we face a significant challenge in European security and have done for some years. The transatlantic relationship is not quite what it was—we must look to Canada in many ways. The common European approach to defending Ukraine, which is, after all, defending us, will be incredibly important. The Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), has been very thoughtful on these issues, and it would be good to hear his reflections on deepening that co-operation.
Over the weekend in Ukraine, I heard so many thank yous—we hear that so many times when we visit. But that is the wrong way around. We should be saying thank you to Ukraine from us all.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
We have heard powerful speeches today. Those of us in the Chamber are united in support of our friends in Ukraine. Members have spoken about their own experiences of support, and about the support given by Members who are not present. But we must remember this: Members of the Ukrainian Parliament—the Rada—are doing far more than we could ever do. They are fighting the war; they are on Putin’s hit lists.
We here must show that resolve, because what we say in this Chamber is not heard and watched only on the TVs of our constituents; it is watched by our allies and our adversaries, so what we say here does matter. We also know that our ally, Ukraine, depends not just on words: the Ukrainians need the tools to carry on the job, and they must know that they have no truer friend than this country and that we will be with them until the very end.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
As we know, Russia is trying to destroy Ukrainian identity, so I am absolutely delighted that Epsom is putting on a Ukrainian “festival of friendship” week this month. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is absolutely vital that we provide the opportunity for Ukrainians in the UK to celebrate their culture here?
Kevin Bonavia
Absolutely; the hon. Lady makes a good point about Ukrainians we have given sanctuary to in this country. They are making a fantastic contribution and should be proud of their identity; just as many of us, even if we are not doing it today, wear the Ukrainian flag alongside the Union Jack, they should be proud of that and never lose that identity wherever their lives may take them.
Going forward, the world must be clear about this country’s position on the future of this horrific conflict. Yes, we want peace, but not at any price, and we must be clear that no peace can be made without the people of Ukraine. We have a proud history in this country of defending democracy, but we have blots on our history, too. We decided the future of Czechoslovakia without the Czechoslovaks; we must not do that now, and we should urge our allies that they must not do that either. That must be at the heart of this Government’s policy.
Beyond that, this is about soft and hard power. There are people talking about hard power politics out there. I speak as a lawyer who believes in the rule of law, but law without the power behind it is just empty words, so I commend efforts by this Government to increase that hard power. This country is getting serious and needs to get more serious, and I am sure many Members in this House will support the Government to do precisely that. If we do not, and if there is a peace, which is just a pause for Putin, we know what will happen next. Those Ukrainians are on the frontline of Europe and—make no mistake— not just Europe: this hostility goes right across the world to our allies across the Atlantic and beyond.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is right that the world should know and be in no doubt about the UK’s position on Ukraine, and nor should we be in doubt about Putin’s ambitions. He described as a geopolitical catastrophe the falling apart of the Soviet Union, and Russia’s 800-year most modern history is one of almost relentless expansion. Does he agree, therefore, that anybody who denies Putin’s ambitions for territorial expansion is denying both that statement by Putin and Russian history?
Kevin Bonavia
Absolutely, and we must not underestimate Putin. He is clearly a student of history, but he draws the wrong lessons from it. That man was a KGB agent in East Germany; when the Berlin wall fell, his world fell apart. He is now trying to rebuild that world. So this does not stop in Ukraine; it goes right across all those members of the then Warsaw pact. When I went to eastern Poland last year as a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I saw our Typhoon jets being scrambled to check out a Russian plane right on the edge of that. This is happening day in, day out; that man’s ambitions have no borders.
So I urge this Government, this House and this country to be resolute in defending the future of Ukraine, because its future is also our future.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I want to put it out there to all Members that, in the coming weeks or months, we will potentially vote to put our troops in harm’s way. I have put a friend on the back of a Hercules, in a coffin, in a foreign conflict. That is not something I want to see in this conflict. I am the only Member of this House on the Ukraine-NATO interparliamentary council and I stand in complete support of Ukraine, but it is not a given that we will put troops in harm’s way. We need to set that out clearly.
I want to talk about deployment based on my experience. First, I want to look at two historical deployments, both of which I was on—in Bosnia and Kosovo—to set out some of the challenges to which it would be good if the Minister responded later. Bosnia is 12 times smaller than Ukraine, and at the start there were 2,400 troops. That increased to 11,500 troops during the mid-’90s when the British armed forces numbered a quarter of a million. In 1999, I was in Kosovo, which is 55 times smaller than Ukraine, and the number of troops, including those on stand-by, was 19,000. The British armed forces then numbered over 200,000. For reference, the number of British armed forces today is at around 136,000—significantly fewer. That figure has been declining for 30 years.
What would a deployment look like today? No numbers have been disclosed formally, but the number we have seen so far in the media is 7,500. That equates to 15,000 per six-month period, as there would be 7,500 deployed and 7,500 on pre-deployment training. Over 12 years, that would equate to 30,000 troops tied up in, preparing for or coming back from Ukraine. That is almost half of our Army. It does not necessarily include the naval and air assets that would need to be in the region, which would represent a significant commitment as well.
If we are looking at stabilisation in any peace deal provided by British troops in some way, shape or form, we need to bear in mind, as we have all stated today, that Putin does not respect international law. We do not believe he wants peace. If he says, “I am going to have peace,” and we put British troops right on his border, we have to consider seriously what we will do if he changes his mind or reneges on any deal.
There are 39 million Ukrainian residents. The rule for military deployment of a stabilisation or peacekeeping force, as the Armed Forces Minister will know, is about 20 to 25 troops per 1,000 residents. That will equate to 600,000 to 800,000 troops, roughly the size of the Ukrainian armed forces. What will our 7,500 and France’s 7,500 do with a highly capable Ukrainian military that has been there for a long time?
There is a cost, and I would like to understand what considerations there are and what information will be made available over the coming weeks and months, because this will be a hot topic. How are we planning for a withdrawal and how are we planning to put troops in? We must have a clear, coherent strategy for how our troops will operate, for how long and under what commitment. Why are we looking to operate outside NATO or the JEF? Both Bosnia and Kosovo were NATO missions. We have that framework, and I am very concerned that the coalition of the willing will not work as coherently as the JEF does with NATO. How will the deployment be funded? Even this week, the chief of the defence staff has said that there are in-year pressures and that if cuts are not made, the budget will be exceeded, which is not allowed.
I have concerns about the rules of engagement. Putin does not respect any international law. How will our troops be protected, not just in the short term but in the long term? These are questions that we should be bringing to the House early on. Without a major intervention from the Government for an increase in funding—we need at least a brigade’s strength more to put the proposed level of troops into that region, given the numbers we have in the UK armed forces, both on the sick and deployable—we do not, I believe, have the operational capability to have sustainable forces, in conflict or peacekeeping, in Ukraine.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
I had the privilege of joining a parliamentary delegation to the Yalta European Strategy conference in Kyiv in September. That conference came at the very moment of the incursion of Russian drones into Polish airspace, reminding us that it is far from only the future of Ukraine that is at stake: their fight is our fight and it is Europe’s.
At the conference, the Foreign Secretary, on her first international visit in that role, announced 100 sanctions against Russia, and crucially £142 million to support civilians in frontline communities. I will focus my brief remarks on the importance of humanitarian support for some of those in Ukraine’s civilian community who have been most acutely affected and harmed, and whose experiences and voices need to be more widely heard.
When Russia brutally invaded Ukraine in 2022, millions of people were forced to flee, but to leave their homes has not been an option for many disabled people or for more than 260,000 Ukrainian people with learning disabilities. Dependent on their families and carers, they have had to stay in the midst of the invasion. Missile and drone attacks are terrifying for the whole community, but particularly for autistic people and those with learning disabilities.
Raisa Kravchenko has been at the forefront of supporting and protecting disabled people over these past traumatic years. On my visit to Kyiv, I met Raisa and her colleague Yulia Klepets, who founded the all-Ukrainian non-governmental organisation coalition for persons with intellectual disabilities. They told me how Raisa spent 25 days sheltering in a basement with her son Oleksiy, who has a learning disability, without food, electricity or gas, and how support and coping strategies that parents have used to support their children have been wrecked by the invasion. They told me about Vitaliy Zegelev, who had not left his Kyiv apartment in three years, who was terrified by air raid sirens and wholly dependent on his mother. That took a toll on his health and safety, and Vitaliy died. These are war crimes for which Russia must be held accountable.
Before the invasion, Raisa and Yulia were campaigning to move more disabled people out of care institutions and into community support. That work has been utterly frustrated, and now disabled people in care institutions have been targeted by Russian forces for kidnapping, as highlighted in the vital report by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter).
The disabled community in Ukraine is at breaking point and beyond. We are providing support. The £25 million funding from the UK Government for the social protection for inclusion, resilience, innovation and transformation—SPIRIT—programme for Ukraine is welcome, as it will provide support for disabled children, but we have to go further and do more. The international community needs to do more to intervene in the human rights emergency for disabled people, as for so many other groups in Ukrainian society.
I am keen to engage further with colleagues in Government on these issues. Alongside the all-Ukraine coalition, Inclusion Europe and UK Friends of Ukraine, I have published a report on the impact of the invasion on disabled people, which I hope will help Parliament consider what more we can do to support that community of Ukrainian people who have been so badly affected.
The experience of disabled people is just one aspect of the crimes committed against the people of Ukraine. We must look to the prospect of a peace agreement, but at this moment we have to ensure that we are doing all that we can to support Ukraine militarily, and in terms of the humanitarian need, including for disabled people and those who provide care and support.
The resilience of Raisa, Yulia and their colleagues is awe-inspiring. Their lives have been devastated for the sake of Putin’s ambitions. We must understand the scale of the task of reconstruction, the cost of which is estimated at $1 trillion. We have to hold Russia accountable for that. Russia must be penalised financially to ensure that we can support a full reconstruction and all of the communities that have been so badly affected and harmed because of Russia’s illegal actions. We must do all that we can to intervene in this humanitarian crisis.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Like many in this House, I stand with Ukraine and its defence of the frontline of Europe, and I am proud to do so.
A couple of weeks ago, I was helping some of the local Ukrainians who are living in my constituency under the Homes for Ukraine scheme to move home. They were being visited by their father, who is a senior officer in the Ukrainian navy. He was very grateful for the fact that we are keeping his family safe, and he said how important it was to the Ukrainians that we were able to do so. However, there are still some things that we need to do to ensure that they safely remain here in the UK. One of the daughters had just applied for the extension to Homes for Ukraine—the Ukraine permission extension scheme—to which people can apply only 28 days before their visa runs out. She had been waiting for more than 28 days, and she was worried that she would not be able to stay without a visa. I ask the Government to look at enabling the renewal of those visas sooner than 28 days before they end. Last year, I was able to win an extra two years’ certain stay for Ukrainians on those visas. That was fantastic, and I thank the Government for doing that. However, we still do not know how that is going to work and whether we will still have the problem of the 28 days and people having to wait right up until the very end of their visas.
None of the Ukrainians I know in the UK are sitting back and waiting for help; they have all gone out and got jobs. They are starting businesses, doing things and rebuilding lives here, and we need to look at how we can make that work. One of the issues for the family was qualifications. Their daughter had highly rated qualifications in maths and physics from a Ukrainian school that were not recognised by the school in the UK. It would be helpful if the Government could provide guidance to our schools on the extent to which they can recognise qualifications from Ukrainian schools. That was one of the family’s explicit asks.
Let me add that we should look at what we can do in terms of dentistry. I have a Ukrainian dentist in my constituency who is going through an elongated process to try to requalify to practise dentistry in the UK. Goodness knows that we need all the dentists we can get, so let us help them and make it easier for them to settle here for longer.
There is a problem with the Ukraine permission extension scheme. If Donald Trump is able to magic a ceasefire out of thin air, which I and probably this House feel is very unlikely, we will be in a position where we technically and potentially have peace in Ukraine—I dream of that day, but I do not expect it to be soon. However, if we have peace, we know that the Ukrainian visas will be ended. The visas will finish, and we will expect people to go back, but we all know that there is a difference between peace and safety. We know that Ukraine is covered in unexploded ordnance and landmines, which could take up to 40 years to clear. The land could gain peace, but it will not be safe.
I have a lady in my constituency whose village is in the Russian-occupied zone; it has been demolished, and her house is rubble. She has lost her husband, brother and father, and she has nothing to go back to. I want to ensure that we look for settlement in the long term. Ukraine has recently changed its law to allow people to hold second passports, but the UK is not yet on the list of countries with that agreement. I urge the Government to look at that to ensure that we have a process towards long-term settlement in the UK, so that those industrious Ukrainians who have started businesses can thrive and develop and contribute not only to our economy, but to the rebuilding of Ukraine.
We can do many things. I applaud the Government for all that they are doing, but we can do more. I ask that they please help the Ukrainians to help themselves and to help us. Slava Ukraini!
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
At the outset, may I acknowledge your staunch and consistent support for the people of Ukraine, Madam Deputy Speaker? You have most recently represented Mr Speaker at the international Crimea platform to reinforce Ukraine’s sovereignty.
My heart goes out to the people of Ukraine both in Ukraine and in Bournemouth. I commend Ukraine Relief, which has a donation centre at Castlepoint shopping centre in my constituency, and the work of Karol Swiacki and other Ukrainians across Bournemouth.
Whether the peace that President Trump creates is durable will depend on whether he applies sufficient pressure to Vladimir Putin to secure it. We do not yet know the final outline of a peace deal or even a ceasefire, but we know that the Trump Administration have pressed Ukraine before to make concessions. When granted a summit with President Trump in Alaska, Putin demanded more territory than he had already seized in his war of aggression to date. The Administration responded not by pressuring Russia, but by putting more pressure on Ukraine. Arms were withheld and intelligence was withdrawn, and the assistance that remained was limited and slow. Kyiv has been left perpetually uncertain about the reliability of US support, and the offer of a 15-year US security guarantee as part of a peace plan should give us pause, too. Fifteen years will go by in the blink of an eye unless the guarantee is exceptionally robust, and unless the armed forces of Europe’s democracies—ours included—are integral to enforcing it. Otherwise, I fear that Moscow will wait, rebuild, and return when the clock runs out. As the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) was saying, we need to be mindful about what a deployment looks like, and we need to ask the serious questions. I know that the Prime Minister—a good, serious and patriotic man, having to deal with the insanity abroad and difficult conditions at home—is charting that course as best he and this Government can, and I know that he puts the safety of British troops at the heart of what he does.
Without genuine stability, Ukraine cannot rebuild in peace; boardrooms will not make investments over the long term. We know, too, that this would not be peace; it would be merely a ceasefire, a temporary pause. Given the temptation to renew aggression—a temptation that we know Putin cannot resist—brutish competition for continental dominance would define this decade and, sadly, the next. We have to keep the peace, as well as make it, and the only way that we can do that is through robust security guarantees. Unfortunately, that means that we need to come to terms with a changed world. We have not known this fear for a long time, but it is a feeling that Ukraine knows every single day in its bones.
Uniquely, although the United States has been the richest and most capable country in world history, nations have not chosen to balance against it; they have chosen to ally with it—this is a reversal of all we have known in history—because America sought collective security, self-determination, open trade, institutions, legitimacy and purposeful democracy. However, today, that strategic capital is being diminished consciously, as a matter of policy, by the Trump Administration. That is not happening everywhere in the US security apparatus, it should be said, but it is happening at the highest level, where political decisions are being taken. I have lived in America, I have travelled it widely, I have had the privilege of studying international security at one of its universities, and I have a deep affection for its dynamism and its democracy. However, we must face the fact that in its national security strategy, Ukraine and Europe are less of a priority than other parts of the world. European defence planners now have to spend their days tracking Russian troop movements; calculating whether Putin might, before the end of the decade, order an attack against a NATO member, as he did against Ukraine; and wondering whether the United States will come to our defence. We need to rearm faster, and we need to improve and significantly increase our weapons manufacture.
We also need to move closer to European democracies on defence and security—not closer to the EU per se, which may be too inflexible, but closer to our like-minded European democratic friends who care about peace and democracy, and who will themselves put forward a programme of rearmament. In facing the world as it is, and trying to rearm and increase our diplomatic influence to meet it, we need to recognise that there will be people in our country who do not like this. In France and Germany, we see the rise of the far right and the populist right, who are seeking to make an issue of rearmament. We in this House need to be united. We know that there are those on the Opposition Benches, but not in attendance today, who will protest against our rearmament and our commitment to Ukraine. We in this House need to be united behind Ukraine, democracy and peace. As far as we can, we should not play party politics; we should rebuild the consensus that has lasted for so many years. To me, that consensus seems to be under threat today.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I have spoken about Ukraine and, indeed, initiated debates on Ukraine a number of times over the past 12 years. Of course, 12 years ago was when the war that Russia is waging on Ukraine started, with the annexation of Crimea. Over those 12 years, I have visited Avdiivka, Mariupol and Berdyansk, all of which are now under Russian occupation.
I am proud that as a result of our pressing the Government over that time, the UK started supporting Ukraine through Operation Orbital. That was before the full-scale Russian invasion, but since then, we have been in the vanguard. That is because we have a duty as an original signatory to the Budapest memorandum, and because we believe that independent sovereign states should not lose territory as a result of military aggression, but also because Ukraine is our frontline. Putin’s threat extends not just to the territory of Ukraine, but to all those countries that used to be part of either the Soviet Union or the Warsaw pact, particularly the Baltic states.
I am proud of the extraordinary resilience and courage shown by the Ukrainian people. People have talked in this debate about the fact that it will be minus 16ºC tonight, when 70% of Kyiv has no electricity—and that is also the case for large parts of Odessa, Kharkiv and a number of other cities. The losses during this war on both sides have been truly horrendous; there have been well over a million Russian casualties. Although the number for the Ukrainian side has not been released, it is almost certainly well over 100,000. We can understand why the Ukrainians want to see an end to this war, but they want a just and lasting peace.
The original plan advanced by Steve Witkoff and President Trump—the so-called 28-point plan—was utterly unacceptable. It required Ukraine to accept the loss of its territory, and to commit to never having NATO troops on its soil. The plan that is apparently now coming forward is, we are told by President Zelensky, 90% agreed, but he has described the requirements on territory as being “very difficult”. While it must be for Ukraine to decide on the terms of any peace, the idea that Russia will be allowed to keep any of the sovereign territory of Ukraine is difficult to stomach.
As we have debated, the peace plan may involve the deployment of troops as a security guarantee, and I share the concerns that a number of Members have expressed about how that will operate. While it is important that we talk about how a settlement might be enforced, there is a strong chance that we will not get one. Sergey Lavrov has said in the past 24 hours that the prospect of a ceasefire is simply not serious. Since talk of this peace plan was advanced, Russia has stepped up its attacks. The number of drones and missiles landing across the whole of Ukraine has gone on increasing. The settlement plan may involve stationing NATO troops on Ukrainian soil, as we have been debating, but Putin has made it absolutely clear that that is a complete red line, and something that he will not accept.
We need to prepare ourselves for the real risk that this war will go on for a long time, so I say to the Minister: where is plan B? Plan B has to involve much tougher action against Russia. It needs to involve seizing Russian assets and stopping trade with Russia. It means arming Ukraine to an extent that has not been possible. I welcome the recent announcements, including on Project Nightfall in the past week or so, through which we will supply Ukraine with long-range missiles.
On assets, the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning heard from the chief executive of the Chelsea humanitarian fund, and representatives of the legal firm advising it, about the difficulties in achieving what we all want, which is the use of the money from Chelsea football club to support Ukraine. Will the Minister please meet them? There are some serious legal obstacles. They said that they have a solution, but they are anxious for an opportunity to discuss it further with the Minister.
I would love to think that this war will come to an end soon—my friends in Ukraine pray for that every night—but let us be prepared for the fact that it may go on for much longer, and that we will need to do a lot more to put pressure on Russia to stop.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I have spoken consistently about the need to protect the international rules-based system. Not only is that system under direct and indirect threat throughout the world, but in Ukraine it has clearly failed, in so far as Russia invaded. This is a moment not to jettison it, but to redouble our defence of it, as we have done in the past. Britain has a proud track record: the world wars; the cold war; the liberation of the Falkland Islands, Kuwait and latterly Iraq; our actions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in Kosovo; and the no-fly zone in northern Iraq. In each case, we defended brave victims against bullies. We used military force to uphold the rights of nations and of human beings.
We know that intervention has a chequered history. Arguably, the warlords and some dubious Governments noticed the abject failure of the international community to prevent the genocide in Rwanda. Even in cases where we took military action, others watched and drew conclusions. Malevolent actors around the world must have looked upon the former Yugoslavia and noticed that a quarter of a million civilians were killed before the international community got truly serious, with American leadership finally ensuring that NATO took decisive action. Need I add that Saddam Hussein got away with breaching every known international law before the Americans, this country and others belatedly took action? Belated tough action, feeble action, or the absence of action—which is itself an action—all have profound consequences. Many people forget that Russia’s move to consolidate its strategic military influence in Syria only proceeded apace once the west and the international community had signalled that they would not enforce the most basic of red lines and act against Assad for using chemical weapons. Surely that must have emboldened Russia in other in other parts of the world, such as Ukraine—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor). Despite the excellent efforts of the British military and diplomatic missions in Ukraine, which ramped up military and other support long before 2022, and which I commend, we can say with hindsight that it was self-evidently insufficient.
I have always been hugely reassured by the almost universally cross-party nature of this Parliament’s steadfast support for Ukraine—this is Parliament at its best—but at this crucial moment, we must do everything we can to ensure that the sacrifice of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians is not in vain. More generally, we must make sure that the rules-based system does not wither on the vine.
I want to say something about what is happening in my constituency, where there are two home fronts at work. One is our own, here among British citizens. It is crucial that they realise just what is at stake. It is not an exaggeration to say that if we get this wrong, or if we do not get it sufficiently right, war will come ever closer to these shores. The public will have to make sacrifices, because that is what is needed to defend democracy. Secondly, there is the extended Ukrainian home front in communities such as mine in Rugby, where families, schools and businesses have welcomed Ukrainians as they flee conflict. It is being supported by civil servants nationally, and especially by settlement teams in, for instance, Warwickshire county council, who do excellent and compassionate work alongside their district council colleagues, charities, volunteers and, most important, our citizens. It is also supported by community groups such as the Rugby branch of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain, whose work I have seen. This is Britain at its best, living up to our values of welcoming those in need.
Let me share with the House some direct testimony from Ukrainian families who have been in touch with me this week. This is what they said:
“Russia is systematically targeting the energy system, using hundreds of drones and missiles. Radiators go cold and water freezes in the pipes.
People no longer live by the clock, but by the moments when electricity briefly returns. Children do their homework at night. Parents cook food in the dark hours.
Civilian life itself is the target, not military locations. The aim is to break people, to exhaust them, to destroy society from within.
And then there are the night attacks. Sirens, explosions, the constant fear, they don’t let you sleep.
Your body is tired, but your mind stays awake, waiting for the next sound.
This is what it does to your mental state: you live in constant anxiety. You are always on edge…Even in silence, you are listening.
Supporting Ukraine’s energy system, its air defence and its logistics is not abstract assistance. It is the simplest and most effective way to save millions of lives and to prevent a new humanitarian catastrophe in Europe.”
There is a great deal at stake, but, as the Government have made very clear, we will not turn our back on Ukraine; quite the reverse. We will strengthen international law and the rules-based system, which, in conjunction with military power, keeps us, our allies and the wider world safe.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Members will be interested to know that I will call the Front Benchers at 6.40 pm. There are four more speakers, with a total of 12 minutes.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Four years ago, when Putin invaded Ukraine, people around this country opened their hearts and their homes to Ukrainian people, and I thank them for their generosity. I particularly thank those in my constituency who welcomed people to their homes, supported them, and continue to support them to this day.
According to the latest council figures, there are just over 1,000 people from Ukraine in Lincolnshire, and I want to focus on them. Just last weekend in Sleaford, I met a group led by Kelly Breislin and Betty Berthebaud. I thank them for their work in trying to bring the Ukrainian community together, and in helping them to navigate the various different systems within the British state. I met women, predominantly, and children. I also met an accountant, a doctor and a dentist, and I met a masseuse who had set up her own business in my constituency. They were grateful first to the British state and to the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson for supporting them and their country, but they were also thankful to the people who had supported them as their hosts.
The Ukrainians told me of their trips out of Ukraine and the fear that many of them felt. I met two young ladies, who were just 18 when they left, as friends together, to come across to live with a family in Ruskington. I thought of my own daughter at a similar age, and how it would be to let her go to an unknown country, to live with an unknown family, in such circumstances. They told me about the cultural and language challenges they had. One of them told me about her recent visit to Ukraine at Christmas and the five days of power outages she had there, as well as about the difficulties and fear she had going back for that short period.
One lady explained about how her life was on hold. When the Ukrainians first came here, they were quite content just to be safe and to have no fear of bombs. However, as time has gone by, they think of the jobs and careers they had, the futures they want to have and the difficulties they have in progressing them. For example, one young lady talked about the training challenges. She cannot do an apprenticeship because her visa does not last long enough for that, and if she wants to do a university course or a training course, she will have a similar problem. Someone wanting to stay has to apply for a new visa, and they cannot apply until 28 days before they are due to leave, but that causes problems with employment, and they are all very keen to work.
I want to ask the Minister specifically about Ukrainians in the medical profession, because it seems to me that we have a shortage of both dentists and doctors. For example, the cardiothoracic waiting list went up not just last month, but over the last year, and it is higher than it was when we left office. Yet there is a cardiothoracic surgeon in my constituency who is currently unable to practise, and is instead working in a factory. I appreciate that time is very short, so I am not able to go through all the examples I would like to give, but could he or the relevant Minister write to me with the various schemes available for people with such skills to be able to use them to the fullest while they are in this country?
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I want to speak briefly about Russian intent, the coalition of the willing and sanctions on Russia, and I will of course do so using open-source reporting and analysis. First, however, I want to praise the courage and determination of the Ukrainian people, because we of course look to them for our own safety. That is not an exaggeration, and I think it is worth articulating what we mean when we say that Putin will not stop at Ukraine.
Putin has previous experience, including of invasions, in Georgia, Crimea and Moldova. In this conflict he has talked about the legacy of Kyivan Rus’, and what Russia now refers to as “Russkiy mir”—the so-called Russian world—meaning that part of the world which is Russian in culture and Russian speaking. Indeed, 25% of Estonia’s population and 25% of Latvia’s population are ethnically Russian. NATO members have ethnic Russians living in them, and it is to them that we must look for the defence of Europe.
We must think about the coalition of the willing, which the Government were talking about last week. I have frequently asked about security guarantees for Ukraine, but I am still uncertain about the purpose of this proposed deployment. We have heard the term “reassurance”, but we have also heard the word “peacekeeping”. Is this peacekeeping, peace enforcement, deterrence, defence or a tripwire? A little bit more information would be needed before this House votes on what is meant by the coalition of the willing.
The west has repeatedly called Putin’s bluff successfully. We did so when we provided armour such as the Challenger 2, fighter jets such as the F-16 and deep-strike weapons such as Storm Shadow. However, the deployment of British troops is different because of the ambiguity about what the west would do if the troops were targeted. I accept that might be intentional, and that we might practise deliberate ambiguity, but just as we have deliberate ambiguity, Russia tends to use plausible deniability. A former Defence Secretary said on the radio last week that we could see a situation in which an attack on British troops is claimed by Russia to be the work of separatists in Ukraine, or even a false flag operation.
I appreciate that if this does ever come to a vote, we will get an opportunity to have a much more extensive debate, but those are my comments for today on the coalition of the willing.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
Last year in Ukraine, a Ukrainian MP told me that her husband had served on the frontline for eight years. She asked me if, in the event of a peace agreement, I would support British ground troops. I have, of course, questions about British ground troops, but I said that I would and that I am also potentially liable to serve myself. As a reservist soldier, I am proud to be under the same obligations to serve as any British soldier, because we live in times of enormous peril and we have a responsibility to lead.
We are threatened in the east by dictators and in the west by autocrats. Indeed, it is an open question whether liberal democracy will succeed in this century as it did in the last. Ukraine has been bearing the brunt of that fight and its sacrifice has bought us time. Ukraine still has a credible path to a just peace. European NATO GDP alone is 10 times the size of Russia’s, yet Russia has been spending $40 billion a year more than Ukraine and her western allies on the war in Ukraine. If we closed and exceeded that gap today, by seizing the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets, then not only could Ukraine secure a just peace, but we would deter Putin from crashing into eastern Europe and testing article 5.
With President Trump disgracefully threatening NATO allies as well, smaller democracies must ensure that we are economically and militarily strong enough to defend ourselves together. It is the example of the United States, a country that I love, that can show us how. In the 1940s, refugees fled from the Nazis to the United States. They built the atomic bomb and they won the war. In the process, they developed a method of public research and development that academics now acknowledge has powered US technological and economic dominance ever since.
The Chancellor has recognised that. In the spring statement, she used the £2.2 billion increase in defence research and development to upgrade long-term UK GDP growth by £11 billion a year. The current and former Presidents of the European Central Bank called on Europe to borrow to invest in defence research and development not only to deter Russia, but to lift Europe out of the economic stagnation that has held back the continent and the United Kingdom since the financial crash in 2008. We can do this too.
President Reagan described America as a beacon. Sadly, it appears that that light is now fading, but I believe it has burnt long enough for other democracies to see it. Now, it is up to us, the smaller democracies, to ensure that we are also humanity’s best last hope.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
A serious concern shared by Ukrainians in Wokingham relates to the crimes of the Russian army. Over 20,000 children have been abducted since the start of Russia’s invasion. This disgusting tactic of the Russian armed forces, authorised by Putin, threatens to rob Ukraine of its future. I would like to know from the Minister whether the Government recognise that those massive abductions constitute war crimes. Will they hold Putin to account for those crimes by implementing the outstanding International Criminal Court arrest warrant against him?
It is not just Putin who has been shown to be a bad actor. My constituents write to me all the time to express their disgust at Trump’s behaviour. Whether it is bullying Zelensky in the White House or extorting a vulnerable country for its minerals, the President has acted shamefully. If Ukraine cannot rely on Trump, then Europe must be all the more united in its support of Ukraine. Trump has shown time and again that he does not care about international rules and obligations, and is more interested in cosying up to autocrats and increasing the coffers of the wider Trump family. Threatening to invade Greenland is the latest proof that Trump is not pro-democracy and cannot be trusted by the international community. The Government clearly must focus on joining with our European neighbours to support our friends’ territory and way of life, and not just Ukraine. If we do not do so, history tells us that the aggressor will turn their attention to the UK, which is a situation we really do not want to happen.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
To start, I reiterate the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) made in his opening speech: we are at a major crossroads in this conflict and the stakes could not be higher. On the line is Ukraine’s sovereignty, the freedom of its people and the wider security of Europe—in truth, the security of all of us.
It can be easy in this House to speak in abstractions, such as the rules-based order, hybrid threats or deterrence, but the reality is brutally concrete. When Russia is allowed to advance by force, the consequences do not remain on the eastern flank; they spill into energy markets, cyber-attacks, disinformation and sabotage. Most importantly, they shape the calculations of every hostile actor watching to see what the west will tolerate. We all know that Russia is waging a sustained and hostile campaign against all of us and we must therefore be prepared for long-term tension. The outcome of the war in Ukraine remains central to dealing a decisive blow to that wider threat.
I will touch on a number of the points that we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members across the House today, kicking off with the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) spoke powerfully about the lion heart and resolve of the Ukrainian people, talking about their day-to-day life and how they have been attacked repeatedly by the brutal regime in Russia. She talked about energy and the barbaric nature of Putin’s regime and what it is forcing on the Ukrainian people, which needs to stop. She also raised a number of points about the shadow fleet, which I will comment on later.
The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), raised an important question about deployments of British troops to Ukraine. I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) spoke of an almost unified position across the House, with the exception of a few parties. I really hope that the parties that do not support that unified approach take a long, hard look in the mirror and work out whose side they are actually on. I want to align myself with the hon. Gentleman’s words about former Defence Secretary Sir Ben Wallace, who played a decisive role in the early few years of the Ukrainian war.
The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), made the point that Ukraine’s fight is our fight—a point that we mainly agree on. We cannot consider giving Putin territory that he has failed to capture over the past four years.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) talked powerfully about the 20,000 stolen Ukrainian children. To put that into context, that is 20 schools-worth of children who have been taken over the Russian border. It is a disgusting and almost inconceivable practice, and we must not allow the world to forget what Putin’s regime has done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) has raised the issue of Ukraine numerous times over the past few years; I think we can all agree that when he speaks, everyone listens. He raised the diplomatic efforts that Russia is now trying to push along, which are so intense because, I think, it has worked out that militarily it cannot win. We know that is the rule of the game now, so we must increase pressure on the Russians and play them at their own game.
The chair of the Ukraine APPG, the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), talked about the pressure that the Ukrainians are currently under, again referring to heat and energy. I thank him for the work he has done to connect Ukrainian MPs with Members across this Parliament. I know how cold it gets in Arbroath, so when the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) talks about it getting down to minus 20° in Kyiv and says that it is a bit nippy, I know that he speaks from experience. The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) made a number of important points about the fact that we all want peace, but that it cannot be peace at any cost. That is a point that we must continue to discuss.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), who is a former soldier and a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, raised really important questions about the nuts and bolts of the politics. I will discuss troop deployments later in my speech.
There were valuable insights and contributions from the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker); from my constituency neighbour, albeit separated by an estuary, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley); from the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes); from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who has done a great deal for Ukraine over the years; and from the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger).
My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) talked about the generosity of her constituents who had welcomed Ukrainians into their homes—a story we have heard across all our constituencies—and the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), who is also my constituency neighbour and a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, talked powerfully about Russian intent.
We all thank the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) very much for his service and his willingness to deploy if there is a deployment to Ukraine. Lastly, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) talked about war crimes. We need to remember that and enforce the law once there is peace.
We all want this war to end, but we have seen delay, obfuscation and maximalist demands from Putin when it comes to peace—a familiar strategy designed to divide allies and buy time. So I say to Ministers: pursue diplomacy, of course, but do so with your eyes wide open. As Churchill warned, “You cannot negotiate with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.” It is important to state that if a weak settlement is reached, it simply starts the clock on rearmament. Putin will not stop.
As has always been the case, it is for Ukraine to decide its own future, and any settlement must involve Ukraine, to secure a just and lasting peace under its terms. What matters most is that Putin cannot emerge strengthened. Conceding territory rewards aggression and sets a dangerous precedent far beyond Europe. Nor should Putin’s regime be welcomed back into the international fold, as if this was some sort of misunderstanding. This is a war of choice, an imperial project, and Putin has not abandoned his ambition to subjugate Ukraine.
That brings me to sanctions, assets and energy, where rhetoric must now become action. Although we welcome the £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine taken from profits from immobilised Russian sovereign assets, I believe we need to go further—a number of points were made on that today.
Several points were made about the Russian shadow fleet, and I welcome the reports that the Government are exploring a clearer legal basis to detain stateless vessels. But what matters now is resolve. Sanctions that are not enforced are not sanctions at all; they are merely suggestions. As the Minister for the Armed Forces and I know all too well, Britain has world-class maritime forces in both the Royal Marines and special forces, with near unrivalled experience in complex boarding operations. We should be working with allies to deter, disrupt and degrade the Russian fleet.
A number of unfolding situations are linked to Ukraine. The regime that is currently in power in Iran has been funding the Ukrainian war. Will the Minister say a few words on the unfolding situation in Iran and on UK troops being taken out of middle-eastern bases?
I visited the United States shortly before Christmas, and a congressman made a point to me that should land in every European capital: Americans cannot care more about European security than Europeans care about their own security. The gap between ambition and readiness cannot be closed by speeches. We have heard comments today from the Chief of the General Staff about the separation between the strategic defence review and the need to increase defence spending.
We must now match moral clarity with seriousness. Putin will not stop because we ask; he will stop when he is made to stop. This is the moment to get real and do the right thing. We stand with Ukraine and we will ensure that Ukraine wins the peace as well as the war.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their thoughtful and considered contributions, and for their continued commitment to a free and sovereign Ukraine. It is worth pausing to note that Russia has now been at war with Ukraine longer than it was involved in world war two, and just last month there were 35,000 Russian casualties—just think about that. So when we talk about planning, plans, regeneration and capabilities, the severity of the situation in Ukraine is not lost on the Ministry of Defence or on this Government.
As we approach the fourth anniversary, and indeed the fifth year of fighting, since Putin’s illegal full-scale invasion began, and as we intensify work towards a just and lasting peace, it is our collective commitment and our unity that sends the strongest message to Kyiv and the Kremlin that we, the United Kingdom of Great Britain Northern Ireland, stand with Ukraine.
I say this gently: be wary of the words we say in this House, because they are interpreted very differently in Moscow. Yes, we have to be honest to the democratic process, but we must also recognise the second and third-order implications of what we say here and how that reverberates around the world. When we said “for as long as it takes”, we meant it. So before I address the questions raised in the debate, I want to be clear that Ukraine’s security remains our security, as so many hon. Members said today, and without a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, Europe is less secure and the UK is less secure. That is why we, on both sides of the House, have been at the forefront of international efforts to increase pressure on Putin’s war machine and seize the opportunity to secure a just and lasting peace. That has arisen from President Trump’s commitment to the end of the war. It is also why we will continue to do all we can to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position to secure that peace and sustain it.
I appreciate the support for our approach that has echoed from almost all aspects of the House. I will try to address the questions raised by right hon. and hon. Members. The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) talked through security guarantees. I reassure him that our Chief of the Defence Staff, our Secretary of State for Defence and our Prime Minister have worked tirelessly to deliver, and hopefully put in place, the security guarantees. That is really important, because it is linked to peace and force posture. No security guarantees mean no peace and indeed no force posture—they are all intrinsically linked. I also reassure him that I have complete and utter confidence in our military’s ability to generate the force, prepare the force, deploy the force, and sustain and then reconstitute the force, if they are asked.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) made the excellent point that, in sum, history does not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme. With Georgia, Chechnya one, Chechnya two, Syria, Libya, Ukraine and Ukraine again, Russia is repeatedly and consistently disregarding, in all ways, shapes and forms, the historical norms put in place after the second world war. I also welcome his comments that Ukraine unites us all and is above politics. That is one of the greatest strengths of this House.
I empathise with what was said by the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and absolutely support him in saying that there are no braver forces than those standing in front of the Russian machine. What I would say is that I would never ask someone to do something that I would not do myself. If I believe that our way of life or that of our allies is under threat, I will happily go to the front.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on behalf of all Members of the House for the sterling work she has done to highlight the plight of 20,000 children, and put in place the process to return them to their rightful home. It is worth noting that that is Russian doctrine in action. We are dealing with a barbaric nation that has, as part of its doctrine, to steal, kidnap and re-educate large swathes of the population. We are seeing that playing out in Ukraine.
The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) raised a valid point linked to the details of the operational plan. There will be a time and place where we will need to talk and discuss cross-party what that looks like. To do the detail in the Chamber would do nothing other than give the advantage to our adversary.
I also welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments about armchair generals. I have full confidence in our generals, admirals, air vice-marshals and air marshals to deliver. When tasked, we must ensure that we do not apply political pressure on them to such an extent that we end up with politicised advice. I would also agree that the inability to vote on Syria emboldened Russia and resulted in a whole cascade of events, which, one could argue—if one played this game back in Ukraine—leads back to some of those decisions in the first place.
I completely agree with the hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) that Ukraine must be at the centre of any negotiations. I deeply respect the gallant insight and understanding of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson). He talked about putting troops right on the Russian border, and about numbers, rotation, peace support operations, peacekeeping and comparisons with the Balkans. Language really matters when we are talking about military tactics and doctrine. It is really important, and it is our job in the Government to ensure that those Members with a vested interest understand that detail when the time is right, so that we can represent it correctly in the House. Again, I have complete faith in our military leadership. I absolutely commend the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) for his work on supporting disability inclusion in Ukraine.
I shall sum up the questions and allude to some of them later in my speech. On the comments made by the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), the peace negotiations are not down to us; they are down to the Ukrainians. We are enabling and supporting, but the Ukrainians must be the very centre of gravity of those negotiations, and we are supporting them to do so. On the shadow fleet, I completely concur that we have some of the best capabilities in the world. There is much to be done. We have done a lot already, but there is more to do and I would say: watch this space. On Qatar, I will not be drawn into comments on force posture, but I can say that the safety and security of our forces is absolutely at the forefront of my mind during any period of instability.
The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) asked about the details of the deployment. From my perspective, the conditions that he puts on us are almost as many as Putin would put on the peacekeeping force itself. To talk about troop numbers, rotations, border policing, naval assets and jets at this point in time would give away too much information to our adversaries who are watching, or perhaps to individuals who are not on these Benches today. It is really important that that information is shared at the right time and place and in the right forum so that we can unify the House and come up with the right political and military decisions to deliver the support to Ukraine that is required.
Stuart Anderson
I welcome the Minister’s summary of this debate. Will he commit to ensuring that every Member outside this place can have that information to help inform our decisions when the time is right and without operational security breach?
Al Carns
We will always provide the briefings at the appropriate levels.
I would like to thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). She made a really important point about hybrid warfare. This is important. There have been several comments about there being no border with Russia, but let me tell you, there may not be a border but there is a frontline. That frontline sits in the north Atlantic, in cyber-space and in influence space, and it has been breached every day of every year. According to the National Cyber Security Centre, there were 20,000 attacks in 2024, 400 of them serious and 89 nationally serious. This costs the UK £15 billion every year. Hostile state activity against the Ministry of Defence is up by 50%, and global instability at the start of this conflict increased food prices, through fertiliser cost inflation, to their highest point in 45 years.
One of the key lessons that many Members have mentioned is the resilience of the Ukrainian people, and this is why we need to think about resilience here in our nation. A country’s security is measured not only by what it can deploy overseas but by what it can deny its adversaries at home. A society that can absorb shocks from pandemic, cyber-attacks, economic disruption, corruption and, importantly, disinformation leaves hostile state actors with far fewer options. Resilience is not a soft concept; it is a hard requirement of modern deterrence. I support Ukraine 110%, as I know the House does. Briefings will come at the right time and in the right place to deliver the right decision here in this House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the situation in Ukraine.
Oil Refining Sector
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this Adjournment debate, and I thank Mr Speaker for granting it. As I advised the Speaker’s Office and with the Minister’s agreement, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) will take a few minutes of my time. To some extent, the points I will be making are similar to those in my Westminster Hall debate, which took place on 11 December.
Before I turn to the specific issue of the closure of the Prax Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency, I want to question the Government’s position regarding energy security. The loss of Lindsey oil refinery will reduce the UK to just four refineries. All of that makes us even more reliant on imports in a turbulent global situation. As we know, world markets can result in supplies being disrupted. At a time when we have an unpredictable American Administration, we are becoming more and more reliant on American-owned businesses, and I question whether that is wise.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for introducing the debate. Of course, as local Members of Parliament, we must be primarily concerned with our constituents who have worked at the refinery. Is it not the point, which he powerfully makes—we have just had a debate on Ukraine—that in an increasingly dangerous world, the Government must look into their own hearts about whether their policies on energy security are meeting national security?
Martin Vickers
I thank my right hon. Friend the Father of the House, who makes an important point and strengthens the argument I was trying to make. We are exporting skilled jobs, and the Government seem to find that acceptable. The Minister has previously stated that the market would adjust as, indeed, it has, but it raises the question of whether, if another refinery were to close, at what point we will recognise that we must retain some refining capacity in the UK—surely for strategic reasons, if no other.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate and for his Westminster Hall debate. We sit on opposite sides of the Chamber, but I thoroughly respect how much he has stood up for his constituents and the wider oil refining industry in the United Kingdom, and I thank him for that.
I will speak about Grangemouth and specifically the jobs that have been lost there—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Gentleman will not speak about Grangemouth. The debate is about the Lindsey oil refinery, and interventions must be brief.
Brian Leishman
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was under the impression that the debate was on the wider UK refining sector. On that note, we talk about just transition—it is often mentioned in this Chamber—but job losses and no future jobs are the definition of a very unjust transition.
Martin Vickers
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. Equally, I recognise how he has stood up for his constituents over the Grangemouth issue, and I compliment him on that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I also thank the hon. Member for bringing forward the debate. He is right to refer to the Lindsey oil refinery, but all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is affected by the sector if we become vulnerable and reliant on foreign entities. Does he agree that for the nation’s energy security and future energy provision, we need to right this wrong and invest in British-based refineries and energy provision, because otherwise everybody in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will suffer as a result?
Martin Vickers
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. No debate would be complete without such an intervention. He is absolutely right that it is the United Kingdom’s energy security that we are referring to.
To turn to the future of the Lindsey refinery, which has been part of the local economy in my constituency for over 50 years, the closure is a tragedy not just for the immediate workforce, 124 of whom have already been made redundant, but for the area as a whole: the bars, restaurants, hotels, haulage firms, Humberside airport, catering suppliers—the list goes on. North Lincolnshire council receives around £2 million a year in business rates, which could steadily reduce over coming years. Needless to say, that would leave an enormous hole in its budget, which would have a consequent impact on the local community.
At last week’s question time, the Secretary of State said in reply to me that fault lay with the owner, Prax. I agree that the directors bear responsibility, but it is my constituents who are feeling the consequences. A Minister has previously stated that the Government are not in the business of saving failed businesses—even, it seems, when they are a vital national resource.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The hon. Member is right that the UK Government said that they are not in the business of saving failing businesses, but they have washed their hands of some of the key factors that contribute to those businesses failing. For example, they are signalling about new licences in the North sea, but these refineries use vast amounts of energy. In the UK, we enjoy the highest industrial energy prices in the developed world. That is the Government’s responsibility.
Martin Vickers
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that energy costs have played a major part not only in the struggles of Lindsey oil refinery, but in those of other businesses, particularly manufacturing businesses. The Government’s comment that they are not in the business of saving businesses seems rather strange coming from Labour.
Ministers have repeatedly said that there is a legal process that the insolvency practitioners must follow. Of course, I accept that. I have previously said that I feel that the Government are hiding behind the administrators, because they have refused to consider the wider implications of the refinery closure, for example on the local economy, the workforce and national energy security.
I have asked on more than one occasion if the Government would prefer a sale of the whole business that would allow it to resume production. Alarm bells rang for me when I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), following my Westminster Hall debate. It said:
“The sales process remains ongoing, with the Official Receiver and Special Managers continuing to engage with all interested parties. However, they have confirmed that none of the credible”—
that is the important word—
“offers received would enable a return to refining operations within the next few years or allow all employees to be retained.”
I note that she refers to “credible” bids—so we have an acknowledgment that there were indeed credible bids—and to a timeframe. That contradicts the Government’s repeated statements that there were no credible bids. Either there were credible bids or there were not. Which is it, Minister?
In fairness to the Minister, when the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and I met him last week, he did at least acknowledge that the Government would have preferred a sale of the business in its entirety.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Picking up that point, if there was a serious bid to buy the whole site—to invest in it, keep it going, maintain the jobs and grow the number of jobs—surely that should have been taken into account, not only in the interests of the local area, but in the strategic interests of Lincolnshire and the country. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore ask the Minister to ensure full transparency in this whole process so that we can establish whether or not there were credible alternative bids to keep Lindsey oil refinery going?
Martin Vickers
The hon. Gentleman supports the point that I was making. I got it in writing from the Under-Secretary that there were credible bids. The issue of credible bids is one of the most important unanswered questions following last week’s announcement about the sale of the assets to Phillips 66, which I should say is an excellent local employer and provides hundreds of well-paid jobs. I have corresponded or met with four consortia that wanted to buy the business in its entirety. When I spoke to the union representative yesterday, he said that there were seven such expressions of interest. The four consortia I have been in contact with referred to FTI Consulting—the agents—and have reached the same conclusion: they have been ignored and not allowed to put forward their case in sufficient detail for any informed judgment to be arrived at.
The Minister will no doubt be aware of an email to the Prime Minister from James Ascot, who is acting on behalf of Axiom. In the email, Mr Ascot said that Ministers
“have publicly stated that no bids were received for the full Lindsey Oil Refinery site that would safeguard the future of refining operations and protect jobs. This statement is factually false. Our company did submit a fully funded, credible bid for the entire site on behalf of our client, expressly structured to preserve and continue operations, safeguard jobs and provide a full credit and liability solution, and a separate cash acquisition value of £400 million… This bid existed.”
Dave Doogan
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way again. He is setting out a seriously curious sequence of events for a well-intentioned Government relative to a vital industry. Is he concerned, as I am, that this is more about the beliefs of the Secretary of State than the industrial imperatives of these islands? The Government are failing in their pursuit of decarbonisation, but they are succeeding in deindustrialisation.
Martin Vickers
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the Government’s overall policies in relation to net zero.
Adam Wilson of Falcon Petroleum wrote to me describing
“the unsatisfactory experience we have had with the bidding process with FTI… We own and operate 4 refineries in Europe and the middle east. With advancement of technology we have been able to go carbon neutral at all our refineries. We had pledged to turn LOR carbon neutral within 2 years if we had successfully purchased it.”
I could give other examples, but what I have said so far makes it clear that the approaches to FTI from consortia that wish to purchase the whole business and continue production have been rebuffed. Potential investors, employees and all those affected have a right to know why. The Government have chosen not to get involved. Yes, they have offered a training guarantee, which is helpful, but much more is required. At a meeting with me and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes last week, the Minister suggested that the Minister for Investment, Lord Stockwood of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and local authorities and all agencies could help to provide investment in the area. We must sit around the table with them at an early opportunity. We need better transport connections, and early decisions from the Government on the many proposals in their in-tray that could boost the Humber region economy.
To sum up, why did the Government not act to ensure that production continued, and engage more fully in the process to achieve that? When will the Minister and Lord Stockwood visit the area and put in place a structure that helps us to recover the local economy? How many jobs will be saved by the P66 deal? The receiver’s job is to ensure the best deal for creditors, so will the Minister explain why a sale of the assets rather than the business better achieves that? The Government are one of the creditors, so how much are they owed and how much of it will the P66 deal return to the Treasury? I look forward to his response.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing the debate and for being so gracious with his time.
For workers and their families across the Humber, the past six months have been bruising to say the least. People who have spent their working lives keeping a complex site safe, compliant and productive have faced prolonged uncertainty—and they have done so with dignity and professionalism. I put on the record my support for them and give assurances that they are always at the forefront of my mind when I am pushing for clarity in this House.
It is important that accountability matters in who is ultimately at fault for the collapse of the refinery. In September last year, the High Court froze about £150 million-worth of assets belonging to the former owner of the refinery, Winston Soosaipillai—also known as Sanjeev Kumar. This action will be welcomed by the workers and communities who have paid the price for Mr Soosaipillai’s reckless financial mismanagement, but what happens to those assets? For how long will they be frozen? Can they be used to support and develop the site, or support some of the interventions that the Government have discussed?
As the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham has detailed, there are concerns about the official receiver process, and there is some justification for them. The whole process has been incredibly opaque, and it has been very difficult to engage in communications under legal frameworks that barred Government and elected representatives from having any kind of input. The targets that the official receiver was working to have not been clear at all. We are in the dark, as are the workers, and that has caused even more uncertainty and distress for people.
Is this really the best outcome for the site? I am encouraged by Phillips 66 taking on the site, but it cannot be ignored that ministerial correspondence has said that there were credible bids. We have heard the numbers; they are disputed—is it four, seven, one, or none? We do not know, because we cannot get any answers on that. The Government have shifted position, and now say that there were no credible bids, or certainly none that provided any immediate refining capacity, or allowed the site to be run as a going concern. We understand that there may well be commercial interests involved, but could we not open the books, and see the matrix that the official receiver used and how they reached their decision, under Chatham House rules? Then at least elected representatives would be able to make an assessment on behalf of their constituents. Surely the Government could do that.
Dave Doogan
The hon. Lady talks about our need to scrutinise what was deemed a credible bid. Will she ask the Minister whether the Government will apply “commercial in confidence” rules in order to cover their tracks when it comes to what was and was not a credible bid?
Melanie Onn
I disagree with that, but I urge the Government to be prepared to open up on some of the process. I understand that there will be commercial sensitivities, but I hope that a route can be found to enable us to scrutinise the information available.
Sir Edward Leigh
We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) that there are bidders, and they think that their bid is credible. I think we are entitled to tell the Government that we do not want asset-stripping here. This is not just about the local community; we are talking about a vital national resource, and the House of Commons needs to be informed, big time.
Melanie Onn
We have also had trusted privilege, as a House, in the past; we were able to see secure information and secure documents. All of us were able to go to a room and sign in to read documents on exiting the European Union, for example. There are ways and means of doing these things, and of placing trust in elected representatives. Much of the information from companies was made available to local representatives anyway, because they emailed the details to us. It would be interesting to learn why the official receivers deemed bids not to be credible.
I will move forward, because decisions have already been made, and it would be challenging, to say the least, if we went backwards on this. The written statement of 22 July delivered by the Minister for Energy confirmed important commitments for those directly employed at Lindsey: a package guaranteeing jobs, a redundancy scheme that will end in March—another 240 people will be made redundant then—and a training guarantee. There have been concerns about that training guarantee, and I would ask the Ministers to look more closely at that as we move forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this debate. I know that he and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), have been engaging closely on this issue with the Minister for Energy, who stands ready to continue to engage with them on the detail.
Let me start with Prax Lindsey oil refinery. It entered insolvency on 30 June 2025 because of the untenable position in which the owners left the refinery, which gave the Government very little time to act. I know how difficult the process has been for the workers, their families and the local community. The insolvency process at the refinery is led by the court-appointed official receiver, who must act independently, in accordance with his statutory duties. Since the insolvency, we have worked with the official receiver to protect workers, and to ensure the safety of the site and the security of fuel supplies. That has also allowed time for bidders to express an interest in the site and its assets.
After a thorough process to identify a buyer for the site, the official receiver has determined that Phillips 66 is the most credible bidder and can provide a viable future for the site. I am glad to say that the sale is expected to complete in the first half of 2026. As many hon. Members will be aware, Phillips 66 is an experienced and credible operator of a Humber refinery, next door to Lindsey. It already supplies fuel to the region and has consistently turned a profit in recent years. The sale allows Phillips 66 to quickly expand operations at its Humber refinery.
The company has decided not to restart stand-alone refinery operations at Lindsey. In its words, not mine,
“Due to the limitations of its scale, facilities, and capabilities, evaluations have shown that the refinery is not viable in current form.”
Although that is disappointing, it is not totally unexpected, given the long history of problems with the business. We understand that the previous owners, Total, sought to sell the refinery for several years and sold it to Prax for a nominal amount. Since Prax’s acquisition in 2021, the refinery has recorded about £75 million of losses. In addition, following a thorough assessment of offers, the official receiver confirmed that no offer was put forward that would credibly see a return to refining operations in the next few years.
Phillips 66 plans to integrate key assets into its Humber refinery operations, expanding its ability to supply fuel to UK customers from the Humber refinery. That is positive news for boosting domestic energy security, securing jobs—including hundreds of new construction jobs over the next five years—and creating future growth opportunities for renewable and traditional fuels. That being said, Ministers in the Department and I recognise that this is a very worrying time for workers, and I am glad to report that the remaining 250 directly employed workers are guaranteed employment until the end of March, although that will be cold comfort to many of them. Phillips 66 will provide further information on the number of jobs that will be retained as it moves towards completion of the sale in coming months. The Minister for Energy has asked Phillips 66 for clarity as soon as possible, and to retain as many jobs as possible. The Government will continue to support the 124 workers affected by redundancy last October.
Richard Tice
The bottom line is that P66 is mothballing the site, and will use certain bits of it for parts, rather than investing in its other site. Will the Minister allow a full, open and transparent look at alternative bids that would have kept the site open, and would have allowed us to keep many more jobs and to retain a strategic national asset?
Martin McCluskey
The hon. Gentleman will know that such discussions are commercially confidential, and the official receiver has undertaken an independent process to come to his decision.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes mentioned, the support for the 124 workers affected by redundancy last October includes a training guarantee to ensure that they have the skills that they need, and are supported to find long-term jobs. That goes above and beyond the usual support offered in insolvency situations. I am pleased to confirm that many —the majority—of those workers have already taken up this offer. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy will be pleased to discuss any issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes thinks may emerge to do with the training guarantee.
I believe that the agreement with Phillips 66 marks the next step in securing an industrial future for the site and for the workers, who were badly let down by the former owners. The circumstances surrounding the insolvency are deeply concerning, and that is why the Energy Secretary immediately demanded that the Insolvency Service launch an investigation into the owners’ conduct and the circumstances surrounding the insolvency, which is ongoing.
Turning to issues in the broader UK oil refining sector, the UK’s refineries continue to play a vital role in maintaining reliable supplies of essential fuels that keep transport moving, industry operating and support households with their day-to-day lives. We appreciate that their contribution goes far beyond fuel alone. They are anchors for local economies, providing well-paid, skilled jobs and supporting a wide web of supply chains, which involve everything from chemicals to plastics to advanced manufacturing.
Refinery facilities also enable the production of specialist materials that many of our industries rely on. For example, the Humber refinery produces the UK’s only anode-grade petroleum coke, used in electric vehicle technology, while Fawley’s output of specialised rubber helped to ensure vaccine vials could be produced securely during the pandemic. Crucially, our refineries are also adapting for the future. They are investing in modernisation, low-carbon fuels, and technologies such as carbon capture, which are all essential to the UK’s transition to net zero. The Humber region will have a major role to play in that over the coming years. While overall fuel demand is expected to shift over time, sectors such as aviation, maritime and heavy industry will continue to depend on refined products well into the future. We want to preserve our refining sector and keep it competitive.
Melanie Onn
On the point about keeping UK oil refineries competitive, what will be the Government’s position at the European Union summit in May, in discussions on the emissions trading scheme? What will they take forward?
Martin McCluskey
I will write to my hon. Friend on that point about the carbon border adjustment mechanism and the ETS.
As was set out in the autumn Budget, we are reviewing critical policies to address the challenges that the sector faces. I will briefly go through the steps that we have already taken to help the downstream sector adapt and stay competitive. First, through the renewable transport fuel obligation and the new sustainable aviation fuel mandate, we are backing the production and use of cleaner fuels. The Humber refinery is already delivering sustainable aviation fuels at scale, and refineries at Fawley and Stanlow are benefiting from Government support through the advanced fuels fund to bring next-generation fuels to market. We are also working to de-risk investment in sustainable aviation fuel production through the revenue certainty mechanism.
Secondly, we are working closely with industry on major decarbonisation efforts, including carbon capture and hydrogen projects, within industrial clusters such as Viking and HyNet, which will be central to keeping UK manufacturing competitive as global markets tighten emissions standards. The UK ETS Authority’s decision to maintain current benchmarks for the 2027 scheme year provides the consistency and breathing room that energy-intensive industries need to plan investments and manage costs effectively.
In the autumn Budget, we committed to assessing the feasibility of including refined products in the carbon border adjustment mechanism. That is a key priority for industry, and it would help ensure that UK refineries were not undercut by imports produced to lower environmental standards. Collectively, these measures signal our determination to create the conditions for continued investment, innovation and long-term competitiveness as we transition to a low-carbon economy.
Looking ahead, the Government are deepening their engagement with the sector to ensure a smooth and secure transition in the coming years. It is important to note that Minister Shanks led the first ministerial—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The Minister will know that we do not refer to our colleagues by their names.
Martin McCluskey
Thank you for reprimanding me, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister for Energy led the first ministerial roundtable with the sector for more than a decade, and will continue to engage with the industry.
In closing, let me be clear: we recognise the importance of the Lindsey oil refinery and the Lindsey site to the local community and the national economy. The integration of its assets into the Humber refinery will boost energy security and support high-quality employment locally. The UK refining sector matters, and that is why this Government are acting. From supporting low-carbon fuel production and deploying carbon capture and hydrogen, to launching a call for evidence that will shape our long-term strategy, we will work with industry, devolved Governments and the community to deliver a managed transition.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
That the draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 27 November 2025, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 301 / Noes: 110 - Question accordingly agreed to.