House of Commons

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 11 February 2026

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on improving public services.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)]

Public services in Northern Ireland can and should be better. The Government are backing the Northern Ireland Executive every step of the way, starting with a record £19.3 billion settlement. Of course there is more to do and we will continue to work with the Executive to do it.

[Mr Dhesi]

Like my Slough constituents, the good people of Northern Ireland deserve the best possible public services. This Government promised to cut the sky-high NHS waiting lists. Indeed, those lists are coming down for the first time in 15 years thanks to an extra £26 billion investment. That extra money is part of why the Northern Ireland Executive have a record funding settlement. Does the Minister agree that it is now crucial that the Executive and this Government work collaboratively to share knowledge and best practice so that we improve outcomes for patients?

[Matthew Patrick]

I agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to highlight that, just recently, England had the second best monthly fall in waiting lists for 15 years. In Northern Ireland, the 70,000-appointments target has been surpassed and we have hit 200,000 additional appointments. I am pleased with the work of the Northern Ireland Health Minister Mike Nesbitt on that. The UK Government are committed to sharing best practice with those in the Northern Ireland Executive to continue that work.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

Health is a devolved matter, but the fight against cancer is not. Will the Minister join me in praising the work of the All-Island Cancer Research Institute, which is led by Queen’s and others, and ensure that our efforts to address cancer are done not just in Northern Ireland or the four nations, but between these islands?

[Matthew Patrick]

It was my privilege to see some of the work being done there. Any efforts to bring down waiting times for cancer patients should be adopted. I will encourage this Government to do anything they can to share best practice from their own 10-year cancer plan.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Over the past 10 days we have seen a number of revelations about the procurement of services and goods and the provision of sensitive information during Peter Mandelson’s time as a Government Minister and as an ambassador in Washington. Given that Mandelson was, for two years, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, can the Minister assure the House that his Department will comb its records to identify any possible wrongdoing?

[Matthew Patrick]

I can absolutely give the shadow Secretary of State that assurance. That work is under way and we will update the House on anything that may emerge.

[Alex Burghart]

I am very grateful to the Minister for that direct response. Will he also commit to return to this House before Easter to update Members on the work that his Department has done and what it has found?

[Matthew Patrick]

I believe that work will be published by the Cabinet Office. I will ensure that, through that, the House will receive an update on the records.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister, the Secretary of State and his officials for their constructive engagement in preparation for a reserve claim for the Executive. Through that work, I know that the figure has doubled and rightly so. May I also highlight the Northern Ireland Audit Office’s report on the frailty within our Northern Ireland civil service? In the past six years, out of 23 recommendations, only five have been progressed. We have 5,000 vacancies, 3,000 temporary promotions and a rising sickness level. Does he believe that it is sustainable for the Northern Ireland civil service to ignore such changes for reform if we want to see the delivery of good public services?

[Matthew Patrick]

This Government are committed to civil service reform here. We have said that we wish to move fast and fix things. We will share our learnings with the Northern Ireland civil service. The right hon. Member also mentioned the reserve claim. He will have seen in yesterday’s supplementary estimates that £400 million has been given to the Northern Ireland Executive. That is exceptional. It will be repayable over three years and accompanied by an open-book exercise looking at the Executive budget.

[Gavin Robinson]

One constraint, as the Minister knows because I raised it at the last Northern Ireland questions, is the potential requirement, as a result of EU legislative change, of an additional 60,000 GP appointments for antimicrobial-resistant drugs. That would decimate the delivery of health services in Northern Ireland. I ask that he and the Secretary of State engage with this to ensure that Northern Ireland is not a casualty as a result of the imposition of EU regulation. Can he update the House on that?

[Matthew Patrick]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this matter powerfully last month and again this month. We raised his concerns with the European Union, and I am pleased—I hope he is, too—that the latest draft of the EU regulations includes a full exemption for Northern Ireland regarding the prescription status of antimicrobial-resistant medicines. That shows the benefits of a grown-up working relationship with the European Union, so that we can address issues as and when they arise.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

2. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of Government policies on the economy in Northern Ireland.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

6. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of Government policies on the economy in Northern Ireland.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

The Government are supporting Northern Ireland through the four city deals, the local innovation partnerships fund, an enhanced investment zone and greater economic stability. Economic activity in Northern Ireland increased by 2.9% over the year to quarter 3, and it has the lowest unemployment in the UK.

[Joe Robertson]

The Government are giving a 50% reduction to the emissions trading scheme levy on ferries crossing between Northern Ireland and Great Britain in an apparent effort not to negatively impact the economy there. Scottish islands are getting a 100% reduction, yet the Isle of Wight is getting no reduction. What economic assessment has been done to arrive at those figures, or are they simply plucked out of thin air?

[Hilary Benn]

The figures are based on the assessment that there are particular requirements for the Scottish islands in terms of services, access to essential care and so on. That is why that exemption has been applied for Scotland. The impact of this measure on trade between GB and Northern Ireland will be very small in light of the overall costs of moving goods and transportation.

[Blake Stephenson]

While the rise in the agricultural property relief threshold to £2.5 million is a welcome step for farmers, does the Minister recognise the broader economic concern shared by the Ulster Farmers Union that inflation and steadily rising asset values will over time pull more family farms into inheritance tax liability, even when their real wealth and income may not increase?

[Hilary Benn]

As the hon. Member will be aware, the Government announced that the allowance for 100% rate relief will be increased from £1 million to £2.5 million. That means that a couple will now be able to pass on up to £5 million tax-free between them, on top of the existing allowances such as the nil-rate band. The president of the Ulster Farmers Union, William Irwin, welcomed the changes. In fact, he said:

“We are in a better position today than we were yesterday”.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)]

The local growth fund was a UK Government policy that had been working to support some people outside of the labour market into decent work, helping to address Northern Ireland’s low productivity rates. The UK Government have changed that policy and the capital revenue split in a way that works for the Treasury, but not for organisations in Northern Ireland. Funded groups are being directed to PEACEPLUS, but its funding criteria does not work for most. Why are voluntary and community sector groups being asked to distort Special EU Programmes Body rules, rather than UK Government policy adapting to local needs?

[Hilary Benn]

I met the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action and CO3 last week to talk about this matter. It is a difficult situation because of how capital and resources have been allocated through the local growth fund. Of the £12 million of available resource funding, we agreed with the Executive that £3 million would go to Go Succeed at their request, and £9 million would go to economic inactivity programmes. We are exploring other potential sources of funding, of which PEACEPLUS is one. Another source is the Northern Ireland Executive’s record settlement. They had £9 million yesterday in additional Barnett consequentials. They could choose to invest some money in these programmes.

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland, like Scotland and Wales, shares the benefits of a united United Kingdom and its collective spending power, generating jobs and opportunities across the four countries of the United Kingdom?

[Hilary Benn]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. All parts of the United Kingdom derive strength and benefit from being part of that Union. We can see in the figures I quoted a moment ago the benefit being obtained in Northern Ireland in terms of how the economy is doing.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

The Windsor framework was meant to give Northern Ireland the best of both worlds: unfettered access to the UK internal market and barrier-free access to the EU. Not so, according to a recent survey conducted by the Federation of Small Businesses, which reports that more than half those trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are having difficulties, with over a third having stopped trading altogether. The figures are stark. Fewer than one in six Northern Ireland businesses say that they benefit from dual market access, while nearly 80% rate Government support as poor or very poor. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to a specific time-bound plan to make dual market access work, or does he accept that Northern Ireland got the worst of both worlds?

[Hilary Benn]

I do not accept that Northern Ireland has the worst of both worlds. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the issue facing small businesses, highlighted by the FSB report and others, including Lord Murphy’s independent report. As he will have noticed, in the Budget the Chancellor announced a £16.6 million package which will include a comprehensive one-stop-shop regulatory support service to help precisely those businesses to trade more between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

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

3. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the defence industrial strategy 2025 on Northern Ireland.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

9. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the defence industrial strategy 2025 on Northern Ireland.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

12. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the defence industrial strategy 2025 on Northern Ireland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)]

The defence of our country is always the first duty of any Government. Last week I met businesses big and small, the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry and representative bodies, as well as our great universities, to discuss how the defence growth deal for Northern Ireland can pack the biggest punch possible. With £250 million across five deals, including one in Northern Ireland, there is a huge potential here, and I am determined that we will seize it.

[Alice Macdonald]

In Northern Ireland the defence sector offers many opportunities to apprentices, as it does across the rest of the country: I met two apprentices from MSI Defence Systems in my constituency yesterday. Will the Minister join me in celebrating apprentices throughout our United Kingdom, and will he explain how we will support the next generation of skilled workers in this vital industry?

[Matthew Patrick]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in doing that. Just last week I visited Mallaghan, where four apprentices were being given incredible opportunities as a result of taking up their jobs, and I am sure they would agree with my hon. Friend’s assessment.

[Kevin Bonavia]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the defence industry sector is well established in my constituency, where it is building links with its counterparts in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that the defence industrial strategy presents a huge opportunity for businesses in constituencies throughout the country, including Stevenage and most certainly Northern Ireland, where it can help to boost investment, job creation and economic growth?

[Matthew Patrick]

My hon. Friend is right. The strategy is not just about the defence of the realm; there are economic opportunities that come with it. The defence growth deal on which we are working in Northern Ireland will take advantage of that, and will ensure that small businesses in particular can benefit.

[John Slinger]

The Government are doing good work to encourage young people into their careers via apprenticeships, and this week is National Apprenticeship Week. In my constituency we have GE Vernova, which is ramping up its apprenticeship scheme, while Rugby college, part of Warwickshire College Group, is getting apprenticeship programmes under way for 750 young people and adults. Does the Minister agree that the Government must go further to support apprenticeships in the vital defence sector, in my constituency and throughout the United Kingdom, including, of course, Northern Ireland?

[Matthew Patrick]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Some of the apprentices whom I met just last week told me that, over four years, they were more than £100,000 better off as a result of taking their apprenticeships. It is good for them, good for businesses and good for the country.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Yesterday I met two apprentices who were engaged in firms delivering defence contracts in Northern Ireland and were enthusiastic about the skills and their prospects, but Northern Ireland benefits minimally from defence contracts across the United Kingdom. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that more contracts are awarded to Northern Ireland, and will he ignore the comments of the First Minister, who does not want that to happen?

[Matthew Patrick]

This Government are supporting businesses in Northern Ireland. The work that I am doing with them on the defence growth deal is designed specifically to ensure that this will benefit them and all their supply chains, and I will continue to do that work.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

Whatever the defence industrial strategy aims to do, its aims will not be met if we cannot find and recruit people willing to use the equipment and technology that are created. People will be far less likely to risk their lives to keep our country safe and free if they cannot rely on the Government to stand by them both during and after their service. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on the military and the defence industry of the Government’s decision to allow our veterans who served in Northern Ireland to be dragged vindictively through the courts?

[Matthew Patrick]

I reject that characterisation. The immunity that was offered by the last Government was false. We do not agree with that in principle, and the veterans we speak to do not want immunity under the law; they want equality before it. It was this Government who gave our armed forces the largest pay rise in over two decades. This Government are backing our armed forces.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Does the Minister agree that there is a clear need for a stronger role for Northern Ireland firms in the UK defence supply chain, and will he commit to encouraging far greater inclusion of Northern Ireland small and medium-sized enterprises in Ministry of Defence framework contracts and sub-contracting opportunities?

[Matthew Patrick]

I absolutely accept that we can do even more to support such companies. The companies I have been meeting in relation to the defence growth deal have said that the opportunity to showcase the talent and expertise that exists in Northern Ireland is really important, and I want to support them in doing that.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

4. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the autumn Budget 2025 on Northern Ireland.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

The autumn Budget provided Northern Ireland with an additional £370 million, on top of the record spending review settlement, and will assist families with the cost of living by cutting energy bills, lifting the two-child benefit limit and raising the minimum wage.

[Sean Woodcock]

The Government’s child poverty strategy aims to lift over 550,000 children out of poverty by 2030. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact of the abolition of the two-child benefit cap for families in Northern Ireland?

[Hilary Benn]

The lifting of the two-child benefit cap in Northern Ireland will help more than 17,000 children and more than 48,000 people in Northern Ireland households. We are also increasing the national minimum wage, which will benefit 170,000 people, and increasing the state pension will benefit 330,000 pensioners in Northern Ireland.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Cancer is a thief and a home-wrecker. Sadly, Northern Ireland has the worst cancer outcomes across the UK. I recently lifted the lid on breast cancer referrals, with red-flag appointments taking in excess of 14 weeks. Although the autumn Budget has been helpful, can the Minister confirm whether conversations are happening with the Treasury to ask for transformational money to help us transform our health service, so that cancer wait times and medical pathways can be improved once and for all?

[Hilary Benn]

Like the whole House, I share the hon. Member’s wish to improve cancer treatment and cancer waiting times for those who are currently waiting too long. There is the public services transformation fund, and the first phase of projects was funded last year. Decisions are about to be taken on the second phase of funding, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) mentioned, there also needs to be reform of the way in which the health service works. We are seeing progress under Mike Nesbitt’s leadership, and we need to see more.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister—welcome.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

The increase in national insurance contributions is having a devastating impact on the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland, with over a quarter of businesses reporting losses and a further 20% only breaking even. How is the Northern Ireland Executive expected to achieve their target of doubling tourism in the next 10 years if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is putting pubs, restaurants and hotels out of business?

[Hilary Benn]

The increase in national insurance was a decision that the Government took to deal with the inheritance left by the last Government. [Interruption.] That is a fact, and no one can argue that it is not the case. We needed to put the economy on a stable footing. The fact that the Northern Ireland economy is growing, and that Northern Ireland has the lowest unemployment in the United Kingdom, is a sign of the fundamental strength of the economy in Northern Ireland.

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on education.

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

10. What recent discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on education.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)]

Chances in life are set early. Although education is devolved in Northern Ireland, we must work together. That is why it was my privilege to bring the Minister for Early Education to Belfast recently to visit schools and to present to Northern Ireland Ministers at the East-West Council. We discussed the school twinning programme, the theme of which is “Reading for Pleasure”. As a new dad, I am reading quite a few baby books at the moment.

[Sarah Hall]

As chair of the inclusion and nurture in education all-party group, I welcome the Northern Ireland Department of Education’s independent research showing that nurture provision delivers measurable improvements in pupils’ behaviour, attendance and attainment. What discussions are being had to share this good practice in inclusive education with the rest of the UK, including officials in England, as the Government seek to improve inclusion and educational outcomes for all?

[Matthew Patrick]

Just last month, I went with the early years Minister to visit schools that are really focused on being inclusive and nurturing for pupils, and my hon. Friend is totally right to highlight how this work can have such a positive impact on the children in our schools.

[Jas Athwal]

Does the Minister agree with me about the importance of the Northern Ireland Executive and the Government sharing knowledge, expertise and best practice as we all seek to improve outcomes for children in all our schools?

[Matthew Patrick]

I absolutely do. I have always said that this is not a case of cutting a cheque and walking away. There is work we can do with the Northern Ireland Executive, and we continue to share best practice. In fact, just this week I wrote to the Minister responsible for early years, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey), to explore further opportunities for collaboration.

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

At last year’s spending review, the Northern Ireland Office announced a £2 million allocation to support the integrated education sector. Given that a range of schools in Northern Ireland have been offering an integrated educational ethos for many years, will the Government review that policy to support integrated education per se across a number of schools in Northern Ireland?

[Matthew Patrick]

We support integrated education, and integrated schools are a really important part of that. I was recently at some shared education schools, at the request of the Minister, and I was impressed by some of the work being done there, but I do not think there is just one route for schools in Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. The Education Minister in Northern Ireland, Paul Givan, has been keen to introduce restrictions on students using smartphones in schools, and he has a pilot scheme in place. The Government here are happy to do the same thing. Has the Minister had an opportunity to encourage the Education Minister in Northern Ireland to bring in smartphone restrictions in schools? One party in the Executive wishes to stop that, but the will of the people is to make sure it happens.

[Matthew Patrick]

I was with the Minister for Education recently but this topic did not come up. Obviously, these matters are devolved and are for the Northern Ireland Executive, but I would be happy to speak to Minister Givan, as the hon. Member suggests.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to help ensure adequate accountability for troubles-era violence for members of the IRA.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

There are currently six republican paramilitaries facing prosecution for troubles-related killings. The legacy commission is already investigating a number of IRA atrocities, including the M62 coach bombing, the Guildford pub bombing and the Warrenpoint massacre. Under the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, the commission will benefit from information sharing by the Irish authorities.

[David Davis]

Some 2,058 people died at the hands of republican paramilitaries during the troubles—2,058—but despite that fact, only 19 IRA members are currently in prison. The Secretary of State laughably claims there was no amnesty under the Good Friday agreement, and he gives us only the few he has just mentioned. Can he tell the House how many prosecutions of IRA members he expects to arise under his troubles Bill, and how many families of people murdered by the IRA will find out what happened to their relatives?

[Hilary Benn]

The answer to the right hon. Member’s first question is that it will depend, as he well knows, on the evidence in any individual case, and that decision will be taken by public prosecutors in the normal way. On his second question, he will be aware that between 25,000 and 35,000 paramilitaries were imprisoned during the troubles for a range of offences, including murder, and the purpose of the reform is to ensure that more families are able to find answers to the questions, which they are still asking, about what happened to their loved ones.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

On the subject of troubles-era violence, this week my Committee published a unanimous report calling on the Government to formally name agent Stakeknife. The Government have said that the Supreme Court judgment in the Thompson case has implications for their decision, but lead officers have said it does not. What is preventing the Government from naming Stakeknife, and when do they plan to do so?

[Hilary Benn]

I have, of course, seen the report that the Select Committee has published. There are ongoing civil proceedings and the Government, as I indicated previously, are still considering the implications of the Supreme Court’s Thompson judgment for this decision. I have promised the House that I will return when the Government have reached a decision on the request made by Sir Iain Livingstone, and I intend to honour that promise.

[David Davis]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In view of the inadequate response that I received from the Secretary of State on Question 7, I give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman has put that decision on the record. I am not going to extend Northern Ireland questions, so we will move on.

Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I welcome to the Gallery the President—the Speaker—of the Parliament of Estonia. I thank him and his delegation for being with us today from Estonia.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11 February.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Prime Minister. [Interruption.]

[Hon. Members]

More!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I did not think that the Prime Minister was so popular on the Opposition Benches.

[The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)]

Mr Speaker, may I start by saying that my thoughts, and I am sure the thoughts of the whole House, are with the two children stabbed at Kingsbury high school in Brent? My heart goes out to everyone affected by this appalling attack. We thank the police for their rapid response. It is important now that we give them the space to pursue their investigation.

This morning I conveyed the UK’s deepest condolences to Prime Minister Carney and the people of Canada after the devastating shooting in Tumbler Ridge.

Mr Speaker, I am determined to fix the broken SEND—special educational needs and disabilities—system. No parent should have to fight for the support their child needs. Today we announced a 10-year plan to fix the crumbling school estate that we inherited, delivering more modern and inclusive classrooms that meet the needs of every child.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues—there have been quite a few of those this week. [Laughter.] In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Mr Perkins]

I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks.

The Prime Minister’s commitment to 1.5 million more homes will require 48,000 new entrants to the construction industry every year. In Chesterfield we are doing our bit: our construction skills hub brought 70 new entrants into the construction sector. We saw a welcome increase in numbers across the country last year, but we need a step change and we need numbers to double. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to get more people to commit to construction industry careers and get those numbers up where we need them to be to deliver on his housing ambitions?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right: the task of rebuilding our country is a huge opportunity to give young people a brilliant career. We are backing apprentices with a record £3 billion budget, and we are making sure that companies that bid for major contracts commit to high-quality apprenticeships here in the United Kingdom. We are creating 13,000 new opportunities for young people as plumbers, engineers and bricklayers, securing their future and rebuilding this country.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)]

May I associate myself, and those on the Opposition Benches, with the Prime Minister’s words on the horrific stabbing in north London yesterday, as well as the shooting in Canada?

When he was Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said, “I never turn on my staff. When they make mistakes, I carry the can.” What changed?

[The Prime Minister]

I have accepted responsibility and apologised for the mistakes that I made. But let me say this: Morgan McSweeney helped me change our party and helped me win a landslide election victory, which delivered for the Conservatives the smallest Tory party in over 100 years. And what is the right hon. Lady’s great achievement? To make it even smaller.

[Hon. Members]

More!

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Whips have done a great job today—[Interruption.] Labour Members say, “Yes, exactly.” The Whips have done a great job today getting them cheering. We all know that they have been sick for the last week. Let us remember that just last week the Prime Minister told us he had “full confidence” in his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney. On Sunday he sacked Morgan McSweeney—[Interruption.] Oh, “He resigned.” Last week the Prime Minister was defending the Cabinet Secretary. Now he is sacking him. What changed?

[The Prime Minister]

In January the Leader of the Opposition said that she had full confidence—“100% confident”, she said—that there would be no more defections from her party. Forty-eight hours later, her shadow Foreign Minister defected. Eight days after that, the former Home Secretary defected. The only question now is: who is next? She needs to wake up—her party is dying.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister is demonstrating stratospheric levels of delusion if he thinks the problem is on the Opposition Benches. He did not say anything about why the Cabinet Secretary is going, but we know the truth: it is because he is throwing everyone under the bus except himself.

The Mandelson episode was not an isolated incident. A few weeks ago, the Prime Minister announced a peerage for one Matthew Doyle, his former director of communications. Immediately after that, The Sunday Times published on its front page that Doyle had campaigned for a man charged with child sex offences. Despite the Prime Minister knowing that, he gave Doyle a job for life in the House of Lords anyway. Why?

[The Prime Minister]

Matthew Doyle did not give a full account of his actions. On Monday I promised my party and my country that there will be change, and yesterday I removed the Whip from Matthew Doyle. I will tell you what other actions we have taken, Mr Speaker: along with the Safeguarding Minister, I and this Government have introduced the most far-reaching violence against women and girls strategy. This Government have also introduced a pay rise for millions of working-class women. What did the Leader of the Opposition do? She opposed it. This Government are introducing greater protections for women at work. What did the Leader of the Opposition do? She opposed it. I will tell you what else she opposes, Mr Speaker: this Government removing the disgusting rape clause that her Government put in place.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister pretends not to know about Matthew Doyle, but it was on the front page of The Sunday Times. He cannot explain why he gave this man a peerage—I think Labour Members should be wondering why they are still cheering for him after that. The Prime Minister sometimes likes to claim that he cares about violence against women, as he just did, but the truth is that he cares about the victims only when he is trying to save his own skin. Labour Members can shake their heads at that, but we saw it with grooming gangs, we saw it with Mandelson and now we see it with Doyle. Is that not what a former prosecutor would call an established pattern of behaviour?

[The Prime Minister]

I will take no lectures from the Tories on standards in public life. The Leader of the Opposition defended partygate for months and months, and even now she says that it was overblown. The shadow Foreign Secretary broke the ministerial code by bullying, but Boris Johnson kept her and the Leader of the Opposition promoted her, and now she sits on her Front Bench. Her former shadow Justice Secretary complained about not seeing enough white faces in Birmingham, and the Leader of the Opposition was too weak to sack him for racism.

[Mrs Badenoch]

Nobody buys it, Mr Speaker—not even the Labour women, because they know that the Prime Minister always puts the Downing Street boys club first. How dare he criticise us? The Conservatives were not the ones stuffing Government with hypocrites and paedophile apologists. He cannot build a team and he has no plan. He cannot even run his own office, let alone the country. He is now dealing with a new scandal of appointing someone who campaigned for a man convicted of having indecent pictures of girls as young as 10. Is the Prime Minister not ashamed that that will be his legacy?

[The Prime Minister]

My legacy is changing my party and winning a general election. Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition this: I kicked my former leader out of my party, while her former leader, Liz Truss, broke the economy and has descended into bonkers conspiracy theories. I kicked her out of Parliament, but the Leader of the Opposition is too weak to kick her out of their party.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister has not apologised for appointing Matthew Doyle, because he will not take responsibility—he never does, and Labour Members know it. The Prime Minister is now telling everyone that he has never lost a fight, but that is because he will not step into the ring. He has never lost a fight because he has walked away from welfare reform, he will not stand up to the unions, he will not stand up to China—he cannot even stand up to Mauritius. He has had three Cabinet Secretaries, four chiefs of staff and five directors of communications in just 18 months, and now he is mired in yet another scandal. Does he ever look in the mirror and ask himself if the real problem is staring him in the face?

[The Prime Minister]

I delivered a landslide victory for our party. Only four people have ever led the Labour party to victory at a general election, and I am one of them. The Leader of the Opposition talks about numbers. Let us remember what the Conservatives had: five Prime Ministers, seven Chancellors, eight Home Secretaries, eight Foreign Secretaries, and 16 Housing Secretaries—all were completely useless; all failed Britain. This Prime Minister is cleaning up the mess. The right hon. Lady comes here every week desperately fighting to save her dying party. I am fighting to change our country. Interest rates—down. Inflation—down. Waiting lists—down. Child poverty—down. And I can tell her another thing that is down: the number of Tory MPs.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Q3. The Government have delivered the funding needed to rebuild the new Frimley Park hospital after the Conservatives made empty, unfunded promises to my constituents. Now we urgently need to get on with announcing the preferred site, along with the investment needed to improve public transport, road access and parking. Will the Prime Minister urge NHS England to make this a priority and help give much-needed clarity to Bracknell Forest residents?

[The Prime Minister]

Delivering the new Frimley Park hospital is a priority. Under the Conservatives, my hon. Friend’s constituents were given totally empty promises. They failed patients and they failed staff. We put forward a proper plan and the funding to match, and the trust is making real progress on the business case. I want to see spades in the ground as quickly as possible.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the dreadful stabbing of two children in Brent and the horrifying shootings in British Columbia? Our thoughts and prayers are with the children’s parents and the people of Canada, especially those grieving the loss of loved ones.

To appoint one paedophile supporter cannot be excused as misfortune. To appoint two shows a catastrophic lack of judgment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman once told this House that when a Prime Minister refuses to take responsibility, it

“only serves to convince people that things cannot get better, that Government cannot improve people’s lives, and that progress is not possible because politics does not work.”—[Official Report, 8 November 2021; Vol. 703, c. 44.]

Does he still agree with himself, and does he share my fear that that is exactly what is happening now?

[The Prime Minister]

Millions of people in this country have been let down for years and years, and one of the reasons for that was austerity, which the right hon. Gentleman’s party supported. He should take accountability and responsibility for what he has inflicted on this country! [Interruption.]

[Ed Davey]

Mr Speaker, I think I touched a raw nerve. I think the whole House will agree that the Mandelson scandal has shown yet again why we need a duty of candour for anyone and everyone in public office. There should be no more delays in putting the Hillsborough law on the statute book, after a long fight by the bereaved families and so many others, such as the Mayor of Greater Manchester. The Prime Minister once said that it would be one of the first things he did in No. 10. Will he finally do it now, even if it is the last thing he does?

[The Prime Minister]

The panel report on the Hillsborough case was when I started working on the Hillsborough case. That was in 2012, when the right hon. Gentleman’s party was in power. They could have passed this law a long time ago and saved a lot of grief. I am proud that this Labour Government are bringing in a Hillsborough law—something I have committed to for a very long time.

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

Q5. As the Prime Minister will have heard me say, the Isle of Wight is a fantastic place to live, work and learn, despite the Leader of the Opposition trying to give us to China. He will also be aware of some of the challenges we have in cross-Solent transport with reliability, frequency and price. The emissions trading scheme, which ironically applies only to hybrid vessels, might increase fares further. Exemptions have been granted for Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the lack of grid capacity means that we cannot fully decarbonise. I am deeply concerned about the impact on our island community. Will the Prime Minister urgently ask Department for Energy Security and Net Zero Ministers to review this issue?

[The Prime Minister]

I know how important affordable ferries are to my hon. Friend’s constituents’ everyday lives. The ETS scheme will make journeys cleaner and we are working with ferry companies on the grid connections in ports that enable greener vessels. I will make sure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

If I have just heard the Prime Minister correctly, he has essentially rolled the same pitch in relation to Matthew Doyle as he did with Peter Mandelson, in saying that they were not clear with him. He appears to be the most gullible former Director of Public Prosecutions in history. But he has a slight problem, because some of us do read the newspapers. Towards the end of last year, on 30 December, having written to the House of Lords Appointments Commission, I received a response from the chair, who advised me that as part of their vetting, they

“provide confidential advice to the Prime Minister on the propriety of the proposed nominees”.

Will the Prime Minister release that advice?

[The Prime Minister]

I have made my position clear. The right hon. Gentleman knows how the system works. He says he reads the newspapers. He will have read that in nine days, his party’s former chief executive goes on trial for embezzling money. He will have read that in the Queen Elizabeth hospital, we see one of the worst failures in Scottish public life, with vulnerable children and adults put at risk. Evidence of serious warnings to the SNP Government was ignored. He should have been looking at those warnings, not looking at the newspapers. The First Minister should act, because families deserve accountability.

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just remind the Prime Minister that we do not discuss live cases because they are sub judice?

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Q7. Last week I met Lleyton, a T-level construction student at Bradford college. He was working on the remediation of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete at Airedale hospital. In the last few years, Bradford has made tremendous progress in reducing the rate of young people not in employment, education or training, so will the Prime Minister reconfirm his commitment to vocational and skills training and set out how this Labour Government are ensuring that young people like Lleyton have career opportunities in construction and other critical industries?

[The Prime Minister]

Lleyton’s success is a testament to what young people can achieve with the right support. We are creating technical excellence colleges and delivering training places for 60,000 skilled construction workers. Labour is creating opportunities for every young person while building the homes, schools and hospitals that our country needs, and that is what I am fighting for.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

Q2. Last year, Plymouth was named the national centre for marine autonomy and given a defence growth deal. However, the small and medium-sized enterprises in the unmanned surface vessel sector, many of which are based at Turnchapel Wharf in my constituency, are having their work held back because of out-of-date regulations from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Last week, I was told that draft regulations exist, but that they require primary legislation. Without those new regulations, many of the vital SMEs developing autonomous vessels that have dual commercial and defence use are at risk. Will the Prime Minister show some backbone and consider finding a slot for primary legislation as a matter of urgency, or at least consider adding this to the King’s Speech later this spring, assuming that he is still in charge of the legislative programme by then?

[The Prime Minister]

We are taking action, but if the hon. Lady sends me or my team the details of the particular case in her constituency, I will see if there is anything we can do to provide support on what is obviously an important issue.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

Q8. The Prime Minister will be aware of Lorraine Cox, a resident of Exeter who in 2020 was murdered by a man whose asylum claim had been denied but who was not removed from this country. Will the Prime Minister set out what more this Government will do to speed up deportations of people who have no right to be here and who have committed criminal offences? Will he meet Lorraine’s father to discuss the family’s campaign for justice for Lorraine?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an awful case, and my thoughts and those, I am sure, of the whole House are with the loved ones of Lorraine. Tackling violence against women and girls is a critical mission, and I will ensure that a Home Office Minister meets the family. I want to be absolutely clear that illegal immigrants who commit such appalling acts should not be in this country. That is why we have already removed nearly 60,000 people with no right to be here, and deportations of foreign criminals are up by a third. We are also reforming human rights law to allow us to swiftly remove those with no right to be here.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

Q4. My Oxfordshire constituents are sick of widespread potholes, particularly at Milton interchange, in Didcot and along the A417 serving Challow and Stanford in the Vale. Yet the Government are cutting funding for Oxfordshire county council by £24 million over three years, which is equivalent to its annual highways maintenance budget. The Prime Minister is of course entitled to dig a pothole for himself, but why is he cutting funding for Oxfordshire’s roads?

[The Prime Minister]

We have put a record amount of money into dealing with potholes. The hon. Member needs to ask his council, which is run by his party, why it is not using that money.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

Q9. It is a source of great pride to Scottish Labour MPs that, as Chancellor, Gordon Brown lifted more children out of poverty than any other Chancellor before him. It is also a source of great pride that—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Flynn, you don’t need to cover your mouth—I can still hear you. Your voice is louder than mine!

[Douglas McAllister]

It is also a source of great pride that the torch has now been passed to our Government. By removing the two-child benefit cap, we will lift more children out of poverty in a single Parliament than ever before—2,260 children in West Dunbartonshire and 95,000 children in Scotland. Does the Prime Minister agree that this demonstrates true Labour values in action across Scotland and the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

In Labour, we know the damage that growing up in poverty does to the life chances of children. The Tories put hundreds of thousands of children into poverty, and they will live with that for the rest of their lives. We are undoing their damage. Our decision will benefit almost 100,000 children in Scotland as we deliver the largest reduction in child poverty in any single Parliament.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Q6. The manslaughter of baby Gigi Meehan at a nursery in Cheadle; 21 counts of child cruelty at Riverside nursery in Twickenham Green in my constituency; 56 charges of sexual assault and creating indecent images at a nursery in Camden; and, just this week, 21 counts of sexual abuse at a nursery in Bristol. CCTV was critical in convicting the criminals in most of those cases. Will the Prime Minister ensure that no parent ever has to fear for their child’s safety while they go to work by introducing mandatory CCTV in nurseries and a childcare workers register?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising those cases—they are harrowing cases for everyone in this country. The safety of children is of course paramount, and we are acting to keep them safe. We are implementing all the proposals consulted on to strengthen safeguarding as part of our early years foundation stage framework. An expert group is developing guidance on the effective use of CCTV—the point she makes—and considering whether it should be mandatory in early settings. I will ensure that she is updated as we take that work forward.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)]

Q10. This House legislated 126 years ago to make Alexandra Palace“available for the free use…of the public forever”, and last year Luke “the Nuke” changed darts forever by rewriting the record books. Today Ally Pally plays host to world championship darts, Masters snooker, Haringey Huskies and Haringey Greyhounds ice hockey, plus music, comedy, drama and more. Will the Prime Minister keep the palace competitive as the international venue for darts by supporting my campaign to raise a one-off public-private £500 million investment for urgent capital improvements?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. The people’s palace is an iconic British venue—a home for darts, snooker and world-class music. It is vital that we support brilliant venues that give so much to our cultural life. That is why we are providing almost £200 million to preserve heritage buildings across the country, so that venues like Alexandra Palace can have a bright future.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Q15. Last week, Start bay was devastated by storm damage. Homes and businesses were wrecked, and an important A road was severed. The thousands of people who use it to commute to school and work, and to get to healthcare, are stranded. Bus routes are broken and emergency vehicles are blocked. The presence of the 300,000 visitors who come annually and underpin our fragile tourism economy is now in doubt. That place stepped up twice to defend our country: once when 1.5 million cubic metres of shingle were dredged out of the bay to build to naval dockyards in Plymouth, and again when it was used as the training grounds for the D-day landings, at a cost of 750 American soldiers’ lives. It is also the site of a unique national nature reserve, with rare species found only there. This storm damage is of national significance. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the myriad Government agencies and Departments will work together with experts to find and fund a sustainable long-term solution to the coastal erosion that is inflicting so much—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is an important question but I am sure that the Prime Minister got it in the first two minutes.

[The Prime Minister]

I know that communities have been badly affected by recent storms, and the damage to the A379 is very concerning. I am pleased that the hon. Lady is meeting the Roads Minister and the Floods Minister today. We are investing £10 billion to improve coastal and flood defences. I thank the Environment Agency staff who are working hard right now to put extra protections in place and support people ahead of further wet weather.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q11. For too long, communities like mine in Bartley Green felt that decisions were made about them, not with them. Fourteen years of austerity did not just close neighbourhood offices and youth services; it broke trust. Through the Pride in Place initiative, the Government are helping residents to restore the Woodgate Valley café and so much more. What is the Prime Minister’s message to my constituents about how politics can be a force for good, and about how he will never walk away from my community and the country we love?

[The Prime Minister]

My message is that I have always believed that those with skin in the game make the best decisions about their communities. I know just how much her constituents want Woodgate Valley visitors centre back open. Together, we can make that happen. Hope in Britain is found in our communities. That is why we are investing so heavily in our Pride in Place initiative.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

My constituent’s mum, sister and stepfather were killed in a horrific dangerous driving crime for which a foreign national offender was sentenced to 10 and a half years. However, the family have just been told that he may be released imminently in order to be deported, having served just three years. Will the Prime Minister look at the case and at what steps can be taken to prevent that release? Such a pitiful time served—three years for three lives—would be the final insult and undermine public confidence in our justice system.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising what is obviously a terrible case. If he provides further details, I will ensure that it is looked into as quickly as possible.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

Q12. Our democracy, in this House, relies on the spoken word, but many with speech disabilities are left without a voice. I have a speech impediment, and so do 2 million adults and one in 12 children. It can rob people of their confidence, lead to discrimination and limit our opportunities in work and in public life. It is time to tear down those barriers. Will the Prime Minister share what this Government are doing to help people with speech disabilities to get the support they need, so that their voices can be heard?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is an inspirational and powerful campaigner on this issue. By doing what he is doing, he will give great courage to other people to take the same steps. I am proud that we are increasing the number of NHS speech and language therapists. We are trialling new ways of identifying and supporting children with speech and language needs in their early years, because I agree that every child deserves the help they need to reach their potential.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

My Surrey Heath constituent Christopher was discharged from the RAF in 1966 solely for being gay, but—despite the Government committing to restoring the medals and the berets, and indeed acknowledging the injustice of those who were discharged from our armed forces prior to 1967 for that reason—his case has been dismissed out of hand, with only a letter that contained the tracked changes from the template that the Ministry of Defence issued. Can I ask the Prime Minister to take a personal interest in this case to ensure that it is resolved swiftly, and to allow Christopher to march on Remembrance Day, as he wishes to, with his medals and his beret, and his dignity restored?

[The Prime Minister]

I will do everything that I can to ensure that that happens, which is absolutely what should happen. This was an absolute scandal—the gays in the military ban—and it is absolutely right that it was overturned, but we must follow through on that. I will do everything I can to make sure that we deliver on what the hon. Gentleman has asked me to deliver on.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Q13. Last week, the Government launched a consultation on establishing a growth development corporation for Cambridge. In the meantime, Peter Freeman, the chairman of the Cambridge Growth Company, is on the record as saying that Cambridge should aim to be“the most liveable city in Europe”.That is a fantastic ambition with which I entirely agree. Given that this will be good for growth, not just for Cambridge but for the region and the wider economy, will the Prime Minister set out what more the Government can do to help us, not least to help the generation of young people who can barely afford a home?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend’s constituency is already home to brilliant research, innovation and economic growth, and through a Greater Cambridge development corporation we will put in place the powers and resources to unlock its full potential. I want to let local people have their say. We will make sure that we create a fair plan, with attractive, well-connected and thriving new neighbourhoods.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister share with me the concern that while some ambassadors retiring in disgrace get tens of thousands of pounds in pay-offs, many other civil servants are failing to get the retirement that they are due and are expected to turn to their old Departments for bridging loans? This is clearly a scandal. Will he put all his effort behind making sure that those who have served with integrity are treated with the dignity that they deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes; we are taking steps, and the right hon. Gentleman is right that we should take further steps. I think there will be agreement about that across the House.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

Q14. The announcement that pubs and music venues will receive a much-welcome reduction in business rates is a positive step. However, in our manifesto we did promise root-and-branch reform of business rates. Hospitality and leisure businesses in my Stourbridge constituency are facing a projected £20,000 increase in business rates over the next three years, along with employment cost increases and energy costs. Hospitality and leisure play a vital role for our communities, providing jobs and spaces to socialise in, so will the Prime Minister consider a similar rates relief package for hospitality and leisure?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that we need the conditions for flourishing high streets. That underscores the importance of six interest rate cuts, the £5.8 billion that we have put into Pride in Place, and the work to put money in people’s pockets. I am pleased that we have delivered a 15% cut and a two-year freeze for pubs and live music venues. That comes on top of the £4.3 billion to support businesses, and permanently lower rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for raising the stabbing at Kingsbury high school yesterday. It is absolutely right that we allow the police to get on with their job of investigating this terrible atrocity; indeed, the police are out there now, providing reassurance to parents and people in the community. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families and those who witnessed the atrocity. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Will the Prime Minister now look at what needs to be done to combat knife crime across the country? It is absolutely wrong that people are carrying knives in the first place—they do not need to—and that they are drawn into such terrible atrocities. We owe it to the victims to ensure that that happens.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this case: it is one of the most powerful and important things that we do as MPs in this place, particularly when there are such awful cases. He is absolutely right; we must everything that we can to reduce knife crime. There are initiatives and steps that we have taken to remove the accessibility of knives, in relation to where they can be bought. We need to do much more work with our schools and young people to ensure that people do not carry knives, and we need to work with the police and law enforcement to make sure that these incidents are investigated as quickly and effectively as possible. I think that is an endeavour shared by Members from across the House.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

In my constituency, the beautiful grade II listed Chetwynd bridge on the A513 between Edingale and Alrewas has been restricted to cars and light vans since October 2023, so farmers face a 25-mile diversion. With severe flooding hitting Edingale multiple times a year, this vital route risks being cut off for emergency response times as well. Bridges like this one, with a clear economic impact on communities, should be the focus of the Government’s new structures fund, which I welcome. Will the Prime Minister encourage his Ministers to meet with me so that we can find a solution to this issue for my rural constituents in Tamworth?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Just hearing her makes it absolutely clear that we need to find a solution, so I will make sure that she gets the meeting that she requests with the relevant Minister so that we can move as quickly as possible.

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

Rubbish is building up right beneath my very nose. [Laughter.]

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Easy tiger!

[Ayoub Khan]

It is becoming a serious problem. In Birmingham, bin strikes have now been running for close to two years. May I gently ask the Prime Minister to intervene? Will he perhaps speak to the leader of Birmingham city council to see if he can re-enter negotiations with Unite the union?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. We are doing everything that we can to resolve the situation, which absolutely needs resolving.

Point of Order

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

12:34

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, a Reform UK MP visited a synagogue in my constituency and failed to notify me; it was a political visit. This is part of a pattern that has been observed. At a time when we need to work together in our communities to tackle antisemitism, a terrible form of hate, I would like your guidance on the correct procedure for Members on when they should—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Tice, it is very important that I hear this point of order—[Interruption.] No, I need to hear it; I will make a ruling in a minute.

[Rachel Blake]

I would like your guidance, Mr Speaker, on the correct procedure for Members. When should they, or when should they not, show the courtesy of letting the sitting Member of Parliament know of their intention to visit a constituency?

[Mr Speaker]

I am very clear on this matter. When Members of Parliament go into another Member’s constituency, they should let that Member know in advance. This is not about one party; Members of all parties continue to do it. These are the courtesies that we expect of others, so please remember the rule: let other Members know when you are going into their constituency. The point has been raised, and I will leave it at that.

Short-term Let Accommodation (Data Sharing Requirements)

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

12:37

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require certain persons or organisations to share specified data relating to the short-term letting of accommodation with regulatory authorities; to amend the Data Protection Act 2018 in connection with that requirement; and for connected purposes.

I am honoured to represent the Cities of London and Westminster in the heart of London; it is a truly unique constituency in a number of ways. How many can say that they have the Tate Britain, Ronnie Scott’s and Abbey Road Studios in their patch? How many can boast 78,000 businesses and 2 million jobs? How many can point to having been the home for a unique wealth of historical figures, such as Mary Seacole, Millicent Fawcett and Olaudah Equiano? However, this centrality comes at the cost of one of the most competitive housing markets in the world, where long-term residents are forced to compete against commercial real estate, luxury developers and foreign oligarchs.

Chief among the forces hollowing out our communities is the unchecked proliferation of short-term letting hosts on Airbnb, Booking.com and other sites. These individuals turn our homes into hotels, our communities into commodities, and our neighbours into night-time nuisances. My inbox is full of such stories: fire services being called because of guests leaving cookers on; families with children being kept up with drug-fuelled James Bond-themed parties taking place right next door night after night; and even organised crime outfits renting out apartments for a weekend to harass Londoners, snatching phones and wallets before leaving with their ill-gotten gains.

Amidst this bad behaviour is the flagrant breach of the London-wide regulation that short lets can operate for no more than 90 nights per year without planning permission. This is operationally impossible to enforce because of how difficult it is to get accurate information on how many nights a short-term let is being used. In some parts of my constituency, as many as 30% of homes are being used as short-term lets, in the process making the homes that are left less affordable for long-term residents. Research from King’s College London shows that doubling the density of short-term lets is associated with an 8% growth—or more than £4,500 per year—in per-bedroom rental prices. This overheated housing market has become unaffordable for locals and hollowed out communities like those in the west end, which was historically the beating cultural heart of London, home to William Blake, Shelley and Constable. The average one-bed flat in Soho costs £2,400 a month to rent privately, That is over double what it would have cost at the turn of the millennium. At the same time, average prices have tripled from £300,000 to nearly £1 million.

When non-residential forces crowd into a residential market, it is working people who are the losers. It is no coincidence that Soho’s population has shrunk by two thirds over the same time period and that the knock-on effects of these changes are felt. Since my election, I have had to fight for institutions used by local residents, including schools and community facilities such as the Jubilee Hall gym and the Central YMCA, to stay open, and frequently their landlords have complained about a lack of footfall.

London is not just special because of its landmarks or its economy; it is special because of its people—its historic communities living and working together, and generating some of the greatest cultural and social achievements produced by this country. If we want to keep London a world-leading city, we need to ensure that its people can afford to make a home here, and that they feel safe and at ease living here. We have to fight for this city, and that is exactly what I intend to do.

I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to the City of Westminster’s pioneering short-term lets team, who work day in and day out to enforce existing rules around illegal subletting, the 90-day rule, and antisocial behaviour in problem properties. Since coming into power on the council in 2022, Labour has doubled its size and I have been working with it in launching a short-term lets commission, directly reporting properties flagged by my constituents to council officers and ensuring they are taken off the sites for good.

The Government are on the side of my constituents too, pushing forward with a mandatory short-term lets registration scheme. This will for the first time give us clear, uncontested data on where the short-term lets are and who is operating them. Hosts will have to enter their property’s address and will receive a unique reference number, which will then appear on all sites where it is let, and they will have to confirm that they are following existing regulations that apply to short-term lets, such as fire, gas and electrical certificates. This will be transformative for how we enforce short-term lets in London. With a unique reference number, teams like those in Westminster will be able to pinpoint problem properties much more easily and take them off major sites for good.

But there is a piece of information that the scheme must collect, yet which right now we cannot: the number of nights for which homes are being let out. Without this crucial data, enforcing the 90-day limit will remain an elusive task to local authority planning enforcement teams. Data from AirDNA indicates that nearly 6,000 short lets in the Cities of London and Westminster are being let out for over the 90-day limit. These are almost certainly the worst offenders when it comes to the other community disruptions I have mentioned. If we simply made these actors follow the law, or better still took them off the market entirely, we would significantly reduce the disruption caused by short-term letting.

Why can we not record this data? The Data Protection Act 2018 currently prevents such information from being shared. While the Act is crucial for ensuring that our personal data is more secure than in comparable countries outside the EU, in this case it stands in the way of effectively regulating short-term lets. A number of exemptions exist in the legislation, however, and the Bill would extend them to include the number of nights for which short-term lets are used.

However, that is not the only action needed to tackle short-term lets. Time and again, my constituents bring up licensing as a possible solution to the spread of short-term lets, backed by reams of research from policy experts. Just as a business must apply to open a bar or café in a local area, so too should the host of a short-term let have to apply to their local authority before opening what is, in essence, a micro-hotel in the middle of a residential block.

While every local authority should be able to undertake its open approach to this issue, local authorities such as Westminster and the City of London, where concentrations are so high, need to have the power to decide where homes can be let out and under what conditions. The Government’s upcoming database is a crucial step in this direction because it can, for the first time ever, provide an authoritative dataset on the extent of this problem, which will benefit Members of Parliament and their constituents across the country.

My constituents are ready to engage with that database and report poor practice, and the local authorities I work with are on hand to upscale their work and the benefits that it can bring. All we need now is this final piece of the puzzle: knowing how many nights homes are let out for. That piece is well within our grasp, and it is up to us in this House to deliver it.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Rachel Blake, Lizzi Collinge, Florence Eshalomi, Dame Meg Hillier, Alison Hume, Jayne Kirkham, Joe Powell, Anna Gelderd, Will Stone, Noah Law, Tony Vaughan and Dr Scott Arthur present the Bill.

Rachel Blake accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 382).

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your advice on how I register my utter disgust at the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) scoring a cheap political point about me visiting a synagogue in this constituency.

[Mr Speaker]

First, that is not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has put it on the record. A point of order was made earlier, and this ruling is where I stand: if you are visiting a synagogue for prayer or in a private capacity, the relevant Member should not expect to be told. However, if you are visiting in an official capacity following an invite, it is only right that we must ensure that the relevant Member of Parliament is aware. I will leave it at that. I will not continue the debate, but I just reaffirm to all Members—whether shadow Ministers, Ministers or Back Benchers—that they should ensure that the relevant Member of Parliament is aware of a visit. When I say “visit”, I am talking about one made not in a private capacity but a political capacity.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raised a previous point of order regarding the Royal Mail and postal delivery services, and I mention that because I recently wrote to some constituents about that very point of order. However, that letter, which was sent first class from the House of Commons, took 12 days to arrive. Many Members across this House are writing about important issues on House of Commons paper, in House of Commons envelopes, and they are taking many days to arrive. As a result, many of our constituents might be ill-informed about the speed with which Members of Parliament are responding, which—as you will know, Mr Speaker—can be raised with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is certainly not a point of order, but you have rightly put your point on the record. I am sure your constituents are well aware that you are diligent in your replies, and that the delay is down to Royal Mail hanging on to your letter for 12 days. Royal Mail quite rightly has a duty of care. If it says first class, we expect a first-class delivery service. With the price of postage, the Royal Mail should be embarrassed by what you have raised today, but that still does not make it a point of order.

Business of the House

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That at this day’s sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on

(1) the Motion in the name of Secretary Shabana Mahmood relating to Police Grant Report not later than three hours after the start of proceedings on the Motion for this Order, and

(2) the Motions in the name of Secretary Steve Reed relating to Local Government Finance not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion or no later than six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order, whichever is the later;

proceedings may continue, though opposed, until any hour, and may be entered upon after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Police Grant Report

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

12:50

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

I beg to move,

That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2026–27 (HC 1638), which was laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.

Before I come to the detail of the settlement, I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition at Prime Minister’s Question Time following the stabbing at Kingsbury high school in Brent yesterday, and add our condolences and our thoughts. We all hope that those who have been injured will be able to recover, and that justice will be done in a very difficult situation.

I also want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women who work to protect the rest of us from harm. I did not need to become the Policing Minister to appreciate the debt of gratitude that is owed to those dedicated public servants, but having the honour of serving in this post has given me a daily insight into the remarkable work of our police. I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing gratitude to the officers, staff and volunteers who, as we speak, are performing their duties with professionalism, skill and courage. We are all fortunate to have so many brave individuals dedicated to keeping us safe, whether they be first responders turning towards danger, police community support officers immersed in their neighbourhoods, or staff working behind the scenes to track the latest threats to the public. That is why our record cash investment in the policing system for England and Wales is so important. We are determined to provide our police forces with the resources they need to continue their vital work, as well as support to invest in their future.

In 2026-27, overall funding for the policing system in England and Wales will be up to £21 billion, an increase of £1.3 billion compared with 2025-26. Funding available to local police forces will total up to £18.4 billion, an increase of £796 million from 2025-26, or 2.3% in real terms. Of this funding increase, £432 million will come from additional Government grant, while £364 million will come from police precept, assuming that police and crime commissioners choose to maximise the £15 limit. Furthermore, we have worked with a small group of forces that evidenced particular financial pressures to agree additional precept flexibility. The settlement also includes at least £1.2 billion for counter-terrorism policing to preserve national security and guard against the most severe threats, as is the primary duty of any Government.

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

As the Minister is getting into the detail of the funding package, will she accept two broad points? First, the overall number of police officers in England has fallen on Labour’s watch. Secondly, because of cost pressures on police forces from other decisions taken by her Government, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners has said that there is a £500 million shortfall in the allocation of funding from this Government to police forces.

[Sarah Jones]

With £21 billion going into policing overall and £18.4 billion going directly to our police forces, I do not accept that there is a shortfall in funding. More money—hundreds of millions of pounds—is going into policing this year than last year.

Turning to the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, which I suspect Conservative Front Benchers will also try to make, we have worked with police chiefs not only to introduce a big package of reform, but to remove the arbitrary headcount targets for officer numbers that local forces found so difficult to navigate. Those forces were pushed into recruiting officers and putting them behind desks to do jobs that staff could do. We are not going to judge our police on the numbers of people in different roles; we are going to judge them on their outcomes, which is why we are setting targets, driving productivity, and focusing on tackling crime rather than arbitrary numbers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for the report we are debating. I think she mentioned that the figure for counter-terrorism was £1.2 billion. Obviously, we in Northern Ireland have a particular, critical role when it comes to addressing the issue of terrorism. It is still active in Northern Ireland—in a minor way, but still active—and we also have a border that we have to patrol, addressing issues such as immigration and theft of agricultural machinery. All those things come into the picture, so will extra money be coming to the Police Service of Northern Ireland through the Barnett consequentials to help us?

[Sarah Jones]

Of course, policing itself is devolved, but addressing the risk of terrorism involves working across the whole of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Security Minister will ensure we are working very closely across all four parts of this United Kingdom to offer the support that is needed.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

As the Policing Minister knows, West Mercia police—which covers Shropshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire—is a very good force in many ways. However, is she aware that West Mercia is about to see the first fall in police numbers in over a decade, with approximately 20 frontline police officers likely to be removed as a result of what the local police and crime commissioner calls a “shortfall in Government funding”, and that this will affect The Wrekin constituency?

[Sarah Jones]

To repeat, every force in the country has had an increase in its funding this year, and we are making sure we have the right funding to support our objectives. On police officer numbers, what we saw under the last Government was a reduction of 20,000 officers and then a rush to recruit 20,000. The result was, for example, a 60% rise in retail crime in the last two years of the Conservative Government—that arbitrary focus on numbers did not result in the right outcomes. We are interested in police outcomes. We are interested in driving down crime and preventing it, and we believe that we should give our chiefs the flexibility to understand what roles they need within their local workforce. Police staff are exceptionally important in many different roles.

Under the last Government, the number of PCSOs halved. That was not even Government policy; it just happened because they did not have a proper workforce plan and did not think about these things, and then in the latter years they did not allow flexibility for local officers. We believe chiefs can make the right decisions about their workforce locally, and for the first time—the Conservatives failed to do this—we will establish a national workforce plan, to make sure we have the right resources in the right places at the right time.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

The Policing Minister, who is my constituency neighbour, has referenced the different kinds of people in the police workforce and how police chiefs should have flexibility. However, over the past year, not only have police officer numbers fallen by 1,300, but police staff numbers have also fallen by 529. The number of PCSOs has fallen by 204, the number of special constables has fallen by 514, and even the number of volunteers has fallen. Every single number has fallen—is the Minister proud of that?

[Sarah Jones]

Knife murders have fallen by 27% and knife crime has fallen by 8%—there were nearly 4,500 fewer knife offences in the past year than in the year before that. We are focused on outcomes. The right hon. Gentleman will know that proper police reform involves looking at the staff, the workforce and new technology. He is a big fan of live facial recognition, as are we, and we are taking out of the system inefficiencies to the tune of £350 million during this Parliament. Money was being wasted by the previous Government, but we will strip those inefficiencies out of the system. Our reforms will focus on outcomes, and on delivering a local police force that will tackle the epidemic of everyday crime and a national police service that will tackle complex crime.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I apologise for the fact that I cannot stay until the end of this debate, because I have a debate in Westminster Hall, but I need to ask the Minister a question. She talks about outcomes. Is she as shocked as I am that the Labour Cheshire police and crime commissioner has already spent £200,000 on two listening exercises, and is expected to spend another £400,000 on more listening exercises? The precept is going up by 6.7%, but the police force will have to make redundancies. Does she not agree that the money should go not on vanity projects, but on frontline policing?

[Sarah Jones]

I suggest that the previous Government would have benefited from listening to the public. There is no harm in listening to the public. Indeed, it is our role as elected representatives to do so. One challenge that we are grappling with through the police reform White Paper is how we make sure that there is accountability at the hyper-local and national levels. We need to make sure that we listen to our constituents and target the crimes that they care about.

[Esther McVey]

Following on from the Minister’s point, I noticed today that the same Labour police and crime commissioner has put up an advert for a senior public relations officer on £45,000 to £55,000, and there are other vanity projects. Surely that money should be spent on PCSOs and police on the ground, not on the PCC himself.

[Sarah Jones]

I do not know whether the right hon. Lady has anybody in her team to help her with communications.

[Esther McVey]

indicated dissent.

[Sarah Jones]

Nobody? I suspect that she does have somebody who helps with communications; most hon. Members in this place do.

[Esther McVey]

No, I don’t.

[Sarah Jones]

Ensuring the public know what is happening is also a good thing. The right hon. Lady will know that we have said several times in this place that we are abolishing the role of the police and crime commissioner. That is not in any way because of the work that they have done. Indeed, they have done a lot of brilliant work. I have some fantastic colleagues that I will continue to work with until 2028.

[Esther McVey]

On a point of clarification—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Is the Minister taking the intervention or not?

[Sarah Jones]

indicated dissent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Well, continue, Minister.

[Sarah Jones]

I suggest that we carry on that conversation over a cup of coffee another time.

We are also investing £1.4 billion in the wider policing system to continue our progress on adopting modern, cutting-edge technologies that will better enable the police to perform their most critical function of keeping the public safe. The Government are supporting the police in their ongoing fight against knife crime by maintaining funding for serious violence reduction activity in every force area. Alongside that, there is £28 million, through our county lines programme, to disrupt organised crime and protect vulnerable and exploited children. A total of £119 million will go towards our ambitious programme of police reform, in which we will establish a new national centre to support the use of artificial intelligence across policing, enable the national roll-out of live facial recognition and strengthen the way that data is used to support operational policing.

[Mark Pritchard]

The Minister is being very generous with her time, as she always is. I hope that she will also be generous in her reply. AI is already playing a part in policing, and I would hope that everybody who wants crime reduced supports that, but as far as I am concerned, that support comes with caveats. There needs to be legislative oversight to ensure that AI is regulated and not abused. When will the Government come forward with the legislation that was mentioned by the Home Secretary? Just very briefly on police reform, does she recognise that West Mercia oversees a rural and semi-rural area? In any reconfiguration, restructuring should recognise the unique challenges of rural police forces, as opposed to, let us say, those of the neighbouring force, West Midlands.

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the two points that he raised in one question. On AI, he is absolutely right that we need to ensure—I hope this is now the policy of the Opposition; it was not when they were in government—that there is an understanding of what AI is and is not used for. Importantly, we are consulting on how live facial recognition is and is not used. On AI, a huge amount of work is going on in different police forces, and most areas have ethics committees and other such structures that consider and talk about the use of AI. For example, there are certain rules around the use of AI. It should never be used to make a decision or to pass a judgment; it should be just for giving information. That is very important. We saw in the recent West Midlands case how easy it is to end up making a mistake, and we want to avoid that.

On the reform point, we are baking into our structures the idea that, at the hyper-local level, everybody in the ward will have a named, contactable officer, and that there will be targets for 999 response times, 999 call-answering times, and response times for non-urgent calls. I have heard from several MPs that rural areas are concerned that where there is a larger force, they will get fewer resources. That is not the intention—indeed, it is quite the opposite. Instead of having 43 forces making 43 decisions, and 86 decision makers spending money in 43 different ways, we will make savings that will mean that we can put more money into frontline policing in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I am reassured to hear the Minister’s words, but I am not hearing how what she describes will happen. We have all seen what happens with a larger force. The big cities and metropolitan areas have a political way of pulling resources to them; it is almost like gravity. Something structural is required. The Minister may not have an answer today, but will she consider ways of backing up her hope, to turn it into something on which rural communities in my constituency can rely?

[Sarah Jones]

As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), has just said to me, the two of us are from cities and we quite often feel the same way—that we do not always get the resources that we are pushing for. Everybody here will be interested in ensuring that their constituents get the funding that they need. We are about to set up an independent review on what the structures will be. The right hon. Member can also read the White Paper, which sets out some of these ideas. The independent review will be completed by the summer, and that will set out how many forces there will be and how they will work.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way again?

[Sarah Jones]

I will make a little bit of progress, if that is okay.

Let me say a little more about policing reform. Last month, as I said, we released the White Paper, which sets out how we will create a policing system fit for the future. Taken together, our plans amount to the biggest reforms for almost 200 years. They will see improvements to police governance, forced mergers to unlock greater efficiencies, and the creation of a national police service, capable of fighting sophisticated criminals at a national level. Those reforms are overdue. They will not be easy, but they are necessary. Our overarching aim is clear: to establish a new policing model, in which local forces protect their communities and a national police protects us all.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of the challenges that we have always had in Staffordshire is that, because of a manufacturing site in Tamworth and because of the politics of Stoke-on-Trent, we have often had to deal with complex national issues around far-right activism and Hizb ut-Tahrir activism. With the increases for police forces, and given their national responsibilities, how will the Minister ensure that the local specialisms that we have built up in Staffordshire will continue to be deployable there? Sometimes, our neighbourhood policing is the first barrier—the first way of dealing with problems that can escalate further down the line. How will that knowledge transfer carry on?

[Sarah Jones]

Several people have raised similar concerns. My answer is that creating a much simpler system will make the movement of information, resources, people and specialisms easier, and that will be easier to maintain. We will be bringing together lots of different national bodies. We have the regional organised crime units, which do not have a legislative basis and are funded in a range of different, slightly peculiar ways. We have specialist units sitting in different forces across the country looking at different things, whether that is modern slavery or funding helicopters. We have this peculiar system that does not make much sense. By streamlining things, so that we have a national service, a regional service and local police areas, we can enable that flow of information and specialisms to be clearer. I understand my hon. Friend’s point, which has been raised by several people. We will certainly be mindful of it.

[Graham Stuart]

The Minister is being extremely generous in giving way. I met the chief constable of Humberside last week. As the Minister will know, it is the leading force in the country and has the best results, so local people are concerned about a reorganisation that could be expensive, and could draw resources away from a successful police system. How will those making preparations for these changes engage the chief constable in Humberside and others who are helping to set very high standards now? We do not want those standards diminished in the future.

[Sarah Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman points to a challenge, which is that some police forces perform brilliantly, and others perform less well. There is only one force in Engage at the moment, but in the main, forces will be good at certain things and bad at others, and that will vary across the country. Our aim is to ensure that we have brilliance everywhere, and we are working closely with police chiefs.

I think this is the first time that a reform programme has not had the criticism that we might expect from different aspects of policing. It was almost to the point that we sat back and wondered, “Have we got this wrong? Everybody is agreeing with us.” It is powerful to sit with police chiefs and with rank and file officers, as I did last week, and hear about the challenges they face and their solutions. We are suggesting the same solutions. It will be a difficult journey—no reform programme is not—but we are making sure that we engage with policing every step of the way.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sarah Jones]

I will make some progress, I am afraid.

Many hon. Members have talked about the funding formula. In opposition, I regularly called on the previous Government to review the funding formula. As part of this reform journey, we will have to reform the formula, because we are changing the structures. I can reassure Members that we will do that. This year’s settlement represents a first step in our reform journey. We have streamlined the way that we distribute funding and have put flexibility back into the hands of police chiefs, allowing them to focus on the priorities of their communities and of this Government.

One of those priorities has to be neighbourhood policing, as it is the bedrock of the British policing model. A central aim of this Government’s agenda has been to restore neighbourhood policing after it was catastrophically eroded in the years before the general election. Our efforts are already having an impact; there are nearly 2,400 more neighbourhood officers already in our communities, and the neighbourhood policing guarantee is delivering named, contactable officers in every area, but we must and will go further. Through this settlement, we will build on the progress made so far.

Having listened to feedback from police chiefs, police and crime commissioners, Select Committees and His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services and others, we are removing arbitrary headcount targets for overall officer numbers. We believe that success should be judged not just by numbers, but by how the police deliver the outcomes that the public want. Our focus is on putting police where they can make the most difference, which is often in our communities, tackling the crime and antisocial behaviour that blights cities, towns and villages. We are therefore ringfencing £363 million of funding to get 1,750 more police officers and police and community support officers into neighbourhood policing roles in the next year.

[Esther McVey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Jones]

I will carry on making some progress.

Through the continued growth in neighbourhood policing, we will restore the vital link between police forces and the communities they serve. We also believe that there is significant potential to revolutionise police efficiency and productivity. We are continuing to work with forces through the efficiency programme towards the target I mentioned earlier of £354 million of cashable savings by the end of this Parliament. As set out in our White Paper, we must explore further avenues to bring policing into the modern age and deliver better value. Meanwhile, new structures will remove duplication and the national police service will allow us to deal with the biggest threats nationally. This Government believe in doing things right once, not in 43 different ways, and not a single penny of taxpayers’ money should be wasted. By investing in new technology, taking away administrative burdens and moving officers out from desks and into our communities, we move closer to that goal.

In 2026-27, we are continuing to invest in the police, supporting them with a record level of funding to do what they do best: keeping us all safe. That is the first duty of Government.

[Esther McVey]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Jones]

I will not on this occasion.

Keeping us all safe requires a highly effective and efficient police service that is both equipped for the crime-fighting challenges of now and prepared for the future.

Ultimately,

“the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.”

Not my words, but one of Robert Peel’s principles of policing, as laid out almost 200 years ago. Those principles are just as relevant today. We believe that policing should be about keeping people safe. The visible presence of police officers on our streets is vital, and this settlement aims to get officers away from desks and back on the frontline.

[Esther McVey]

I thank the Minister for giving way; it is most generous of her. My chief constable has raised a point about Labour’s new Sentencing Act 2026, where criminals will not be sentenced for less than 12 months. My chief constable says that their force will now be man-marking criminals on the street, which will cost them approximately £1.6 million a year. Can the Minister explain how she plans to address that issue in costs and man hours?

[Sarah Jones]

Significant investment is going into probation alongside those reforms. As the right hon. Lady would expect, colleagues in the Home Office and I are working closely with the Ministry of Justice to ensure we are equipped to respond to any changes. It is absolutely true that it is often right for people to have non-prison sentences, whether that is tagging or other punishments. We can do some innovative work on that going forward, but we are having regular meetings with our police colleagues to make sure we are ready for the changes.

Equally, we cannot forget the staff essential to our policing system, such as the PCSOs working with vulnerable individuals, victim support staff helping people through the aftermath of crimes, or tech experts working in police headquarters to track stolen phones. This settlement recognises that and puts power back in the hands of local forces, allowing them to prioritise the right mix of skills for a modern workforce. We are giving the police the resources—up to £18.4 billion—to invest in this workforce and to supply them with the tools and powers they need to do their jobs.

We know that to people across England and Wales, what matters most is not what we say but what we do. We are backing up our words with action—restoring neighbourhood policing, driving down harmful threats and equipping forces for the challenges of modern crime fighting—but we will not stop there. We will maintain momentum this year and beyond, reforming policing and striving to give law-abiding citizens the safety and security they deserve. This settlement will aid us in delivering those aims, and I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

13:19

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me—

[Gareth Snell]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Philp]

Go on. This will be good.

[Gareth Snell]

I just wanted to say this before the right hon. Gentleman got into his speech. In 2010 the number of police officers in Staffordshire was about 1,000, and it only returned to that level this year. We have never had a police and crime commissioner who was not a Conservative, and we have only ever had a Conservative council and a Conservative Government during that period. Is the right hon. Gentleman able to tell me whom I should hold accountable for that decimation of neighbourhood policing under the last Government?

[Chris Philp]

The last Government left office with record police numbers. In March 2024, at the time of the last recruitment intake, there were 149,769 officers by headcount, the highest number in history and 3,000 higher than the number in 2010. The Minister asked about outcomes. According to the crime survey for England and Wales, overall crime fell by about 50% under the last Government.

I was about to say, before I, perhaps foolishly—

[Graham Stuart]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Philp]

Goodness me, this is already becoming very congested, but I cannot possibly resist my right hon. Friend’s entreaty.

[Graham Stuart]

I am extremely grateful. My right hon. Friend is being most generous, and he has barely begun his speech.

I must have misheard, because I have listened to so many speeches about law and order from Labour Members, and my right hon. Friend must have misspoken. He has suggested that not only did the last Conservative Government leave a record number of police officers, but overall crime fell by 50%. Have those words ever been issued by the Ministers, or do they try to mislead the public at every opportunity?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Does the right hon. Gentleman want to stand up and correct the record? Go ahead.

[Graham Stuart]

I mentioned no individual, Madam Deputy Speaker, but “inadvertently”, of course, in any Minister’s case.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Let us mind our language.

[Chris Philp]

It is true that Labour Members forget to mention the record police numbers in March 2024 or the reduction in crime—which was, in fact, more than 50% over the period.

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Andy McDonald]

rose—

[Chris Philp]

I will happily give way quite a lot, but I have not even started, and I have given way a couple of times already.

I was going to start by echoing the Minister’s tribute to police officers up and down the country who, every day, put themselves in the line of danger. I have attended the annual police memorial service and met the families of officers who have tragically lost their lives while keeping us safe, and I think they should remain at the front of our minds during the debate.

The Minister threw around some big numbers earlier in respect of the increase in police funding that has been announced, but the 4.5% increase for frontline police forces—the increase being given to police and crime commissioners—is not enough to meet the funding and cost pressures that they face. Earlier today I spoke to Roger Hirst, the Essex police and crime commissioner, who is, as the Minister knows, the finance lead for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. He told me that, according to his assessment, this funding settlement is about £100 million short of the cost pressures that police forces will face, which means that they will have to find cuts—but it is not just Roger. The National Police Chiefs’ Council, the body that represents chief constables, said on 28 January:

“Many forces are planning service reductions, with consequences for officer numbers, staff capacity and…resilience.”

In other words, both police and crime commissioners and the NPCC say that the settlement is inadequate to maintain police resources. But it not just them either. The Labour police and crime commissioner for Avon and Somerset has just had to cancel the recruitment of 70 new officers because of “lower than expected” Government funding. The Cambridgeshire police and crime commissioner says that the settlement falls short of what is required. The chief constable of Cleveland says that his force faces a £4 million funding gap. The Essex police and crime commissioner, whom I mentioned a moment ago, says that

“the Government…settlement…is insufficient to cover rising costs”,

and Greater Manchester police say that they face a £32 million funding gap. In summary, this settlement is not enough to enable police forces up and down the country to maintain their level of service. They will shrink, and their services will be diminished.

The Minister mentioned the money being provided for the 1,750 neighbourhood policing officers, but did not say how much it was. In fact, the Government are providing £50 million for that purpose. If we divide the one number by the other, we find that it comes to £29,000 per officer. As the NPCC has pointed out, the cost of an officer is, on average, £68,000, so the Government are funding only 42% of the cost, leaving the other 58% completely unfunded. The Minister also forgot to mention that the Government are cancelling the funding for antisocial behaviour hotspot patrolling, which was introduced by the last Government and should have been continued.

As for the way in which the money is distributed, it remains the case that the funding formula is deeply unfair. Changes are long overdue, and I ask the Minister to introduce those changes to make the formula fairer. The Metropolitan police receive by far the highest amount in the country. Even if we account for the national capital city grant and counter-terrorism funding, they receive £439 per head. As for the lowest-funded forces, Dorset receives £255 a head, Essex £236, Cambridgeshire £237 and Wiltshire £235. They are inadequately funded, and the formula urgently needs to be updated. I ask the Minister—or her colleague the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), when she sums up the debate—to address that point.

The consequence of this inadequate funding settlement is just the same as the consequence of last year’s inadequate funding settlement, when my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), my shadow ministerial colleague, stood at the Dispatch Box and warned the Minister’s predecessor that the settlement would lead to reductions in police numbers. We now know that that has come to pass. The most recent figures, published only a few weeks ago, show that in the year to September 2025—an entire year in which Labour was in government—the number of police officers fell by 1,318. Numbers are being cut under this Labour Government.

The Government say that they want to hire staff instead, to do jobs behind desks, but the number of police staff fell as well, by 529. They talk about police community support officers. Well, the number of PCSOs fell by 204. Special constables are down by 514 and police volunteers are down by 429. That is a reduction of 3,000 in the police workforce in just one year under this Labour Government. They are not funding the police properly, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

[Mark Pritchard]

It is true that a huge number of police staff are never seen—support staff, admin staff and call centre staff, for instance—and they play an important part in delivering police services to all our communities, but is it not the case that visibility in policing is needed, and only police officers who are warranted can make arrests when crime is committed? Notwithstanding all the wonderful people working in the back offices of all our police forces, we still need police officers in our communities, tackling the antisocial behaviour that my right hon. Friend mentioned and turning up at least occasionally at the parish council, where the local police officer still has a reference in the agenda. Visibility is critical to deal with the fear of crime, and a police officer with a warrant is critical in enforcing the law and making arrests.

[Chris Philp]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. Only uniformed or warranted officers can make arrests, and that is why the fall in police numbers under this Labour Government is so shocking. They talk about neighbourhood police officers specifically, but that, of course, ignores activities such as crime investigation, 999 responses, and specialist officers who investigate, for example, sexual offences. When total numbers are falling, they focus on only one part of policing.

[Sarah Jones]

Does the right hon. Gentleman welcome the 2,400 more police in our neighbourhoods than at the start of this Government?

[Chris Philp]

The point is that the Minister has cut other areas to do that. She has cut 999 responses and crime investigations. She can use smoke and mirrors by focusing on only one part of the police world, but the fact is that total police numbers are down, police staff are down, PCSOs are down, specials are down and police volunteers are down—all under this Labour Government.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for lobbying on behalf of Essex. Obviously, I want more funding for Essex as much as he does. I should declare an interest at this point, as I have stood against Roger Hirst in two elections, but I want to make it clear that I have a great deal of time for the work that he does as police and crime commissioner. On his website, he says that he welcomes

“another 69 new recruits into Essex Police, making the force bigger and stronger than ever before.”

That does not quite fit with what the shadow Secretary of State said earlier.

[Chris Philp]

Roger Hirst, in common with many police and crime commissioners, has done a valiant job in the face of inadequate funding. However, as he said himself:

“The Government settlement is insufficient to cover rising costs.”

Let us look at outcomes, which the Minister mentioned. It is a matter of deep concern that, under this Labour Government, shoplifting has gone up by 10%, to record levels, robbery from business premises is up by 66% in the past year, antisocial behaviour has gone up, rape has gone up by 7%, and sexual offences have gone up by 8%.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

When the right hon. Gentleman says that rape has gone up, does he mean that the recorded crime of rape has gone up? Does he recognise that all Members of this House should celebrate when women feel more comfortable in coming forward?

[Chris Philp]

That is not what the hon. Lady was saying when the rape figures were going up under the last Government.

[Jess Phillips]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Philp]

Once is enough.

Reported rapes are going up, which reflects increased levels of offending. That is a serious concern.

[Jess Phillips]

What is actually going up is rape charging. To put the record straight, I never criticised increased reporting of rape. What I criticised was the decimation of rape charging under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, which led to the worst record in history.

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady will know that the change in the rape charge rate followed the disclosure rule changes after the Liam Allan case back in 2017. The last Government set up Operation Soteria and a rape taskforce, which were designed to increase rape charging rates. Indeed, they were increasing prior to the last election, and I very much hope that this Government are continuing the work of Operation Soteria, which was started by the last Government.

On the police reforms that the Minister referred to, some functions, such as counter-terrorism and fighting serious and organised crime, may well be better provided on a national basis. However, we oppose the creation of approximately 10 regional mega-forces, which will see county forces essentially abolished and merged into enormous entities that are far removed from the communities they serve. That will inevitably see resources drawn away from towns and villages and given to large cities, and there is no evidence that large forces are either more efficient or better performing.

In fact, the two arguably worst-performing forces in the country, the Met and West Midlands, are also the largest forces in the country. The history of Police Scotland, which was created by merging eight police forces into one, has not been a particularly happy episode, and it is certainly not a good case study for what is being proposed. I ask the Minister to think again about the creation of mega-forces, given that the examples of the West Midlands, the Met and Police Scotland indicate that large police forces do not perform well.

There is one area where I agree with the Minister, and where I actively support what she is trying to do: the use of technology in catching criminals, and in particular the use of live facial recognition. She and I have both seen that being used very effectively in Croydon town centre, and indeed across London, where 963 arrests have occurred in the past year as a result of using live facial recognition of criminals who would not otherwise have been caught, including a man wanted for a double rape dating back eight years. He would not have been caught, but for the use of live facial recognition. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s plans for rolling out this technology across the country and accelerating its use dramatically.

I would like an assurance that the Minister’s consultation on the use of the technology will be carefully calibrated, because there is a risk that people on the fringes—left and right—who do not like it will lobby her and try to persuade her to introduce all kinds of rules, regulations and red tape. If she gives in to their requests, she may end up inadvertently creating a bureaucratic system that, in practice, is very difficult for the police to operate. I urge her to think about the mainstream majority, who strongly support this technology. In Croydon, the public certainly support the technology, because they understand that it catches criminals and that if someone is not on the watch list, their image is immediately and automatically deleted. I ask the Minister to make sure that if she does change the rules, she does so in a way that is quite light-touch, and that it does not end up strangling what could be one of the most promising and effective crime-fighting technologies that this country has seen for many decades. I really hope that is the approach she plans to take.

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend will have noted, as I did, that the Minister failed to answer on the “how”. She said that she wishes to ensure that the creation of massive new police organisations does not lead to policing becoming more distant, remote and hard to influence, not least for rural communities, but she could not tell us how it will be done. Does he share my concern that we will end up with a larger, more bureaucratic system that is remote from ordinary people? People in rural East Yorkshire are going to feel far away from decision making.

[Chris Philp]

My right hon. Friend puts it brilliantly. He has articulated exactly why the forced creation of regional mega-forces is likely to be a backwards step.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Philp]

I am almost done. The hon. Gentleman may find that a matter of considerable relief.

In conclusion—sometimes “in conclusion” are the most popular words I utter in a speech—

[Esther McVey]

Will my right hon. Friend give way before concluding?

[Chris Philp]

This is the last time.

[Esther McVey]

At a time of great pressure on police budgets, my Cheshire police force is having to make redundancies. Was my right hon. Friend as concerned as I was that the Minister felt that our Labour police and crime commissioner could spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on vanity projects? She accepted it, rather than condemning it, and that money should go to frontline policing.

[Chris Philp]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it was disappointing that the Minister did not substantively respond. Spending money on loads of communications officers, instead of police officers to catch criminals, is a misallocation of resources, and my right hon. Friend is right to call it out.

This police funding settlement is not adequate to meet the funding pressures. It will lead to continued reductions in police numbers across England and Wales, which will leave our constituents and our countries less safe.

13:36

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her remarks. She will find very considerable support for the broad thrust of what she said, especially on streamlining and the new policing models. I know that she is thinking very seriously about how to get the best return on the reorganisation in order to tackle serious and organised crime, and she is alive to the regional specialisms and expertise that already exist. I thank her for that, and for her commitment to delivering better funding for our police force following the disastrous period of austerity under the Conservatives.

I want to put some challenges to the Minister, because I have some local concerns. However, after hearing the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks about police numbers, I have to say, in all candour, that the reduction of 20,000 police officers in the name of austerity was one of the most reckless and stupid things a Government could ever do. I would like him to come to the Dispatch Box and apologise for that gross dereliction of duty. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) chunters and laughs from a sedentary position.

[Mark Pritchard]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andy McDonald]

I will in a minute.

Perhaps the shadow Secretary of State would like to apologise to the country for the damage that was caused. I can tell him that removing so many officers at a stroke had a devastating impact. Looking at the raw numbers—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member chunters, but he fails to comprehend.

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Member is focusing on the events of 14 years ago, when that Government were fixing the financial mess that Gordon Brown had left behind. I would remind him that the last Government left office with record police numbers, and I suggest he reserves his ire for the falling police numbers we are seeing under this Labour Government.

[Andy McDonald]

The penny has not dropped for the shadow Secretary of State, who cannot for one minute understand how that translated in our communities. That is the issue, because he simply does not take into consideration that loss of expertise. We cannot replace those police with recruits overnight. It was the stupidest thing a Government could do.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes my point for me, which is that the devastating thing was ripping the experience out of our police force and then dressing up new recruits as somehow a replacement. That led to higher crime in my constituency and, I know, in his.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. Those were the lived experiences of our constituents, and those were the consequences they had to live with. Opposition Members may say that was because of the financial situation they were left with, but austerity was of course a political choice. The Conservatives deliberately ploughed this furrow with disastrous consequences, and they should have the humility to get up and acknowledge the error they made.

[Graham Stuart]

I have never heard someone so passionately misinformed in my life. The Labour Government left a massive, gaping overspend. In other speeches the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the national debt going up under the Conservatives, but we brought it down every year, and we fought and reduced crime as well. Having ensured that the country recovered, we left record levels of police officers and a 50% cut in crime. He puts on this faux outrage, but the lived reality for his communities and mine was an improved service and balanced books.

[Andy McDonald]

The right hon. Gentleman should not consider it to be faux outrage. I lived in my constituency throughout that period and saw the damage it caused.

[Graham Stuart]

So did I.

[Andy McDonald]

Yes, and we should acknowledge the damage that was caused. I am going to be challenging my own Government, and I am trying to be objective about these issues, but what has to be understood in this place is the consequences of the terrible decisions that were made.

I will now move on, because I want to ask the Minister to address the real issues involving Cleveland police. There is more to be done in improving funding, which remains uneven, and some local areas continue to miss out. I hope to explore this in an objective and rational way with those on the Front Bench.

I want to draw attention to the urgent and growing concerns of Cleveland’s police and crime commissioner about the funding of our local force. Despite serving one of the most deprived and high crime areas in the country, Cleveland police remains the force with the lowest number of officers compared with 2010—a reduction of some 12%—leaving the community more vulnerable and officers overstretched. With the greatest respect, the recent funding settlement compounds the problem. Cleveland received the smallest increase in the country—just 3.3%—and after accounting for inflation and pay awards, that leaves a real-terms shortfall of about £2.4 million, which is equivalent to 40 officers. The Government continue to expect this deficit to be met through local council tax, and I just respectfully suggest that is unreasonable.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman was practically spitting with anger when he talked about the Conservatives’ record of increased numbers of police officers and a halving of crime, but now he “respectfully” makes suggestions to the Minister. Is it his understanding that, as a direct result of the settlement that this Minister has brought to the House, there will be a cut in service level in his deprived communities, making them less safe? Is that his understanding, and if so, perhaps his passion could rise up a little?

[Andy McDonald]

The difference between me and the right hon. Gentleman is that I am capable of being objective when facts are put in front of me, whereas he appears to be completely myopic and in total denial about his own Government’s record of decimating our police forces and the consequences of that. I am perfectly content with making proper representations to the Government on the settlements that have been devolved. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition, and it is a shame that he could not participate in a more sensible discussion.

With almost a third of our neighbourhoods in the top 10% of the most deprived nationally, local residents cannot shoulder a £90 increase on band D properties to restore staffing to safe levels. The police and crime commissioner has written three times to the Minister seeking urgent clarity about how the settlement was calculated. Each time, he has not had a response, and I ask the Minister to reflect on that and come back to me. Our communities and their elected PCC deserve answers. It is not just a matter of fairness; it is a matter of public safety. Without adequate funding, Cleveland police cannot meet the Government’s own objectives of reducing knife crime, tackling violence against women and girls, and maintaining effective neighbourhood policing.

The people of Cleveland, their PCC and officers on the frontline have done everything asked of them—exceeding recruitment targets, investing in neighbourhood policing and achieving crime reductions above the national average—and of course they made incredible efforts in response to the riot on 4 August 2024. It was the most remarkable response by the police and the community, banding together in the wake of the most violent attack on our community. I must pay tribute to the incredible work the police did, because they have never had to deal with anything like that. They did it with such incredible dedication and professionalism, and we cannot ever be thankful enough to them for their efforts. Again, I just ask the Minister to reconsider this settlement, because I am not convinced that it reflects their efforts, and it redistributes scarce resources to other forces with less need.

I therefore urge the Government to revisit the settlement urgently; to properly resource Cleveland police based on need, deprivation and demand, not on population alone; and to provide the answers that the PCC and our communities deserve. Our officers deserve the support they have earned, and our residents deserve the safety and security that only properly funded policing can provide.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

13:47

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I would like to start by declaring an interest, in that my father-in-law is the police chaplain for North Yorkshire police and my brother-in-law is an inspector in North Yorkshire police. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Hear, hear, indeed, and I would like to segue from thanking them to thanking Inspector Steve Benbow, who leads the policing team in Cheltenham and does a terrific job in difficult circumstances.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for a return to proper community policing. Unfortunately, community police numbers fell under the last Conservative Government, and it is clear to me from speaking to people in my constituency and elsewhere that they want a visible and trusted police presence in their community to focus on preventing and solving crimes. Far too many crimes—shoplifting, bike theft, tool theft and so many more—go unsolved at the moment, and ordinary people pay the price. Police stations and front desks are disappearing at an alarming rate even under this Government, leaving people with nowhere to go.

Labour has promised the public 13,000 more police officers, but instead frontline officer numbers have fallen. By September last year, we had 1,300 fewer officers than the year before, and in March 2025 the number of frontline police officers was down by more than 4,300 compared with March 2024. That is why it is so important to get these police reforms right, and we must see an improvement in frontline policing numbers as soon as possible.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

I would like to highlight one case from Flamstead, where David, who was a toolman and a tradesman, had his van broken into 10 times. On the 10th time, he called the police while the thieves were there, but it still took officers many days to arrive, and he has now decided to retire because it is too expensive to keep going. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is why it is so important to have a frontline community service from the police?

[Max Wilkinson]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an important point. When we call the police, we expect them to turn up. I do not blame the police officers for not showing up. If there are simply not enough of them to do the job, that problem is a hangover from the previous Government. This Government must go faster to solve that problem.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman may have inadvertently suggested that there was a reduction in police numbers. There was a record number of police officers, the highest in this country’s history, when the Conservatives left power. That number has been reduced—frontline, back office and PCSOs; each and every one of them—by the Policing Minister and the Government opposite. I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is always an honest and straightforward Member of this House, would not want to suggest that the Conservatives left us with reduced numbers, when, in fact, they had increased.

[Max Wilkinson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention—[Interruption.] I also thank Government Members for the many communications that are coming from the other side of the Chamber. When I hear the Labour party and the Conservative party arguing about police numbers, I just think it is an excellent advert for voting for one of the other parties.

If the Government are serious about restoring neighbourhood policing, they need to step up, get this reform right and get more officers back on to our streets. Ministers have suggested that the numbers will increase. We do not doubt their good intentions, but they will ultimately be judged on results.

We cautiously welcome the Government’s suggestion that they will assign a police team to every council ward, but the devil will be in the detail. So I ask the Minister—I am happy to take an intervention if she would like to put me straight, because we have asked a written question—will each council ward have its own policing team? Will it be unique to that ward, or will it be assigned en masse to several wards?

[Sarah Jones]

At the moment, we have a situation where each area has its own named, contactable officer. We are going even further, so that each ward will have its own named, contactable officer. These are hyper-local police.

[Max Wilkinson]

Based on the Minister’s answer, I assume that each ward has its own police officer and that that police officer has only one ward to deal with.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

No, they will have multiple wards.

[Max Wilkinson]

The hon. Member suggests from a sedentary position that each police officer will have multiple wards. I wonder whether the Minister can clarify that.

[Sarah Jones]

To be clear, by the end of this Parliament there will be 13,000 extra neighbourhood police. The hon. Gentleman can divide that by—[Interruption.] Yes, police.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The Minister is making an intervention on Mr Wilkinson, not continuing the debate. Please make the intervention, so the hon. Member can respond.

[Sarah Jones]

To be clear, PCSOs are police officers. They are not warranted, but they are police. We will have 13,000 extra police in our neighbourhoods. I would have to do the maths to divide that number between each ward, but there will be a named, contactable officer in each ward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before I call Max Wilkinson, I note that the Front Benchers will have an opportunity to respond at the end of debate.

[Max Wilkinson]

I thank the Minister for intervening.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I concur with the hon. Gentleman’s point on what the Minister has just said. In Cambridgeshire, our named neighbourhood officers—it is a little difficult to pin down exactly how many there are and how big an area they cover—cover a vast area. For example, the officer who covers the town of St Ives—that is the whole town, which has multiple wards—covers every area between St Ives and Ramsey, which also includes several villages. It is for the birds to suggest that Cambridgeshire constabulary will have enough named officers to cover every single ward that is represented currently by local government.

[Max Wilkinson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. That is the point I am trying to draw out. The White Paper is somewhat non-specific on that point. It does say that there will be a named contact for each ward, but the suggestion is that that might be just one person—one police officer or PCSO per ward—and that that officer would have no other responsibilities. I do not believe that that will be the case given the numbers being presented, which means that the White Paper is perhaps somewhat misleading. I am not suggesting for a moment that Ministers would like to mislead the House, but the White Paper does need clarification.

If communities are to have confidence that stretched local police teams can deal with local issues, such as illegal e-scooters and e-bikes, they need certainty that police teams are available and accessible. Failure to do so will lead to more people feeling unsafe and, sadly, to more tragedies. In my Cheltenham constituency, we recently suffered the loss of an 18-year-old, who was riding an illegal e-scooter, in a road traffic collision. In my constituency, and in constituencies up and down the country, we frequently witness e-bikes travelling at speed, often on pavements and in pedestrian areas. An on-street police presence would surely deter such activities. That must be fully funded. Visible policing would also help to deter the onslaught of shoplifting that this nation is suffering. We must hope that the Government’s warm words on that will be backed by action.

We applaud the Government for announcing the impending abolition of police and crime commissioners. We Liberal Democrats have long opposed the politicisation of policing and we believe the money should be spent elsewhere. However, there is a risk that splitting the powers of police and crime commissioners between directly elected mayors and the Home Secretary will perpetuate the same problems with the politicisation of policing that we have experienced since 2012. The Government must ensure that in doing so, they allow crime and police boards, which will be made up of local councillors and representatives of relevant local groups, and will perhaps include mayors, to take over and ensure that police resources—the grant we are talking about today—are properly spent, so that we do not see money being wasted.

The Liberal Democrats are also calling for a police front desk in every community across the country. These would be in community hubs such as libraries, shopping centres and town halls. Such an approach would allow people to report crimes or share information with the police face to face in convenient and accessible locations.

[Graham Stuart]

When I met the chief constable of Humberside last week, he talked about Bobbi, an AI tool that is now able to meet 75%, and up to 90%, of queries. Does the hon. Gentleman envisage the desks always being manned, or would a computer or AI-based system be suitable in his view?

[Max Wilkinson]

We envisage them being staffed. Clearly, people want to see police face to face. AI can have a role, although we all know there was a cautionary tale from the west midlands recently that we would all like to put behind us. AI surely has a role, but in the proposals the Liberal Democrats are putting forward there would be staffed desks in convenient community hubs. I ask Ministers to consider that.

As Members will know, crime is not only concentrated in cities and towns. Many Members here in the Chamber represent rural constituencies. NFU Mutual estimated that the cost of rural crime in 2024 was as high as £44.1 million—a shocking cost to our countryside. We must consider the impact on those who live in rural areas, specifically farmers who are having a really difficult time. Their mental health and wellbeing can be badly harmed by crime. A survey of 115 NFU Mutual agents found that 92% believed rural crime was disrupting farming activities in their area and that 86% knew farmers who had been repeat victims of crime, leaving them feeling vulnerable in both their workplace and in their home. Rural communities have seen increasingly organised and damaging offences, yet only a small proportion of the police workforce is dedicated to tackling them. Rural crime is currently dealt with by just 0.4% of the overall police workforce.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about rural crime. My concern is that as the boundaries of police forces become greater, the resources tend to go to the urban areas. We see that in east Devon, where Cranbrook has sucked in resources from villages and towns that have previously had a police presence. Does he recognise that the effect of police being pulled into urban areas is being seen in other parts of the country?

[Max Wilkinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his timely intervention. On the issue of policing structures, if the Government impose wider boundaries, as they intend to, we need to ensure that they follow through on their pledges on local community policing areas. The responses we heard in the debate from many Members about five minutes ago tell us that the Government have not yet told the story in a way that will reassure my community or his.

Rural communities are increasingly concerned by the increase in crime they are seeing and want to be reassured that Ministers are allocating the funding that is needed to tackle it. In the report we are considering today, there are few references to rural areas and the countryside. Can we be reassured that rural crime will be tackled by a specific team in every police force? We are calling for a “countryside copper guarantee”, which would see properly resourced, dedicated rural crime teams or specialists embedded in every police force. Will the Government pledge to deliver the equipment, specialist knowledge and communication tools needed to tackle these crimes effectively?

The shadow Home Secretary mentioned facial recognition technology. We accept that this technology has the potential to improve the outlook for members of the public and to make the police’s job easier, too, but it does place our civil liberties at risk, and we must not be relaxed about that. In December 2025, the UK’s data protection watchdog asked the Home Office for “urgent clarity” over the racial bias of police facial recognition technology. Official Home Office research has shown that the technology identifies the wrong person about 100 times as often for Asian and black people as white people and twice as often for women as men.

We seek reassurances that this technology will not be used unless the data can be safely captured, and seek assurance from Ministers that those in minority communities will not be misidentified and wrongly arrested. We hope that Ministers can reassure us that the data will be stored appropriately and that this will not result in the widespread retention of data relating to innocent people. Will the Government consider statutory guidance on this technology to ensure that each police force takes a common and safe approach?

[Chris Philp]

I just want to pick up two points the hon. Gentleman raised, which I looked into when I was Minister for Policing. First, he raised allegations of racial disproportionality, which arose in 2017 or 2018. The system has subsequently been updated significantly. It was tested by the National Physical Laboratory two or three years ago, and, at the setting the police use it, there is now no racial disproportionality at all. It is a historic problem that has now been fixed. Secondly, on data retention, the system operates in such a way that if a member of the public who is not on the wanted list—like me or the hon. Gentleman, I assume—walks past the camera, our image is then automatically and immediately deleted. I hope that addresses his concern about data retention.

[Max Wilkinson]

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for addressing those two points. I can reassure him that I am not on the wanted list, although I can speak only for myself. That was a useful clarification, but I would like it from Ministers as well; perhaps the Minister will be able to reassure me when she sums up.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is sitting beside the Policing Minister, will share my view that police must be better at tackling violence against women and girls. I know that she has done a huge amount of work on this. Survivors of VAWG and domestic abuse deserve to know that properly funded support services will be there, and we must also be reassured that the police have the training to enable them to address so-called honour-based abuse.

The Government should look at introducing high-quality programmes for perpetrators in domestic abuse cases, with the aim of preventing further abuse, and Ministers must make it easier for victims who are already suffering to come forward. The Government should also consider rolling out a Home Office-led national public awareness campaign that tackles the myths around domestic abuse and violence against women and girls, signposts victims to support services and promotes the role of the new VAWG taskforce; there is already some really good publicity going out that we will have seen on our televisions.

Survivors must always be able to safely report incidents to the police, although the complexities of these cases mean there are additional needs that must be addressed. We seek reassurance that police forces will provide for anonymous reporting options and embedding VAWG and domestic abuse specialists in every 999 operator assistance centre—both important measures to help victims to report incidents to the police. These measures should bring together officers and specialists with the training, resources and capacity to effectively support survivors, including by working in partnership with frontline women’s services. Will the Minister therefore commit to establishing specialist taskforces in every police force?

Finally, we ask whether, in considering this report, we are yet again looking at smoke and mirrors—it is the same with funding no matter which party is in government. The Government’s figures assume a maximum police precept rise in every local area, pushing part of the funding settlement discussion to local areas. Should Governments of all colours not just be clearer about that in their communications?

14:03

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Before I make my remarks and my plea to the Government, I must respond to the complete nonsense from the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and other Members on the Opposition Benches. The 14 years following 2010 saw catastrophic cuts to the police service, a rise in recorded crime, unmanageable police force budget deficits, the demise of neighbourhood policing and the near destruction of the Probation Service. No part of the criminal justice system was spared from mismanagement. It is incredible that the penny still has not dropped that when austerity is forced on an area, antisocial behaviour and fragile communities are the outcome. Opposition Members will have to excuse this Government for not taking lectures from them.

This debate is crucial as it is about how we fund the services that keep our communities safe and resilient. Safe communities are the foundation of economic growth and local prosperity; businesses invest where towns feel secure, families settle where neighbourhoods are stable, and regeneration succeeds when antisocial behaviour is tackled and police are visible and responsive. Public safety underpins economic renewal and long-term confidence.

Our police and crime commissioner, Joy Allen, has raised serious and legitimate concerns about the structural pressures faced in Durham and Darlington under the current funding framework. Those concerns are about not performance—Durham constabulary is highly regarded and delivers daily for our communities—but capacity and sustainability. Durham has one of the lowest council tax bases in England and a very high proportion of band A properties, meaning that each £1 added to the police precept raises significantly less locally than it does in many other force areas. In practice, a 1% increase in the precept in County Durham generates £490,000, while in Surrey it generates approximately £1.7 million. At a time when we are rightly focused on narrowing the north-south divide, the funding framework risks reinforcing it.

North Road in Durham is a clear example of why sustained neighbourhood policing matters. It is one of the city’s busiest corridors and has, at times, been a hotspot for shoplifting and antisocial behaviour, particularly drug and alcohol abuse, placing real pressure on local traders and creating a perception of fear for residents and visitors. In response, Durham constabulary has worked with businesses to introduce the Shop Watch scheme, and it now holds regular meetings with retailers to share intelligence, co-ordinate action and improve visibility. That kind of partnership approach is starting to make a difference, but it relies on having the capacity and presence on the ground to sustain it.

County Durham also covers a large and diverse geographical area, with dispersed rural communities creating distinct policing pressures in terms of travel time, visibility and response. A prime example is when yobs on e-bikes terrorise our villagers, our football clubs and walkers; people feel scared, but police cannot reach them in time to take action. A single national framework does not, therefore, produce equal outcomes. The same policy decision yields very different resources, and over time that gap is compounded.

Between 2010 and 2020, under the Conservative Government, Durham constabulary lost 408 officers—around 20% of its workforce—and officer numbers have still not returned to 2010 levels, meaning sustained pressure on neighbourhood teams and frontline capacity across that wide geography. For three consecutive years, local consultation has shown that residents are willing to invest more when it protects visible neighbourhood policing and community safety. There is democratic backing locally for strengthening capacity. The issue is not willingness, but ability.

When funding depends heavily on council tax capacity, areas with lower property values are structurally constrained, regardless of need or performance. Equal percentage increases in grant do not offset unequal precept yield. If we want to see places like Durham flourish to attract investment, support local business and build confident communities, the framework for funding policing must not entrench the inequality between regions that soared during the Conservatives’ imposed austerity measures. Safer communities—

[Graham Stuart]

rose—

[Mary Kelly Foy]

Okay, I will give way.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She is making a powerful speech. As she says, there will be a regressive impact from this police grant settlement, which is going to see higher and higher council tax on low-earning residents in her area, and because of rising costs, reduced policing. That is obviously concerning. I wonder how she is going to take that up with Ministers to try to effect change.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I remind Members that it is completely up to them whether they wish to take an intervention.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was happy to take that intervention. To the right hon. Member’s point—[Interruption.] If he cares to listen to my response, what he said is exactly what I am doing now: I am urging the Government to look again at the council tax precept. We are playing catch-up for the years of mismanagement and austerity when his party was in government.

Safer communities enable growth. The settlement should reflect that principle fairly and consistently across the country if we are ever to repair the damage caused by the Conservative Government’s period in office.

14:10

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker,

“The current funding system is complex, outdated and the product of legacy decisions rather than strategic design”—

not my words but those of the Government in last month’s police reform White Paper. I agree, which is why I do not approve of the “Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2026-27”. The complex and outdated legacy police allocation formula sees Cambridgeshire constabulary down at the bottom of the list of forces for police funding per head, and yet the Government are still using it. Since being elected to the House, I have called on the Government to change this repeatedly, and it continues to be an issue that concerns my constituents. Reliance on a formula based on data from 2001 maintains the existing imbalance in funding that the Government know cannot continue.

The Government have already committed to updating the police allocation formula as part of their commitment to restructuring the 43 police forces in England and Wales, but that will not take place for years, and it will be years more before we see any benefit locally. How will current recruitment and resourcing dovetail into the new force structures? What rebalancing will take place, and would it not have made sense to have done the work on future structures first, so that the road map to the new model of policing could be better articulated?

The Government are already on the hook to fulfil their neighbourhood policing guarantee. Two weeks ago, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners released a statement that clearly outlined that

“the settlement is only sufficient to fund the increase in personnel promised by the Government under the neighbourhood policing guarantee in part”.

With funding for hotspot policing already rolled into the neighbourhood policing grant, where are we with the recruitment of the 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and specials?

The number of 13,000 additional officers was first announced in February 2023 by the then Home Secretary. In March 2023, the number of full-time officers was 142,145. In March 2024, just before the general election, that figure had reached 147,745—an increase of 5,600. By March 2025, the figure had fallen to 146,442—a 1% decrease year on year. Exactly what progress has been made in recruiting the 13,000 additional officers? What is the baseline figure that this is being benchmarked against? Is it March 2023 when the pledge was made, is it March 2024—the most recent data available when Labour came into government—or is it March 2025, when the funding to recruit these officers actually came on stream?

I am happy to take an intervention from the Policing Minister if she would like to clarify exactly what the baseline figure is. No, she does not wish to. As far as I am aware, that baseline figure has never been clarified, and when I asked that question of the previous Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), I received a waffly non-response that did not even attempt to answer the question. So do the Government even know? Nope—nothing from the Front Bench.

Let me turn to the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), about the number of police officers per ward. St Ives and Ramsey in my constituency has six officers in total, across police sergeants, PCs and PCSOs, covering 10 wards. In Huntingdon, there are eight officers for 11 wards. That makes 14 officers to cover 21 wards, so we are already seven officers down, and that is assuming that none of those officers ever has a day off, is ever on holiday and is ever sick. I do not see how we are going to gain those additional officers that the Policing Minister implies that we are going to receive under the neighbourhood policing guarantee in order to make up that shortfall. The APCC joint leads on local policing, Chris Nelson and Matt Storey, highlight that, as things stand, the maths simply do not add up, saying:

“We want to deliver the increase in neighbourhood policing the Government has pledged, but this can only be done if it is fully funded. Current funding covers the cost of approximately 750 additional officers, so it is unclear how forces will be able to fund the remaining 1,000 neighbourhood officers to which the Government has committed.”

Less than a year ago, we saw the Government revise down the neighbourhood policing figures. A staggering 31 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales amended their figures, having overstated them, resulting in a net reduction of 2,611 police officers and PCSOs—a 13% decrease. They had included student officers based in the classroom, not out on patrol, as well as officers double-counted on out-of-date HR systems. West Midlands police force had its true neighbourhood policing figure reduced by 62%, Gloucestershire’s was reduced by 65%, and Wiltshire and Suffolk had their figures reduced by over 50%. Is that 2,611 factored into the 13,000? The Minister referred to an extra 2,400 neighbourhood police officers, but the number of officers is already 2,611 down, resulting in a net negative of 211 officers; she will forgive my scepticism about the accuracy of the Government’s policing plan.

[Sarah Jones]

Just to be clear, there are 2,400 extra neighbourhood police officers in our neighbourhoods. Our policy is to tilt resources into our neighbourhoods, because the previous Government decimated neighbourhood policing. We are building it back up.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I appreciate the Minister’s intervention. I understood that point, but my point was that those 2,400 officers do not even make up the 2,611 by which the Government have already reduced the number of neighbourhood police officers by recounting the officers that we have.

[Graham Stuart]

It’s smoke and mirrors.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

Smoke and mirrors, indeed.

Last month’s police reform White Paper does little to clear up any confusion. The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners said:

“We are aware the cost of police reform has been estimated at around £500 million. While the Government has announced that £119 million will be allocated to the reform programme in 2026/27”.

Those police and crime commissioners have been scrapped, and in 2028 police governance will be transferred to strategic authority mayors or policing and crime boards. While the White Paper mentions that the latter will be expanded to reflect larger forces in the future, it does not explain how strategic authority mayors’ responsibilities would be restructured.

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is saying that police funding has been cut and that we are getting rid of police and crime commissioners, but is the money not better spent directly with police forces than in the offices of police and crime commissioners?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

To be honest, looking at the police and crime commissioners, it has not been clarified exactly how that responsibility is going to work across the country. The point I was trying to make is that we are saying that the authority for policing locally is going to go to strategic mayors. That is fine, but if we are also going to merge forces, who will have primacy among those strategic mayors? In Cambridgeshire, for example, it will be devolved to the mayor of the combined authority, but if that force is to merge with other forces in East Anglia, and if there is a future mayor of Norfolk and Suffolk, which of those two mayors will have primacy over that area?

[Graham Stuart]

It is just that sort of incoherence that is upsetting my constituents. Humberside police force—the finest in the country—has a mayor on the north bank and another mayor on the south bank, so who exactly will be in charge of the police force? We do not know what will replace it. We do not have the detail, and we do not know what it will cost. All we do know from governance reorganisations through the years is that whoever is in charge, they are normally slower, more costly and do not deliver as much as the Government hoped for at the beginning.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I hope that that will clarified by the Minister who winds up, or through further clarification of the White Paper. I have read the White Paper, and it currently is not explained.

We have also received little explanation about how the independent review of force structures will work; who the independent chair will be; when and how they will be appointed; when the terms of reference will be published; and whether we as Members of Parliament will be included within the scope of the “policing stakeholders” referenced in the White Paper. Some clarity regarding the process behind such seismic and sweeping changes desperately needs to be outlined.

There are serious concerns that the new model for policing will not address some of the key resource requirements for rural forces, instead seeing cities and larger towns taking up an ever-growing share of the available resources. Last week I spoke to local National Farmers Union members in my constituency. For the second year running, concerns regarding rural crime, specifically hare coursing, were raised by local farmers. This is a topic that we rarely hear spoken about in this Chamber or by the Government. It is incomprehensible to many that idyllic rural locations could find themselves in the grip of violent and organised crime, but that is the situation that so many find themselves in.

[Esther McVey]

Is my hon. Friend concerned about not only that but increasing industrial-scale dumping in rural areas and the additional pressures on neighbourhood policing—whether from the increase in illegal immigrants going into hotels and houses of multiple occupancy, or from prisoners being let out of prisons, who neighbourhood police forces have to man-mark because of Labour’s Sentencing Bill?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

The police are required to pick up the slack in so many different aspects of this, and I do not think that that is factored into or reflected in the way we are looking at the force structures. I hope that it will be factored into the review of the forces.

Coming back to rural crime, in my constituency of Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire constabulary has an effective and successful rural crime action team, but they are only 14 strong and cover a huge rural area. This must be factored into discussions and not risk being lost in the maelstrom of big-ticket policing items brought under national control and a myopic focus on urban and neighbourhood policing. It is my understanding that the rural crime action team, who specialise in dealing with machinery theft, GPS theft and hare coursing, have been moved from being operational support unit officers to being designated as neighbourhood policing officers. They are specialist officers required to do a specialist role. They are not bobbies on the beat in the villages around my constituency and they are never going to be that, so it is annoying to see that they are being restructured in that way. Redesignating rural crime specialist officers as neighbourhood officers to balance the books and tick an administrative box is not going to cut it.

Cambridgeshire constabulary proved itself to be an effective force with the swift manner in which it neutralised the assailant following the Huntingdon train attack last November. Speaking to my local officers, I know that there are huge inconsistencies in the way in which each force is managed, and I ask the Policing Minister for clarity on how those discrepancies will be harmonised intra-force. We know that overtime calculations for police officers lack consistency from force to force, as does the application of the adjustment bank for outstanding hours owed. These issues are affecting officers on the ground. Not every issue in policing is an operational resourcing question. Much of the pressure officers are experiencing is due to administrative inconsistencies, from pay inequality, given the south-east allowance, to officers wearing body armour that is past its expiration date because of failings in the procurement system—a tragic front-page scandal waiting to happen.

To conclude, I ask the Policing Minister to consider: ringfenced funding for rural crime action teams in the new force structure so that rural crime can be eradicated once and for all; pay disparities, particularly in regard to eligibility for the south-east allowance, the application of overtime eligibility and the management of the adjustment bank; and consortium contracting, and particularly the risk posed by reliance on one make of vehicle, including the use of Volvos by any force, given that Volvo is now owned by the Chinese Zhejiang Geely Holding Group. I believe I have a meeting scheduled with the Policing Minister, and I would be keen to continue the discussion around these issues with her on behalf of the officers in my county who have received a raw deal for far too long.

14:21

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The 2026-27 settlement delivers a cash increase nationally but once again fails to address the structural unfairness faced by rural forces such as Dorset. It does not properly reflect rurality, seasonal population increases or the cumulative impact of more than a decade of underfunding. Dorset police is consistently one of the worst-funded forces in the country. It ranks in the bottom 10 nationally for total funding, receiving around £203 million, and sits at roughly 26th out of the 43 forces on a per capita basis. Despite covering over 1,000 square miles of largely rural geography, Dorset police remains at below the national average for funding per head and far behind most urban and metropolitan forces. The 2026-27 settlement does nothing to change that relative position.

The settlement assumes that police and crime commissioners will raise tax by the full £15 band D precept. In Dorset, that assumption is particularly problematic. Around 51% of Dorset police’s funding already comes from local council tax payers, compared with a national average of 34%, and as little as 20% in some of the better-funded force areas. Because Dorset has a smaller and slower-growing council tax base, even the same £15 increase raises far less in real terms than it does in urban areas. This settlement therefore locks in a reliance on council tax in a way that systematically disadvantages rural counties. We have already seen where this kind of Treasury assumption can lead. Similar flawed assumptions in fire service funding have resulted in plans to close fire stations in Maiden Newton and Charmouth. Once again, decisions are being based on unrealistic expectations of local funding, with consequences for rural communities.

Although the Government have stated that the recent 2.4% police pay settlement is fully funded nationally, in Dorset it is very different. For Dorset police, our settlement alone requires £500,000 of savings to be found locally. Over the past three years, the force has had to make £2.8 million in savings, with a direct impact on staffing levels. Meanwhile, seven forces nationally are able to generate surpluses year after year, while six forces, including Dorset, are forced to find savings just to stand still or, in many cases, regress. This is not a fair or sustainable system. It makes a mockery of the Government’s neighbourhood policing guarantee, even after the proposed long-term reforms. Dorset is one of the 11 forces that has still not returned to 2010 officer levels, and when neighbourhood policing funding is examined in isolation, Dorset is the worst-funded force in the country.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Over the weekend I went on a walkaround with my local police officers in Boscombe and Springbourne, and they were talking about the need to make sure that, particularly over the summer months, neighbourhood police teams were not seeing—in their words—significant abstractions of police officers from our communities into the seafront and the town centre, because Bournemouth particularly sees very high levels of tourism and large numbers of people coming in from outside who sometimes cause criminality. They also welcome the neighbourhood guarantee, which will see an increase in neighbourhood police forces. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to ensure that we keep our neighbourhood police forces in their neighbourhoods?

[Edward Morello]

I thank my fellow Dorset MP for his intervention. He will know that we welcome a huge number of tourists, who are vital for our local hospitality and tourism economy. While we want people to come, this does put an incredible strain on our local police forces and the funding needs to reflect that population increase.

[Graham Stuart]

One of the dangers, while the Government are cutting the police—1,300 last year alone, estimated by my police and crime commissioner, and another 4,000 nationally could go next year—is that they come up with this smoke-and-mirrors talk about neighbourhood policing and ask the hon. Gentleman whether he wants to protect that. If an artificial number, set from the centre, leads to the removal of police officers from where they are needed to meet local need, that is not a good thing. I hope that he, as a proper Liberal Democrat, will recognise that local decision making needs to guide this most, and that we need to have a Government who are not playing with smoke and mirrors.

[Edward Morello]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for saving me from the indignity of not being intervened on by him during this debate. I agree that local police forces need to be local, and that we want bobbies on the beat everywhere.

Forces that routinely generate surpluses are able to invest in more officers, better technology and healthy reserves. Dorset cannot do that. Dorset police serves large, sparsely populated areas such as West Dorset, meaning longer response times, higher fuel costs and fewer economies of scale. Rural areas also tend to have less CCTV, fewer automatic number plate recognition cameras and generally fewer witnesses, making crime harder and more resource-intensive to investigate. National analysis shows that the average rural police force budget is £6.03 million, compared with £8.52 million for urban forces. On top of that, Dorset faces intense seasonal pressures, as we have discussed. West Dorset alone sees a 42% population increase during the peak tourist months and Dorset as a whole receives 25 million day visitors each year.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I want to follow on from the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) in asking the Policing Minister again: would you agree that it is about time we got—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I do not agree, I do agree—I am pretty neutral. The hon. Lady should ask the Member to agree and not use the term “you”.

[Vikki Slade]

I can only apologise, Madam Chair. Would my hon. Friend agree that the Policing Minister is long overdue in replying to the calls from Dorset MPs and the police and crime commissioner in November last year to look at the seasonality issue, because we simply cannot go on?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. To help other Members in case they should make the same error: I am not “Madam Chair”; I am Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Edward Morello]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, I agree with my Dorset neighbour. All the Dorset MPs have written repeatedly to Ministers to ask for a fairer funding settlement, and I shall speak to some of those issues.

None of the additional demand caused by our population increases during the summer months is properly funded. Dorset police faced a £3.6 million funding deficit in 2024, rising to £7.3 million last year. Despite submitting evidence-backed requests for additional funding of £12.2 million annually to recruit around 250 extra officers and staff, that support has not been provided. Instead, the police force has been forced to cut community support officers by 43%, freeze recruitment, sell vehicles and buildings, restrict overtime and halt non-essential spending.

If the Government are serious about fair policing and neighbourhood visibility, two immediate steps are needed, alongside the restructuring and long-term reforms our rural police service is calling for. The first is greater precept flexibility for forces such as Dorset that are already asking far more of local taxpayers than others. Secondly, as a stopgap, forces holding reserves above 5% should contribute back to a central redistribution pot, particularly when recommended reserve levels are closer to 3%. The proposed reforms come too late to make the difference on the ground that people want to see from their police force. This police grant report delivers more cash, but no structural fixes, and it comes before the police reforms that the Home Secretary laid before the House a few weeks ago have even been implemented.

As part of the reforms, we must reassess how we properly fund rural police forces to allow for proper neighbourhood policing. For rural forces like Dorset, the grant in its current form is closer to standstill funding than a genuine uplift once inflation, demand, population increases and geography are factored in. If we want safer rural communities, visible neighbourhood policing and public confidence in fairness, the funding formula must finally reflect what rural constituencies experience day to day.

11:30

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Before I delve into the issues facing policing in Norfolk, I have to discuss some of the simply incredible ways that funding allocations are decided in the police grant report that we are debating. This is just another example of government functioning in a way that is rapidly becoming unfit for purpose and not changing with the times fast enough. An array of complex sums, based on data from as long ago as the 2001 census, dictates how many police officers we can expect to see on the streets in my constituency over the next year.

If we asked the average person on the street how their local police force funding was decided, few would guess that it was decided by a long formula that includes multipliers such as the daytime net inflow in 2001, a population projection for 2013, and the number of unemployed men between 2009 and 2012. The number of pubs and bars in an area is linked to the funding that a police force receives. Under police crime top-ups 1, 3, 4 and 5 and the “fear of crime” top-up, the greater the number of licensed establishment per 100 hectares, the greater the funding multiplier for the police force.

That leads me to a key question that I hope the Minister can answer on this year’s report and next year’s funding settlement. The Chancellor’s ongoing war on pubs is leading to closures across rural areas like mine; can the Minister confirm that under her formula, if a community lost their local pub, their local police force would receive less funding the following year? Surely we can create a clearer, more up-to-date and more workable formula than this—one that uses better data and delivers more funding. I note that Members of the Home Secretary’s own party have called for reflection on this, and so I hope she will take it into consideration.

People in North Norfolk want to be reassured that they are getting a fair deal. I am not sure that the system delivers that for them. Once upon a time, this formula may have delivered well, but given the evolving nature of crime, I do not think that it is well suited to the policing needs of 2026. Whatever logarithms and multipliers the Home Secretary chooses to use, the reality on the ground in my area is clear: our communities feel less safe than they once did. Community policing has been stripped back. Rural crime is not being handled with the seriousness that it deserves.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

Does my county colleague agree that there are particular challenges in Norfolk? Under the previous Conservative police and crime commissioner, not only were all 150 of our police and community support officers made redundant, but many police stations lost their public access, and accessibility and visible policing have been eroded as a result.

[Steff Aquarone]

Those facts are irrefutable. I will come on to some of the points that the hon. Member makes about the challenges of policing an area like North Norfolk, due to the unique characteristics of our shared county.

We are lucky to have a lower than average rate of crime, but that does not mean that we should have our provision cut, or officer numbers reduced. Security and confidence in public safety are created by a well-funded and trusted police force, not by punishing us for not having enough crime. Maybe the Minister could listen to what her colleague and perhaps future leader, the Health Secretary, says about his focus on prevention. If we view much of crime through a public health lens, we can learn sensible and holistic lessons about stopping crime before it happens, rather than just responding as best we can.

Rural crime across the country is at staggering rates, and that causes real fear for farmers and rural business owners in Norfolk, where our past Conservative police and crime commissioners left us with zero specialist rural crime officers—an unbelievable statistic for such a rural county. Latest stats show that after pressure from the Liberal Democrats, the numbers reached the heady heights of two officers in 2024. Clearly, we have a long way to go. I will work with our PCC and police chiefs to ensure that we can deliver more for tackling rural crime, and that the Government give them what they need to do so.

I have said time and again that I am proud to have the oldest population in the country in North Norfolk, but that brings challenges for policing, and challenges to do with the way that my residents are targeted by criminals. Older people are seen as good marks for fraudsters and scammers. In Norfolk last year, £4.5 million was lost through investment fraud. In 2023, almost £100,000 was lost to pension fraud; some had their retirement savings ripped away. We have to crack down on this awful crime, which has serious financial and emotional impacts on its victims.

It saddens me that the prevalence of fraud and scams could make our communities less trusting and confident in the goodness of others, all because of criminal groups out there who steal their hard-earned money. For all the benefits that artificial intelligence can bring, we need to accept, sadly, that this will be one of the ways in which it can be damaging. Scammers with access to AI can use it to make their scams more widespread and efficient; it will allow them to hit more people in shorter timeframes. When the long-promised AI Bill comes to the House, it would be great if steps were taken to address that. We Liberal Democrats have called for the establishment of an online crime agency to focus on fraud and scammers who prey on constituents like mine. I hope that the Government will look carefully at our proposals, and will take action to stop these criminals damaging our communities.

I am not sure how many more police grant reports we will debate in this House that will have Norfolk as its own line item, as the Government’s White Paper seems to be strongly flirting with the idea of merging us with two or even three other counties. That is just another step taking us further away from policing in the community, and from an understanding of what an area needs. A lack of local leadership, making police chiefs even more distant, and the notion that policing priorities in Stalham could be dictated from as far away as Peterborough do not make sense to our constituents.

The Government are returning to type. They are centralising power, and trying to sell it back to us with the promise of some meagre back-office savings. That is their approach to local government reorganisation, to devolution and now to policing as well. We want them to ensure that Norfolk can stop and solve crime, and to make our community safer, not waste time and energy rejigging structures without a promise of improved outcomes.

North Norfolk is a fantastic community, which is lucky to see less crime than other parts of the country, but that is something we have worked hard to achieve. I am grateful for the hard work of Norfolk constabulary, which keeps my constituents safe and supported. It is time for the Government to listen to their needs and ensure that the money and resource needed to keep us safe is being delivered.

11:30

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) said earlier, Liberal Democrats have long called for a return to proper community policing. After years of Conservative chaos and mismanagement, it is clear in Wokingham and across the country that there are not enough police officers. Residents in Wokingham are always telling me that they want to see more bobbies on the beat and a visible and trusted police presence in our communities, focusing on preventing and solving crimes.

That community presence is important, but it is not the only reason why we need greater police numbers; many in Wokingham tell me that they need to see better police responses to crime as well. Shop managers do not want to feel that shoplifting is not important when they contact the police. Early last year, I visited several stores in Wokingham, Emmbrook and Arborfield to speak with managers about shoplifting. Stores were seeing increasingly frequent and targeted incidents of shoplifting, which was impacting their businesses and customers. It was clear that store managers need better responses from the police when it comes to tackle shoplifting as the incident is happening. Needless to say, better police responses on tackling crimes as they happen also help prevent future crimes. If the Government really want to restore neighbourhood policing and rebuild public trust in policing, they need to ensure that reforms are done properly, and that more police officers are put on our streets and in our communities.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

11:30

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I join the House in thanking our frontline police officers and staff for their incredible commitment, and the contribution and sacrifices that they make to keep our streets safe. I am grateful to the Minister for her statement, though I must say that it has the familiar quality of a Government announcing success, while the public are left wondering where exactly it has occurred. The Minister has come to the House today to present this police funding settlement as a turning point—as if police numbers are not actually falling, and as if criminals across the country are now packing up their tools and reconsidering their life choices.

However, outside Westminster, the country looks rather different. The public judge policing in a far more old-fashioned way than Ministers. They judge it not by the tone of a statement, but by whether they see officers on the streets, whether the police answer the telephone and turn up, and whether crime is dealt with when it happens—and on those measures, too many of our constituents feel that policing is being stretched to breaking point. This debate cannot take place without us confronting the central fact behind it: Labour promised more police on our streets, but since it entered government, police officer numbers have fallen by more than 1,300. That is not a minor adjustment, or an accounting quirk; it is 1,300 fewer police officers available to respond to crime, protect victims and patrol our communities.

[Matt Bishop]

The shadow Minister talks about reductions in officer numbers. Has he considered perhaps that those officers were coming to retirement, or were suffering ill health and were on restricted duties, and were not the officers seen by the public on the street, so the public perception is just the same?

[Matt Vickers]

This is the net number of police officers making the difference out there on Britain’s streets. There were 149,769; there are now nearly 2,000 fewer—that has a real impact. We hear all this noise about neighbourhood policing. Neighbourhood policing has a huge part to play in the policing model, but we cannot take away the police who respond to 999 calls. Should we badge police up, redeploy them, and leave people waiting longer for a 999 response when they really need one?

[Graham Stuart]

In his powerful speech, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) talked about the rise in scammers and fraudsters. I am concerned about the fact that Humberside will get a 2.4% funding increase, according to a public announcement by Ministers. The police and crime commissioner has shown that, when costs are taken into account, that represents a 2.9% cut. That is why 1,300 police officers have been cut so far, and it is why another reduction of 4,000 is expected next year. The Minister can go through a carefully curated number of neighbourhood officers, but the overall number is down, and the Government are not being straight with us.

[Matt Vickers]

I could not agree more. That is why the number of robberies against businesses has surged, shoplifting is up, and people feel less safe on our streets. Between September 2024 and September 2025—entirely on this Government’s watch—the number of officers fell by 1,318, compared with the year before. More broadly, 3,000 fewer people are working in police forces across the country to keep us safe.

[Andy McDonald]

I hear what the shadow Minister says about police numbers, but what did he say when Cleveland lost 500 police officers on his Government’s watch? Was he concerned then?

[Matt Vickers]

Back in 2010, I was deeply concerned about lots of things—the damage to our economy, the number of people without a job, the challenge of the difficult choices that the Government had to make—but the previous Government left office with record numbers of police on our streets.

[Richard Foord]

Measuring police effectiveness by looking solely at numbers is absolutely flawed. Does the shadow Minister accept in retrospect that the way in which Theresa May allowed police numbers to plummet while claiming that crime was falling was completely flawed? We lost a lot of experience in those years.

[Matt Vickers]

When the Conservatives last left office, we had record numbers of police on the streets. I do not know how many police officers we had on the streets when the Liberal Democrats last left office. [Interruption.] I will make some progress.

In terms of headcount, the picture is starker. In March 2024, under the previous Government, there were 149,769 officers—the highest number since records began. As of September 2025, that number stands at 147,621—a decrease of more than 2,000. When the Minister speaks about supporting the police, the House is entitled to ask a simple question: how can the Government support policing while presiding over fewer police?

Worryingly, the bad news does not stop there. The number of officers in the British Transport police and the number of staff in the National Crime Agency have also decreased, all while the Government announce a national police service that will be created from organisations such as the NCA. The staff who will make up that service are leaving. That is critical because the grant that we are discussing comes against the backdrop of many forces warning about their long-term financial stability.

As the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council said:

“The overall financial picture remains challenging. Many forces are planning service reductions, with consequences for officer numbers, staff capacity and overall resilience.”

That is a direct consequence of the Government’s decisions. There are real funding challenges, here and now, with real consequences for forces and communities across the country. The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners says that this year’s settlement leaves police forces with a shortfall that could be as high as £500 million.

Labour’s own police and crime commissioners across the country have spoken out on the challenges. In my own part of the world, Labour PCC Matt Storey has said that Cleveland police have to operate with

“one hand behind their back”,

and that funding has

“failed to keep pace with the level of inflation, while other funding has been removed and re-allocated”,

making it impossible to maintain current levels of service. I understand that he has written to the Minister on three occasions and is still awaiting a response. Durham’s Labour police and crime commissioner has been even more direct in her criticism. She said that the Labour Government have

“consistently demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of policing and community safety.”

The Minister will no doubt point with great enthusiasm to headline figures. Such spin fails to acknowledge inflation, pay awards and the ongoing cost of the Government’s jobs tax. Many at home will be stunned that our police forces were subjected to hundreds of millions of pounds of costs by way of the national insurance increase, and that the Government have actually taxed the police off our streets. This settlement is not the straightforward increase that the Minister claims it is. It relies heavily on the police precept, pushing more of the burden on to local taxpayers, while forces face rising costs and rising demand.

In 2023, an MP told this House that the then Government’s approach was to

“put up local taxes, put up council tax, push the problem on to local forces”,

and that

“Ministers have chosen to heap the burden on to hard-pressed local taxpayers through the precept.”—[Official Report, 8 February 2023; Vol. 727, c. 935.]

Any idea who that might have been? [Interruption.] Yes, it was the current Policing Minister. Given the Government’s fondness for U-turns, I am not surprised by the Minister’s change of view.

[Jess Phillips]

If the shadow Minister was so upset about this, why did he not do anything about it?

[Matt Vickers]

An increasing burden is being put on local taxpayers. Members can say one thing in opposition, but then they enter government and have to make real choices. Labour’s choices have meant cuts to police numbers, increases in the burden on local taxpayers, and spiralling levels of retail crime and robbery against businesses.

The consequences of that approach are as obvious today as they were then. The reliance on the police precept entrenches a postcode lottery in policing. Areas with strong council tax bases can raise more; areas with weaker council tax bases cannot. Yet the need for policing does not neatly align with local prosperity. Criminals do not check council tax bands before committing burglary. Nor do they decide where to operate based on local authority revenue forecasts. Yet under this Government’s model, two communities can face the same crime pressures but receive very different policing capacity simply because one can raise more money than the other. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what changed her mind about increasing the burden on local taxpayers for funding the police. Given the articulate case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty)—and by the Minister when in opposition—will she tell us when the funding formula review will take place?

The pressures on policing are not diminishing; they are growing. Forces are dealing with county lines, drug gangs exploiting children, organised crime operating across borders, cyber-crime and fraud expanding at an industrial scale, and domestic abuse cases that require extensive time, safeguarding and specialist capacity. They are also dealing with public order demands, which have become increasingly routine. This is a modern landscape of threats that requires modern capacity, and it cannot be met with funding settlements designed for ministerial speeches rather than frontline realities. This settlement will ultimately be judged not by the Minister’s tone, but by its results.

This debate comes down to the difference between saying and doing. The Government can say that they support policing, but too many see numbers falling. They can say that they support victims, but too many see no justice. And they can claim to be tough on crime, while quietly introducing early-release schemes that put offenders back on our streets sooner. Until the Government’s actions match their words, the public will not be convinced—and nor should they be.

14:50

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

I thank all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate—there was a big representation from the Liberal Democrats. I will not repeat the details of the settlement, as they were set out very clearly by my hon. Friend the Policing Minister. However, I will re-emphasise the importance of the significant investment in policing. It plays a key role in our programme of police reform, through which we will enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of our police service, and ensure that our police are equipped for the future. The settlement also supports neighbourhood policing, which is the bedrock of the British policing model. We are listening to feedback from forces and giving them flexibility to shape their workforce and meet the demands of modern policing.

I will now come to the points raised in the debate.

[Graham Stuart]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Jess Phillips]

The right hon. Gentleman raised many such points, so he will excuse me if I do not give way now.

It seems that the whole House can agree that no one likes the funding formula. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) gave an especially good trot-through of that issue. While he is not of my political stripes, he is considerably better than the previous right hon. Member for North Norfolk, who bears some responsibility for the damage that this Government are having to fix. The funding formula is fundamentally—[Interruption.] If hon. Members would like to intervene or think that I have said something that I should not have said, they should feel free to defend the former right hon. Member for North Norfolk, the one-time Prime Minister who crashed the economy.

[Graham Stuart]

As ever, I am afraid that this Minister gets her facts wrong. Despite that frailty, she is none the less straightforward and pretty outspoken. We get so few direct answers these days, so I look to her to provide them to two questions: are there fewer police officers now than there were when Labour came to power? And were there record numbers at that time? Are those two facts correct or are the Conservatives misleading the House, which we would not want to do?

[Jess Phillips]

I will come to the points that were raised in the debate, and that is one that the right hon. Gentleman raised many times.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) asked a specific question about the baseline. The baseline of the number of police personnel working in neighbourhood policing, which is measured from 31 March, was 17,715. Today that figure is 20,687.

I will tell a story about my recent visit to Cumbria police. I visited a call centre, where brilliant work was being done, and where I met some brilliant domestic violence advisers. However, the people staffing the call centre were warranted police officers. I do not think that warranted police officers should be staffing the call centres in police departments.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Jess Phillips]

I will make some progress.

I do not think that those warranted police officers should be doing that. That is why we are tilting to increase the number of police, getting 12,000 of them from behind desks to where they need to be: working on the frontline.

The consensus from Members in the House today, including my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and others from different parties, is that some unfairness exists in the funding formula. It would be ridiculous to reform the police funding formula, carry out all of the police reforms that will come out of the planned review of policing, and then paste the funding formula on to that completely new programme.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon has already laid out his questions about the White Paper, but the point is that there will be a review of policing. I like the way hon. Members have started to use the term “mega-forces” as if they will be a bad thing. To me, they sound quite cool, like something out of “RoboCop”—which is not Government policy. It is for the hon. Gentleman and every other Member to take part in that review, ask questions, such as the ones he asked today, and represent their areas.

The hon. Members who have spoken today largely come from rural or semi-rural communities. From listening to that debate, people would be forgiven for thinking that where I live is basically a police state, where if someone calls the police, they will be out in five minutes. I recognise exactly the same issues that Members representing rural constituencies raised—that the police do not always come when people need them—and the needs of their police forces. One of the forces mentioned was West Mercia and there seemed to be an idea that that force would suck resources away from Birmingham, but I feel the same way about other bits of Birmingham, and indeed other parts of the country. That is why we need to reform the system.

I was in a meeting this morning with three of the most senior police officers in our country, who are part of the new violence against women and girls policing unit created by this Government. We were talking about the disparity between the 43 different police forces—stalking or honour crime may be tackled well in one area but not in another—and the domestic abuse risk assessments that they use. In that meeting, I thought, “Gosh, we are going to have the opportunity to start from first principles.” If I were to design the police force today on behalf of women and children in our country, I would not be designing the systems that we have today, so I ask people to enter into the issue of police reform in that spirit.

On the policing funding formula, there is no doubt, as hon. Members have mentioned—I suffer from this in Birmingham, as well—that a council tax base that is low has a disproportionate impact. When the funding formula is reformed, as part of the overall reform of policing, it will absolutely have to rely on need, deprivation and demand, as was laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East. Need can do a huge amount of heavy lifting for things like seasonality, which was raised by a number of hon. Members.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Jess Phillips]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Huntingdon and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash).

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

The Minister mentions the factors that will go into the police allocation formula. That formula is currently based on the 2014 population size, and density and sparsity figures from 2001. However, since that formula first came into effect, an additional 300,000 people now live in Cambridgeshire. Will that be factored into the formula? From what date will the population data be taken? Will it be the 2021 census or the 2011 census?

[Jess Phillips]

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s first question, yes, of course that will be factored in. Did he say 2001? I really enjoyed the conflab in the debate about who was to blame for what—it went back to things being blamed on the last Labour Government. I would like to remind hon. Members that we have to be careful about the way we are seen, because I was not old enough to vote when the last Labour Government came to power. Perhaps we should update some of the references. The idea that the figures we use will date from 2001 seems completely and utterly ridiculous, but the review that will be undertaken will look at that. All I can say is that it will be as recent as one would expect and as recent as is possible with data. [Interruption.] I can see that people are keen for me to be quiet.

[Mr Brash]

My hon. Friend talks about a new funding formula needing to be based on need and the challenges that the precept creates. We are never going to get fairness if the council tax system is the method of doing this. Is she ruling out getting rid of the police precept as a method of raising funding?

[Jess Phillips]

Far be it from me to have the authority to do that right now—I have to be honest. My colleagues who are responsible for local government and policing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), are sat on the Front Bench, and they will have heard the concern about that interplay. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) is absolutely right: this is about need and trying to ensure that we look at the different things that different areas face.

We are committed to giving the police the resources that they need, and that is exactly what this settlement does. We want to see robust neighbourhood policing that engages with the public to build trust and confidence. We are grateful for all the work that the incredible men and women of our police service do, and we are therefore determined to provide them with the capability and flexibility that they have asked for through the funding, in order that they have the tools they require. The removal of arbitrary targets for officer numbers means that local chiefs have more flexibility to shape their workforce, meet the demands of modern policing and do the vital work behind the scenes.

This settlement is only the first step. The 2026-27 settlement provides the police with the immediate resources needed to continue their invaluable work, alongside the opportunity to invest in the future, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2026–27 (HC 1638), which was laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.

Local Government Finance

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Second Report of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, The Funding and Sustainability of Local Government Finance, HC 514, and the Government response, HC 1355.]

15:02

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

I beg to move,

That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2026-27 (HC 1604), which was laid before this House on 9 February, be approved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

That the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2026-27 (HC 1605), which was laid before this House on 9 February, be approved.

[Steve Reed]

Before I begin, I notify the House that the local government finance report has been updated with small corrections on pages 7 and 13. These corrections have been passed on to the House in the proper way ahead of today’s debate. Like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for its careful consideration of these reports.

I believe in local government, because I have lived it. As a councillor and as a council leader, I saw the difference that councils make to people’s lives. Local government is the part of our democracy that is closest to people and the things that they care about the most—their family, their community and their home town.

Labour took office after 14 years of ideological cuts imposed on local government. The Tories devolved the blame for their failure in national government by imposing £16 billion of cuts on councils and local communities. Even worse, they targeted the worst of those cuts deliberately on our poorest communities. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), was filmed standing in a leafy garden in Tunbridge Wells boasting about how the Conservatives had stripped away funding from struggling towns so that they could play politics with public money.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Has the Secretary of State made an analysis of the division of Pride in Place funding between Labour and Reform seats versus Liberal Democrat and Conservative seats?

[Steve Reed]

I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to stand up and apologise to the House for what his Government did in diverting money away from the poorest communities. I am very disappointed that he did not take that opportunity, and I suspect that I am not the only one—perhaps he will take the opportunity later on. I remind him and his colleagues that under the Tories, only three in 10 councils received funding that aligned with deprivation; with this Government, the number is more than nine in every 10.

Local people were forced to pay a staggeringly high price for Tory venality. High streets were hollowed out and boarded up. The number of people sleeping rough on our streets doubled. The number of families stuck in temporary accommodation doubled. There were more potholes on our roads than craters on the moon.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

rose—

[Steve Reed]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman so that he can apologise for that.

[Mark Garnier]

I was going to say thank you for the Pride in Place money, actually; I am very grateful that the Government have given £20 million to my constituency.

On the subject of funding for councils, the Government are requiring district councils to pay for food waste recycling. That is not an unreasonable proposition, but there was a principle under the previous Government of new burdens funding, whereby when a new burden was presented to a council, the Government would sort it out. Why have the Secretary of State’s Government decided not to support councils with new burdens funding?

[Steve Reed]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s words about Pride in Place. I am glad that he has answered the question of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), because that money is being distributed to constituencies represented by Members right across the House. On the point that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) makes about food waste recycling, funding for that has been built into the settlement, so it is present. The new burden is being funded in that way.

[Mark Garnier]

The Secretary of State is being incredibly kind. He talks about the settlement, but the settlement does not work. Wyre Forest district council has had a 0% increase in core funding. Dare I say that across the whole of Worcestershire, where there is a district council with a Conservative Member of Parliament, there has been a 0% increase, but where there is a district council with a Labour Member of Parliament, there has been an increase of up to 5%. Can he explain why that has happened?

[Steve Reed]

The settlement follows a funding formula and takes account of the costs of delivering food waste recycling in the way that the hon. Gentleman described earlier.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Steve Reed]

Let me return to my theme for a moment before I take any more interventions.

The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) and colleagues across the House will remember that the Tories used to belittle local councillors as part-time volunteers and took away their pension rights to deter people from risking a career on the frontline of local government. Today, it falls to this Government to fix the foundations that the Tories smashed apart.

We are rebuilding local government so that councils can rebuild their communities. We are making good on our promise to introduce multi-year funding settlements so that councils can plan for the future with certainty. We are reconnecting funding with need so that we can take off the Tory shackles that have held back so many of our towns and communities for so long. We are ending wasteful bidding wars for funding, freeing councils to focus on filling in potholes, not forms. We are putting fairness back into a system that the Tories bragged about breaking. We reject the decline that ripped the heart out of towns and communities up and down this country. We choose change.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

Shropshire council is about to see a 10% cut in its core funding from central Government, having been terribly badly run by the Conservatives for the previous 16 years before the Lib Dem administration took over in May. The Government have given the council permission to put up its council tax by 9% without a referendum, but that does not even touch the sides of the cut in funding from central Government. How is Shropshire, which needs to receive exceptional financial support in this year, ever going to fill the ever-growing black hole unless the funding from Government reflects the costs of delivering services in rural areas?

[Steve Reed]

I believe the hon. Lady has had several meetings with my colleague the Minister for Local Government. It is right and very important that we should align funding with need; that is the only way to ensure that funding is fair across the whole country. That is what we promised to do in our manifesto, and that is what we are doing with this settlement.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Steve Reed]

I have taken an awful lot of interventions so far, and I do not want to leave no time, but I will take one last intervention.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is being very generous with his time. Like him, as a councillor I saw appalling pressures put on our local council in Reading while funding went up in neighbouring Wokingham, which is a much better-off area and was then controlled by the Conservatives. I appreciate his work on readjusting the settlement to reflect need. That should be a fundamental point in any allocation of resources to local government. Would he like to say a little more about his work on this, and how it is going to benefit residents on the lowest incomes in the most disadvantaged communities?

[Steve Reed]

At core, what we are hearing from all parts of the House at the moment is people’s views on the fact that under the previous Government, the alignment between funding and deprivation was broken, and this Government are bringing it back. Because the previous Government did nothing about it for 14 years, funding became extremely detached from deprivation. We are putting that back in and making sure that funding goes where the need is greatest, so that stealing money from the poorest communities to pork barrel Tory areas—which the former Prime Minister bragged about—can no longer go on.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is being a little unfair to the Tories. The biggest cuts under austerity from 2010 to 2024 came from 2010 to 2015 when the Lib Dems were in coalition, so perhaps they should share some of the blame.

[Steve Reed]

I certainly agree that the Lib Dems should share the blame for austerity. I was a council leader while the Lib Dems and Tories were in coalition together. I think they cut our council by a third just over the first one or two years that they were in power. Now they have the chutzpah to stand up and complain that this Government are putting some of it back. I really think they should reflect on that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Steve Reed]

I have taken an awful lot of interventions, more from the opposite side of the House than from my own side, so with your kindness, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a little progress.

I thank all who contributed to the provisional settlement consultation. We listened carefully to views expressed by councils and MPs, and today I am pleased to announce an additional £740 million in new grant funding over and above the provisional settlement. This means that by the end of the multi-year settlement, councils will benefit from a 15.5% increase in core spending power, worth over £11.4 billion, compared with 2025-26.

When this Government took office, we introduced the recovery grant, targeted on those areas held back the most by Tory and Lib Dem austerity. This year we have maintained that grant, so every upper-tier council that received it will see a real-terms boost. I can announce a £440 million uplift to the recovery grant over the multi-year settlement targeted at councils the Tories hit with below average funding increases. By the end of this Parliament, we will have invested a total of £2.6 billion in the most deprived councils through the recovery grant, over and above what they receive through the settlement.

I have also listened carefully to feedback from the sector about business rates pooling. As a result, I am compensating any authorities that would have lost funding this year so that they have time to adapt to the new arrangements.

[David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)]

I was council leader at St Helens for five years before coming here in July 2024. I just want to say thank you to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government, and the Ministers in post before them, for the engagement, because the relationship now is different from what it was before. The conversation we have had since the provisional settlement has been constructive—it has been good; it has been done in good spirit—and I am very grateful for the result that we have for St Helens. In 2010, St Helens got £127 million a year from the last Labour Government, but when the Conservative party opposite left office it was £13 million a year. Does the Secretary of State share my absolute shock at the brass neck of Conservative Members?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Brief interventions can be just as productive as lengthy ones.

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. What he is seeing is the realignment of funding with deprivation, and that is as it should be.

[Graham Stuart]

rose—

[Steve Reed]

I will take one more intervention and then make progress.

[Graham Stuart]

The Secretary of State has been tremendously generous in giving way. He has also been making his usual barnstorming political knockabout speech, but perhaps he should start to act more like a Secretary of State, because low-income residents of the East Riding, of whom there are many in Beverley and Holderness, are going to have a £200 council tax bombshell. The smallest house is going to be paying £200 more in three years’ time and will have reduced overall funding to support public services after the increase in costs imposed by the Government. That is the reality. The Secretary of State said he wants to focus on need; why has rurality been removed from the category of need, when it is such a real issue?

[Steve Reed]

Well, the easy answer to that is that it has not been; it is still there.

Above all, this settlement is about fairness, because this Government reject the Tory belief that our poorest communities should be left to sink with less funding and worse public services than other parts of the country. That approach pulled our country apart; and, in doing so, was profoundly unpatriotic. Our settlement reflects a council’s ability to raise income locally, and it reflects the fact that it costs more to deliver services in different parts of the country, retaining rurality funding for social care, because we recognise that workers in those areas have to travel longer distances. We have used the most up-to-date data on deprivation to make sure funding accurately follows need.

We are introducing changes gradually over the period of the settlement so councils have time to adapt, and we are protecting councils’ income, including from business rates growth. Today’s settlement is a milestone in returning councils to a sustainable financial footing, and in restoring fairness to local government funding.

[Lincoln Jopp]

rose—

[Steve Reed]

I will give way one last time.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am incredibly grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He calls it a milestone; I call it a millstone. He talks about fairness. Stanwell in my Spelthorne constituency hits the markers for the double deprivation criteria that would qualify for the Pride in Place funding, but that is diluted by the more affluent areas in my constituency. How is it fair to the people of Stanwell that they do not qualify for Pride in Place funding just because they are surrounded by more affluent areas? Rather than helping, is the Secretary of State not just going to engineer the continuation of pockets of deprivation?

[Steve Reed]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood how it works. An area does not get diluted. The scheme looks at super-output areas on a very small level so we can ensure that the funding goes to those areas with the highest levels of deprivation. I would be happy to write to him about the process if it would help him to better understand how it works.

For the vast majority of councils, increases in council tax will be restricted to 3%, and 2% for the adult social care precept.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Steve Reed]

I am going to make some progress, I am afraid.

There are a few councils facing extremely challenging financial pressures that the previous Government turned into a crisis by ignoring their problems for over a decade. In response to requests from those councils, I am giving them flexibility to increase their council tax above referendum principles next year. Unlike the previous Government, we will not agree any increases that could lead to households in these areas paying above national average council tax, but we will not let councils go to the wall and see their residents punished with failing services. These flexibilities will apply to Warrington, Trafford, Worcestershire, Shropshire, North Somerset, Windsor and Maidenhead, and Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole. One fire authority will also be granted additional flexibility. These are caps, not targets, and no area with additional flexibility will see bills rise above the national average.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for making that point about council tax and flexibility for local councils. Does he agree with the Local Government Association, which is worried, stating that

“council tax is not the solution to the financial challenges facing local government. It places a significant burden on some households”,

including the poorest. Does he agree that we should now be looking at council tax reform?

[Steve Reed]

I agree with the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that council tax cannot be the only means to fix these problems. That is why we have increased the level of funding overall and reconnected it with the deprivation indices that tell us which areas have the greatest need, and should therefore get a fair share of the available funding.

The Home Secretary and I have also agreed an additional £3.50 council tax flexibility for six police and crime commissioners in 2026-27, where that was critical to financial sustainability in maintaining law and order. It is for councillors, mayors and police and crime commissioners to set their own council tax, and to take into account the impact on households when making those decisions.

Nationally, council tax will not increase by more than it did last year. Six local authorities set council tax bills between £450 and £1,000 lower than the national average because of the high value of homes in their areas. The previous Government made no adjustment in the funding formula for this, creating unfairness. It is not fair that people living in our poorest communities should subsidise rock-bottom bills in some of our wealthiest areas, so I am giving those councils additional flexibility to manage their budgets as we align funding with need, as we should.

For councils that need some support to balance their budgets this year, we will no longer just sign off borrowing or the sale of assets without a credible approach to reforming services to get back to financial stability. Later this month, I will confirm arrangements for supporting councils in the most difficult positions, but they will be expected to bring forward plans for more effective and sustainable services, built on sustainable budgeting into the future.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Steve Reed]

I want to make some progress, because I have taken quite a lot of interventions, but I will give way before I conclude.

Local government is still under pressure, and we will not bury our heads in the sand or dodge the difficult decisions. The adult social care system is in crisis, and we are facing up to that by transforming it. This settlement makes available around £4.6 billion of additional funding for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26, including £500 million for the sector’s first ever fair pay agreement. That means more carers getting better pay and having the time to provide the high-quality, compassionate care they want to give. It will get us moving towards a national care service that gives people better-quality care, joined-up services, and more choice and independence.

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

We are very grateful for the settlement and the announcements that the Secretary of State has made today. Both Redbridge and Waltham Forest in my constituency are receiving significant uplifts from this Parliament, and Ministers have been excellent in listening to the arguments of both those London boroughs. Although this measure will not be enough to fill the immediate financial gaps left by the Tories, it is a step forward. However, given that temporary accommodation costs have risen so much in London—by about 75% over the last five years—will the Secretary of State set out how the Government are acting to expand the supply of socially rented homes?

[Steve Reed]

I thank my hon. Friend for recognising that funding is now following deprivation. He will find the answer to his question in the homelessness strategy, which I will come to. [Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, you are indicating with your wrist that I need to speed up, so I will make some progress.

On children’s social care, the system was again left on its knees. That is why this Government are driving forward the biggest transformation of children’s social care in a generation by rolling out the Families First Partnership programme. We have backed the programme with nearly £3 billion over four years, including an investment of over £2.4 billion in this multi-year settlement. It gives local authorities, police and health partners the tools to provide families with the right support at the right time, shifting the system from expensive statutory provision towards early intervention and preventive support. It will help families stay together, divert thousands of children from care and transform the outcomes and wellbeing of children across the country.

The investment in the Families First Partnership programme marks a milestone in transforming the children’s social care system, but we recognise that the children’s social care residential market is fundamentally broken. Local authorities are being pushed to the brink, while some private providers are making excessive profits. This cannot—and it will not—continue. Instead, we are working to reduce reliance on residential care and move towards a system rooted in family environments through fostering. Last week, the Government set out a plan to expand fostering for 10,000 more children by the end of this Parliament. The evidence is clear that taking this approach will be better for children and better for the local authorities that provide the services. Using the new powers in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we will explore the implementation of a profit cap in the children’s social care placement market to ensure that public money delivers value and care, not profiteering.

It is obvious that the current special educational needs and disabilities system is not working for children and families. We know that it is not working for councils either, as they are seeing funding for neighbourhood services diverted into a broken system. The Government are bringing forward ambitious reforms that will create a better and financially sustainable SEND system, built on early, high-quality support for kids with SEND to improve their time at school and maximise their potential throughout life. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will set out the details of those reforms in the upcoming schools White Paper.

Crucially, we are taking action now to support local authorities as we move towards that reformed system. We will deliver this in phases, the first of which will address historic deficits accrued up to the end of 2025-26. All local authorities with SEND deficits will receive a grant covering 90% of their high-need deficit up to the end of 2025-26. This is subject to local authorities securing the Department for Education’s approval of a local SEND reform plan.

On homelessness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) has said, we know that temporary accommodation is a growing financial pressure on councils, with near record levels of rough sleeping and declining social housing stock. The final settlement also provides a £272 million uplift to the homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant, taking total investment delivered through the settlement to £2.7 billion. On the ground, that will mean families off the streets; kids out of temporary accommodation and instead living in safe, secure homes; and people’s lives put back on course. We are matching that landmark investment with our national plan to end homelessness, led by the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, to put the full might of the state behind preventing homelessness before it happens.

Today’s settlement is about keeping a promise—a promise to repair the broken foundations of local government, and a promise to put the heart back into our communities. When the last Conservative Government slashed councils to the bone, the consequences were severe: the services people use every day were undermined, streets became filthy and people’s lives got tougher. The hard work of councillors, mayors and frontline staff kept vital services running during those hard Tory years, and we thank them for the work they did in those circumstances. Our aim is a future where councillors, working with their communities, have the freedom to innovate—rebuilding public services and investing in high streets, youth clubs and libraries. We are fixing the foundations so that councils and their communities can build the public services, renew the high streets and shape the future they want to see.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before I call the shadow Minister, I will announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026. The Ayes were 362 and the Noes were 107, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

15:30

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

The Secretary of State and I will have had long experience of working with Morgan McSweeney during the many days he spent as head of the Labour group at the Local Government Association. I think that influence is reflected in the very political speech we have just heard from the Secretary of State. Despite its political excellence, I am struggling to reconcile his speech with what is actually in the finance statement he has laid before the House to agree this afternoon. We have a high level of agreement that local government touches all our lives in our communities. We recognise its huge potential to develop our economy, improve public health and give children a great start in life, and we know that the average local authority in this country delivers over 800 different services. They are there for us literally from cradle to grave, and are led by democratically elected councillors who run budgets that are bigger than those of many Government Departments, in organisations that are more complex than many a FTSE 100 business.

However, having served—like the Secretary of State—as a councillor under the last Labour Government, we see a swift reversion to type. Announcements of funding for social housing may arrive towards the end of the decade; funding for schools from VAT on fees for private education amounts to a real-terms cut in state school funding; and at the heart of what the Secretary of State has set out is a massive diversion of funding away from the legally enforceable statutory duties placed on councils by this Parliament and towards generalised poverty as a driver of those allocations.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the Labour Government have abolished the rural services delivery grant, a decision that has cost Somerset council £4.1 million and has cost other rural counties many millions of pounds—rural counties in which it is more expensive to provide services? Does he agree that this is Labour diverting money from rural areas that are desperately in need to Labour strongholds in the north?

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. The analysis produced by the County Councils Network makes a comparison between the funding pressure on statutory services facing the urban councils that are the beneficiaries of the Government’s largesse, which totals £180 million a year, and the budget gap facing rural areas as a result of this Government’s decision, which is a £2.7 billion black hole.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

That is nothing new. In every one of the last 29 years, people who are lucky enough to have a modest property in the New Forest and a mansion in the city have come to me to complain about how much more their modest property in the forest costs them in council tax. I have told them that the one is subsidising the other, but people who are not in that fortunate position—young families in my parliamentary constituency with only one property—are subsidising the north and the cities, and they cannot afford it.

[David Simmonds]

I hesitate to disagree with my right hon. Friend, but it was not ever thus. The rural services grant referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) was a measure to address those additional cost burdens, including direct costs arising from statutory duties. It was a funding stream that is being removed by this Labour Government.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

rose—

[David Simmonds]

I will give way to my constituency neighbour.

[Gareth Thomas]

The shadow Minister will remember that when the Conservative party took control of Harrow council four years ago, it did so on a promise of freezing council tax, which he presumably campaigned on. Instead, council tax has risen by 20% over the past four years. Will the shadow Minister take the opportunity to apologise to the people of Pinner—indeed, of Harrow more generally—for his party saying one thing when it was campaigning and then doing exactly the reverse, increasing the cost of living for his constituents and mine?

[David Simmonds]

Without wishing to be parochial, I am sure the hon. Member would also like to join in the apologies for the appalling level of corruption that had taken place under Labour in the London borough of Harrow. As has been covered extensively in the local and national media, it left an astonishing legacy of cost overruns in the local authority’s highways department, which has taken a good deal to recover from. I am sure we would not want the House to be inadvertently misled about the impact of those cost overruns.

[Graham Stuart]

It is far from my typical habit to get involved in political knockabout, but following that astonishing intervention that showed a total lack of self-awareness, does my hon. Friend remember the now Prime Minister saying that council tax would go up by “not a penny”? This settlement assumes an increase of 5% a year on low-income people in rural East Yorkshire at the same time that core funding is cut. That is a £200 hit for the smallest house in our area, while—as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said—very valuable homes in central London seem to pay a fraction of the amount.

[David Simmonds]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. When Ministers talk about additional resources being provided to local government, we need to reflect on the fact that two thirds of the funding in this settlement comes from the maximum possible council tax rise across the country, and a large chunk of the rest comes from a huge rise in business rates.

[Mr Betts]

It is interesting to hear the hon. Member completely remove from his memory what happened in the 14 years of his Government. I ask him to remember back to when this began in 2010, when council tax generated about 20% of council funding, and how it has grown over the years under the Conservative and coalition Governments to deliver more than half of local government funding. How can he say that this is a problem when his Government originated that process?

[David Simmonds]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you will be pleased to know that that prompts me to move on to the next part of what we need to say. Let us recall for those who cry austerity at Conservative Members that the last Labour Government spent on average 10% more in every year of its final decade in office than they raised in taxes, which left a colossal legacy of debt that we have scarcely begun to repay. Millions were squandered on projects such as building schools for the future that were cancelled at the tail end of the last Labour Government by Alistair Darling, as they ran out of money. When we look at the reports of what this means at constituency level, councils such as Surrey, which embraced this Labour Government’s devolution agenda, have now lost the opportunity for the mayor that they were promised. They report that they have been left £60 million a year short. Members will be ill-served by the consequences of the Budget.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I am sure the hon. Member did not mean to inadvertently mislead the House, but as I was a councillor in Hartlepool in 2010, I can tell him with absolute surety that it was the Conservatives who cancelled the building schools for the future programme. I think he should take the opportunity to correct the record. You cancelled it; we initiated it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order.

[Mr Brash]

Sorry, they cancelled it; we initiated it.

[David Simmonds]

One of my tasks in the world of local government was to engage with that last Labour Government and the disastrous consequences of their overspending. They were completely clear with authorities such as mine that stopped work on BSF that they did not have the money to see through the promises that they were making to the public. We were told that by the Department for Education. I am very confident that my constituents understand the consequences that a Labour Government have on their politics.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

rose—

[David Simmonds]

I will give way to my constituency neighbour.

[Danny Beales]

The hon. Member is very generous with his time. I always have a lot of time for him. He is talking about our constituents in Hillingdon. Is it not the case that the financial settlement of the previous Tory Government, which also included council tax, had a 7% cut to core spending power for our constituents in Hillingdon? This spending settlement has almost a 40% increase in core spending power for our constituents. [Interruption.] hon. Member seems rather depressed about this announcement. Surely that is fantastic news for our constituents. Does he not agree with me that thank God we have a Labour Government for Hillingdon?

[David Simmonds]

I appreciate that he knows rather more about Camden council than he does about Hillingdon council, but let us reflect a little further on the history. Our constituents last had a Labour council in 1998. I went to that budget meeting at which our constituents were faced with an 18.7% council tax rise—£60 million of unfunded efficiency savings by a Labour council. I think they understand where their political priorities lie and who has their interests at heart.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[David Simmonds]

I will make a little progress, because I know that Madam Deputy Speaker will want others to have time.

History is repeating itself. Let us not forget that this is a statement that leaves two thirds of councils in England worse off, from the analysis that has been done by the Local Government Association. That piles additional costs on top of things such as last year’s national insurance contributions rise, which left councils £1.5 billion net worse off. This settlement tightens ringfencing, removing the ability of local leaders to deploy homelessness funding flexibly to meet local needs, for example. It also comes at a time when this botched reorganisation of local government has created chaos across the sector, with a hokey-cokey of elections promised and then cancelled, sometimes within 24 hours, from that Dispatch Box.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the current process for local government reorganisation is that there has been no direction on how the funding will work out? We have some proposals on the table that would leave enormously vast rural communities in constituencies such as mine neighbouring towns and urban centres that will see this as an opportunity to get what they want. This settlement does not give those rural councils any confidence that they will get the money they need once local government reorganisation has taken place.

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend draws attention to another significant issue facing local authorities: the level of uncertainty. Money has been promised, then withdrawn. Budgets have been allocated, then reduced. In that context, I am sure that her constituents will be as concerned as I am that so much of this money is simply built into massive tax rises across the country.

I will turn briefly to business rates. We know, including from the question that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) asked at Prime Minister’s questions, the pressure being felt acutely on our high streets, especially in hospitality and retail. A business owner in my constituency told me yesterday that across his food franchise, the business rates rise alone is an additional £100,000 a year. That is a lot of entry level jobs at risk. It means price rises for consumers, fuelling inflation. The rise is a barrier to investments in our high streets, and that situation is replicated across the country.

Let us not forget that under the previous Government—this is one of the things of which we are most proud—an average of 800 new jobs were created every single day we were in office. Let us never cease to remind those on the Government Benches that unemployment has risen in every single month of this Labour Government. They are a Government who clearly do not respect our local colleagues. They refer to leaders as mere community convenors. They seek to reduce our councillors’ level of discretion. They create uncertainty through a lack of clarity on reorganisation, on special educational needs and disabilities deficits and on whether mayoral elections are going ahead. That comes at a time when thousands of voters are being denied a say by this Government through the cancelling of elections. That situation is caused solely by the Secretary of State’s abject failure to deliver the Government’s devolution plans to the proposed timetable. It is one thing to cancel elections in a council that is about to be abolished, so that voters can instead choose its replacement. It is very much another thing to defer elections indefinitely while we wait for the Secretary of State to get his act together. Our councils and our communities deserve a better settlement than this.

I will conclude with some points that I hope the Minister will address in the summing up. One of the most striking things about this settlement is that the Secretary of State has come to the Chamber and said that the key priority for this Government is addressing poverty and deprivation. Poverty and deprivation do not feature in this local government funding settlement. They are not part of this formula that the Secretary of State is asking us to agree. What is striking is the things that he says are important. He talked about vulnerable children in education, but it is cash flat, same as last year. Virtual schools are cash flat. The revenue support grant for local authorities is cash flat. Personal advisers to care leavers are cash flat. Money for supporting local authorities with social care, which was specifically described as a priority, is cash flat. Buy one, get one free campaigns intended to reduce obesity in the public health environment have a 50% reduction. Even Awaab’s law, which was championed at the Dispatch Box just a short time ago by the Minister for Housing and Planning sees a cut of £26,000 from its paltry beginnings.

Perhaps the Secretary of State will reflect that what he is announcing is essentially a massive shift of funding away from the statutory duties and obligations that this Parliament has placed on our local authorities to those favoured political areas that the Government see as their priorities for the future.

15:45

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Harrow council was on the verge of bankruptcy until Ministers announced substantial extra funding in the local government settlement. Council officers told councillors that they were facing a budget deficit of more than £32 million, and they were planning to use virtually all the council’s reserves to fill the gap if the settlement for Harrow was not as generous as in fact it was. They were even contemplating having to ask for exceptional financial support status, so I particularly welcome the 31% increase in funding for Harrow over this Parliament that the Government announced in December. The last multi-year funding settlement for the council, under Theresa May and Boris Johnson, delivered just a 5% increase, so a 31% uplift over this Parliament is a significant step forward.

Harrow certainly needs that uplift, because over the last four years residents have become increasingly concerned about how the council has been managed. Council tax has increased by more than inflation every year. Rents and service charges imposed by the council have rocketed. Crucial parts of the council’s responsibilities have been rated as inadequate and needing improvement. Basic critical services such as street cleaning have been cut to the bone, and new housing to ease the housing and homelessness crisis has been stalled, delayed or just axed. Council officers have told senior councillors that without that increase, Harrow would have faced having to approach the Secretary of State; it would have been at risk of bankruptcy, and of needing exceptional financial support.

Although a combination of recent mismanagement of council finances and a decade of austerity has done considerable damage to our public services, Harrow remains one of the lowest-funded councils, both in London and nationally, so I say gently to the Secretary of State that I hope he will understand when I tell him that I will continue to press for further funds to improve our local services. It is worth underlining that between 2013-14 and 2022-23, the council saw cuts in its funding from the Tory, and Tory-Liberal Democrat, Governments of more than £50 million, and a reduction of a shocking 97% in the revenue support grants. One of the consequences of that level of austerity was vastly weakened public services.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

May I tell the hon. Gentleman about austerity?

[Gareth Thomas]

I am happy to give the right hon. Gentleman a way into the debate, but he might prefer to sit down and make a longer contribution later.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

No, no. The one thing that the Secretary of State got right when he was wagging his finger to my left was his implication about the Liberal Democrats. I was at the heart of that Administration. Danny Alexander was Chief Secretary to the Treasury and had to be restrained by George Osborne, so gung-ho was he about making greater cuts. Personally, I would have given him his head, but don’t let them escape!

[Gareth Thomas]

I am happy to join the right hon. Gentleman in again condemning the role that the Liberal Democrats played, but if he was the sane voice in the Government at the time, I hope he will forgive me for being—slightly—even more concerned about what was going on.

One of the understated problems resulting from the austerity that Harrow has suffered has been the decline in the quality of vital local services. Children’s services were rated inadequate by Ofsted just last year, and immediate improvement was required in eight areas. They included leadership stability, particularly relating to management and oversight of staff and social workers; the

“quality of support, advice and guidance for care leavers”;

the “quality of help” for children who were homeless; the

“quality and consistency in the response”

when care leavers went missing; and the consistency of staffing to support children. Some of the most vulnerable children in my community and across Harrow more generally have been let down by Harrow council. Two years earlier, the Conservative councillors who led Harrow council had driven through major cuts to children’s services of over £2.5 million. Astonishingly, the current Conservative leadership locally is proposing another round of major cuts to children’s services.

One particular case in my constituency stands out. At a nursery, parents reported significant bruising on their child, in what looked like the shape of a child’s footprint. The matter was referred to social services. The parents were arrested and went to court, and the child was taken into emergency foster care. Eventually, the case against the parents was rightly dropped when the court accepted that the original bruising was caused by a child’s foot. In the meantime, during supervised contact that was arranged by Harrow social services, the parents found extensive injuries on the child and reported them to the social worker. Given the scale of the injuries, there should have been a serious investigation at the time, but there was not. In the nearly three years since, the council has struggled to get answers to its questions, and the parents inevitably remain profoundly affected by what has happened to their child, and by what they have been put through as a family. I wish I could say that was an isolated case, but it is not. Although I welcome the additional funding that the council will get, which it will be able to put into social care for young people, there are other measures that I hope the Secretary of State will consider further down the line.

It is not just children’s services that have been affected; the Care Quality Commission has said that adult social care run by Harrow council requires improvement. That certainly did not come as a huge surprise to many carers, elderly people and other vulnerable adults in Harrow. Just last year, the council was ordered to pay compensation to an elderly resident with dementia and her family. The resident needed medical help after she was neglected and let down by the care home in which she had been placed by Harrow council.

Since 2022, Harrow has become the third most expensive council in London for council tax, behind Tory-run Croydon and Liberal Democrat-led Kingston upon Thames. Harrow’s Conservative councillors have put up council tax by the maximum possible every year they have been in power, and they plan to continue doing so—a 20% rise in council tax since 2022, despite their promises to freeze it.

Council tenants have been hit with the maximum rent increases allowable in each of the past four years, while leaseholders’ service charges have rocketed. Astonishingly, some leaseholders in properties owned by Harrow council are expecting to see their service charges rise by 70% this year. One family, currently paying £2,000 annually, have been sent a bill for £3,400 for next year. Those rates are simply unacceptable in the midst of a cost of living crisis, and I hope the council will review them urgently.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Does the hon. Member believe that people who promise not to raise council tax should not raise council tax?

[Gareth Thomas]

Conservative councillors in Harrow promised not to raise council tax but duly did so. I hope the hon. Gentleman will join me in urging the shadow Secretary of State to ask the leader of the council to explain to the people of Harrow why he reneged on his promise.

Regeneration should be an opportunity to build more affordable and social housing, and to help tackle the housing crisis that we face in communities like mine. It should surely involve local communities, create opportunities for them to come together, and provide for key local services. Instead, the completion of the redevelopment of the Grange Farm estate has been delayed multiple times—again, a product of the lack of funding and poor leadership locally.

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point, and I am very sorry to hear about the challenges that his residents have with their council. Some local authorities are doing the exact opposite of what he describes. In my area, Reading borough council recently opened 46 new council houses, built on its own land, as part of a programme to build nearly 800. There are local authorities that are able to grip this issue, and I am very sad to hear about the situation at his council. Perhaps it could learn something from Reading and other councils around the country.

[Gareth Thomas]

I would certainly welcome the news that the Conservative councillors in Harrow responsible for housing were looking at councils that are committed to building more council homes, like those in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

The failure to complete the redevelopment means that residents have had to put up with mice, damp and substandard accommodation for too long on the Grange Farm estate. On other regeneration schemes in Wealdstone, plans for affordable housing have been axed, no new council housing that had not already been planned by the previous council has been built, and a primary school that was due to be provided has been axed. Developers are not being held properly to account, and a major opportunity to lift the quality of life in the borough has been missed.

A consistent complaint that I have heard from constituents of mine is that they find it very difficult to get to see anyone at the council. They do not know where to go to meet council staff to sort out problems and discuss issues in their neighbourhood. Shortly after the local Conservative party took over running Harrow council, it closed Harrow’s civic centre. It was due to be replaced by a smaller set of council offices in Wealdstone, on what is currently the Peel Road car park. That would have given Harrow residents access to council staff, and helped increase the number of people using businesses on the local high street. It would have freed up council-owned land for much-needed affordable housing and for new workspaces, retail and commercial spaces, as well as a new primary school, a new library, a new park for residents to enjoy and a new town square. However, the civic centre remains closed—derelict and boarded up—and major decisions on regeneration have been delayed or cancelled. No new set of accessible council offices is planned, and no one knows when, or indeed if, new promised housing will go ahead. Instead, local Conservative councillors have spent thousands of pounds doing up their council offices, yet members of the public are not allowed in.

[Lincoln Jopp]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gareth Thomas]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have given way to him once, and I leave him to hope to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The public will get their say on the situation in Harrow in May, but the failures at Harrow council raise other questions. Reversing the decade and more of austerity for local services is clearly a priority, and the settlement that was announced in December makes a good start on that objective. Harrow certainly needs a serious examination of its funding formula, but surely raising the quality of local services needs to be more than just the responsibility of local people. In 2015, the Opposition parties decided to abolish the Audit Commission, a body that usefully challenged councils much earlier on, and helped prevent many poor management practices of the sort we regularly see in Harrow from developing and getting out of control.

[Danny Beales]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Rightly, this Government are putting more money back into local government for the first time in many years. That is long overdue, but that money has to be well spent. Unfortunately, what he describes in Harrow is quite similar to the experience of my residents in Hillingdon. The independent auditors are quite damning about the council’s budgeting approach. Millions of pounds have been misallocated, and there were no opening and closing balances, well into the financial year. It was recently reported by the press that the council, in a secret deal, had written off a former Tory councillor’s debt, all while applying for exceptional financial support from this Government, so I completely agree with him. Do we not need more independent oversight and audit of local government finance?

[Gareth Thomas]

We certainly need more independent oversight of the way in which Conservative councils in outer London are managing their finances. I am completely with my hon. Friend on that score, and the story of what has happened in Hillingdon is almost as bad as the situation we have faced in Harrow over the last four years. The one bright spot has been the increase in finance that the Secretary of State has delivered for Harrow. We need a review of the funding formula for Harrow, but I welcome the settlement we have had, and I look forward to continuing to persuade him of the case for more funding in Harrow.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

15:58

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

In our manifesto, the Liberal Democrats called for multi-year settlements for local government; for councils to be freed to generate more revenue, including by charging more council tax on second homes and from increased planning fees; and for an extra £2 billion on education, including for special educational needs and disabilities. It is right that funding for local government is rebuilt after the consequences of the 2008 crash and the famous letter left by the outgoing Labour Government that they had spent all the money and there was none left. The moves forward in the areas I have mentioned through this settlement are positive and we welcome them.

The announcement that 90% of SEND service debts that councils have unavoidably built up will be met by central Government also begins to address the crisis in SEND, but I am afraid it does not finish the job. The promised SEND reforms have again been delayed. Whatever the outcome of those SEND reforms, they must not be a precursor to weakening the protection disabled children rely on and their parents expect.

Our five tests for SEND reform would guarantee that children’s rights to SEND assessments and support are maintained, and that the voices of children and young people with SEND, and those of their families and carers, remain at the centre of the reform process. Secondly, capacity in state special school provision must be increased, alongside improvements to inclusive mainstream settings. Thirdly, national Government must top up funding for each child whose needs exceed local authority provision within a given cap. The Government must get on and introduce a cap on the profits made by private sector SEND companies. Fourthly, early intervention must be improved and waiting must be times cut. Lastly, schools must be incentivised to both accept SEND pupils and train their staff.

The additional funds for housing and homelessness, while small, are welcome, including those for Somerset council in my constituency. The extra funding through the recovery grant is also welcome, but places such as Kingston upon Hull tell us that it does not go far enough and will not fill the gaping hole in financial stability that persists. It is disappointing that social housing does not get a mention in the settlement. We need a new generation of council and social rented homes. Our plans are for 150,000 per year and Shelter’s are for 90,000 per year. Both would be a good proposition. The Government’s proposal for 18,000 per year just will not meet the level of need out there.

The additional funding, along with provision for SEND deficits, will help councils like mine in Somerset to keep the council tax rise to the 4.99% norm across the country. In a cost of living crisis, people cannot afford more than the minimum increase. That is something Somerset MPs and the council pushed hard for, and I am grateful to the Local Government Minister for meeting us and engaging with us on that. It is notable that 70 out of the 74 Liberal Democrat-led councils have kept the council tax rise to the norm minimum of 4.99%. The four that are, exceptionally, going above that all inherited from their previous Conservative administrations a social care funding time bomb.

Voters will take note that Reform-led Worcestershire county council is increasing council tax to the highest level allowed in the country. Typically, Reform Members are not here to take part in the debate on local government finance. The message is clear: vote Reform and pay more tax than anyone else in the country.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech outlining how Liberal Democrat councils up and down the country are doing their best in this cost of living crisis. Oxfordshire county council finds itself in a £24 million deficit as a result of the settlement. Meanwhile, residents on the doorstep are saying to us, “What about my potholes?” He is right to point out that social care is part of that demographic deficit. [Interruption.] Does he agree that we need to tackle the core issues and that one of those is social care, because sorting that out helps everything to do with local government finance?

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Conservative Members ask, from a sedentary position, who runs the council, but I use the phrase “inherited time bomb” advisedly. The well-respected Conservative former leader of Somerset county council, Dave Fothergill, was one of the first in the country to identify this issue. He told “Panorama” back in 2019 that adult social care was a time bomb that was ticking. That time bomb has now gone off around the country, and council tax payers are having to bail out the broken social care system.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

For Torbay council, on which I still serve, incredible assumptions are being made about the levels of council tax being collected. That results in a deficit of £13 million in years 2 and 3 for a small unitary authority. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party has been learning from the Conservatives, and is planning to balance the books of councils on the backs of local tax payers?

[Gideon Amos]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, who champions Torbay on a regular basis in the Chamber. Councils are suffering reductions in their funding settlements across the country, which is one of the reasons we cannot support the amount of support they are getting from central Government.

[Mr Betts]

There is again memory loss on the Lib Dem Benches. It was the coalition Government who made the biggest cuts to local government funding and started passing funding responsibilities over to the council tax system—that all began with the Lib Dems in the coalition Government. Why does the hon. Gentleman not apologise to the Chamber and to people up and down the country for what the Lib Dems did to them when they were in government?

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Gentleman is right that massive savings were made after the financial crash in 2008—some would say around £40 billion over the coalition years. He would be horrified to learn that the only people suggesting cuts greater than £41 billion were those in the Labour party in their 2010 manifesto, which proposed £56 billion in cuts. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, he can look at the headlines of the time: “Alistair Darling: we will cut deeper than Margaret Thatcher”. That was Alistair Darling in his 2010 Budget. Who began austerity? Who began the cuts? It was the Labour Government, who were planning to go further, faster and deeper, according to Alistair Darling, than the Liberal Democrats or the coalition did.

[David Simmonds]

I just want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees with the Labour leader of Sheffield council, who says:

“Cost pressures continue to outstrip increases in funding, both specific inflationary pressures in major service areas, particularly for care, accommodation and construction, and the increasing volume of demand in housing and care.”

Is the Labour leader in Sheffield correct?

[Gideon Amos]

I hesitate to get too involved in the politics of Sheffield.

I am concerned that we are seeing reductions in Government funding for councils across the country, particularly in the case of rural authorities, which are especially hard hit by this settlement. Rural authorities find delivering social care and other services far more costly than in tightly drawn urban areas; Somerset’s 4,000-mile road network, for instance, is a massively more onerous proposition than a network in a tightly drawn urban area.

It is inexplicable that despite a consultation that considered maintaining the remoteness funding uplift across the country and across all funding heads of local government, it has been taken away from all funding heads apart from adult social care. Why would it be less costly to provide children’s services than adult’s services in a remote, rural area? Why would it be less costly to provide flood relief and flood protection than adult services in a rural area? A whole range of really remote authorities are affected, including Westmorland and Furness, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, all of which are particularly badly hit.

Remote authorities have much greater areas to protect from flooding. I have spent recent days with families in Stathe and Burrowbridge on the Somerset levels in my constituency, where I have seen how heartrending it is for families to watch the water coming closer and closer to their homes. Some people are going to bed with the water 200 metres away, but by the time they wake up the next morning and look out of their window, it is only 20 metres away. In some of the places I visited, the water is lapping up against the houses themselves.

When Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron came down in 2013-14—the last time we had severe flooding—he promised Somerset that money would be no object. It turned out that he meant that Somerset residents’ money would be no object, because Somerset’s new rivers authority became the only one in the country not to be funded by central Government and to have to rely on local taxpayers.

When the Flooding Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), came down to Somerset yesterday, she said that Somerset will not be forgotten. I ask the Local Government Minister what extra support the Government are providing to Somerset council to deal with this flooding major incident, which could easily become a national emergency if effective measures are not taken now—and I mean in the next few days. Water levels are still rising, Minister.

Finally, we need an end to the massive expense of all this top-down reorganisation of local government where people do not want it. Forcing change on the structures of the natural communities that people know and love can only distract from the important work of reducing flooding, delivering care and all the other priorities that councils put first. No one I have met in Taunton and Wellington, in Somerset or on the levels has told me that what they really want to see is a metro-style mayor for their area coming down the road. Is spending almost half a billion on mayors really going to help any of our constituencies in the way that known, understood and strengthened local councils would?

While we welcome the limited extra funding, the settlement leaves too many questions unanswered on how SEND costs will be met. It is still going to lead to big cuts in services for rural and remote authorities, and on social care it leaves council tax payers bailing out a broken system. For all these reasons, we cannot at this stage support the settlement.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

16:10

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State, who is not in his place, for opening this debate on the settlement. I know the work that he and the Local Government Minister have led on in bringing forward this statement, and they have been strong voices for our local government colleagues. I should declare that the Secretary of State and I served at Lambeth council, and the Minister served as a councillor in Southwark, one of my neighbouring boroughs. I also want to pay tribute to the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), for the work he did with many councils to get us to the place we are at.

I know that many local authorities across England will be delighted to see that the Government are going to be covering 90% of the debt that has built up through supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities. The issue of SEND appears in all our inboxes, and it has been a big ongoing issue for many councils, regardless of which party leads them. The issue is how we continue to support some of the most vulnerable children, so we must ensure that councils are adequately funded in this area.

If we are honest, SEND costs are not of councils’ making. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), highlighted, the costs are a result of the broken system, which is finally being addressed by this Government. I hope that the Government will continue to address this issue in the upcoming schools White Paper.

One of the first things that everyone across local government asks for is certainty from the Government—certainty that authorities can make long-term investments in infrastructure; certainty that they have the funding to build the homes that we need; and certainty that they can start turning around the 14 years of under-investment in local government. I know that Opposition Members do not like to hear about it, but we saw 14 years of under-investment in SEND, temporary accommodation and adult social care. We should all welcome the first multi-year settlement in a decade, which ends the year-on-year waiting game that held back investment for too long.

This settlement has been called for not only by the current Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee but by its predecessor Committee, which was chaired by my wonderful colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). It is good to see that the Government are finally listening on this issue.

We welcome the reduction in the number of grants. We have been asking our cash-strapped councils to continually bid for small pots of money. That means officer time being taken away from frontline services. Councils are bidding for those pots when, in some cases, they will not even be successful. That is not a good use of vital officers’ time, and in some cases the councils had to justify submitting the bids in the first place. We really do welcome this crucial change.

There are two other areas I want to focus on, one of which has been raised by right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon. The reality is that even with this welcome funding, a number of councils will still face budgetary issues. The Local Government Association anticipates that more councils may apply for exceptional financial support. When we see more councils having to apply for emergency funding, there is nothing exceptional about it. We cannot have a situation where councils have to rely on emergency funding to carry out day-to-day services and to avoid declaring bankruptcy. I hope that the Government will look at this area.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I agree with what the hon. Lady is saying. I am concerned that the Government’s support package for councils such as Woking borough council—which effectively went bankrupt several years ago following Conservative mismanagement—is allowing them to borrow more money to pay off their Government loans. Does she agree that the exceptional financial support process needs to change immediately?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the hon. Member, an excellent colleague on our cross-party Select Committee, for his intervention. The Committee looked at this in our report on local government finance, and he will remember that our report stated:

“Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) by means of capitalisation direction is a stopgap measure that avoids section 114 notices and allows councils to produce short-term balanced budgets, but can weaken councils’ finances and capital investment in the long term.”

There is an issue, and we cannot keep sweeping it under the carpet and thinking that it is going to go away—it is not. In the long term, we are building more debts for those councils, which we have to look at addressing. I am pleased that the Government are going to ensure that councils applying for ESF have a wholesale root-and-branch review of how that money is to be allocated.

We know that this multi-year funding process will not solve the underlying issues facing all our councils. Another area at the heart of this issue, which I have mentioned on many occasions and on which there is growing cross-party support, is the reliance on the most regressive form of taxation to pay for mandatory demand-led services, where councils have little control over that demand. Council tax amounts to about half of the settlement total, with an assumption of the maximum increase across the board, despite the fact that the Government have little control over how much that figure will be. The Secretary of State has highlighted that in boroughs where the referendum principle will be lifted, the Government are assuming that increasing council tax will help, with some councils having to increase their council tax by over 30% just to reach their core spending powers and the figures in the settlement.

I think we all understand the challenges the Government face when it comes to balancing the books and the inheritance they were left with after 14 years. These are difficult decisions that we have to make, but let me take us back to when the former Local Government Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, told us:

“There is a real danger to the democratic process if there is not a link between the tax that people are paying and the quality of public services that they are getting in return.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 850.]

[Mark Garnier]

On exactly this point about the democratic process, my constituents were promised by the Reform candidates that they would cut council tax, but Worcestershire county council’s council tax is going up by 9%. It is a shame that not a single Reform Member of Parliament has turned up to defend what they have done. The worrying point is that we are being denied a referendum even though this goes above the 5% threshold. That bit of the democratic process has been removed from Worcestershire.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I agree. I think many residents are feeling the pinch. Yes, we have seen fantastic initiatives and new legislation from this Government, but that is not trickling down quickly enough. Many residents will be seeing their council tax bills in the next few months, and for a number of them, those bills will be going up. It is important that we look at that democratic link.

[Graham Stuart]

A £200,000 house in the East Riding of Yorkshire will be paying between £3,000 and £4,000 in council tax, depending on its 1991 valuation. A £2 million flat in Westminster will be paying £2,000. There is an opportunity to put that right. I know that the hon. Lady is from London and the Secretary of State is from London—it feels to a lot of us out in the provinces that everybody in charge is from London—but this system is so egregious and wrong. Does the Chairman of the Committee not agree that something needs to be done about this? We did not do it in our years in office, but this Government said they would have a fairer system, but it is not fair yet.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I think it is fair to say that successive Governments have put the issue of council tax in the “too difficult” box. I hope that it will fall on this Government to finally address that and bring an end to this regressive form of taxation.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that the work being done on the draft local government settlement to get us to this final local government settlement has actively put the principles of fairer funding into place? My local authority in Sandwell—the fifth most deprived local authority in the country—is getting an extra £28 million as a result of the continuation and increase of the recovery grant. That money will go on crucial services that we were deprived of in my area during 14 years of Conservative austerity. I know my hon. Friend will want to join me in welcoming the work being done by the Local Government Minister and our friends in the Treasury to make sure that the principles of fairer funding are put into place.

[Florence Eshalomi]

My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for her constituency and for her council’s needs. I think it is fair to say that the outdated and opaque previous funding settlement caused a number of issues for councils up and down the country. It is good to finally see this Government responding to that and ensuring that we have a fairer and more simplified settlement, so that our councils can get on with the day job of providing vital services for residents.

We have to be honest and ask: if councils have to impose a council tax hike just to fulfil mandatory services—going back to the question raised by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier)—where is that democratic choice for residents? If council tax is collected locally, how can it be right that what it is largely spent on is dictated by central Government? We know from the settlement today that the Secretary of State and the Minister have shown a boldness by ensuring that they continue to engage with local leaders, the Local Government Association, and cross-party colleagues and councils, to get to grips with the day-to-day issues facing local government, but I urge the Minister to continue on that road of being bold. The Government need to continue working, especially with Treasury colleagues, to properly address the growing demand on the mandatory costs that councils face, from SEND to adult social care and temporary accommodation. That demand for those core services will continue to grow no matter how much money the Government put into them.

There is a real need for a fundamental review of council tax and wider council funding. I urge the Government to go further and bring about a cross-party consensus, and to truly reform council tax and bring an end to this regressive form of taxation once and for all.

16:18

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

This settlement is supposed to deliver fair funding; that is what the formula says on the tin, but it fails the Ronseal test. Norfolk’s core spending power in the first year of the settlement is lower than the national average, and the largest increases in core spending power are going to urban authorities. This simply fails to recognise the needs of large rural counties such as Norfolk. The County Councils Network’s assessment is that rural counties and unitaries face the highest pressures, collectively amounting to £7 billion of costs by 2028-29.

[Natasha Irons]

I appreciate the hon. Member’s concerns. My constituency is an outer-London borough that has long been deemed as having inner-London support through finance, and it has inner-London problems—it is not particularly leafy, and deprivation is tough and takes a massive toll on our councils. Does he understand that addressing deprivation, the cost of housing and things like temporary accommodation are crucial for places like mine?

[James Wild]

Indeed. I am sure that if the hon. Lady catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, she will elaborate on that.

Here is my point. Perhaps the kernel of the unfairness is the lack of recognition of remoteness and its impact beyond the adjustment for adult social care. It has been removed from most of the formulae—

[Antonia Bance]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[James Wild]

I will not give way; lots of people want to speak.

This is a serious cost pressure on rural authorities that the Government have chosen to ignore. Of course, this has been compounded by the removal of the rural services delivery grant in 2025—the loss of funding that had been put in place specifically to acknowledge the high cost of rural service delivery. That was a political choice made by a very political Secretary of State.

People in Norfolk can see in plain sight how this Government view rural areas, in the light of the farm tax, the lowering of the bus funding that the previous Government had put in place, and the scrapping of road and rail schemes in our area. I ask the Minister, who is not currently in her place—I hope the Whip on the Front Bench will make a note of my question—why Ministers rejected the evidence that Norfolk and other rural authorities submitted about the additional costs that they face and the importance of remoteness.

After remoteness, there is the recovery grant, which is supposed to be a one-off formula intended to give local authorities the funding they need. The formula was meant to be replaced, but the Government have decided to continue it for the next three years. However, there is no funding for Norfolk county council, despite the allocation, and the additional element of the final settlement, supposedly being targeted at upper-tier authorities—only Labour upper-tier authorities, it seems. It is little wonder that the Institute for Fiscal Studies said:

“Maintaining…allocations of the recovery grant does not look like a principled decision”.

I think that says it all. The policy is designed to shove all funding to Labour councils. Let us be clear: this is about shifting resources away from rural areas and into unitaries.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I declare an interest: I am a Central Bedfordshire councillor. Central Bedfordshire will have to find £17 million off the back of this so-called fairer funding formula. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is nothing short of pork barrel politics?

[James Wild]

I agree. The figures simply bear that out. As a result of the settlement, council taxpayers in Norfolk—it is probably the same for my hon. Friend’s constituents—will bear the brunt through much higher council tax. Maximum council tax increases are assumed for the full three years of the settlement.

Let me touch on internal drainage boards, which are responsible for managing water levels and reducing flood risk. They play a vital national role in protecting key areas, including the prime agricultural land that is so important for our food security; yet the cost of IDBs falls on council taxpayers. In the borough council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, 40% of council tax goes towards IDB levies—costs that other local authorities do not face. Funding should reflect the nationally important role of IDBs. Additional support was introduced by the previous Conservative Government. It has been continued by this Government, but they are not uprating it with inflation to take account of the high energy costs that IDBs pay. We do not know if that support will continue in future years. If it does not, will the Minister commit to working with the local and district authority groups that have been set up precisely to find an equitable solution?

Of course, Norfolk is losing out further still because of the Labour Government’s decision to cancel the Norfolk and Suffolk mayoral election and the county council election—two political choices with which I fundamentally disagree. Not only have our elections been scrapped, but my constituents—and those in Suffolk—were due to benefit from an annual investment fund of £37.4 million a year, which the Government have now cut for Norfolk. We will lose out on £48 million in the next two years. Why? Because of decisions taken by these Ministers. It is another sign that this Government neglect the people of Norfolk.

I welcome the announcements on SEND deficits, but it is clear overall that this is not a fair funding settlement. There is an over-reliance on council tax increases for my constituents, there is no recognition of the true costs that rural authorities pay, and ministerial decisions will lock in inequalities for years to come. The Government should think again.

16:28

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

Life in my constituency is tough for many families. Too many live with the daily consequences of poverty, ill health and insecurity. Many people are vulnerable, and the impact can be soul-destroying. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for her work at Christmas time. She was the one who really started our campaign, and I pay tribute to her.

Healthy life expectancy in Knowsley is 50, and in St Helens, which is most of my constituency, it is 57, for both men and women—it was a shock when I read those figures. The call for significant healthcare support is tremendous, and starts much earlier than in some other places, but in St Helens housing and social care is integrated, which has helped with that increasing demand.

Many children do not benefit from the excitement of dance classes, gymnastics, trips out or holidays. Sadly, many are lured into county lines and drug taking. Many of our children need special educational provision, and some wait for a special and unique service. The cost can be enormous, and provision is rare and very often not local. Those children lose out, and their families watch and worry while they wait for the solution to arrive.

Revenue support grants are always complex, mysterious and hard to nail down. Added to that, 14 years of austerity did not help. St Helens borough council lost £127 million. We were capped in the poll tax, and we had to put the rates up by 2%—I was the leader of the council at the time. We were one of 21 areas that were capped. We had to deliver over £10 million overnight or we would have been surcharged. We had three months to deliver a new plan. We were very poor in St Helens.

Our councils are struggling to meet statutory responsibility in social care and SEND provision, not because of inefficiency in the councils but because the funding bears no resemblance to the actual needs of the people on the ground and the lives that they have to put up with. There are ever-growing numbers of people with complex needs, higher costs and a lack of provision. Two thirds of council funding in St Helens is spent on adult social care and children. We lost £127 million from Government, so we have either £9 million or £11 million left—that is what we have.

I have always said that we need a settlement that addresses the real pressures on health and disability, and provides care, attention, safeguarding and protection for the vulnerable, the aged, the abused and children in need. The council gets very little income from the Government now, so money has to be raised from council tax. More and more efficiencies have had to be made, but we could not get more efficient councils than those in Knowsley and St Helens. I go to the council meetings—I have been a councillor at St Helens for 39 years and I praise what I see in Knowsley. Those councils are so efficient and so focused on the people of the area. They are good employers, but they are not focused on the people who work for the councils but on how they can serve and care for local people.

Due to the deprivation of our area and the lack of assets that can be sold, which other councils have, we can raise only a fraction of the amount that councils in the south-east, London and the cities can raise. There is very little we can raise, so everything depends on council tax and our ability to be more efficient in new and different ways—what the council manages to do is ingenious.

The settlement that we were first presented with, which we consulted on, seemed fair and good, but I have to say that when the provisional announcement was made just before Christmas, I was horrified. Housing had been included in the index of multiple deprivation, but we are not suffering from that deprivation in Knowsley and St Helens. I am not saying that it should not be there, but it should certainly not be there with the weighting that it has. That is where our money went; it went down from the first figure that we were consulted on just like that. St Helens would have been high and dry, but I will not go into the details.

I have got the figures on what the impact would be for Knowsley, which are the same figures as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley. I knew that St Helens would be bad, but I could not get the figures. My hon. Friend went off and started the work, and we did what we could to get this going.

Although this is called “fair funding”, it is not fair funding, because we are all different. I have listened to what Members said about people living in rural districts, and I have sympathy. We need to have a system that really looks at what costs are the highest and what is needed. No one can criticise the people who have this extra funding now, but it will not be there forever.

Following sustained lobbying, we have 90% off our high-needs deficit. That is the deficit that we have on SEND provision. Knowsley’s high-needs deficit is tremendous—far greater than that of St Helens—so that will and does help. What goes on is just wonderful.

We will get £14.7 million through the recovery grant over the three years, but that does not resolve the problem, because it is not part of the formula. We will have to commence straight away looking at what we are going to do, because we would have been much worse off than we were already. That is just one council; I know that there will be others like it, so we need to look at that issue.

I pay tribute to Ministers for the work that has gone on, as well as local authorities, chambers and finance departments. I also pay tribute to MPs and councillors for the work that they have done. It cannot have been pleasant for them to see what they saw. Having looked at this matter, I know that they have recognised things, but we will need to look again at fair funding in the future.

I sincerely thank all those who have been involved in coming to help for some of the worst affected boroughs in the country. I can assure hon. Members that this has not been party political. We do not think like that—I certainly do not, and I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Knowsley and for Bootle (Peter Dowd) do not either. Our Benches are full of former council leaders from our area who have done this for many years. I have been in local government and Parliament for 48 years, so I know what I am talking about—I see what I am talking about—and it is not made up.

I will support this measure tonight, but that does not mean an end to the lobbying; we will obviously start again. I am sure that Ministers will listen to what other people have said. Maybe there needs to be flexing here and there, but we need to recognise the needs of each area. We cannot leave them to deprivation and deny their needs.

16:36

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

I am incredibly proud to have been a councillor until last year, because local government is the foundation of so much that matters in people’s daily lives. It keeps our streets clean, supports vulnerable families, funds social care, maintains roads, protects our environment, ensures that our children can get to school safely, keeps our bins emptied and keeps our potholes filled, but not everywhere. When councils are stretched to breaking point, it is residents who feel the strain.

I welcome the move to a multi-year settlement, which we have long argued for. Councils need certainty and to plan beyond a single financial year. That stability matters, but let us be clear: a longer settlement does not in itself fix a broken system. The Public Accounts Committee has warned that deficits could reach nearly £4 billion a year by 2027-28, and that is not sustainable.

On top of that, we now have rising demand, inflationary pressures, increases in the national living wage and the hike in national insurance contributions, and councils are expected to absorb all of this. Further, making any material changes—for example in the assumptions about the level of business rates pooling and effectively reducing councils’ funding allocation between the provisional and final settlement—will cause serious challenges for many councils, including Stratford-on-Avon district council, which could see a big cut of 5% or more of its total spending power. If I heard correctly, the Secretary of State pledged to refund those councils affected by this material change, and I would like those on the Treasury Bench to confirm that. Our constituents are the ones who are going to be impacted, and the provision of valuable local services will be affected.

I am deeply concerned about the impact on rural areas like mine. The shift to a need-and-demand model risks overlooking the real costs of delivering services across large, sparsely populated areas. Rural councils often receive less grant funding yet face higher transport costs, greater recruitment challenges and weaker public transport networks. That reality must be properly recognised in any fair funding formula.

In my constituency, I see the pressures on local government every day. Stratford-on-Avon district council, led by the Liberal Democrats, has shown what responsible local leadership looks like even in tough times. It has delivered the third highest recycling rate in England. It has rolled out natural flood management. It has installed solar panels on leisure centres to cut running costs and reduce emissions. It has allocated £600,000 to a cost of living mitigation fund to support our most vulnerable families. That is practical, sensible, community-focused governance. That is what can be achieved when councils are run competently and with a clear sense of purpose.

We can contrast that with the chaos we have seen at Warwickshire county council, now run by Reform. Last week, after a gruelling 10-hour meeting, the minority Reform administration failed to pass a budget. The Liberal Democrats put forward an alternative that would have invested £20 million in tackling child poverty, protecting youth services, improving home to school transport, and investing in infrastructure for the future. For an extra 39p a week, we could have protected services for thousands of young people and vulnerable residents. Instead, Reform doubled down on cuts that would hit families hard, including changes that could leave children walking up to five miles to school, often along unlit rural roads. Reform and the Conservatives combined to block that investment, and then still could not agree a budget of their own, leaving the council in limbo. This Tory-Reform stitch up is costing residents in Stratford-on-Avon and across Warwickshire. As we look ahead to local reorganisation in Warwickshire, these choices matter even more.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

On the point about Reform councils and the promises they made and the reality of that, in Lancashire they are trying to balance the books by initially consulting on closing 10 care homes and day centres and narrowing that down now to just the day centres. Does the hon. Member share my surprise that Reform MPs are not here to defend their record on what they promised versus the reality of a Reform-led council?

[Manuela Perteghella]

Yes, the Reform Benches are empty, as we all can see and as the British public can see, and this is really important because, as I have said, local government is the foundation of our places. It gives us our civic pride in our areas and is on the frontline of delivering services, so this is really disappointing, and there is chaos in Warwickshire; we are still without a budget. Stratford-on-Avon district council has made a clear case for a south Warwickshire unitary authority that reflects the real communities and keeps decision making closer to residents. Reform is pushing for a single county-wide super-authority that would centralise power, moving it further away from local people. At a time when trust in politics is fragile, we should be strengthening local democracy, not weakening it. We must keep local government local.

Local authorities are ready to play their part in delivering growth, tackling the climate emergency, insulating homes, improving air quality and building the infrastructure that our communities need, but they cannot do so if they are permanently firefighting. If we are serious about having strong communities and a strong economy, we must get local government finances right and not defund rural councils. We need to support them, so that they can deliver for their residents, rather than leaving them to pick up the pieces of national Government failure.

16:45

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I first congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government on this settlement; it is a welcome change. I also thank the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), for his work in both opposition and government to get us to this better place.

I am now the deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, and we recently produced a report on local government funding. I want to read out our cross-party conclusions:

“Local government finance is in a perilous state…Funding has not kept pace with population growth, demand for services, complexity of need, or the rising costs of delivering services. As demand for targeted services such as social care, special educational needs, and temporary accommodation has grown, there has been a significant reduction in spending on commonly used discretionary services, such as street cleaning and lighting, parks and gardens, and leisure services.”

That is a truth that councils up and down the country have experienced and dealt with for many years.

I congratulate councillors of all parties, in all councils across the country, for how they have performed during the years of austerity—they have continued to work, and to deliver efficiencies that some central Government Departments, as the PAC can testify, would do well to emulate.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State and his ministerial team for listening to my representations and those of my council. My experience of Tory Secretaries of State is that having them listen, let alone act, is about as rare as rocking-horse dung. The Opposition, who did not properly fund local government for 14 years, are now complaining and whinging about the position we are in. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is their responsibility, not the responsibility of this Government?

[Mr Betts]

Absolutely. I think that goes for both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, as my hon. Friend will understand.

This Government clearly face a serious situation, and we must say that they have got some things very right indeed. First, we have the multi-year settlement, which has been called for, cross-party, for many years—it was certainly something that we called for when I was on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and the Committee is again calling for it now. It is good that we have one; it gives councils a degree of certainty, so that they can look to the future and plan ahead.

Fair funding has always been a subjective term; one side will say that something is fair funding, and the other will say that it is not. I just point out to the Opposition that Greg Clark, when he was Housing Secretary 10 years ago, promised a fair funding review on behalf of the then Conservative Government. However, we are still waiting for that review in 2024. The Opposition had their chance, but they did not take it. We now have a review to deal with the simple matter of some figures and data in the funding settlement being at least 20 years old.

[Natasha Irons]

I join colleagues in thanking the Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government for their work on this matter. We talk about outdated data; places like my Croydon East constituency, in an outer-London borough, have been treated as though we have an endless pot of cash, or are endlessly wealthy. However, my constituency has pockets of some of the highest deprivation in the country—an issue that this funding formula seeks to address. Does my hon. Friend agree that this fresh approach, which brings an end to Tory austerity, is exactly what our councils need?

[Mr Betts]

I certainly do. My next point was going to be that deprivation is properly recognised in the funding settlement. The problem is that councils that have deprivation either across their area, or in part of it, have borne the burden of the cuts over many years. Under previous Governments, both coalition and Conservative, councils with the greatest need—which previously had the largest grants to reflect that need—faced the biggest cuts. This funding settlement gives the biggest increases to councils that faced the biggest cuts under the last Government; we are getting some restitution for the funding reductions that we suffered. The recovery grant is right, because councils need recovery when their funding base has been decimated, after grants that they needed were taken away from them. My one challenge to my hon. Friend the Minister is that the recovery grant lasts for three years, so there is a danger of a cliff edge in 2029, when those councils that now get it may suddenly lose it. The Minister is obviously trying to think ahead, which makes a change from previous Ministers, so let us start to think about that problem before it hits us.

I welcome the settlement for Sheffield. I think the comments made by the leader of the council—which is a cross-party council—were about the council’s concerns and the challenges it faced prior to this funding settlement. The finance director of Sheffield council has said that

“The figures announced in the LGFS back up the Government’s commitment to redressing the unequal cuts seen during the austerity years of the previous Government, and its aim to deliver more funding to deprived areas of the country.”

I think that is a fair statement from the officer responsible for the council’s finances. In this funding settlement, Sheffield has got about £55 billion more over three years than was anticipated under the previous proposals, which sort of fills the hole. In the past, we have been making cuts to essential services, but for the first time in 15 years, we can start a budget process without immediately looking at cuts to those services. Year after year of cuts—that has been the situation. Now, the budget can be balanced without those cuts, which is a fundamental change. We can start to look at some improvements and preventive measures for the future that will bring about the sort of change we all want. I say well done to the Government for getting us to that position.

I also say well done to the Government for dealing with the ringfences—not just in the Minister’s Department but across Government, whether they be in transport, health or education. There are ringfences all around that restrict local councillors’ ability to do the right thing for their communities, so it is good that the Government have moved in the right direction. The current Select Committee and previous Select Committees have called for that change, and the Government have listened. To be fair, when Michael Gove was Secretary of State, there was an agreement that this needed to happen, but not much evidence that it did happen. I think we have moved in the direction that everyone wanted us to take.

This settlement is a good start. It steadies the ship after the cuts that councils with higher levels of deprivation have had to suffer, and it brings in a strong element of fairness. Now, I am going to challenge the Minister—I know she would not expect me to be completely complimentary. I come back to the point that the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), made about the need for change. This is a good start, but there is a need for radical change. We came in with a manifesto of change; we have a large majority, and with willingness, we can deliver on it.

There are major issues in social care. I am still disappointed that we will not make changes to social care funding until 2029, after the review. I think we could make them more quickly. We are clearly moving on special educational needs and disabilities, but we need to move on children’s social care as well. There are things that some councils can do to help themselves; for example, Warrington council has started to build its own children’s home, so that it does not have to send children to very expensive private homes.

[Gideon Amos]

We may not agree on the cuts, which began in 2009, but the hon. Member has not yet touched on the removal of the remoteness uplift. Does he agree, in a cross-party spirit, that including a remoteness uplift just for adult social care, but not for children’s services or any other services, is contrary to common sense, and affects remote rural authorities more than others across the country?

[Mr Betts]

I will not go through every detail of this settlement. There is always a balance to be struck in local government settlements, and Ministers have to make their own judgments about that. It is the overall impact that I want to judge the settlement by. For me, this is a fairer settlement for those authorities with high levels of deprivation and some of the worst cuts in the years of austerity.

[Mr Snowden]

It is all very well to say that this is a fair settlement. On balance, councils that have Labour constituencies benefit from it, and councils that are represented by Conservative Members do not. The fairness can be derived from that.

[Mr Betts]

First, there are many more councils with Labour MPs. It might be the case that Labour MPs represent councils with higher levels of deprivation. That might be the simple explanation.

[Danny Beales]

I am an MP with a Conservative council, and a colleague from the Conservative Croydon council area—[Interruption.] Conservative Members cheer; unfortunately, it is a bankrupt Tory council, but luckily this Government are stepping in, have followed the deprivation and the need, and are properly funding that council, regardless of its political colour.

[Mr Betts]

Absolutely. Councils should be funded according to need, not according to political representation. [Interruption.] Before Conservative Members start, I do not know whether they are old enough to remember Dame Shirley Porter and Westminster council, and how they were stuffed with money over visitor nights, just to ensure Conservative victory at the local elections. But we will move on from that. That was a long time ago.

I say to the Minister that these are big challenges that need to be addressed. We have to get to grips with them. We also have a local government finance system that is fundamentally broken. The Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee commented on that in her excellent speech. Moreover, the Select Committee in the previous Parliament made the same recommendations as her Committee did. In the modern age, how can we continue to fund local authorities using a council tax system based on valuations from 1991? It is nonsensical. It is not sustainable. Imagine asking someone how the value of their new house had been arrived at, and them saying, “Well, this is a guess at what it would have been worth in 1991, had it been built then.” This is ridiculous, and we must change it. It is also regressive. Michael Gove, the former Secretary of State, said that the system was regressive, and it is. Poorer households pay disproportionately more in council tax. It simply is not fair.

In every year since 2010, council tax has taken a higher and higher share of local government funding, placing a greater and greater burden on that part of the funding settlement, which is regressive. When the Chancellor made commitments during the election campaign not to increase certain taxes, council tax was omitted. Therefore council tax has been going up disproportionately. It is an unfair, regressive tax that hits the poorest hardest. We simply have to do something about that.

This comes back to the democracy point that the Chair of the Select Committee made. While this is going on, poor families have to pay disproportionately more, but in terms of local government spending, more is going on social care, homelessness and special education needs—the things that are really important, but which most people do not receive. That means that most people, particularly those on lower incomes, are paying more tax every year and getting less in services, because of the cuts to other services, as the Public Accounts Committee recognised. That is not sustainable. It undermines trust in local authorities. People say to me, “The council has put up my council tax, but I am getting less for it.” This really has to change.

[Mr Brash]

In Hartlepool, 70% of every penny the council spends is on social care, and my constituents pay, as a proportion of their property value and as a proportion of their income, far, far more than the more affluent areas of the country. As my hon. Friend has said, they do not receive the services that they need. Is it not time to abolish the council tax system?

[Mr Betts]

The reform needed is so fundamental that the system would not be recognisable from what we have now. That is how we have to try to move forward.

We were promised business rates reform, but what we have had so far is not reform, but some minor changes. Yes, we have had good changes to try to help pubs and leisure facilities, but it is not fundamental reform. We could look at what Denmark and Australia have done to reform their whole system of council finances based on land values. That is one alternative. Let us at least have a look at it. Let us at least accept the need for change, even if we cannot agree at this point on precisely what that change should be.

In bringing about that change, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we should look at giving local authorities more power to determine their own levels of taxation. We are an outlier in Europe in how centralised our local government finance system is. That is another challenge. It partly comes from the great inequalities we have between different parts of the country, which are much greater than in most other European countries. I welcome the ability for councils to introduce a tourism tax, but that is a minute step towards more say for local councils about the money they can raise. It is a welcome but very small step.

I congratulate the Minister on the reforms and improvements to the existing system. Those are welcome, and my city and my constituents welcome them. However, big challenges lie ahead in making more fundamental reform to the system and giving more powers back to local councils to determine what money they can raise. The Minister will probably not stand at the Dispatch Box today and say, “We completely agree. We are going to get on with it,” but the Government should at least start thinking about it.

17:01

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I will keep my comments brief, and they will be focused on council tax. The reason they will be brief is that I was hoping to intervene earlier on the Secretary of State. He said that he did not want to dodge difficult topics and wanted to talk about promises, but he did not take an intervention from me, probably because he knew what was coming.

I will talk about broken promises and about difficult topics. The primary one affecting my residents right now across Bromsgrove and the villages, as well as people across Worcestershire, is the Government’s collusion with Reform to hike council tax by a staggering 9%. That will be the highest council tax increase that Worcestershire county council has imposed on its residents. It will likely be the highest increase in council tax across the country this year, and it is reprehensible, because prior to the general election in 2024, the Labour party stood clearly on a manifesto that said it would freeze council tax. Labour Members know as well as I do that they have no will to deliver that.

[Mr Brash]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Bradley Thomas]

I will not give way, because the Secretary of State would not give way to me. I will not give way and be lectured to by Labour MPs who are not upholding their promises.

The Government stood on a manifesto to freeze council tax, knowing full well that they would not be able to deliver that. Worse still, last May, prior to the local elections, the Reform party stuffed leaflets through the doors of residents across Worcestershire and across the country pledging that it would cut council tax. Reform spoke about this DOGE—Department of Government Efficiency—programme for local government. It is interesting that not a single Reform Member of Parliament is here in the Chamber today to defend their record.

Where is this DOGE programme? Why has it revealed nothing? Reform thought that it could turn the sofa upside down, give it a good shake and £100 million would fall out. Well, that did not happen. Instead, I can tell the House what has happened in Worcestershire. Since last May, the overspend by the Reform administration has been £100 million. As a result, it has come cap in hand to the Government for emergency funding and for a council tax rise way in excess of inflation and of the 5% threshold for a referendum.

[Mark Garnier]

My hon. Friend and neighbour is raising incredibly important points about how our constituents were promised that their council tax would be cut and have been royally let down by Reform councillors. Can I embarrass my hon. Friend? It is worth remembering that many Conservative district councils do well. My hon. Friend led Wychavon district council within the last 14 years, and for five years it was deemed the most financially resilient district council in the country, and at the same time it did not increase council tax by a single penny. That is what Conservative councils deliver.

[Bradley Thomas]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour; he is far too generous. I was leader of Wychavon district council in south Worcestershire for five years, and we proudly froze council tax for five years consistently without cutting a single service. Local government is lean. It can be run efficiently and effectively without duping the taxpayer.

But let us return to that dupe. The Reform administration on Worcestershire county council went cap in hand to the Government, and the Government have granted it emergency funding. They have agreed and, in effect, colluded with Reform. Two parties have agreed to put up council tax for residents when both had promised that they would not do so, and Worcestershire residents are paying the price. My message to the Minister is very clear: if we want to maintain trust and integrity in politics at all levels, it is important for such promises to be stuck to and abided by, or else not to be made in the first place.

Most importantly of all, in the last 48 hours more than 1,100 Worcestershire residents have signed a petition opposing this increase. It is crucial that the issue goes to a referendum, and that the people of Worcestershire have their say.

17:05

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

May I start with the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), who did not give way when I asked him to? I will happily give way in a moment should he wish to correct the record, but he said that the 2024 Labour manifesto on which we stood promised to freeze council tax. No such promise exists in that manifesto, and I invite him now to correct the record.

[Bradley Thomas]

Residents across the country knew ahead of the general election that the Prime Minister had made various very public pledges that the Labour party would freeze council tax should it come to office. If there is a mistake on my part and those words were not in the manifesto, I apologise for that, but—here I return to my point about trust in politics—if we want residents across the country to have faith in the political system, it is important for politicians to stand by their promises, whether they are written in a manifesto or uttered on television.

[Mr Brash]

I would say that if we want there to be trust in politics, we need to be accurate in what we say in this place, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s correcting the record.

The Minister understands exactly what I am going to say. I know how sympathetic and supportive she is in this respect, and I hope that in the coming days we will be able to deal with the issue that I am going to raise. I thank her for her support in recent weeks.

I want to be clear about what Hartlepool is facing, and about why I cannot regard the current settlement to be fair and also believe it to be self-defeating. Hartlepool now has the third highest number of children in care in England. That pressure has been made worse by other local authorities placing families in my town, leaving us with a £6 million overspend in children’s social care alone. My brilliant Labour council has already taken decisive action, halving that projected deficit in-year and establishing a robust, credible plan to eliminate it entirely. That plan is exactly what the Government say they want to see: it means fewer children coming into care, more early intervention, stronger families and better outcomes. It includes strengthened early help and family support, a dedicated edge-of-care team, a refreshed in-house foster care model, safe reunification pathways, wholesale SEND reform, enhanced support for care leavers, and better workforce planning. This is a serious, preventive change, not a sticking plaster solution.

But here is the problem: these reforms require short-term stability to succeed. The settlement does not recognise the sheer number of children in care in my constituency. It undermines prevention, which means that we are likely to see more children in care, more long-term costs, and worse outcomes. That is why I see this settlement as self-defeating. Ministers will rightly point to percentage increases in funding, but those percentages mean far less in Hartlepool than they do almost anywhere else, because our baseline is already so low. The cost of a child in care is exactly the same in Hartlepool as it is anywhere else.

When we look at it in cash terms, the reality is stark. The increase in the Government grant for Hartlepool this year is just £3 million, which is equivalent to funding around six children in care. After weeks of discussions and representations, the final settlement for Hartlepool has remained unchanged, yet down the road—this sticks in the craw for me—Reform-led Durham county council has received an additional £3.7 million this year, which means that it is reducing the amount by which it is increasing council tax. The increase in Durham’s final settlement is more than our entire increase this year. I cannot describe that as fair funding.

As we have heard from many Members from across the House, the unfairness is compounded by a broken council tax system. Hartlepool has one of the weakest tax bases in the country, with a high proportion of homes in band A. A 1% increase in council tax in Hartlepool raises a fraction of what it raises in wealthier areas, yet our residents already pay far more, both in real terms and as a share of their income, than those living almost anywhere else in the country. The settlement simply does not change that reality.

Governments of all stripes talk about core spending power, but half of that core spending power is achieved by raising council tax. That hammers the poorest communities the most, and it is a regressive tax. That is not fairness; it is entrenched inequality. To make matters worse, changes to deprivation measures and population assumptions mean that Hartlepool’s needs are being systematically underestimated. Official forecasts put our population at under 94,000, yet the Office for National Statistics data shows that it is already closer to 100,000—growth that is driven in large part by other councils discharging their homelessness duties into my constituency. Hartlepool is not asking for special treatment; we are asking for support to deal with a problem that is not of our making.

[Mr Snowden]

The hon. Member is touching on an important issue that affects a lot of councils across the north of England, including Blackpool, which neighbours my constituency. Larger metropolitan areas are effectively exporting their children-in-care problems to much cheaper areas, such as Blackpool and Hartlepool, which the hon. Member represents. Some kind of restriction on how far councils can move children who are being put into care might stop the dumping of children in care in areas where housing is cheaper.

[Mr Brash]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments, and I endorse them wholeheartedly. I have heard stories of London boroughs and Birmingham city council putting families in taxis with the threat, “Get in the taxi, or you’re homeless.” They do not know where they will get out at the other end, and they discover that they are in Hartlepool only when they arrive. It is left for our council to deal with the pressure and the additional SEND needs, and for our council to deal with the children, who sometimes end up in care. It is a disgraceful practice that should rightly be cracked down on. I know that the Minister is alive to this problem, and it needs to be dealt with.

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

I thank both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for their comments. My hon. Friend is rightly talking about the financial consequences. Does he think—as I do, and as I am sure the hon. Member for Fylde does—that the abysmal outcomes for children are what we should care about? I am sure he agrees with me that this issue ought to be a priority.

[Mr Brash]

I absolutely agree. Just this week, there have been stories in my local press about a family with children who have been moved to a place where they have no connections, no familial links and no understanding of the local community. The Minister is absolutely right: those children are suffering as a result of the behaviour of councils.

[Natasha Irons]

I want to add my voice on this point. In Croydon, we find ourselves in a similar situation, in that inner London boroughs put their children into our part of London because the housing is slightly cheaper. I also have constituents who have faced exactly the situation that my hon. Friend outlined: being threatened with homelessness, with the council discharging its duty, if they do not take a placement in Birmingham. In some cases, that means people losing their job, their children losing places at school, and losing all connections with their family. There needs to be a holistic look at how we support councils to keep families locally, but also at how we prevent councils having to pick up the tab for these terrible situations.

[Mr Brash]

I absolutely endorse all that; part of that work needs to be taking a very close look at the funding settlement. We need to look at whether councils that may have done very well out of the settlement are still moving people out of their areas, even when they have extra finances from this Government.

[Mr Snowden]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way, as he gives me a chance to respond to the Minister as well as to himself. As a former police and crime commissioner for Lancashire, I saw at first hand the impact on communities of cities miles away in effect dumping children into high crime, high deprivation areas simply because the housing is cheaper. Dealing with the damage that has on children’s life chances—let alone the impact on communities already struggling with regeneration by adding to the problems—is paramount. I would be more than happy to meet the Minister and the hon. Member to discuss how we take forward this issue not only on the Fylde coast, but across the north.

[Mr Brash]

I will take up the hon. Member on that invitation. He mentioned Blackpool, and I know that the Members who represent Blackpool and Stoke—in the top three areas for the number of children in care—would also be very interested in his offer.

Without support to deal with the gap in our in-year funding for children’s social care, the risks are clear: prevention will fail, costs will rise, and vital community services such as youth provision, libraries and community hubs will be under threat. I fully support my Labour council colleagues, who have been clear that they are not prepared to make those cuts, which would be so self-defeating in the round.

This is a moment of profound seriousness for my constituency. Hartlepool has a plan for children’s social care that is aligned with the Government’s agenda, but we now need a settlement that gives us a fair chance to deliver it. I have spoken today with our council leader and colleagues in Hartlepool, and they are distraught, despondent and profoundly worried about what the future holds—in just a matter of days, when the budget is due to be set in Hartlepool—so I appeal to the Minister for any piece of support she can give me.

17:17

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

The settlement is unfair, and it is a disaster for my constituents. Wokingham borough council is already the lowest funded unitary authority per capita in the country, as it was under the Conservative Government for more than 10 years. As a result of this so-called fair funding review, the Labour Government are cutting a further £43 million from Wokingham borough council’s budget.

Wokingham is a Liberal Democrat-run council, and it has done its best over the last four years to balance the books while coping with massively growing adult social care costs. When I was leader of the council, I tried to improve the settlement, and my successor has continued to do so. These cuts will drive councils that are already struggling with rising costs for social care and children’s services to possible breaking point.

For 2025-26, Wokingham borough council allocated 39% of its budget to adult social care and 25% on children’s services. So much of the council’s budget is allocated to vital statutory services provided to residents, whether that is supporting SEND education, home-to-school transport or social care for vulnerable adults. The Government’s cuts to funding will have significant implications for these services—implications that need to be to be grappled with and planned for by councils. The settlement, though, provides little information for local authorities such as Wokingham on how to manage SEND costs until 2028, or on how existing deficits, which increase every day, will be resolved. I urge the Government to provide a clear timeline for when councils will receive certainty on the SEND deficit. Without a clear timetable, responsible financial planning is not possible.

We cannot just consider short and medium-term solutions. I have spoken to many local care providers, and I have seen through casework that there is a real problem with spiralling provision costs and availability. The Government must bring forward a fully funded long-term plan for adult social care reform, ensuring that local authority funding settlements are not determined by the escalating costs of a social care system that is bankrupting councils and placing unsustainable pressure on the NHS. Action needs to be taken now, after years of Conservative neglect.

From 2016, David Cameron and the five subsequent Prime Ministers promised reform to adult social care, and yet they achieved nothing. Ultimately, the Government need to re-think their fair funding review 2.0 if they want to avoid starving councils like Wokingham of much-needed cash to run their vital services.

17:20

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

After 14 years of the Tories and coalition Governments, councils like mine in Knowsley were cut to the bone. When I was elected, my constituency was the third most deprived constituency in the country—we did not just experience pressure; we were absolutely stretched to breaking point—and deep and sustained cuts went hand in hand with a huge and rising demand for services. That is the legacy the previous Government left behind: unfair, fragmented and underfunded, and stacked against places like mine.

I welcome that the Labour Government are taking a fundamentally different approach, and one that sees local councils as part of the solution to rebuilding Britain, not part of the problem. It marks an important change, far from the days of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), boasting at a summer garden party in Tunbridge Wells about changing funding formulas to divert public money away from deprived urban areas like Knowsley; those days are over. Instead, areas like mine—those hardest hit by historic funding cuts—will see greater investment, based on need and deprivation.

I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for listening to me, to my colleagues in this place—including my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), who is in her place next to me—and to all those across the Liverpool city region, as well as to my council’s representations on the provisional settlement consultation, which would not have met the challenges we face in Knowsley. It was absolutely right that they engaged with us constructively and worked to address issues that would have left Knowsley struggling.

In Knowsley, after being battered by the Tory and coalition Governments and austerity for so many years, the pressures we face remain very real. People really need to feel better off in their everyday lives, with improved public services, children’s services and adult social care. They really need to feel the benefit of a Labour Government to truly demonstrate that austerity is over. We need to more, and I echo the words of so many of my Labour colleagues about the regressive nature of council tax.

Labour Governments invest in and improve lives in communities like mine: youth provision that gives young people safe places to go; positive role models and real opportunities; better support for the children who need it; help for families who have too often been left fighting the system alone; community spaces and parks, so we can feel pride in place and in where we live; and living high streets, libraries, leisure centres and more. I know the Government are committed to doing that for Knowsley and I know that progress takes time, so today I celebrate, but tomorrow—it will be no surprise to the Minister to hear this—I will fight again for better still.

I want to pay heartfelt tribute to Knowsley’s council leader, Councillor Graham Morgan, who was first out of the traps on what we needed. He has been relentless throughout the consultation, making the case for not just my borough but the whole of the Liverpool city region, standing firm to ensure that the settlement is fairer. His persistence and counsel, along with that of colleagues across Knowsley, gave me the arguments and evidence I needed to stand up for our community in this place. It was true teamwork in action—the benefits of Labour MPs and a Labour council working together. I also want to put on the record the work of our metro mayor, Steve Rotheram. He, too, fought for a fairer settlement for our city region with passion, clarity and determination.

This is the start of the road to a brighter future for Knowsley. Today marks a clear turning point from austerity, instability, cuts and neglect under the Conservatives to investment, fairness, partnership and certainty under Labour. I welcome the change of direction, but I will continue to fight for more and for better every single day for my constituents.

17:26

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, which has had a number of distinguished contributions, not least from the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley). As she rightly said, at a time when the cost of living is biting so much on so many, people really need to feel better off.

The hon. Lady also highlighted the regressive nature of council tax, which is why it is so regrettable that this settlement is built on the basis of putting up council tax on everyone. It is exactly what the previous Labour Government did, too; they doubled the level of council tax over their 13 years in office. In contrast, over the 14 years of the Conservative Government, council tax grew only a little more than inflation, as it was held down for many years, although it did go up and down over time. That is the history: Labour puts up council tax. Its spokespeople speak about how terrible and regressive it is, and then in government it visits that on people in constituencies across the country.

The Government have used the expected 4.99% annual rise in council tax in all their figures to claim that there will be increased spending power. That is based on sticking up tax by 5%, and then another 5%, and then another 5%—it is compounding.

[Mr Brash]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a while.

The impact for those in the cheapest or lowest-value homes in the East Riding—very often people in rural areas, with poorly insulated homes, costly transport and low income—will, by year three, be £200 a year out of already taxed income. That is the reality of what this Labour Government are visiting on poor people in my constituency and other constituencies around the country, while they crow about it being fair. There is nothing fair about it.

The local government finance settlement will mean only one thing for families in Beverley and Holderness: higher council tax bills, at a time when every other bill is soaring—thanks, again, to this Government. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is signing up for the most expensive deals imaginable and putting up the price of energy, while the jobs tax—one of the most economically irrational taxes imaginable—taxes jobs and brings in no money, because employers simply employ fewer people. That is what that £26 billion hit on the economy comes down to.

[Mr Brash]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman, but I will make a little more progress first.

I know the reality from talking to my constituents. Jenny in Cherry Burton says that she cannot really afford to shop for healthy food as half her money is gone before she even gets home, forcing her to make choices that no family should have to make simply to get through the week. Andrew in Beverley faces rising energy bills, which I have touched on, and rising food prices, all while supporting his two children, who are at university and cannot find part-time work; previously, they would have done, but now they cannot find part-time work because those jobs have tended to disappear. There are fewer and fewer opportunities for young people to get on the jobs ladder and, for those at university, to supplement their income while they pile on student debt, which will only go up even more as time goes on.

These are not abstract pressures but lived realities, and this settlement will pour on yet more misery. The Prime Minister says that every minute not spent talking about the cost of living is a minute wasted, but warm words do not warm homes.

[Mr Brash]

The right hon. Member made a point about core spending power. I share his irritation at the use of core spending power, because such a large percentage of it is in council tax, but it was introduced in 2016 by the last Conservative Administration. The concept of core spending power including council tax was introduced by the Conservatives. What did he say about it at the time?

[Graham Stuart]

I do not remember the specifics of that, but I can say that, whereas the last Labour Government doubled council tax despite it being regressive, that did not happen under the Conservatives, whatever introductions there were. Those taxes were held down, because that is what conservatives do. They recognise that it is better to leave money in the pockets of people to make their own decisions, not take it away from them.

Families across the East Riding are now asking a very simple question, because they know that promises do not pay bills. How will this local government finance settlement, and the £200 council tax bombshell that follows it, help them cope? Let us be clear about what is happening: the Chancellor underfunds, councils are squeezed, council tax rises, and families pay. Council tax is, as many Labour Members have said, regressive. The lower the income, the heavier the burden. The smaller the home, the sharper the hit. At the very moment that household budgets are tightest, this Government tighten them further.

Nowhere is that clearer than in social care. In the first Budget since Labour came into office, the Chancellor allocated over £20 billion to health. Why did they not recognise that so many of the problems in the NHS actually come from the failure of funding in social care? It could so easily within the same spending envelope have eased the pressure on the NHS by better funding social care so that to keep those who are ready to leave hospital from occupying the beds that they do—they have for the past few years, and they do today.

The Government did not put sufficient additional money into social care, and in Beverley and Holderness, with an ageing population and rising adult care needs, that imbalance matters. Instead of funding care properly at source, Ministers shift the cost on to council tax payers—and then they claim that they have fixed it.

I saw the real-world cost of squeezed council budgets when I visited Sunk Island last month. On Sunk Island Road and Brick Road, residents endure patch upon patch of repairs that are never truly repaired. They are paying more yet still waiting for lasting fixes. This is the pattern: more tax, less certainty, higher bills, patchwork results.

Government should strengthen communities, not squeeze them, so I ask the Minister: when families are stretched to breaking point, why is this Government’s answer yet another bills hike? In Beverley and Holderness, the only change that this Government appear to deliver is the small change left in people’s pockets after the Chancellor has emptied them.

[Ms Rimmer]

What can councillors do to fund the statutory duties? People were given much better in the past, but we have to ration the services. They are quality services, and the integrated health has helped us with our social care. I do not want to go into party things, but the fact is that, under the Conservatives, St Helens lost £127 million a year from the support grant. We were left with something like £9 million or £11 million from the Government—that is all it was.

The only way councils can get the funds to provide services is from the Government and income to the councils. Where should we get the funds from? We have no assets to sell, and we get very little. Yes, we have low-paid jobs, so it is a hike, but what we should be doing is taking it from the broadest shoulders; they should be bearing the burden. It is inappropriate and incompatible that the people on the lowest pay the biggest proportion of their incomes on the necessities of life, while others have mansions—some people have a cottage and nothing else. We do not all have a mansion in London, so we need to look at wealth.

[Graham Stuart]

I thank the hon. Lady, who always speaks passionately and with deep knowledge of her community. As she says, she does not make unnecessary party political points.

The one thing that unites the House, including the Government Front Bench, is a recognition that the funding system is broken. I spent many years campaigning, across different funding pots, on the distribution. Everyone looks at the quantum, but they do not look at the distribution. It is easy to get into a world of complexity, and the number of people who turn up for meetings on distribution gets very small, but it is actually critical. We need a new funding settlement, and how we deliver that, given the political realities, is to go in early and hard. Unfortunately, this Government have not done that. They are delaying and delaying, and as their political potency weakens, it becomes harder and harder to deliver. It is a bit like the police reorganisation we touched on earlier today. It is unlikely to happen in the dribs and drabs of a Government who are struggling.

We need a long-term settlement that is based on need. There is no perfect assessment of that, but what we have is complexity, as we heard in the brilliant speech from the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on the Lib Dem Benches earlier. The system has elements about how many pubs there are and what some level of cost was in 1991 and all sorts of other things. The truth is that, in this most fundamental set of services—my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) rightly identified 800 of them—for the constituents in the deprived areas of the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) and in mine, nobody can see the transparency. Perhaps we should look on the Back Benches initially for a cross-party view on building a fairer funding system.

There is one more thing, and I do not know why no one has talked about it very much in my 21 years in this place. The fact that a £200,000 house in Beverley pays a lot more council tax than a £2 million flat in central London is absurd, and very rarely does anybody mention it. We need to fix things, but if we cannot fix something as absolutely inexcusable as that—and, collectively, we have not—it is no wonder the public are looking at us so askance.

I would be happy to talk to the hon. Members for St Helens South and Whiston and for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and others to see where we can make some common ground on having a more rational system, because at the end of all this, the complexity and lack of transparency end up in social failure. As the hon. Lady rightly and passionately says, it is those who are the most vulnerable and the least able who pay the highest price, and whether that is in her part of the world or in mine, that is not acceptable. We have all come here to make it a better place, and one of the things we need to fix is this.

17:37

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

I was first elected back in 2008, when I stood in a by-election for my local town council. I was 22. It was by chance, really, that the opportunity came up to put myself forward to stand to represent my local community. As it happened, I beat the headteacher of the local high school in that by-election. Up until recently, it was my favourite election win. I went on to stand for the district council a few years later, and a few years after that, I stood for Norfolk county council.

I ended up spending more than 12 years in all three tiers of local government in Norfolk, and what I found was a world of local government officers and local councillors working incredibly hard to serve their local communities and trying to save money and almost work the impossible by constantly striving for efficiencies by doing whatever they possibly could. Good councils and good councillors are a real force for good. They can achieve so many wonderful things, but they are overshadowed in many ways by national Government. I want to put on the record my thanks to local government. We saw this during covid, because it was local government, particularly, that really rose to that challenge to serve.

I was elected, as I say, in 2008, and for the vast majority of my time as a local councillor, we saw cut after cut after cut. Every single February budget-setting council meeting was a constant battle to try to save money. Both councils—Breckland district council and Norfolk county council—were Conservative-led under a Conservative Government, and we were cutting services constantly. We ended up with massively weakened resilience, and the services that bound our communities together were eroded. These were not just numbers on a balance sheet. In Norfolk, it meant we were closing children’s centres, removing support for disabled people, closing the youth service in Norfolk entirely, and selling off assets. It was just this constant battle. I understand the predicament the Government are in and have a significant amount of sympathy because it will take years to undo those constant cuts and the eroding of that resilience; it will not be easy to turn that around.

I want to make three points to the Minister. The first is about rural services. I am proud to represent South West Norfolk, a very rural constituency. I cover half of two districts: Breckland, and King’s Lynn and West Norfolk. They are very rural councils, and it is expensive to provide services to a rural community. I am pleased that social care in particular is being acknowledged as expensive. Social care is particularly expensive across the whole county of Norfolk, but other district council services in rural areas are expensive too, specifically planning. We are a Government that want growth. We want growth all across the country, including in rural areas. We massively need to support planning services in rural areas to achieve growth potential and not have lingering planning applications sat waiting on determination. It is difficult to recruit planning officers for rural district councils, and that is a barrier to growth in rural areas.

The other area is housing. I have been constantly shocked and concerned about the state of housing in my constituency. There are huge issues with rural housing, such as damp, mould and draughts—all sorts of challenges that we are dealing with in my office. Housing challenges in rural areas are expensive, and we as a council often have to transport people from one end of the county to the other or out of the county because there is a lack of suitable temporary and emergency accommodation.

The second point I want to make is around hidden deprivation. The council ward I represented was, despite being in a rural area, within the top 10% most deprived in the country. We had very low wages, poor health and low skills and educational attainment. I am concerned that intense deprivation in rural areas is masked by more affluent surroundings in so many Government metrics. I hope the Government come up with a system that properly accounts for and recognises intense deprivation in rural areas and does not just look at the overall council boundary.

The last point I want to make, which was touched on by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), is about internal drainage boards. I appreciate that it is slightly niche because this is relevant only in a certain number of constituencies in the country—certainly in Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire. These critical pieces of infrastructure remove water from significant amounts of land, both residential and agricultural. If we did not have IDBs, so much of our land, particularly agricultural land, would just not be usable, and it would weaken this country’s food security.

I have dozens of IDBs in South West Norfolk, and I have spent a lot of time visiting them. They do incredible work, but the finances of councils that have internal drainage boards in their areas are experiencing great impacts. In King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council, for every pound of council tax paid, 43p goes on IDB levies. In the 2025-26 financial year, the council is spending £3.7 million just on levies. Many councils obviously do not have that expense—they are unique pressures for those areas—but the costs of IDBs have gone up a lot because the electricity cost of manning the pumps is also going up.

My constituency has the largest pumping station in Europe at Wiggenhall St Germans, and there is a network across the area. That give me the opportunity to mention a pumping station in Welney that I visited a couple of weeks ago, where I met Ken Goodyer, Patrick Clabon and Carl Nunn.

My real concern about IDBs is that the infrastructure is 50 or 60 years old, costs a fortune to maintain, and will fail at some point. We need to invest in IDB capital and revenue costs. I urge the Government to continue support for councils affected by IDBs, because it is crucial infrastructure.

17:44

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

We have heard a lot about the coalition years and austerity, to the extent that I began to wonder whether I had misread the title of the debate. Whatever the rights and wrongs of austerity, it was the conventional wisdom at the time. Had we been in coalition with Labour, I think the same thing would have happened, perhaps under another branding. At the time, I was living and working in the Republic of Ireland, which carried out a much more severe austerity, and its economy bounced back very well. Whether that was because of or despite austerity is an argument for the economists.

I thank the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for her comments about not wanting this to be a zero-sum game, taking away from some at the expense of others. I very much agree with her and other Members who said that deprived areas and inner urban areas had been unfairly treated over a very long time. I wholly agree that something needed to happen, but not at the expense of rural areas such as the one I represent.

I applaud the Government for taking action on this issue—it had been kicked down the road for many years—including by writing off 90% of SEND deficits. That must have been a difficult decision, but it had to be done; those deficits could never have been paid for by local authorities. The Government are committed to centralising SEND spending for 2028-29, but we are not sure how far that commitment will truly go. Will it cover only the high-needs block deficits, or will it reflect other costs around SEND provision, such as home-to-school transport? In counties like West Sussex, where my constituency is, SEND transport costs have risen dramatically over recent years. Those pressures do not sit neatly in one budget line; they rip across children’s services and transport budgets.

We are still awaiting clarity on what will happen with education, health and care plans. Michelle Catterson, the head of Moon Hall school, has spoken clearly about how vital EHCPs are to families. Sustainability cannot be achieved by weakening the legal right to EHCPs, or by diluting councils’ duties to fund them. I am concerned that that is about to happen. When Ministers are asked directly about what will happen to EHCP protections, the answers are far from clear. Parents must have certainty. EHCPs must not become a back-door route to cost-cutting.

I also have serious concerns about the evidential basis for elements of the settlement. My local council, Horsham district council, was initially projected to operate with a healthy surplus, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies has now flagged miscalculations in the business rate valuations, and the council’s position has been inverted into a deficit. Many councils operating with business rate pools, as Horsham district council does, have found that funding formulas did not properly account for those arrangements until very late in the process. As the District Councils’ Network has warned, changing allocations between the provisional and final settlements because of revised policy assumptions is deeply destabilising. Councils are entitled to ask on what evidential basis those formulas are constructed.

Departmental research from 2018 suggests that population is often a more accurate predictor of need than deprivation alone, yet the settlement has put all the weighting into deprivation. Why? Can we see the justifications and rationales? Deprivation exists across the country, including in rural communities, such as mine. It may be in pockets, but it is still there, and it is felt just as deeply. We know that geography is a major cost driver for councils. Rural councils face longer travel times for care workers, higher transport costs for schools, dispersed populations, thinner provider markets and recruitment challenges, yet metropolitan councils are projected to receive significantly higher per-head funding increases. In some comparisons, Government-funded spending power rises by around 20% in metropolitan areas, but just 2% in rural areas. In county areas like West Sussex, when it comes to the funding increases, approximately 98p in every pound will have to be raised locally, as opposed to just 58p for metropolitan areas, which is a terrific difference. That imbalance raises legitimate questions about fairness between places.

That brings me to what may be the most fundamental inconsistency. The Government recognise remoteness as a cost factor in adult social care, so why is remoteness not consistently recognised in children’s services, school transport and wider service delivery? How can distance and sparsity increase costs for adults, but apparently not for children? If geography drives costs—in rural counties, it definitely does—then that must be reflected consistently across all funding formulas.

Finally, the reintroduction of the recovery grant is welcome in principle, but why is its allocation still based on deprivation indicators from 2019, when more recent data exists and has been used elsewhere across Government? When millions of pounds are being distributed, councils deserve clarity that allocations reflect current realities, particularly given the economic shifts of recent years. Without that transparency, we have mistrust. Councils stand ready to work with Government, but in return they must have fairness, clarity and clear evidence.

17:49

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The final settlement for local government finance does not bring good news for Devon. Research by the Rural Services Network has shown that urban councils will have significantly more Government-funded spending power per head than rural councils.

By 2028-29, urban councils will have seen a 20% increase in Government-funded spending power, compared with an increase of just 2% for rural councils, yet on average, wages in the rural economy are lower than the national average wage. The settlement will place a significantly greater expectation on council tax payers in rural areas to cough up. Let us consider what effects that might have on residents of mid and east Devon by noting what things are already like for people living in one village in east Devon.

Dalwood is a village with a population of about 460. It is half a mile from the main road—an A road—and one of the two access routes to the village has been under water since November. I heard from one resident that the state of the road is so poor that she was charged £1,000 for car repairs as a result of negotiating the pitted, crumbling access road. She makes the point that east Devon residents pay some of the highest rates of council tax in the country. In a league of the highest rates in the country for a band D property, east Devon is rated 305 out of 350, where residents in the 350th local authority are paying the most.

The Government announced last month that they will be making available £7.3 billion for road maintenance over the next four years. When people in Devon hear numbers like that, they wonder whether officials and contractors are going to the cash machine, drawing out the money, mixing it with paste, using it to make papier-mâché and filling the potholes that way. The reality is that the money is not finding its way to Devon.

Devon has the largest road network in the country, at 13,000 km. Last March, the repair backlog for the roads in Devon alone would have required an extra £384 million. The reality is that Devon was able to spend little more than £60 million on road maintenance last year. To take another example, one resident of Sidmouth wrote to me recently to say:

“I for one have paid out for damages to my vehicles in five and a half years the sum of £5,100.”

They continued:

“Here we are living in the UK, an advanced country, with the lanes, A roads and B roads in an appalling state of repair”.

That is the context of the local government settlement as it relates to Devon.

The local government settlement has removed the remoteness uplift from the area cost adjustment. The settlement does this in all the relative needs formulas, with the one exception of adult social care. I am glad that the Government have acknowledged that adult social care costs more when it is delivered in a rural area, but they have shown themselves to be blind to the needs of rural communities by removing the remoteness uplift from other areas of local government, including road maintenance.

Councils in rural areas do not enjoy the same economies of scale as urban areas. The countryside requires more bases from which services can be delivered. It has fewer contractors and less competition. I urge the Government to think again about the remoteness uplift.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

17:54

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

The Prime Minister said that there would be no tax rises on working people. I imagine that the working people who are about to receive a £500-a-year increase in their council tax, the working people in Westminster expecting an 82% rise in their council tax, and those in Wandsworth expecting an 87% rise in their council tax as a result of this settlement will wonder if “working people” was a phrase that applied to them. Those in our business community who heard the Prime Minister say to them that a Labour Government would introduce “permanently lower business rates” will wonder where the massive rise in their business rates bill has come from.

There are things in the reports before us that give us the opportunity to make tweaks and changes, and make progress. I am grateful to the Minister for the interest that she has shown, for example, in the way that the local growth fund—the method of distribution of which is having a huge impact, particularly on colleagues in Northern Ireland—offers scope for some adjustment. However, it is very clear that the recovery grant that the Secretary of State spoke about still bears little or no relation to the pressures arising from the statutory duties on local authorities. As we have heard from Member from across the House, it leaves councils tens of millions of pounds short of the money that they need to do the minimum required of them by this Government, and that is before addressing some of the broader, more general issues.

We have two motions before us. One of them is on the report on local government finance, and the other is on the report on the referendum limit. I am sure that we have all noted the complete absence of any Reform Members in the Chamber. I pay tribute to the champions of Worcestershire, my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) and for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who spoke up for residents against an authority that, having been part of a party that promised no rises in council tax and cuts in office, is now looking to top the league table with the largest council tax rises in the country this year. It should be ashamed of its misinformation to residents during election campaigns.

Let me mention some of the things that I hope the Minister will address in her summing up. The first is what the measures in the report do to support housing delivery. We know from the recent report by Savills that 23 of London’s 33 boroughs report that the net figure for new homes being commenced this quarter is zero. Lambeth council has been very public about that, and has reported net zero new social homes. The Secretary of State and the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), are particularly familiar with that. It is clear that housing delivery is collapsing at a time when lofty ambitions are being set, and at a time when the grants for homelessness are cash-flat, as are care costs, and costs relating to vulnerable children and care leavers.

It is clear that for all the bluster, the smoke is clearing, and the mirror is not particularly shiny. The impact of the relentless rises in national insurance contributions and business rates, as well as an additional £750 million of costs to local authorities from changes to the emissions trading scheme, will put huge pressure on the ability of local authorities to deliver.

It having been said that the Secretary of State wanted to move away from a bidding process, we now hear that the funding that has been announced, without any detail, for special educational needs deficits will be the subject of a bidding process to the Department for Education, and there will be a requirement for a reform plan. It will be interesting to hear how that plan differs from the safety valve agreements that many authorities already have in place, which are reducing SEND deficits year on year.

What is clear in this settlement is that the Government are not meeting even their own standards on local government. Local democracy is paying the price, with elections cancelled and taxes relentlessly rising. This statement must be seen for what it is: it is a council tax bombshell; it is a business rates bombshell; it is part of a picture of a Labour Government who simply cannot manage the money.

18:00

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

It is my pleasure to close this debate, despite the fact that I must apologise to the House. Many Members will know that I suffer from chronic migraine, and I have been having an attack over the past couple of days, so my contribution might not be as long as it might otherwise have been. In show business and in politics, the show must go on, albeit my speech might be slightly shorter than it would have otherwise been, but I think that will be a cause of joy for many Members—[Interruption.] Calm down.

The Secretary of State and I know what a difference the hard work of councillors, frontline staff and all our mayors makes, and we pay tribute to them for everything they do for their communities, as many Members across the House have done. But we also know the consequences of the unfairness of the funding system. The last decade and a half of austerity was felt by the most deprived local authorities, because the link between funding and deprivation was broken.

The shadow Minister seemed to imply in his remarks that he thought that the link ought to simply be with statutory duties, rather than any consideration at all being taken of the impact of deprivation. I would just say to him that those communities that suffered most, that were left out for far too long and that have struggled with the consequences of deprivation will wholeheartedly disagree with him. That is why today we are restoring the link with deprivation and ending the irrational inequality of the previous funding system. We are, as many have said, providing the first multi-year settlement in a decade, we are investing in changing our public services, and we are simplifying funding for local government.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

The right hon. Gentleman has had ample time to contribute, and while I would normally give way with gusto and have a bit of political knockabout with him, today is not the day for that.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Gentleman and everybody else who has contributed today and also to thank those who contributed to the consultation on the provisional settlement and the Members who made representations to me directly. There could be no quick fixes. We cannot undo over a decade of damage overnight, but the settlement we are discussing today is our most significant move yet to make English local government more sustainable, and I am committed to going further in coming years to fix the pressures our councils are facing. The Secretary of State set out the various mechanisms that we are employing to do that in his opening speech. This Labour Government have backed local governments through action, and since coming to power we have made available a nearly 25% increase in core spending power in ’28-29, worth £16.6 billion.

I shall briefly turn to the points Members made. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) relayed the situation with regard to flooding on the Somerset levels. I send my support to his constituents and will work with the Flooding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), as required. The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), and the former Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), told me to be bold and I will try, but I look forward to their support in persuading all our colleagues in this place to vote for whatever bold solutions we come up with. Members including my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) and the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) talked about failures in children’s care, and I feel sure that we will work together on that.

Many Members talked about their experiences of councils struggling yet often achieving, despite that struggle, to provide great innovative services on lean budgets, and we applaud them all for that.

[James Wild]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I am determined not to give way, if that is okay—I think we need to bring this debate to a close. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) asks me about remoteness from a sedentary position. I have discussed this issue in detail with many Members on a one-to-one basis, and I repeat that there are other ways in which the settlement accounts for the actual costs of providing services, such as the area cost adjustment and other means. I do not agree with what has been said, but I do not want to detain the House any longer.

I had a wonderful January engaging with many Members across this House on the settlement; it was a fascinating opportunity to hear about the uniqueness of every area. I particularly thank my colleagues from Knowsley, St Helens, Gateshead and Banbury for the way in which they engaged on this settlement and contributed to how it looks today.

I thank all Members once again for their valuable contributions today. The Government are under no illusion about the scale of the challenge that local authorities face as they continue to deal with the legacy of the previous system, but our changes will make a big difference. They will get money to where it is needed most, creating a fairer and evidence-based funding system and—most importantly to me and many others—restoring the link between funding and poverty.

Question put.

18:06

Division 427

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 277

---

Labour: 272
Independent: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Your Party: 1

Noes: 143

---

Conservative: 85
Liberal Democrat: 50
Reform UK: 3
Independent: 2

Resolved,

That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2026–27 (HC 1604), which was laid before this House on 9 February, be approved.

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2026–27 (HC 1605), which was laid before this House on 9 February, be approved.—(Gen Kitchen.)

18:20

Division 428

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 279

---

Labour: 272
Independent: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Your Party: 1

Noes: 90

---

Conservative: 85
Reform UK: 3
Independent: 2

Storm Chandra Flooding

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Ferguson.)

18:32

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I am grateful for having secured this debate on the Government’s response to flooding as a result of Storm Chandra. Before I begin, I want to pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of everyone involved in the flood effort in Somerset. I would also like to take a moment to recognise the impact that flooding has on people’s mental health. Victims of repeated flooding describe living in a “permanent state of anxiety”, and this has been palpable when hearing from residents across the Glastonbury and Somerton constituency over the last few weeks. There has been a feeling of déjà vu, and of “Here we go again!”

Between 26 and 27 January, Storm Chandra, hot on the heels of Storms Goretti and Ingrid, brought exceptional rainfall to Somerset: 50 mm of intense rainfall fell across large parts of Somerset causing widespread flooding and set new 24-hour rainfall records in many parts of the south-west. Somerset council acted swiftly, and declared a major incident as 50 homes across the county fell victim to floodwater. The major incident remains in place following persistent rain over the following two weeks, with yet more rain in the forecast and high spring tides imminent. Because the ground is fully saturated, local rivers are highly sensitive to further rainfall, while five flood warnings and 11 flood alerts remain in place across Somerset. Roads are still flooded and communities are cut off.

This issue will not disappear of its own accord. Climate change pushes the extremes, and Somerset, which is so often at the forefront of climate change, will see further extreme weather, with prolonged droughts and intense rainfall becoming common. The Environment Agency projects that there will be a 90% increase in properties at risk from river and coastal flooding, alongside an increase in surface water flood risk by the 2080s. Physical damage alone is estimated at £2.4 billion annually, and it could rise to £3.6 billion annually by 2050. Insurers are set to pay out £1.6 billion for weather-related property claims made last year alone, as the UK battles with the impact of climate change. The Government response to flooding incidents such as Storm Chandra must not just focus on helping the communities currently dealing with flood water, but on how we can better protect those communities and help them to be more resilient in future. Building flood-resilient communities is desperately important and it must be a priority, because these events are getting more frequent and more serious.

Before I move on, I would like to reflect on what we really mean when we discuss resilience. Constituents in Glastonbury and Somerton are dealing with flooding with ever more regularly. Louise owns GingerFred dance studio in Langport. She told me that she has been battling the floodwater that has been lapping up against at her dance studio door for the past two weeks. Despite questioning whether she might have to move her studio, which she has been running for 14 years now—that has been some hard graft—she is absolutely determined to fight on. She wants to fight on, but she also wants to learn how she can better understand flooding, be resilient to it, and help to protect other businesses and help her community.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I say respectfully that the friendship we have had over the past few years is one that I appreciate very much. In her time here she has been assiduous and hard working on behalf of her constituents, and tonight is an example of that. She will perhaps not be aware, but the storm hit Northern Ireland with ferocity and our schools had to close. The aftermath saw the loss of even more trees, which have taken a hammering in an unending list of named storms. That loss has had an impact on our natural flood defences and that was very clear in the aftermath of Storm Chandra. Does she not agree that natural flood defences need to be shored up, or we will create an unsolvable problem for the very near future?

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and for his intervention. Indeed, nature-based solutions and natural flood defences are absolutely important—I know that the Minister is also an advocate for them—and I will come on to that later on in my speech.

In this place, I have advocated for communities to receive the support they need to develop their own bespoke extreme weather resilience plans. I pay tribute to the tireless work done by people such as Flood Mary in helping victims of flooding and raising awareness of flood risk and property flood resilience. Communities who regularly suffer flooding are resilient, but they deserve action and investment. Flood resilience in Somerset cannot be achieved on a shoestring budget and people deserve better. The Prime Minister has spoken about

“national security for national renewal”.

We must remember that resilience to flooding is part of our national security.

I thank the Minister for joining me in Glastonbury and Somerton yesterday. We visited Langport, Thorney and Drayton to see the impact Storm Chandra has had on the area. I am sure she would agree, after hearing from the farmer Mike Curtis, who took us on his tractor and showed us some of his land, that Somerset communities are resilient, but much more must be done to protect them from flooding. If flooding does happen, they must have the tools on hand and the support in place to help their communities mitigate it.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on the amazing work she does on her side of the Levels and Moors that span our two constituencies—I hope I do similar work on my side. She may be coming on to this point, but does she agree that one of the key messages I hear most strongly from residents in Stathe and Burrowbridge, some of whom have water lapping up against their houses right now as we sit in this Chamber and are frightened about what is going to happen tomorrow and the next day, especially with the long forecasts for rain, is that they need better communication, so they have the maximum information about what is happening with the Levels—when pumping will or will not start—as well as about the long-term plan that is needed after this flooding event to reduce flooding?

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I wholeheartedly agree. Every flooding incident is different and sometimes it is difficult to dictate where flooding incidents will happen, but there is certainly a lot more we can do. The Minister and I talked about the trigger points with the Environment Agency yesterday, which it has committed to looking at. I also agree that communication with local authorities and a collaborative, joined-up approach should be better.

I also feel that communities should have better real-time information on flooding. There is a really good example of that in the River Cam catchment, where flood monitors have been put on bridges and an app tracks the flow of water so that communities within the catchment are aware of any significant increase in the water levels. I hope that that can be rolled out so that our communities can be better protected and can better protect themselves in these instances of terrific rainfall.

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an exceptional speech. There was an excellent debate this afternoon in Westminster Hall on tree planting, with thoughtful contributions from a number of Members. Does the hon. Lady agree that tree planting is essential not just to biodiversity, lowering temperatures and carbon capture, but for preventing flooding?

[Sarah Dyke]

In a previous life, before being elected to this House, I was the lead member for climate change and environment on Somerset council. Somerset has a lower-than-average tree canopy cover at 8%, compared with the national average of 14%, so we committed in our 10-year tree strategy to plant more trees. There are lots of community groups doing that across Somerset, including Reimagining the Levels, which brings together volunteer networks to plant trees. I was out on Ham Hill a couple of months ago planting 3,000 trees for exactly that reason: once those trees become established, they can soak in more moisture and play their part in slowing the flow through those catchment areas. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Lady.

According to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report into flood resilience,

“the UK is not on track to be fully…flood resilient by the time”

the Flood Re programme ends in 2039. It further states that without clear standards, flood resilience is just

“a vague ambition rather than a deliverable goal.”

I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on what she means when she talks about resilience, especially at community level. Some communities have spent time and money putting in place property-level mitigations but still face flooding. How can they better understand what it means to be flood resilient?

The memories of the devastating 2013-14 floods are still painfully vivid in the minds of those who experienced them. Following those floods, the Environment Agency carried out what was, at the time, the single largest pumping operation ever undertaken in Somerset. Following flooding in January 2023, the EA once again put in place another large temporary pumping operation on the levels and moors.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this essential debate. Her speaking of 2014 reminds me of the previous great storm, which took out the railway lines in Dawlish. This January, we had three storms in quick succession, as we did last January, so there appears to be more of a pattern now —it seems to be something we can expect every year. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need more Government funds to call upon to clear up areas after they have been hit so hard by these devastating storms, as Dawlish and Teignmouth were by the storms in January?

[Sarah Dyke]

I could not agree more. We need mitigation, resilience and protection, but we also need to support our communities through the aftermath. That is absolutely crucial. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

While it is yet to be confirmed, it looks like the ongoing pumping operation this year will once again supersede its predecessors that I mentioned. What does that tell us about flooding in Somerset? Despite the Government’s claim that they are investing a record £10.5 billion in flood defences, the reality is that these problems are critical now, and they are continuing to grow. Despite that, analysis by Flooded People UK shows that capital spending commitment is at a lower annual rate than the previous capital regime.

In Somerset, we need action and investment to ensure the availability of critical assets in emergencies, when they are needed to mitigate flooding. Every £1 spent by the Government prevents £5 in damage, and means £2 in direct savings to the Exchequer, yet national flooding budgets have been cut in real terms. It is crucial that the Government invest in cost-effective strategies relating to flood preparedness, prevention, traditional flood defences and nature-based solutions, so that communities like those in Somerset and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) are not left to fend for themselves.

Communities that are deemed to be at flood risk have long felt abandoned by Government and their agencies; the Environment Agency’s recent decision to withdraw from main river maintenance owing to funding shortfalls is a clear example of this. With no consultation, riparian owners in Somerset were issued with withdrawal notices last summer, and were left with the responsibility for undertaking maintenance work alone—a decision that has rightly heightened anxieties about further flood risks. Appropriate maintenance of main rivers reduces the likelihood that channel capacity will be exceeded or assets will fail. The likelihood, extent, depth, and duration of flooding, and the damage caused by it, is then significantly reduced. We do not need to go back very far to understand the profound impact that this can have. Main river maintenance reduced over several years leading up to 2012, and what followed was a catastrophic flood in 2012, and then, of course, the extreme flood during the winter of 2013. It has been evidenced that had regular main river maintenance been undertaken, those events would have had much less of an impact. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for an urgent review of the decision to effectively abandon main river maintenance.

We are also calling for a further £5.3 billion of investment to ensure that flood defences are built quickly and provided to all necessary communities to increase local preparedness and resilience. It is not in doubt that the cost of flood defences and resilience is significant, but the cost of getting this wrong or doing nothing is far greater. Some £6.1 billion in gross value added has been lost from downward pressure as a result of flooding in the last five to 10 years. Given that one in four properties nationally, and some 1,500 in Glastonbury and Somerton alone, will be at flood risk by 2050, the costs will only rise. That scenario opens up a broader question about communication and how different bodies—including the Government, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the EA, internal drainage boards, the Somerset Rivers Authority and Somerset council—work together with communities and individuals. In the meantime, many riparian owners are confused about what their responsibilities are, and more must still be done to improve communication and understanding. This lack of clarity is causing frustration and yet further anxiety.

I was pleased that the Minister found time to meet the Somerset internal drainage board with me yesterday. The board has called for a collaborative approach, but that must be backed with appropriate local and national funding to move it forward, and it must be sustainable. Any change will take time to implement, so it is paramount that the necessary main river maintenance works continue until alternative solutions are in place.

Alongside the importance of ensuring that dredging and regular maintenance take place, I would like to highlight the importance of natural flood management and its part in making Somerset more resilient to flooding. I am aware that the Minister shares my appreciation for such solutions, but as the Environmental Audit Committee report made clear, these interventions remain undervalued and underused in England, and must take their place alongside hard engineering projects.

The urgent need to build more homes has led to there being full or conditional planning permission for more than 7,000 new homes in England on previously undeveloped floodplain land. I am clear that new developments should not be built on floodplains, because they increase the speed of run-off and the risk of flooding downstream, putting homes and communities at risk. We desperately need new homes, but if Somerset is to hit the Government’s house building targets, the question must be: where do the houses go?

Surface water flooding is the fastest-accelerating risk affecting areas of the country that are not traditionally expected to flood. The Liberal Democrats have led calls to ensure that new homes are built with a range of measures to enhance their flood resilience, and to ensure that sustainable urban drainage systems do their job and are maintained properly. We also believe that older homes should be retrofitted to help mitigate the risk of flooding.

I pay credit to my constituent Tim Adams, the flood warden for Blackford, just outside Wincanton. Tim has undertaken research on the rapid run-off of surface water from the A303, which has often been recognised as materially increasing flood risk. His work has shown how attenuation ponds or wetlands could reduce peak flows, improve water quality and deliver biodiversity gains. In my view, it is essential to use citizen science, local knowledge and natural flood management techniques in a catchment area approach to flood mitigation.

We must also recognise the key role that farmers play in flood management by storing floodwater on their land, protecting those downstream, and consider building natural flood defences, because 58% of grade 1 agricultural land is situated on a floodplain, while 9% is at high risk of coastal flooding. If there is not appropriate insurance in place to compensate farmers for holding water on their land to prevent communities from flooding, we put those businesses under increased financial pressure after each and every flood event.

Yesterday, Mike Curtis told the Minister and me that he had reared cattle in Thorney for over 30 years, with his herd peaking at 750 head of beef cattle 10 years ago. He now keeps less than half that number, because his land spends so much time under water. While Mike’s land saves thousands of homes downstream from flooding, he is unable to access any Government compensation for these losses to his business. Sadly, Mike is not alone in facing this. Trish and Ron from Bineham City Farm near Knole also have hundreds of acres under water, and will run short of feed for their dairy herd before they are able to turn their cattle out this year. This is having a massive, catastrophic impact on their business. That is why farmers who store water on their land to protect housing or other critical infrastructure—they are providing a public good—should be properly recognised for doing so and compensated fairly.

Liberal Democrats would tailor the qualifying criteria for the farming recovery fund to reflect the realities of flooding for rural communities and farmers. We would also raise the environmental land management scheme budget by £1 billion, to support farmers in their transition to environmentally sustainable farming, and to recognise their key role in accepting and managing flood water.

Flood defences in Somerset cannot be run on a shoestring budget. We urgently need to ensure that critical assets are available and able to operate at capacity during flood events. We must use the multitude of flood defence techniques available to ensure that our communities are resilient to future extreme weather events. There is much work to be done to ensure that England has a strong framework that recognises the role of the multiple bodies and agencies that work together to make flood-resilient communities.

To conclude as I began, flooding can have a profound impact on mental health, affecting individuals and communities long after the waters recede. We must always remember the very real and persistent anxiety that flood victims experience; that must be central when considering future Government support for communities at risk of flooding.

18:53

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for calling this debate, and for providing an opportunity for us to hear and discuss the steps that this Government have taken in advance of, and in response to, Storm Chandra.

Storm Chandra brought heavy and persistent rainfall to the United Kingdom between Monday 26 and Tuesday 27 January. For many communities, particularly in the south-west, this succession of storms has felt relentless. It has been a cycle of anxiety, disruption and uncertainty that has tested both infrastructure and resilience. During Storm Chandra, rain fell on ground that was already waterlogged. The consequences have been felt most acutely in Somerset and across the wider south-west, where three severe flood warnings were issued. This is the highest category of alert, signifying a genuine danger to life. Thankfully, all three severe flood warnings could be lifted by the afternoon of Thursday 29 January. However, the challenges have not ended, as I saw when I visited the south-west yesterday.

In preparation, local resilience forums stood up their response arrangements, and local partners have worked side by side to support residents—sharing information, evacuating households at risk, pumping water, patrolling flooded areas and helping vulnerable people. The Environment Agency operated its Somerset moors and levels flood plans at full capacity, deploying pumps and managing flood storage areas around the clock. As river levels rose, local authorities led evacuations in Dorset and Somerset. Their professionalism and compassion have been vital for affected communities. Work is ongoing with around 300 flooded households to determine when homes can safely be re-entered. Nationally, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs activated its emergency operation centre to co-ordinate cross-government activities.

[Gideon Amos]

The Minister is right to pay credit to the Environment Agency, which has rolled out pumps faster than ever before. One of the key questions I get asked is, could we not have permanent pumps? That would mean we did not lose five days bringing them down from Yorkshire. Apparently, the crane that puts them on site, which has to wait two or three days, costs £80,000 a day. The pumping stations were last built in the 19th century. Surely it is time to have permanent installations. We could save several days or a week, and that could create space for millions of cubic metres of water.

[Emma Hardy]

Yesterday, in the meeting we had with the internal drainage boards and the Environment Agency, the EA, recognising the importance of that issue, said that it would look at the costings.

The events of the past few weeks have brought back memories of the catastrophic floods of 2013 and 2014, when entire communities were cut off for weeks, and livelihoods were deeply affected. My deepest sympathies go out to every individual, family and business affected by this flooding. For some, it is the first time they have faced this disruption, but for many of us, it is heartbreakingly familiar. Flooding is not just an inconvenience; it is a profound emotional and financial shock. It disrupts daily life, damages treasured possessions, and leaves people feeling vulnerable in their own home. I want those affected to know that we are committed to supporting them, not only in the immediate aftermath, but in the months and years ahead.

As of this morning, the Environment Agency has reported that approximately 308 properties across England have been flooded, of which 16 have been on the Somerset levels and moors. An estimated 22,850 properties have been protected by flood defences, and assets have stood up well. The Environment Agency has not reported any issues or had any reports of asset failure resulting in flooding, but of course, the Department will carry out a post-event assessment with resilience partners to identify where lessons can be learned.

I want to express my sincere gratitude to the first responders, Environment Agency staff, emergency services, local authorities and volunteers who have worked tirelessly to keep people safe. Their dedication, often in the most challenging and dangerous conditions, has been extraordinary.

Although Storm Chandra has now passed, further rainfall has triggered Met Office yellow rain warnings across the south-west and other regions. We expect a sustained operational response to continue for several weeks on the Somerset levels and elsewhere. That will involve ongoing pumping operations, continued monitoring of river and groundwater levels, and close co-ordination between local authorities, emergency services and national agencies.

Yesterday’s visit to Somerset with the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton to see the situation at first hand was invaluable. We witnessed the extent of the flooding across the Somerset moors and levels. We spoke with Environment Agency staff; local farmer Michael Curtis; internal drainage board members, including Rebecca Horsington from the Association of Drainage Authorities, Iain Sturdy, the Somerset IDB chief executive, and Tony Bradford, IDB chair; and community representatives who are working tirelessly to protect homes, farmland and infrastructure.

I saw the impact of the 16 days of incident response, villages cut off by flooded roads and the impact on people’s mental health. I am pleased to say, following my visit, that the Environment Agency has committed to reviewing the issues around water level management in Somerset once this incident has come to an end. It will work closely with the internal drainage boards and the council as part of the wider recovery plan. The review will consider several important questions: when pumps should be activated, whether the current trigger points are right, and whether installing permanent pumps in certain locations could offer better value for money in the long term. I also acknowledge the vital contributions of Somerset council, Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service, the police and ambulance services, members of the IDBs, and anyone who has played an essential role in the multi-agency response.

Flooding of that sort was always going to happen, but we can shape how prepared we are. The Government are investing at least £10.5 billion by March 2036 to construct new flood and coastal erosion schemes and repair existing defences. That record investment is an average of £1.4 billion per year—an increase on previous investment—and will benefit nearly 900,000 properties. It includes a record £22.65 billion over 2024-25 and 2025-26.

19:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Ferguson.)

[Emma Hardy]

We are taking that decisive action to halt the steady decline in the condition of flood defences under the previous Government by shifting an extra £108 million into the maintenance and repair of existing assets. We are also boosting the delivery of new defences by making available £140 million to 31 projects that are stalled because of funding gaps.

In October, following consultation, we announced major changes to our flood and coastal erosion funding policy. Those reforms will make it quicker and easier to deliver the right flood and coastal defences in the right place by simplifying our funding rules. The new funding policy will improve the balance of funding between building new projects and maintaining existing defences, and will ensure that deprived communities continue to receive vital investment. We will use Government funding to unlock investment from public, private and charitable sources, making every £1 of Government investment go further. We will invest at least £300 million into natural flood management over 10 years—the highest figure to date for the floods programme, although I am always keen for it to go higher still. Those new funding rules will be brought in for the new floods programme, and will take effect in April 2026.

I saw once again the crucial role that internal drainage boards play in flooding events. Our £91 million IDB fund supports greater flood resilience for farmers and rural communities. Ninety-four IDBs are delivering projects that are already benefiting over 400,000 hectares of farmland and over 200,000 properties. The Environment Agency estimates that the fund will avoid around £10 billion in economic damage.

[Martin Wrigley]

I deeply thank the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for highlighting the dreadful things that have happened in Somerset, and I join them in thanking all those who have responded.

I very much welcome what the Minister says about ensuring that the Environment Agency has the money to maintain assets and build new ones. My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of sustainable urban drainage systems, which we debated in Westminster Hall just last week. In that debate, the Minister talked about ways of maintaining SUDS. I asked for the maintenance of SUDS to be a statutory responsibility for the agencies set out in schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. The Minister suggested that there was a route by which section 106 funding could be used to create permanent maintenance for SUDS. Might I ask the Minister how that could be achieved, given that section 106 money is finite and limited?

[Emma Hardy]

I think the best answer to that is for me to get the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is responsible for that policy, to give the hon. Gentleman a full answer. I recall from that debate that the Department is considering how the long-term maintenance of SUDS can be achieved, but I am mindful of the fact that it is another Department’s responsibility.

Through the internal drainage board fund, we are further investing in resilient infrastructure that can withstand more frequent and intense storms, supporting communities with clear information, accessible resources and long-term recovery assistance, and enhancing natural flood management by restoring wetlands—that is brilliant—improving soil health and working with nature to slow the flow of water.

In April 2025, the Environment Agency proposed pausing main river maintenance in certain low-risk areas of Somerset. However, it became clear, following a query raised by the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton in November 2025, that the initial process did not provide sufficient opportunities for engagement with local communities and stakeholders. As a result, a new consultation period is now open, running until April 2026. This consultation will allow residents, landowners and local organisations to share their views and to help to shape the future of flood risk management in their area.

I fully recognise the importance of flood risk maintenance, particularly in areas like Somerset, where the landscape and hydrology create unique challenges. DEFRA and Environment Agency officials are already in discussion with key stakeholders, and this formed part of a wider conversation at December’s floods resilience taskforce meeting, which I chaired. These discussions are essential to ensuring that our approach to maintenance is fair, transparent and grounded in the needs of local communities. My letters to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) in February 2025 detailed the actions being undertaken in support of this.

The Environment Agency needs to prioritise its funding rigorously, and focus on those areas and activities that deliver the greatest overall benefits for people and property, including reducing flood risk and ensuring value for money. It is spending significant resources every year on pumping and managing the Somerset levels. Its work is essential to maintaining the delicate balance of water across the landscape, supporting agriculture, protecting homes and preserving the unique ecology of the area.

[Sarah Dyke]

I am pleased that the consultation is open, and that will be good news for riparian owners across Somerset. Should the consultation come back saying that riparian owners need to continue to do their own maintenance work, what support will be put in place for those who do not have the equipment or the wherewithal to support that? If we are looking at a holistic approach, then if one riparian owner decides not to do any maintenance, what will be the knock-on effect? How do we then ensure that our network of rivers is resilient and does not flood other areas?

[Emma Hardy]

The challenge that the hon. Lady sets out is the next step. For me, the first step is to see what the response to the consultation says and then we can continue the conversations. However, I recognise her point about riparian ownership and responsibility, and the challenge of what happens if everyone does not respond to the responsibility in the same way.

As we look to the future, we must ensure that the investment continues to be targeted, effective and sustainable. Beyond the technical and financial considerations, we must recognise the human dimension of flooding. Behind every statistic is a person—someone who has had to leave their home, someone who has lost possessions, someone who is worried about the future. Flooding affects mental health, financial stability and community cohesion. It can take months or even years for people to fully recover. That is why our response must be compassionate, comprehensive and long term.

We must acknowledge the broader context in which these events are occurring. The increasing frequency and intensity of storms like Chandra and Ingrid reflect a changing climate. While no single weather event can be attributed solely to climate change, the pattern is clear: we are facing more extreme rainfall, more volatile weather systems and greater pressure on our flood defences. This reality demands that we strengthen our resilience, not only through infrastructure but through planning, community engagement and environmental stewardship. That is why protecting communities from the dangers of flooding is a key priority for this Government.

This year has started with record-breaking rainfall, amounting to nearly twice the long-term monthly average in the south-west, which has been deeply challenging. Strengthening local and national co-ordination to ensure that agencies, councils and emergency services can respond swiftly and effectively is crucial, as is listening to communities, as we were yesterday, valuing their lived experience and ensuring that their voices help to shape future policy.

This Government’s record investment in flood defences will better protect communities from flooding right across the country. Not only that, but it will boost economic growth in local communities by protecting businesses, delivering new jobs and supporting a stable economy in the face of the increasing risk of flooding as a result of climate change. This Government are committed to acting to ensure that communities are better protected from flooding in the first place. We will continue to deliver and repair flood defences, improve drainage systems and develop natural flood management schemes.

The emergency services, the Environment Agency, local authorities, voluntary organisations and Government Departments stand ready, as ever, to support affected people in any future flooding event. This is a personal priority and it is a privilege to be the Minister responsible for flooding, and I will continue working to make sure that this Government respond as effectively as possible to floods.

Question put and agreed to.

19:09

House adjourned.

Deferred Divisions

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

Division 426

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 362

---

Labour: 291
Liberal Democrat: 52
Independent: 8
Scottish National Party: 5
Green Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 2
Alliance: 1
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1

Noes: 107

---

Conservative: 92
Reform UK: 6
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Independent: 3
Traditional Unionist Voice: 1

Draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Wednesday 11th February 2026 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Sir Alec Shelbrooke

† Argar, Edward (Melton and Syston) (Con)

† Bance, Antonia (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)

† Bell, Torsten (Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury)

† Bennett, Alison (Mid Sussex) (LD)

† Brandreth, Aphra (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)

† Burgon, Richard (Leeds East) (Lab)

† Collinge, Lizzi (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)

Eagle, Maria (Liverpool Garston) (Lab)

Fleet, Natalie (Bolsover) (Lab)

† Garnier, Mark (Wyre Forest) (Con)

† Hatton, Lloyd (South Dorset) (Lab)

† Kumar, Sonia (Dudley) (Lab)

Morgan, Helen (North Shropshire) (LD)

† Nichols, Charlotte (Warrington North) (Lab)

† Owatemi, Taiwo (Lord Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury)

† Rhodes, Martin (Glasgow North) (Lab)

† Smith, Rebecca (South West Devon) (Con)

Emma Elson, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(2):

Pinto-Duschinsky, David (Hendon) (Lab)

Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 11 February 2026

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke in the Chair]

Draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

16:30

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

[Torsten Bell]

The instruments that we are debating today seek to increase the value of one-off lump sum payments made under two no-fault compensation schemes administered by the Department through the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 and the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008. Although there is no statutory requirement to increase these rates in line with prices, there has long been cross-party consensus that we should do so. The Government therefore intend to increase the value of lump sum awards by 3.8%, in line with the September 2025 consumer prices index. These new rates will apply to those who first become entitled to a payment from 1 April 2026. That also means that the increase will once again be in line with the proposed increases to industrial injuries disablement benefit as part of the main social security uprating provisions for 2026-27, debated on the Floor of the House yesterday.

By way of background, the 1979 Act scheme provides a single lump sum compensation payment to eligible people with the diseases covered by the scheme. That includes pneumoconiosis and diffuse mesothelioma. It was designed to cover people who were unable to claim damages from employers because, for example, they had gone out of business, and people who have not brought any action against another party for damages. To be eligible for a lump sum award, a claimant must be awarded industrial injuries disablement benefit for a disease covered by the 1979 Act scheme.

The 2008 Act scheme was introduced to provide compensation to people diagnosed with mesothelioma who were unable to claim compensation under the 1979 Act. That may have been because they were self-employed or because their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 Act scheme provides no-fault support to sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma quickly at a time of their greatest need. To recognise the suffering that these diseases can bring to the whole family, claims can be made to either scheme by a dependant, if the person with the disease sadly passes away before being able to make a claim.

I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in recognising the continued importance of the compensation schemes offered by the 1979 and 2008 Acts. Finally, I am required to confirm that these provisions are compatible with the European convention on human rights, and I am happy to do so. I commend the increases to the payment rates under these two schemes to the Committee and ask for approval to implement.

16:33

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

We welcome the uprating for both the mesothelioma lump sum payments and the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act payments. This has been done on an annual basis and over many Governments. Today’s regulations specifically provide a 3.8% increase in line with the September 2025 consumer prices index rate. We welcome that inflation-linked increase so that the compensation amounts are more representative of today’s cost of living. That is especially important in this instance, given how debilitating these diseases can be.

Colleagues will know that mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive cancer with known links to asbestos exposure. Pneumoconiosis is equally serious, often affecting those who worked in heavy industries such as coalmining. What is cruel about both those diseases is that it can take years for symptoms to start presenting themselves, and therefore, by the time that someone receives a diagnosis, in most cases it is already advanced and leaves them with little time to react. The other issue with the latency of diagnosis is that many sufferers struggle to pursue civil claims against employers. These schemes help to address those issues and provide decency for people affected. They also underpin the point that our benefits system should be a critical safety net for the some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I reiterate that the Opposition welcome this compensation lump sum uplift today and support the Government’s proposals.

16:35

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the Opposition for their support for the regulations. I will not reiterate what I said in the opening beyond fully endorsing the case made by the Opposition about the importance of these payments and their uprating. Hon. Members will know that these schemes are only a part of the way that the Government provide support and compensation to people suffering from these diseases. The industrial injuries disablement benefit provides weekly payments as well, which are important for those who have had an industrial accident or developed certain diseases, including those covered by the lump sum compensation schemes that we are talking about today.

On the point about the nature of these diseases being caused by dust exposure, it is important to spell out the importance of the work of the Health and Safety Executive on the prevention front, and of the NHS in providing support to those who have had a diagnosis of these diseases. On the point made by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest about the importance of early diagnosis when possible, given the nature of these diseases, I want to refer hon. Members to the work of the national lung cancer screening programme, which exists precisely for that purpose.

We all believe that cross-party support on this measure is important—it continues as it has since 2010. It is an important part of how we provide support to individuals living with these diseases and their families. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT PNEUMOCONIOSIS ETC. (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION) (PAYMENT OF CLAIMS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2026

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.—(Torsten Bell.)

16:37

Committee rose.

Petitions

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Petitions

Wednesday 11 February 2026

Walsall Leather Museum

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Petitions

The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that the Walsall Leather Museum, built in a nineteenth-century leather factory, is the heart of the town’s heritage and the pride of the community; notes that Walsall Council plans to relocate the museum and lease the site to Walsall College for a peppercorn rent; declares that this plan has been brought forward without consultation with local people; further declares that alternative sites, including within Walsall College’s estate, are more appropriate for SEND provision than the Museum site and so should be considered as alternatives in order to preserve the culture and heritage of the current Museum site; and further declares that these plans amount to removing a cherished community asset against the wishes of the community.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to acknowledge the contentiousness of this proposed transaction, and to encourage Walsall Council and Walsall College to halt the plans to relocate Walsall Leather Museum, to look instead at alternative sites for Walsall College’s SEND provision, to hold a full public consultation on the proposal, to publish detailed information about the plans including alternative options considered, to ensure that the Museum remains open, and to make a commitment to transparency and accountability.

And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Valerie Vaz, Official Report, 18 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 1174.]

[P003153]

Observations from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross):

The Government recognise that Walsall Leather Museum is a culturally significant site, bringing pride to communities within Walsall and beyond.

I note Walsall council’s plans to relocate the museum and appreciate the petitioners’ concerns. Ultimately, this is a matter for the local authority to decide. However, I would encourage the council to reflect on the important role that museums and other valued cultural institutions play in communities and to continue to provide vital support. Arts, culture and heritage make our communities unique and vibrant, drive economic growth, and help improve wellbeing, and as such it is vital that they are protected.

The majority of funding provided by the Government through the local government finance settlement is un-ringfenced, in recognition of local authorities being best placed to make local decisions. The provisional 2026-27 LGFS will make available almost £78 billion in core spending power for local authorities in England, a 5.7% cash-terms increase compared to 2025-26. By the end of the multi-year spending review period, we will have provided a 15.1% cash-terms increase, worth over £11 billion, compared to 2025-26. For Walsall council, this means we are making available up to £487.2 million in 2028-29 in core spending power, an increase of up to 41% compared to 2024-25.

The Government are also supporting delivery of local priorities in Walsall through £20 million community regeneration partnership funding, announced in March 2025. The Walsall community regeneration partnership brought together Government Departments, Walsall council and local stakeholders to identify opportunities to turbocharge local growth by addressing local challenges and opportunities.

The Government understand that the council will be consulting on the plans and have committed to relocating the museum within the town centre. I would encourage the council to continue engaging with the local community to ensure that decisions made reflect the views of local people, and for a suitable new location for Walsall Leather Museum to be identified. Arts Council England has also engaged regularly with Walsall council regarding the future of the museum and is able to offer further advice on conducting options appraisals and maintaining accreditation status, if needed.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 11 February 2026

[Dr Rosena Allin Khan in the Chair]

Hughes Report: Second Anniversary

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

14:30

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the second anniversary of the Hughes Report.

Although it is a pleasure to open this debate under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan, I do so with a sense of déjà vu, because we have been here before, on the anniversary last year and in debates on the Cumberlege review before that. The issue of redress for the victims is a well-trodden road.

I start by paying tribute to the many individuals who have campaigned tirelessly for justice and change, and to prevent their experience from happening to others. I thank the Patient Safety Commissioner, Professor Henrietta Hughes, for the work she put into her report. She is with us in the Gallery today, along with many campaigners. I put on the record my thanks to Baroness Cumberlege for her exceptional work, before the Hughes report, to give voice to victims during the two years she led the Cumberlege review. I pay tribute to her for her continuing commitment to the victims.

We are here today because, two years on from its publication, the Government have still not published an official response to the Hughes report. No redress scheme has been implemented and no timeline has been announced. We have repeatedly been told that the recommendations are being carefully considered, yet there is no date, no framework and no mechanism for justice in place. To be clear, the Patient Safety Commissioner did not decide one day to write the report; she was asked to pull it together and to look at the options for redress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh. The report was commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care in late 2022.

In her foreword to the report, Professor Hughes was clear that, in accepting the commission,

“the case for redress had already been made by the First Do No Harm review so my report would primarily focus on ‘how’ to provide redress rather than ‘why’…Secondly, patients must not be subjected to an emotional rollercoaster, meaning that commissioning this work would inevitably raise expectations and that it would be profoundly unfair to do so if the government had no intention of providing redress.”

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. I secured a debate on the Cumberlege report 18 months ago; I said at the time that I hoped it would be the last time we debated this issue, yet here we are again. Does the hon. Member agree that the emotional impact on the women involved is hugely important? I was approached by a number of constituents in my constituency, including Debbie, who joined me for my debate. It is so important that the review’s recommendations are acted on.

[Sarah Green]

The emotional toll is significant. It is a daily struggle for some of those affected, and they are battling a system.

Right at the start of her report, the Patient Safety Commissioner was clear that she should not be asked to look into the options for redress for those harmed by valproate and mesh if there was no real intention or desire in the Department to make a redress scheme a reality. Why commission the report and raise the expectations of thousands of families if there was never any intention to follow through on the recommendations?

As colleagues know, 30,000 women and children have been harmed, through no fault of their own, by valproate and pelvic mesh. They are paying the price of the failure to keep them and their children safe with immense pain, agony, fear and guilt. Five years on from the Cumberlege report and two years after the Hughes report, the Government have still not confirmed plans to provide financial redress. Financial redress is unfinished business, and it is past time that the Government responded.

Let us not forget that of those affected by valproate and mesh, 85% report not being able to work, 73% report that their finance has suffered as a result, 91% report that their mental health and wellbeing are adversely affected—as the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) just said—and 88% report that their relationships have been negatively impacted.

Let me unpack that for a second. Those statistics represent my constituent Carol, a doctor by training who was forced to take long-term sick leave and see her health and her career deteriorate. They represent the valproate families who, on top of the physical effects, face the nightmare of child and adolescent mental health services and personal independence payment reassessments every few years, having to explain what foetal valproate spectrum disorder is to every clinician they encounter because it is not widely understood. They represent the heartbreaking situation of one victim who shared with me, in tears, the devastating impact that mesh has had on her ability to be intimate with the love of her life. The lack of a clear timeline for action by the same slow, dismissive system that harmed patients is further compounding their physical and mental pain.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Although financial redress is an incredibly important part of the Hughes report, it also lays out other important elements, such as healthcare and special educational needs and disability provision. My constituent Debra has two sons. It was only when her second son went to school that the school realised there might be something affecting both boys due to her taking sodium valproate. She had to battle against the system and is now having to drive her eldest son to university because, suffering from autism, he is unable to make that journey using public transport. Does my hon. Friend agree that those recommendations are also an incredibly important part of the Hughes report?

[Sarah Green]

I do agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for his intervention.

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

This is about so many different aspects of support. One of the recommendations in the Hughes report that has been drawn to my attention is the one on housing, which is so crucial. My constituent was prescribed sodium valproate during pregnancy. Her son, who is now 25, lives with foetal valproate syndrome, requires 24/7 support, and will do for the rest of his life. My constituent said that even relatively modest adjustments to their home and some specialist equipment could make a real difference, but she has not found any way of getting funding for that. Does the hon. Member agree that housing is also a really important area for us to look at?

[Sarah Green]

I do agree, and I thank the hon. Member for raising it.

I know that many colleagues present have been championing this cause for years. There is a string of parliamentary questions going back to the launch of the report two years ago, asking for progress updates. The Patient Safety Commissioner herself used her statutory powers for the first time, in October last year, to ask for more detailed answers from the Department of Health and Social Care. The responses were published in November and just a few weeks ago in January. We now know that there have been meetings, roundtables and briefings, but no progress on redress. If I am reading between the lines of these responses correctly, it is the dead hand of the Treasury that is the issue.

Before I conclude, I wish to mention Carol. I have shared Carol’s story before, and I return to it today because it lays bare the cost of years of Government inaction. When I first met her online—I hope she will not mind my saying this—she was a physical wreck. She needed assistance to get a visa to the US during the pandemic for urgent medical treatment following a hysteropexy and rectopexy using surgical mesh. A procedure that was intended to resolve her pelvic organ prolapse instead caused devastating harm.

Carol was left with a serious autoimmune disease, struggling to walk and unable to live her daily life. Her prognosis was bleak, and she needed to have the mesh urgently removed. That treatment was not available to her on the NHS. While suffering from chronic pain, and with limited mobility, Carol accessed private treatment in the United States. A combination of determination, medical knowledge and personal resources allowed her to do so, and Carol is now mesh-free following a successful surgery.

Carol attempted to pursue a clinical negligence claim against the surgeons who harmed her, but multiple law firms declined to act because the same surgeons were advising them on other cases. Those conflicts of interest blocked Carol’s access to justice. In one case, the surgeon who caused her life-changing harm acted as an expert witness in an unrelated mesh case. The judge in that case found that the surgeon selectively chose evidence supportive of the defence, failed to provide balanced evidence, and failed in his duty to the court. That finding is on the record.

Such conflicts are not isolated. Conflicts of interest and the closing of ranks among professionals remain a structural barrier to justice for victims. That is just one of the reasons why an independent redress scheme is long overdue. The current system is failing these women, children and families.

I have two questions for the Minister. What conversations are she, her Department and her officials having with the Treasury and Downing Street to make redress a reality for the victims? Will she meet some of the affected families to hear directly from them why redress is so important to them?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

Order. This is an incredibly important topic. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak. Because so many Members want to get in, I would be grateful if you can try to stick to approximately four minutes each, to allow everyone to get a say.

09:41

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for bringing this issue to the House. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for her tireless commitment to this campaign and for her leadership in chairing the First Do No Harm all-party parliamentary group.

Like many Members here, I was present in the debate a year ago on the first anniversary of the Hughes report. Although it has been two years since the publication of the report, the Government have sadly still not responded to it, and justice has still not been delivered for the many women impacted by pelvic mesh and sodium valproate.

In the very first paragraph, Dr Henrietta Hughes makes it clear that the report must lead to Government action. We often hear that justice delayed is justice denied, yet we continue to deny justice to the women who have suffered. Redress must be delivered swiftly. The Hughes report recommends a two-stage non-adversarial redress scheme to provide both financial and non-financial support to women who have suffered avoidable harm due to pelvic mesh and sodium valproate.

Although financial compensation is of course vital—a two-stage scheme would involve a quick initial payment followed by a more tailored scheme for the payment of compensation—just as important is access to appropriate support, including specialist healthcare, and a formal acknowledgment, with an apology, of the harm endured by these women. Dr Hughes laid out in detail how such a scheme can be implemented, and it is for the Government to put one into effect as soon as possible.

Alongside delivering justice for the victims of the mesh and sodium valproate scandals, I urge the Minister and her Department to commit to doing everything possible to prevent future scandals of this sort and to better protect our constituents and communities. I also welcome the work of campaign groups such as Sling The Mesh, and urge the Government to consider making yellow card reporting mandatory so that potentially harmful products can be identified sooner, and action can be taken before damage is done.

I have a particular interest in this debate. Although I have constituents who have been affected, before becoming an MP I worked as a solicitor and specialised in representing women who had been given plastic polypropylene mesh implants for vaginal mesh surgery as a quick fix to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, without being properly advised by the doctors who gave the treatment. All those women did was trust a medical professional who told them they were receiving the gold standard of care, as we all would. The mesh then eroded, cut through vaginal tissue and caused chronic pain, loss of mobility and sexual disfunction, and often resulted in relationship breakdown. Many of those women were unable to continue working and suffered life-changing injuries. Their lives were ruined.

When pursuing legal claims for compensation for these women, I was always acutely aware that compensation and legal costs would ultimately fall on the NHS. A compensation scheme as recommended by the Hughes report would save the excessive costs of litigation that the NHS would have to pay out—money that could then be used for the treatment of patients. I would also like the Government to consider alternative approaches such as an insurance-style levy paid by companies when they bring new products to the market, which would create a dedicated fund for future claims and thereby protect our vital NHS resources while incentivising manufacturers to ensure that their products are of the highest safety standards.

We cannot leave these women in limbo waiting to receive the redress they so clearly deserve. I ask the Minister to please respond to the Hughes report, enact Dr Hughes’s recommendations and ensure that justice can finally be delivered for these women.

09:45

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I will try to add something new to the excellent start to the debate by both the previous speakers, who showed a great command of the overall situation, by quoting my constituent Emma, who got in touch with me yesterday after learning that the debate would take place. I will briefly summarise her concerns, which she set out in the following way:

“In the main, the point is that so many have been injured, left on NHS waiting lists, paying for prescriptions and transport to and from appointments. Not being able to work—or restricted working hours. Limited access to PIP…Very little support for those who had mortgages due to the benefit system not supporting mortgage costs”

and

“loss of pension contributions, as none of us is getting any younger.”

This lady is exceptionally strong. Despite the injuries she suffered personally, she has been a rock and a leader for other mesh-injured women in or near my constituency. I hold her in the highest esteem; in fact, I salute her courage. What she has to say is, in a sense, an argument that has already been won. The Cumberlege report won that argument, and the Hughes report wanted to recommend what should happen next. I am delighted to see Henrietta Hughes in the Gallery—and seemingly acknowledging that I am right about that difference between the two reports.

Let me briefly quote from Henrietta Hughes’s admirably concise list of 10 recommendations. Recommendation 1 was:

“The government has a responsibility to create an ex-gratia redress scheme providing financial and non-financial redress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh. This scheme should be based on the principles of restorative practice and be co-designed with harmed patients.”

Recommendation 3 was:

“The government should create a two-stage financial redress scheme comprising an Interim Scheme and a Main Scheme.”

Recommendation 4 was:

“The Interim Scheme should award directly harmed patients a fixed sum by way of financial redress. These payments should start during 2025.”

Recommendation 8 was:

“Both the Interim Scheme and the Main Scheme should be administered by an independent body which commands the confidence of patients.”

What is the point of an interim scheme? It is to recognise that there will be tremendous complexity in individual cases, but at least these mesh-injured ladies would get a minimum of help—I think £25,000 has been suggested—straightaway, while the more complex calculations can be done later. Yet despite that being the very point of an interim scheme—that we can do this quickly and work on the harder parts subsequently—we have seen no progress.

What does that remind us of? It reminds me of the Post Office. It reminds me of the infected blood scandal. What do all those things have in common? A large number of people who have been injured in some way or another—either physically, or with their character or freedom damaged, often beyond repair—and who are owed very large sums of money by way of redress or compensation. We know what happens in the end: there is enough public protest to ensure that there is action. I hope that the level of public awareness is no less for this cause than it is for other, similar scandals because all the victims were women. That would be even more disgraceful than that this all happened in the first place.

09:50

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing the debate.

On behalf of constituents who have written to me, I want to begin by quoting the comments of the Patient Safety Commissioner for England, Professor Hughes, to the BBC when her report was released two years ago:

“These families weren’t listened to by a system that really turned its back, and fobbed them off with information which led to them not only being harmed, but thousands of others being harmed.”

The Hughes report has still not received a proper response—from either the Conservative Government or current Labour Government—and that is the key. That is deeply disappointing and a massive let-down for all those women and children affected by this scandal. I appreciate that this is an important issue, and it warrants due process, but there has been a two-year wait for a response, not to mention that the wait for the families affected has been so much longer.

Although the Patient Safety Commissioner’s remit extends to England only, this is a UK-wide issue. The regulation of human medicines and medicinal products is reserved. The report said that the Department of Health and Social Care should

“engage with the devolved governments”

on where and how the two-stage redress approach should apply across the UK. The UK Government have indicated that those conversations are taking place. That is encouraging, and I hope that it continues, but we in Scotland have been disappointed by this Government more than once. The well-worn saying applies: justice delayed is justice denied.

This Government promised change, and here is a case in point. The unreserved apology offered by the previous Government in July 2021 was welcome, as was the invitation in December 2022

“to look at what a potential redress scheme could look like.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 478.]

But that was more than three years ago. Of course, this Government rightly deserve praise for acting to redress the problem and offer compensation, albeit slowly in some cases, following the infected blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal. Please do not add this situation to that of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, the nuclear test veterans and others, where successive Governments have taken a negligent approach.

In summary, I am speaking up primarily on behalf of my constituents. We need urgent action on this report and a proper system of redress for the countless families affected by this scandal. Please let us get on with addressing recommendation 4 of the Hughes report without delay. I hope the Minister will address that in her response.

09:53

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing the debate.

I spoke in last year’s debate to raise the experience of my constituents Paula and Gillian, who had experienced the impact of having pelvic mesh fitted. Unfortunately, not much has changed since then, and Paula tells me she is still living with the devastation that pelvic mesh has caused in her life. She had the mesh implanted in 2012, and between 2020 and 2023 she experienced painful bladder stones that were linked to the mesh. She finally had surgery last year to remove a 3 cm bladder stone, which revealed that the mesh had completely eroded into her bladder. She will need further surgery to remove the remainder of the mesh, and will need to undergo a further recovery period. That story is like many others we have heard.

As I did when I spoke about valproate last year, I would like to thank Emma, Janet and the campaigners who are here today, who do so much in this area. With regard to the Hughes report, the Epilepsy Research Institute continues to ask the Government to allocate dedicated ringfenced funding for research into epilepsy drugs and to ensure that regulatory bodies act swiftly on safety concerns, and that pregnant women with epilepsy have access to the best possible information and care.

I will take us down a slightly different path now because, as some Members know, my wife and one of my daughters have epilepsy. When my wife and I tried to conceive, I saw at first hand the issues women have when they have to come off valproate. My wife was seizure-free for 12 years, and her life was turned upside down when she started having seizures again. Those resulted in her falling all the way down the stairs; falling into a bathroom cabinet and trapping her head—I had to try to disengage her; having a seizure in the bath, after which I had to resuscitate her on the bathroom floor; and having to surrender her driving licence. At one stage, she thought she would never go back to her teaching job, although she has now successfully gone back to it. She will be three years seizure-free this year, mainly because she has gone back on to valproate.

Those many years when she had seizures and other issues show why research is desperately needed for drugs to control epilepsy. Unfortunately, for many people, valproate is the only drug that allows them to lead a normal life. I have seen that; the rules are there for a good reason, but my daughter, who is 12 and who, as Members may know, has no mental capacity, has had to come off valproate because of the rules. We need to understand these issues and that wider issue, because for many people valproate is the drug they need to support them. That is not to disrespect Emma and Janet for the work they do to support those, including their children and families, who have been so desperately impacted by valproate.

I welcome the noises we have heard recently about forthcoming updates from the Department, but I also say, on behalf of my constituents and the wider community, that we need concrete measures for the implementation of financial and non-financial redress, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.

09:57

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for this valuable and vital debate.

I pay tribute to all families who have suffered a miscarriage of justice, and in this case to all those who have been impacted by sodium valproate or pelvic mesh. I am especially grateful to my constituent Emma Friedman, and I salute her and her son Andy for educating me about this issue, and particularly about sodium valproate, but also for their real strength and perseverance and their unwavering commitment to justice.

Achieving justice should not really be so hard, but unfortunately it is. As the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) mentioned, we have seen this all before: 30,000 people were infected and affected in the contaminated blood scandal in the ’70s and ’80s; 700 hard-working postmasters and postmistresses were falsely prosecuted and their lives destroyed; and billions and billions of pounds were wasted on unusable personal protective equipment during a national emergency.

Sodium valproate is an effective drug. It was developed in 1962, and it has transformed the lives of countless people with epilepsy and bipolar disorders. However, it has always been known to cause serious harm when taken during pregnancy, and the risks are stark: around 30% to 40% of children exposed in the womb develop neurodevelopmental disorders and approximately 10% suffer serious congenital malformations, including spina bifida, cleft lips and other lifelong disabilities. The sadness is that 20,000 children in the UK are estimated to have been affected.

The concern is that evidence suggests doctors were aware of the risks from the early years. However, according to the minutes of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, it made the extraordinary decision in the 1970s that fully warning women may cause “fruitless anxiety”. The warnings were not given, and the fact that that decision was made after the thalidomide scandal makes it all the more shocking.

Some parents report that they were warned about the possible side effects to themselves, but never about those to their unborn babies. That pattern appears to have been repeated again and again. Clear warnings did not emerge until the late 1990s and were only strengthened around 2010. The first GP toolkit was published as late as 2015—and it still did not mandate direct, informed conversations with patients, so GPs simply did not have to tell patients.

As has been mentioned already, women were often dismissed. No long-term study was ever conducted; even today, some women are only discovering through their own research why their 30 or 35-year-old child lives with a disability linked to valproate. That is truly shocking, and it is still ongoing—it is not history. The Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review chaired by Baroness Cumberlege published its First Do No Harm report in 2020. It concluded that women had been misled and ill-informed, and recommended an independent redress agency, specifically a compensation scheme for those harmed by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Unfortunately, the Government did not accept those recommendations. In December 2022 the Patient Safety Commissioner was asked to explore options, and on 7 February 2024 the Hughes report clearly called for an independent two-stage scheme providing both financial and non-financial compensation. The Government have yet to respond.

Meanwhile, families continue to struggle. In many cases it is the mother, who may herself still be suffering with epilepsy, who is the primary carer of a disabled child. Many families are living in difficult socioeconomic conditions and they are barely surviving. We cannot even begin to imagine the emotional toll and the feeling of guilt that many parents talk about. Many feel that it is their fault. We cannot imagine their mental anguish.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I pay tribute to the people who have brought this issue so far. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the emotional toll he speaks of is living large in the lives of those families and that they deserve, at the absolute least, an apology and redress?

[Shockat Adam]

Yes—that is the least that we can do.

Sodium valproate is effective, as was powerfully demonstrated by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), and women must not abruptly stop taking the medication, as that can be seriously dangerous. However, this issue represents a serious failure of communication between regulators, GPs, specialists, fertility clinics and pharmacists. We must modernise the safety system, with better data sharing, digital alerts, clear warnings on packaging and, above all, mandatory one-to-one consultations so that every woman of child- bearing age understands the risks and the alternatives.

Mistakes will always occur in medicine, but how quickly we acknowledge them, learn from them and compensate those harmed is the true mark of a progressive society. The current Health Secretary, when in Opposition in February 2024, expressed frustration at how slowly justice was progressing. Those words must now be matched with action.

10:02

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve here today under your chairship, Ms Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this important debate.

I am going to focus on sodium valproate, which was prescribed for decades without proper warnings about the effect on unborn children. As a result, those children were harmed and, despite multiple Government-commissioned reports, families are still waiting for accountability and redress. Two years on from the Hughes report, that delay can no longer be justified.

Sodium valproate is a medicine used to treat epilepsy and bipolar disorder. It is a very effective medicine for many but, if taken while pregnant, it can cause serious harm. Those harms include major physical birth defects, developmental delays, learning disabilities and a significantly increased risk of autism. Many of the children affected will need lifelong care.

For years, despite those risks being known, women and prescribers were not given clear or adequate information about them. Even after the effects were more widely known, prescriptions continued without proper safeguards in place. At least 7,000 children have been affected by this medicine since it came on to the market in 1973, but the real number is quite likely very much higher because of the lack of awareness around foetal valproate spectrum disorder.

My constituent Nicola was one of the many women affected. Her children were profoundly harmed by exposure during pregnancy. Like so many others, Nicola trusted her doctor and followed proper medical advice. She was badly let down. She has explained to me just how immense the impact has been on her and her children and, of course, what a difference compensation would make to her kids’ lives.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a passionate case for her constituent. My constituent Gill has told me how she has suffered for around 11 years as a result of the pelvic mesh scandal. She is a member of the Sling the Mesh group. Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether on sodium valproate or pelvic mesh, such groups deserve to be listened to, and that we should pay tribute to them for campaigning for these courageous women?

[Lizzi Collinge]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This scandal follows a pattern that we have seen far too many times before: early warnings ignored, information withheld or downplayed, measures to protect people not effectively enacted, and public bodies closing ranks rather than being open and honest when things go wrong. I have done a lot of work on maternity safety, and I have seen those patterns again and again; the parallels are really clear. Had concerns been properly addressed at the outset, so much harm could have been avoided, and so many more children would not have been born with lifelong, preventable conditions.

Their families have been waiting for far too long. There were initial recommendations for redress six years ago in the Cumberlege review, but the previous Government failed to act. Through the Hughes report, we have an even more comprehensive examination of what needs to be done to support those families, but they are no closer to getting even a formal response to that. That constant delay increases the cost, delays support and builds up ill-will with affected families, who have already spent their lives fighting for their kids.

I urge the Government to provide an interim payment for those families. We know that that is possible; Dr Hughes has outlined how to do it in this case, and we have seen it in the infected blood scandal. The main question for the Minister is this: when will we get a full response to the Hughes report? When will we actually see some action?

Like so many of my colleagues, I pay tribute to Emma and Janet from the Independent Fetal Anti-convulsant Trust, who are here today. Their children were affected by sodium valproate, and they have been tireless campaigners for compensation for affected families—I have known them for many years now. They have been invaluable in raising awareness about foetal valproate spectrum disorder. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), who has worked with In-FACT for many years on this and has been a staunch advocate for their campaign.

Despite all their hard work, progress from the Government’s side seems to have stalled yet again, and families are left waiting. We know that things go wrong in medicine, and that all drugs have side effects, but when a harm that is caused was preventable, and when the state fails to act on warnings, the Government must step up. We should do what we should have done years ago, and give justice and support to the families who have already paid a heavy price for our failings.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that it is discourteous not to attend for the opening speeches and then to make interventions. As a result, those Members who have been here from the start and will be here until the end will now have a shorter time limit imposed on them. Because of the number of Members who have indicated that they wish to speak, with the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means, I am imposing a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of three and a half minutes.

10:07

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for giving us the opportunity to contribute, and allowing me to mention Northern Ireland and what is happening there. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place, and I thank her for all she does.

The Hughes report was for England only, but the ripple effect is UK-wide. As of February 2026, Northern Ireland victims remain in limbo. The Northern Ireland Department of Health has stated that its approach will be informed by the final position of the UK Government—right here—but their final position has not been determined. Because nothing has been done here, nothing happens in Northern Ireland, so we are being affected. I know that the Minister will be responsive, but I ask her to give us some indication of the timescale.

Patients continue to contact me and Members of the Legislative Assembly in an attempt to see the adoption of the report’s recommendation, and the phrasing is that families feel abandoned by the lack of progress and financial compensation. I can understand that the Department of Health (NI) needs guidance from Westminster; the UK as a whole is waiting to see what implementation and redress will look like. While financial payments are stalled, some progress has been made on the non-financial report, with the continued operation of specialist mesh centres and improved clinical guidelines for prescribing valproates. That is welcome but—to put it simply—it is not enough.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Women have been left in lifelong pain; children have been born with preventable disabilities; families have endured financial and emotional stress; many women have lost their jobs, their homes and even their marriages. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although financial and non-financial support are important, to prevent such issues in the future it is also important that the dots are joined up early and that early warning signs are not buried in bureaucracy?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. A specially accredited unit operates at Belfast city hospital, featuring a multidisciplinary team to treat mesh-related problems. If complex removal surgery is required, there is also the option to perform it locally, so we are doing our best in Northern Ireland to address the issue. Even so, advocacy groups such as Sling the Mesh Northern Ireland have expressed concerns over the conflict of interest in requiring the original implanting surgeon to sign off on referrals for outside treatment. All those factors must be taken into consideration, which was the very point my hon. Friend made.

Between 1998 and 2018, some 11,000 vaginal mesh implants were performed in Northern Ireland. Other Department of Health figures indicate that nearly 7,000 procedures occurred between 2005 and 2015 alone. With conservative estimates suggesting that between 5% and 10% of those patients experienced significant problems, the scale of the issue is clear.

For children affected, while the UK-wide estimate is roughly 20,000, specific Northern Ireland figures often have to be extrapolated. Reports for the Republic of Ireland, for instance, estimate that there are some 1,250 children affected there; those significant numbers down south are separate from Northern Ireland figures, but based on similar prescribing patterns. As of 2023, the Patient Safety Commissioner noted that even now, across the UK, an average of three babies a month are born having been exposed to the drug.

I will not take an extra minute for the intervention, Dr Allin-Khan, because I recognise that others need time to speak.

All those people, including the 600 members of Sling the Mesh NI, are awaiting action. On this, the second anniversary of the report, the stagnation of action is not acceptable. I take this opportunity to speak on their behalf, as well as on behalf of my and my hon. Friend’s constituents in Northern Ireland: I ask that we stop waiting and start moving on the compensation, providing help for those who are suffering this very minute, even as this debate takes place.

My request for the Minister is that we hurry the process, so that we in Northern Ireland can fall in behind what happens here in Westminster. Let us not see a third anniversary without fulfilment of the recommendations and of our word in this place.

10:12

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan, but it is not a pleasure to be here marking two years since the publication of the Hughes report. Sadly, in that time, those recommendations seem to have been in a holding pattern somewhere in the Department for Health and Social Care.

Other Members have rightly spoken about the victims. Today, I think mostly about one of my constituents, who contacted me more than five years ago, raising concerns about the tragic loss of her son when he was 30. She believes that the sodium valproate medication that she took during his pregnancy was responsible for his learning difficulties and, ultimately, his early passing. Quite understandably, she feels let down by the state. She is also concerned about the profound effect that it may have had on her other children, and the fact that she was not alerted to the risks of this by the authorities.

What I find particularly disappointing, having contacted numerous Secretaries of State during that time, is that we have had no more than vague commitments and assurances that this issue will be addressed in due course. That does not cut it for my constituent; nor, sadly, does it do anything to assuage the guilt that she—wrongly, in my opinion—feels.

With other national scandals, such as infected blood and the Post Office Horizon system, the Government have eventually provided funding for mechanisms to compensate those affected, but they too had to wait decades. It is disappointing that the recognition that we all had at the time, that those systems were introduced that those delays had compounded the injustice, has not translated into any visible progress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh.

I agree with the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) that, in those schemes, the interim payment system has been seen as a way to get at least some measure of redress. I am disappointed that we have not been able to learn from that experience and use a similar system for the people we are talking about today. I have sympathy for the view set out by the Secretary of State that redress must be considered alongside that for other patient groups, but that does not justify inaction.

Those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh are frustrated by the delays and the obfuscation. The state has acknowledged and apologised for its failings. It has commissioned and published two reports on the matter, both of which have recommended that redress is provided to patients, but we have reached the point where reports and recommendations are not enough. It is time for the Government to act, and to provide the support that the many victims of this scandal deserve and need to manage their ongoing conditions. The can has been kicked down the road for too long; campaigners and those affected are understandably frustrated and anxious for change.

I would like to ask the Minister two things, echoing the questions raised by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green). First, can the Minister confirm whether there has been an estimate of the total cost of providing redress? If so, can she share that today? That might, at least, give campaigners some hope that things are actually moving forward. Secondly, can she confirm whether she has discussed funding redress with the Treasury for inclusion in future fiscal events? I look forward to the Minister’s response—or, if she is unable to provide specific answers today, to a commitment that she or a colleague will do so in future, and a clear sense those who have suffered are now being listened to.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

Order. I know that people are keen to hear from the Minister, so I will bring the speaking time down to three minutes. If there are any interventions, I will have to bring it down even further.

10:15

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this vital and timely debate. First, I want to recognise the victims of the sodium valproate and pelvic mesh scandals, their families and especially the women who are yet again, through no fault of their own, another example of the UK’s unacceptable gender health gap.

I have spoken about my constituent Mary on several occasions in the House. It is a pleasure to welcome her and other women affected by these scandals here to watch this debate. I thank Mary and other campaigning mothers, such as Karen and Deborah, who have already been mentioned, for their tireless work to bring foetal valproate syndrome to my and other Members’ attention, and to keep this injustice in the spotlight. Mothers such as Mary have had to reckon not just with looking after their children with complex needs, who regularly require round-the-clock care, but with continuing their exhausting campaign work to try to keep the focus on the plight of their children in an attempt to receive better support.

One of the points that Mary and other mothers with children affected by foetal valproate syndrome are clearest about is that this is an evolving disability. No one knows the true damage that the drug may be causing victims as they grow older; those symptoms are evolving as they do, and children’s complex conditions often deteriorate. That can make appointments with GPs and other healthcare specialists incredibly difficult and complex. The lack of awareness and understanding about the situation among the medical community simply exacerbates the issue, and makes it even harder for mothers to get on with helping their children. It is vital that measures are brought into the clinician training curriculum, and those absolutely must feature testimonies from victims of medical scandals so that the medical community truly understand what they are facing.

It cannot be underlined enough that all these challenges are not hypothetical questions to these women and their families; they are their everyday realities. For that reason, it is incredibly frustrating—and, to be quite honest, angering—for those mothers that, more than two whole years after the publication of Professor Henrietta Hughes’s report into sodium valproate and mesh implants, the Government have not only not responded but have, of late, been stating that they

“will respond in due course.”

I am sorry, but what a totally rubbish, useless and uncaring answer! Much is said about distrust in our politics and our politicians in this country; that sort of mealy-mouthed answer, I am afraid, does absolutely nothing to restore that trust. We must do better.

I have so much more to say, but I am conscious of time. I will just say that Mary told me this morning, “We are exhausted from fighting.” Her plea is for MPs to find out more, to do more and to raise more awareness. I leave that plea with the House. The Government have an obligation to support families like Mary’s, and I hope that they will do the right thing.

10:18

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for introducing the debate. Like other Members, I was here last year on the first anniversary of the Hughes report. It is a stark reminder of how issues can drift. For those who have suffered, the passing year has not just slipped by quietly, yet we still hear the same language from Ministers about a response coming “in due course”. Those words ring very hollow to the victims whose patience has long since run out.

Ministers have previously said that this is a complex issue requiring action across multiple Departments. I readily accept that, but that is precisely why Professor Hughes recommended the interim scheme and those payments in 2025—and 2025 came and went with no response and no payments. Professor Hughes wrote that report, as she said, to drive action; she would not have done it otherwise. It is about how the compensation is paid, not whether it is paid, and it is extraordinary, frankly, that she felt she had to use statutory powers to go to No. 10 and the Prime Minister to drive progress on the issue.

In the debate last year, I spoke about my constituents Colleen and Andy, and other families who have been blighted by the scandal. When I met them they talked about their son, Byron. Colleen has epilepsy and was prescribed sodium valproate, but she was never warned that it could harm her unborn child. Byron lives with autism, learning disabilities, communication difficulties and epilepsy. The family’s experience is far too common. Families like them deserve decisive action from the Government. When I pressed the Health Secretary at health questions last month, he said that we were

“right to hold the Government’s feet to the fire”,—[Official Report, 13 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 753.]

He said that work was happening across Government and promised updates. But there have not been any updates.

The Health Secretary has previously spoken about the failure of the state to recognise and put right wrongs and its mistakes, yet two years on we are still waiting for some action. Victims do not need any more words; they need action. As Professor Hughes has said, the lack of a response feels devastating to those families. For the sake of the families who have suffered, the Government need to act now. There has been plenty of time to learn from other compensation schemes, to secure funding from the Treasury for compensation and to set out even just a timeline for redress.

I ask the Minister: when will interim payments finally be made to those affected and give families the relief they urgently need? At the very least, can the Minister commit that the Government will make interim payments this year? Otherwise, it would be an utter disgrace.

10:21

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Thank you for your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) on securing this debate. I will put one family at the heart of my response: my constituent Catherine and her son Matthew, whom I mentioned in Prime Minister’s questions last February, 12 months ago.

When she was pregnant, Catherine did what any parent would do: she trusted the medical advice that she was given. She was prescribed sodium valproate, a medicine used to treat epilepsy. Matthew is now 24 years old, and as a result of that medical advice he has lifelong needs and a learning disability. He has done incredibly well, securing a part-time job and maintaining a level of independence while walking around the village where he lives.

Matthew was also incredibly proud to take part in the 2024 general election, and he voted in the hope that there would finally be redress for those affected by the valproate scandal. Matthew has since written to the Prime Minister; I put on the record my frustration at seeing how his correspondence was passed from pillar to post. It was only after several chases by me that Matthew received a response—a response entirely inappropriate for somebody with a learning disability.

Catherine and her family provide significant support to Matthew, and his life is all the richer for it. But that is not the case for all children impacted by sodium valproate, and there will come a point in time when Catherine will not be able to provide that support any longer. Catherine, and other families in the Public Gallery today, fear that day, and they want the state to ensure that specialist assessments, therapies, adaptations, lost earnings and round-the-clock care are provisioned for now, so that a secure future for their children is guaranteed.

That is why the Patient Safety Commissioner’s report is so important. It sets out a clear and workable route, and it is the responsibility of this Government to acknowledge that. Every month of delay is another month when parents are left to patch together support, fight for diagnoses, battle through fragmented services and carry costs that should never have landed on their shoulders.

Today I ask the Minister directly, as I asked the Prime Minister 12 months ago: will the Government commit to a clear timetable for implementing the Hughes recommendations? For Catherine and Matthew, the argument that the situation is complex simply does not land. Their lives are already complex—more complex than most of us can even imagine. What they are asking the Government to do is simple: accept responsibility for the scandal and act now while the redress can still be meaningful.

The question today is whether this Government—the Government who both Catherine and Matthew were desperate to see when I first met them, as a candidate—will match that urgency with action. I hope that the Minister will take seriously all the representations made today.

10:24

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this important debate.

We have had the findings of the Hughes report for over two years now. It called on the Government to provide financial redress to patients and families affected by the use of sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. The previous Government refused to act and increasingly it feels as though the current Government are also burying their head in the sand rather than confronting the scale of this injustice.

My constituent Nick is one of those living with the consequences of that inaction. His son Oliver was born with foetal valproate syndrome after Nick’s wife took valproate during pregnancy to control her epilepsy. Tragically, Nick’s wife has since died, leaving Nick to raise Oliver alone. Nick told me that it is hard for him to adequately explain how difficult Oliver’s life has been and how much he worries about his son’s future.

Valproate has changed Oliver’s life forever, and all Nick wants is answers and meaningful action from the Government. Quite rightly, Nick continually chases me for answers on when the Government will make a decision on the Hughes report. On behalf of Nick and Oliver, I ask very directly: can the Minister say when we will finally get a response to the Hughes report? How much longer do the Government need to “carefully consider” recommendations that have already been scrutinised, evidenced and endorsed? Families such as Nick’s cannot wait indefinitely while the Government deliberate.

I take this opportunity to say that it is also vital that we recognise the devastating impact of Primodos, a hormonal pregnancy test used until the 1980s. Primodos was not considered by the Hughes report, but it was part of the Cumberlege review of hundreds of children born with foetal abnormalities. Many of those affected are now older; tragically, some of them are dying without ever receiving acknowledgment, accountability or compensation.

The pelvic mesh, valproate and Primodos scandals are some of the most significant health scandals of modern times. They have disproportionately affected women, yet time and again we see the same pattern: warnings being ignored; evidence being dismissed; and victims being left to fight for justice on their own. These scandals have gone on for far too long, with little action from successive Governments. Those affected by valproate and Primodos are not asking for the impossible; they simply want those responsible to acknowledge the mistakes made and to take responsibility for the harms caused.

If we are serious about restoring trust in our healthcare system and serious about supporting women, we must start by delivering justice to those who have been failed so profoundly.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

We now come to the Front-Bench spokespeople. I call Caroline Voaden.

10:27

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this important debate.

Last Saturday marked two years since the publication of the Hughes report—two years since Patient Safety Commissioner Dr Henrietta Hughes set out clear and compassionate recommendations for redress for those affected by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Yet two years on, families are still waiting, women are still suffering, children are still living with devastating disabilities, and the Government are still silent.

Like many other speakers this morning, I salute the courage of all those who have campaigned so hard on this issue for so long, many of them doing so while living with devastating injury. I would like to share the human cost of this scandal by giving an example of a life destroyed by a medical procedure that was badly performed and that went horrifically wrong. That has been the experience of my constituent, Susan. In 2009, Susan underwent a transvaginal tape procedure for mild stress urinary incontinence. The mesh was catastrophically misplaced, causing immediate and lasting harm. Within months, her health had deteriorated so badly that she was forced to close her Care Quality Commission-registered medical clinic, and to abandon a professional career that she had built up over three decades.

Believing the mesh to be the cause of her poor health, Susan sought help and was referred to a surgeon presented to her as an expert in mesh removal. She gave clear written consent for the removal of all remaining mesh. Instead—unbelievably—an additional reconstructive procedure was carried out without her knowledge or consent. It was never discussed beforehand and never explained afterwards. It was not even disclosed to her GP. Susan was then told that the mesh was “probably all removed”. It was not. Years later, specialist MRI imaging confirmed that substantial mesh remained embedded in her pelvis and abdominal wall. However, by the time the truth became clear, she was out of time to pursue a legal claim.

Recently, when Susan tried to pursue her case again, the legal system demanded over £10,000 for a barrister’s opinion. Given the loss of her high-end professional career, she no longer had the financial means to proceed. The financial ruin caused by the mesh injuries effectively barred her from accessing the courts and seeking the compensation that she so rightly deserves. Today, she lives with constant pain, severe incontinence, chronic infection and profound psychological trauma. Her financial losses run into the hundreds of thousands of pounds, and she is still waiting for a Government response that should have come two years ago.

I will share another constituent’s experience. In 2016, Caroline underwent mesh insertion. Within just three weeks, serious complications began, but what followed was not prompt medical care; it was six years of being repeatedly dismissed and gaslighted by multiple healthcare professionals, including the very surgeon who had implanted the mesh. When Caroline expressed concerns during an internal examination, the surgeon’s demeanour changed significantly for the worse. Her symptoms continued to be disregarded and for 12 months she had to self-advocate persistently before finally being referred to a specialist mesh complications service.

The specialists identified that the mesh had twisted, leaving Caroline with no option but full mesh removal surgery. That surgery took place in July 2023, more than seven years after the original procedure. The impact on her life has been devastating. She has endured years of significant physical pain and declining health. She has been forced to become financially dependent on her personal savings, as her ability to work has been severely limited. Universal credit and NHS travel support are means-tested, leaving her out of pocket for essential medical travel and other related expenses.

Susan’s story is not just one person’s story, and neither is Caroline’s. Across the country, thousands of women are living with that reality every single day. Women are living with chronic pain, infections and life-altering complications from pelvic mesh implants. That mesh was supposed to help them, but instead it eroded into their organs, caused urinary problems and bleeding, and left them unable to work, exercise or have intimate relationships with the people they love—in short, unable to live normal lives.

As well as that, children are living with devastating neurodevelopmental disorders and birth defects caused by sodium valproate exposure in the womb. Parents are at breaking point, struggling with the emotional, practical and financial burden of caring for children whose conditions were entirely preventable. As Janet Williams and Emma Murphy, two mothers of children with foetal valproate syndrome, wrote to the Prime Minister and Chancellor:

“Families affected by sodium valproate exposure do not have the luxury of time. The children are growing, their care needs are increasing, and their families are at breaking point.”

Let me remind the House of the timeline of this shameful delay. In July 2020, the Cumberlege review recommended urgent redress. The Government refused. Two and a half years later, they finally tasked the Patient Safety Commissioner to look at the issue again. On 7 February 2024, two years ago last Saturday, Dr Henrietta Hughes published her report. It was unequivocal in calling for an independent redress scheme, including £100,000 interim payments for valproate victims, and comprehensive medical and financial support for mesh survivors.

Those were not radical demands; they were the minimum response required to address preventable tragedies that have devastated thousands of lives, yet the response remains a hollow promise of careful consideration. There was no published response from the previous Government, and 18 months into this one, we are still told that action will come in due course. The delay is not just a bureaucratic failure, but part of a disturbing pattern seen in the Primodos and infected blood scandals. It is a pattern where women and vulnerable patients are ignored, evidence is dismissed and recommendations are left to gather dust. Running through it all, as Susan and Caroline’s cases demonstrate so starkly, is a persistent culture of cover-up and denial. Compensation alone is not enough. We must ensure that such harm is never inflicted again.

The Liberal Democrats are calling for a policy response that protects patients from the horrors of mesh implant side effects in absolute terms, with a full and continuing moratorium. Far too often, the recommendations from inquiries into medical scandals are neglected. There should be annual reporting to Parliament on progress, including on how the Government are addressing every issue highlighted by the Hughes report.

Central to preventing future scandals is ending the culture of cover-up that has been exposed time and again by medical scandal inquiries—the culture that allowed Susan to be told her mesh had been removed when it had not, and Caroline to be gaslighted for six years by the very professionals who should have helped her—and the doubtful legal procedures outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham.

That is why we support the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—the Hillsborough law—which will enshrine a statutory duty of candour on all public authorities and provide bereaved families with equal legal representation at inquests. The collapse of the Bill at the eleventh hour was deeply disappointing. Ministers now need to listen to the Hillsborough families and urgently bring forward a solution that ensures that everyone, including the security services, is covered by this law.

However, a duty of candour must go hand in hand with protection for brave individuals who speak up when they see harm being done. We strongly oppose the Government’s decision to scrap key patient safety organisations, including whistleblowing and speak-up programmes such as the National Guardian’s Office. We also oppose moves to remove patient voice, including the proposed abolition of local Healthwatch organisations.

The sodium valproate and pelvic mesh scandals represent fundamental failures of our healthcare system to protect vulnerable women and children. It was a major failure of the previous Conservative Government not to deliver compensation, which was recommended by not only the Patient Safety Commissioner, but the Cumberlege review that preceded it. The Liberal Democrats have consistently called for every recommendation from the Cumberlege review to be accepted and for a full response to the Hughes report setting out how the Government will provide redress for these terrible injustices.

Two years since the Hughes report is long enough to wait. Four years since Cumberlege is far too long. For women like Susan, who have been waiting since 2009 for justice, 16 years is unconscionable. Families deserve answers. Women deserve compensation and corrective surgery where appropriate. Children deserve the support and care they need. They all deserve justice. Everyone affected by the valproate and vaginal mesh scandals should have an apology, compensation, corrective surgery where needed, and psychological support.

I ask the Minister again: what active conversations are currently being held with the Treasury about redress payments? I urge the Government to commit today to publishing a full response to the Hughes report, implementing its recommendations in full and ensuring that no family or individual affected by medical negligence ever has to fight this hard or this long for basic recognition of the harm that was done to them.

10:37

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. On behalf of the Opposition, I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing today’s debate. She has campaigned tirelessly on this issue, giving a voice to thousands of women who have been let down by the state. I also thank Henrietta Hughes for the Hughes report.

Thousands of pregnant women were prescribed sodium valproate between 1973 and 2017 despite growing evidence of harm. In 1972, scientists found in animal studies that it was harmful to foetuses, and in 1984, foetal valproate syndrome entered the medical literature. Studies in the 2000s highlighted the link between valproate and birth defects. I remember, as perhaps you do, Dr Allin-Khan, learning about it at medical school. Yet it was only in 2018 that the valproate pregnancy prevention programme came into force, which was too late for more than 20,000 children with entirely preventable disability.

Over 10,000 women in England were harmed by pelvic mesh. Mesh kits were issued in the 2000s to treat urinary incontinence and prolapse, despite a lack of long-term safety data. Women suffered hideous complications: mesh tearing through tissue, bleeding, infection and sexual dysfunction. Shockingly, it took until 2018 for NHS England to suspend the routine use of these implants.

I want to raise the case of a lady, now in her 30s, who had a mesh implant put in to prevent a hernia in her abdominal wall, something that is often missed from the discussions about mesh. She describes how she is unable to leave her home because there is a hole in her stomach wall where the mesh has eroded. It cannot be removed. The surgeon described it as being stuck in there like chewing gum. She described her wish for a family. She described the smell of the constant infections. She described the fear of waiting for the next infection and wondering whether the sepsis from it will kill her. Yet there seems to be no way for her to get this mesh removed.

The previous Government did not sit on their hands. The former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), commissioned the independent medicines and medical devices safety review after hearing from over 700 affected people and medical stakeholders. The previous Government issued a formal apology to victims and appointed a Patient Safety Commissioner. They began to establish a network of centres to provide treatment, care and advice for those affected by the implanted mesh. I would be grateful for an update on that from the Minister, particularly in the light of the case that I described.

In 2022, the previous Government asked the new commissioner to report on options for compensating victims. Dr Henrietta Hughes did so in February 2024, a full 24 months ago, and that report set out what justice should look like for victims: an interim redress scheme and a permanent one to follow. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said, it was a package of clear, practical steps to right the wrongs done to so many women. Yet two years on, we are no further forward.

After the 2024 election, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked the Government when they would respond to the Hughes report. The response was that the Government would consider the recommendations and meet with the commissioner. In January 2025, when asked by Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick, the Government said they were “carefully considering” report and would provide an update “at the earliest opportunity.” In March, in this very room, a Government Minister said that recommendations were being actively considered and that a report was coming “at the earliest opportunity.” In that debate, the Minister suggested that research by Dr Rebecca Bromley was material. Can the Minister update us on that research?

In October, when the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) asked whether funding had been allocated for redress, a Minister said that recommendations were being carefully considered and a response would come at the earliest opportunity. In December, when the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), asked whether financial support was forthcoming, the Government said that recommendations were—still—being carefully considered. Last month, when my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) asked whether funding was forthcoming, a Minister said the Government were “carefully considering” the report and an update was coming “in due course”.

What we have heard from Ministers is so frustrating. For 18 months, Members have asked what is being done, and time and again, this Labour Government have refused to give a clear answer. I note that the previous debate was responded to by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), and both she and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), have answered questions on the matter. We have a different Minister today, and it is a delight to see her, but perhaps she can confirm which Minister takes responsibility for this issue in the Commons.

I have some further questions for the Minister. On which date did work begin on a response to the Hughes report? How many civil servants are working on the response? Have there been any conversations with the Treasury about the costs of the redress scheme? If work has been taking place, why is it invisible? If, in fact, nothing has been done, why have the Government persisted in telling Members that a response is forthcoming? Why, despite Dr Hughes visiting the Department in December, has nothing materially changed? Will the Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) asked, make an interim payment this calendar year?

Over the weekend, the Patient Safety Commissioner told ITV:

“This is a disgraceful way that patients and families are being treated by those in power.”

She is absolutely right. The state’s No. 1 duty is to protect the public from harm, yet after inflicting harm, the state has failed to make things right. This is part of a pattern under Labour whereby systemic failings, particularly those affecting women, go unresolved. Every day that victims of mesh and valproate do not receive justice, confidence in health professionals is undermined.

We know that the Chancellor is fast running out of other people’s money, but it is wrong to balance the books on the backs of those who are suffering. Justice is the state’s duty. It is not optional. It is not something just to be carefully considered for years on end, indefinitely, while women and children suffer. The Government can respect the victims and the work of the Patient Safety Commissioner today by answering our questions, or they can continue their parade of platitudes and evasions. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

10:44

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House following the second anniversary of the report by the Patient Safety Commissioner, Dr Henrietta Hughes. I pay tribute to her work and, as others have, to Baroness Cumberlege for her work in the lead-up to that report. I also thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for securing this important debate. It has been a thoughtful and constructive debate on an issue that is highly sensitive for Members across the House, for campaigners and people who are here today, and for people watching online.

To answer the question from the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), I am responding to this debate on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). He is the lead Minister for this area, but unfortunately cannot be here today—as Members will understand, that is often an issue, but I am happy to stand in. This is a matter of great interest to him personally. As colleagues know, he is a clinician, so has valuable insight into patient safety and how it works from a clinical perspective.

My hon. Friend wanted me to be clear that he is very happy to meet campaigners, as the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked, to discuss our work in more detail. He met the Patient Safety Commissioner in December to discuss the Department’s ongoing work in relation to her report. Since then, he has continued his engagement with the commissioner on how we can do more to address the immediate needs of those affected by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. As we have heard, and as many of us know from constituents—I know that many other Members have affected constituents but were not able to attend the debate—some of these women’s lives, as well as those of their families, have been changed forever because they were misled about the effects of sodium valproate and surgical mesh.

Many examples have been given in the debate, and constituents of mine have shared the most intimate details of the impact of sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. It has been truly harrowing for me and many other Members to listen to those details, as I am sure it was for those women who bravely shared them with a stranger, their Member of Parliament. That point was made well by many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), who spoke on behalf of her constituents.

We owe honesty, transparency and contrition to all the women affected, and we are determined to make sure that the lessons are learned and to keep patient safety at the heart of the reform. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) rightly highlighted the issue of trust in the system, which is so important as we go forwards. Our focus remains on building a system that listens and that acts with speed, compassion and proportionality. Everybody who has suffered complications from sodium valproate and pelvic mesh implants has my deepest sympathies. I express my gratitude to Dr Hughes and her team for the report that was published two years ago, and I am grateful, too, for her continued engagement with the Department as Patient Safety Commissioner.

[Caroline Voaden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I will, but I do want to respond to Members’ comments.

[Caroline Voaden]

The Minister said that she supports a system that acts with speed. Could she give us an idea of when there might be a response to the report?

[Karin Smyth]

I want to address the main concerns and, as I said, the Under-Secretary of State is very keen to talk with Members and campaigners.

We remain committed to working alongside Dr Hughes and her team to better support patients and ensure that steps are taken to prevent similar harm in the future, both in this area and across the wider patient safety landscape. That is obviously crucial. Many Members mentioned the importance of women’s voices being heard in this area, and many of us were involved in the campaign in the previous Parliament. We must make sure that women’s voices are better heard in the health system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) said, the campaigners are doing that, and I pay tribute, as she did, to In-FACT, as well as Sling the Mesh and the very many other patient groups that have raised this on behalf of women. They should not have to, but I commend their work.

I assure Members and people listening to the debate that we remain committed to advancing this work across Government and to looking at lessons from any cases in which patient safety has been affected. I fully understand why colleagues are asking for an official response to the Hughes report here and now. It is important that we get it right, and we need to carefully consider all options and the associated costs before coming to a decision on the report’s specific recommendations. I am sure that many Members have seen the letter that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State wrote to the Patient Safety Commissioner in November, and I reconfirm, as he wrote, that that work includes looking at the costs.

We must take forward the lessons learned from this work—including, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) highlighted, work on similar areas—and the Government are doing that. We must ensure that our approach provides meaningful, often ongoing support to those who have been so profoundly affected.

The Government have to consider options for financial redress collectively, with input from a number of Departments, and we started that work immediately. As was mentioned, the previous Government did not respond to the report when it was published, but we have picked up that work. Initially, Baroness Merron was the lead Minister, and it is now the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West.

I assure the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) that my hon. Friend recently met the devolved Government Health Ministers to discuss their respective positions further. He will continue to do so across all devolved Government areas; as Members have said, patients there are affected too. We have to proceed with care to ensure the correct approach. We are committed to providing updates at the earliest opportunity, once all relevant advice and implications are considered.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I will continue, if I may.

On non-financial redress, the Department is committed to meeting the needs of current patients with clinical requirements via three principal avenues. The first is improving clinical services and treatment to patients, and the second is commissioning further research and development programmes on sodium valproate and pelvic mesh to address the remaining knowledge gaps. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for sharing again his personal experiences and for laying bare the deep complexity and the need for more research and development, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is committed. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), with his clinical knowledge, also added useful experience to the debate. That is absolutely what my hon. Friend will be taking forward. The third avenue is initiating longer-term preventive measures that will help ensure that the system can pick up on adverse trends in patient care and act more quickly in the future.

I will take each avenue in turn. On improvement of clinical services, although the number of women up to the age of 54 who have been prescribed sodium valproate has nearly halved since 2018, there is a significant group of patients already affected who have complex and varied needs, and the health system has to ensure that that cohort receives high-quality and tailored care. NHS England has committed to a pilot project on foetal exposure to medicine in the north of England, involving multiple clinical specialties and a wide range of clinical experts, that will undertake a comprehensive review of the service. Eighty patients have been seen as part of the pilot, representing 560 appointments and 650 clinical hours. We have received feedback from patients on the value for their quality of life of being seen by clinical experts and wider multidisciplinary teams. We are considering options to commission this service further nationwide.

NHS England has also completed an internal review of mesh centres across England. Mesh centres undoubtedly offer a valuable and impactful service, with nearly 3,000 patients now seen since their introduction. However, as a relatively new service, distinct areas for improvement remain, and we will look closely at the results of the internal review and promptly deliver the necessary improvements.

With regard to further research and development, the National Institute for Health and Care Research has been commissioned for a £1.56 million study to develop patient-reported outcome measures for prolapse, incontinence and mesh-complication surgery. In the longer term, those measures will be integrated into the pelvic floor registry, which monitors and improves the safety of mesh patients. Further research is also taking place in this area, and we will ensure that future work takes into account the recommendations of the pilot project and of the mesh centre audit.

On longer-term prevention work, recent discussions with NHS England and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency indicate that longer-term improvements in digitisation will help position the UK as a world leader in reducing valproate-exposed births and applying the insights to other teratogenic medicines. The Department will explore increasing centralisation and visibility of the annual risk acknowledgment form across care settings, as highlighted in the Hughes report, and may consider expanding the medicines and pregnancy registry to better link data with research outcomes.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Karin Smyth]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East.

[Seamus Logan]

I appreciate the complexities of the steps that the Minister is outlining. Nevertheless, in repeated contributions, Members have asked for a timescale, so will the Minister respond by the end of the Session? Will she respond by the autumn? Will she respond by the end of the calendar year? Can she give us some clarification, please?

[Karin Smyth]

I am happy to answer that at the end of my comments, but first I will take the intervention from the right hon. Member for New Forest East.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I appreciate that the Minister does not have primary responsibility for this area, but it worries me that we are hearing an awful lot about process. What I fear is really going on is that Ministers have been told at the highest possible level, by the Chancellor or a Treasury Minister, that the money for redress will not be made available and they have to take that as their starting point. She may not be able to confirm this now, but I would like an answer as to whether a conversation of that sort has taken place.

[Karin Smyth]

I thank both Members for their comments. Experienced parliamentarians will know what I will be able to say. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, outlined in his letter, costs—I think that is what the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East was alluding to—are part of the overall consideration, along with the complexity, in the work that he is leading on behalf of the Department across all Government Departments.

[Marie Goldman]

Will the Minster give way?

[Karin Smyth]

I am going to close by emphasising again that we are profoundly sorry, of course, for the enduring harm experienced by women affected by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Their pain, which we keep in our minds at all times, and the life-altering consequences they have suffered are truly heartbreaking. We recognise the immense toll, much of which we have heard about again today, that this has taken on them and their families. We have listened closely to calls for clarity, speed and decisive action on the report’s recommendations. To be very clear, we are committed to setting out our response at the earliest credible opportunity while ensuring that it is both robust and deliverable. I think that, as we have heard again today, Members here and people listening recognise the complexity of that. I assure those listening that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is determined to progress this matter, and he is willing to meet campaigners and discuss that in more detail, as Members have asked us to do today.

10:56

[Sarah Green]

In his November letter to the Patient Safety Commissioner to which the Minister referred, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), states in reference to redress:

“Additional information is still required on the practicalities of further action on this area. This includes approaches to cost and affordability, legislation and scope of any potential redress. No final timetable has been agreed at present.”

The thoughtful and insightful contributions we have heard today show that Members are not going to stop asking the question. In tribute to the many families and campaigners, who are so inspiring and yet exhausted, I hope very much that we are not here in 12 months’ time dusting down the same speeches and chasing for progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the second anniversary of the Hughes Report.

10:56

Sitting suspended.

New Medium Helicopter Programme

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

I will call Adam Dance to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the New Medium Helicopter programme.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the Minister for coming to answer pressing questions. I recognise how hard he and his team work and the headache that we must be giving him by going on about the new medium helicopter.

After retiring the Puma from service last year, the UK currently has a capability gap. We have no medium-lift helicopter ability for our armed forces, which means there is a clear requirement for helicopters to transport troops, equipment and supplies over long distances and difficult terrain on a wide range of missions. Although we hear a lot about the future of warfare, in the age of drones and even greater technology development, crewed helicopters are still key to a joint force that will allow our military to respond effectively to the ever-growing threats we face.

We have a gap that needs to be filled. That is what the new medium helicopter programme is for. As the last remaining bidder for the £1 billion contract, Leonardo is ready to fill that gap by offering the AW149 helicopter, built at the home of British helicopters in my constituency of Yeovil. The Minister will tell us that it is far more complex than many people outside defence may realise, but I think he can appreciate that it does seem quite simple. There is one bidder in a contract; that is a win, win, win. It fulfils a capability requirement, will help to boost defence spending and modernise our armed forces. It will provide investment in the British jobs and apprenticeships in Yeovil, which is what the Prime Minister told me he is determined to deliver.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He is right to highlight jobs in his constituency and further afield, because many other companies depend on this work. Does he agree that this contract is crucial for replacing the RAF Puma HC2 fleet, and is critical to national security? The Minister and Government must prioritise and fund the replacement accordingly. The dithering must come to an end and action must be taken.

[Adam Dance]

I agree that we need action. We need to ensure that we arm our forces with the correct equipment now. By contrast, not awarding the contract is lose, lose, lose, particularly for my constituency.

The future of the new medium helicopter is the future of Yeovil. Leonardo has been clear that if the programme does not go ahead, it will need to seriously consider the future of the Yeovil site. That puts more than 3,000 skilled jobs at the Yeovil site directly at risk, alongside 12,000 in the regional supply chain and the £320 million contribution to local GDP. It would also lead to a huge loss of investment in my community—starting with £1.2 million to Yeovil college, which does fantastic work training the skilled people we need in our defence sector—and the loss of the Westlands entertainment centre, and would leave a new solar farm unfinished, and so much more. It will be the death of my town. Local businesses have told me that they will shut overnight if Leonardo goes. House prices will fall and young people trained in Yeovil will leave.

Not awarding the new medium helicopter also has a knock-on effect for our country’s defence. That point gets a little lost in jargon of sovereign capability. If the site in Yeovil closes, we risk losing our country’s ability to build our own helicopters from start to finish, at the exact time that the world is becoming unstable and insecure. Put like that, as people back home tell me, it sounds insane not to get on with the programme and secure the future of the Yeovil site.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. He will know that many people who work at the Leonardo site live in West Dorset and commute. The company is responsible for providing training and apprentice opportunities for thousands of my constituents. I feel like every strategic defence review about the urgent need to speed up procurement—that is repeated ad nauseam. Even the most recent one recognises that the uncertainty around procurement undermines national security. My hon. Friend has rightly identified that there was a sole bidder, and that the programme is vital for the UK’s sovereign capability. Does he agree that unless the Government start to show that they are serious about speeding up procurement in the defence sector, we will lose vital industries, such as those that secure our ability to make helicopters, as well as thousands of businesses in the supply chain that support them?

[Adam Dance]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. This issue affects not just our constituencies but many constituencies in the south-west. Leonardo is the backbone of our area, and we must secure the contract, but the effect on our area is not the only knock-on effect. The site in Yeovil is making fantastic progress on the Proteus uncrewed helicopter, which was recently successfully tested. Even though we are one of the few nations leading on such technology, if Leonardo cannot sustain its current workforce, skills and funding, we will lose those skills and could potentially lose Proteus. Once those skills are gone, they are really hard to get back, so not awarding the contract will undermine the Government’s drive for greater autonomy in our armed forces.

Given all that, why the delay? As far back as June last year I was told to “listen out”. I have heard so little since that I was worried that I might have lost my hearing—but don’t worry: I had my ears checked and they are working just fine. It seems that the problem is getting the defence investment plan to work. We were told that the DIP would answer all. It would set out the Government’s plan for spending on our defence and armed forces, including on the new medium helicopter, but at this point we might as well call it the delayed investment plan.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

The new Chief of the Defence Staff told me, as a member of the Defence Committee, that the medium helicopter programme was still very much on the armed forces’ priorities list. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to ensure that it is in the defence investment plan, because the service chiefs are asking for it? It is not all about uncrewed capability; we will always need crewed capability. This programme needs to be prioritised now, even before the defence investment plan comes out, because the Minister will tell us that they are still working it through. The Treasury and the Ministry of Defence need to get their act together and reinforce the programme to save the 3,000 jobs, plus those in the supply chain of SMEs that enable Yeovil to deliver it.

[Adam Dance]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I will come on to that point and his question to the Chief of the Defence Staff later in my speech.

In a response to my last urgent question on the defence investment plan, the Minister told me that it will be published when it is ready. That is the real problem, as Leonardo’s best and final offer will expire in March this year. Even more worrying are the reports of the £28 billion funding gap for our armed forces over the next four years, which suggest that the money for the new medium helicopter is not there. That raises quite a few questions that I will ask the Minister—I apologise in advance; he should please grab his pen and paper. I will not bother asking when we will get an announcement on the new medium helicopter, because we all know that the answer will be, “Wait for the DIP”, but if the Minister would like to show me up on that point, he should please do so.

First, the Chief of Defence Staff told my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) at a Committee hearing that, although the new medium helicopter is not at the bottom of the investment list, how high it is up that list is

“ultimately…a matter for Ministers.”

Will the Minister tell us how much of a priority the new medium helicopter is compared with other programmes that his Department is considering?

Secondly, if the new medium helicopter is a priority, then we can only assume that the problem is the money. That begs the question: why did the Government press ahead with the tender as it was, if they knew that Leonardo was the only bidder and that the money was probably not there? One billion pounds is not the kind of money we might lose down the back of the sofa, is it?

That leads me to what my constituents really want to know: what is going on now to solve this? Is the Minister’s Department committed to making sure that the deal does not time out? I know that he cannot comment on the endless rumours about who is causing the delays in the DIP, but will he tell us how many conversations he has had in recent months with colleagues from No. 10 and, importantly, the Treasury on the DIP and the future of the new medium helicopter?

Will the Minister also tell us—yes or no—if his Department has had any discussions with Government and with Leonardo on how changes to the scale or timeline of the new medium helicopter programme could make it workable? If the Minister cannot answer that, will he at least consider the Liberal Democrats’ calls for issuing defence bonds? That could raise up to £20 billion for capital spending on defence over the next two years. Does he recognise that the MOD could make greater savings by improving its counter-fraud work? Between 2021-22 and 2023-24, the MOD was getting a return of only 48p for every £1 spent, when public bodies should save £3 for every £1 spent on counter-fraud. That is money that we are losing and that could surely be going into funding programmes like the new medium helicopter.

Finally, can the Minister tell us what he is doing to manage the fallout from all this uncertainty? Importantly, will he clarify what steps his Government will take to protect the factory site and jobs in Yeovil and the south-west, and to reassure businesses and international partners that the Government are doing all they can to put increased defence spending to work in our fantastic factories? I am worried that the Government’s inability to get a contract agreed with only one bidder has undermined confidence in that.

I hope that the Minister can properly answer my questions, because we need clarity on the future of the new medium helicopter programme. It is good for the future of our armed forces and good for Yeovil and the south-west. If the Minister needs more motivation, I will finally stop annoying him about the new medium helicopter contract—that alone has to be worth it; it will be one headache off his books.

11:11

[The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)]

It is good to see you in your place, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for scheduling this debate. I am afraid that he will know some of my answers to his questions, because he has asked me them before, and I will give him broadly similar answers to those he has had before. In relation to his challenge, I will try not to show him up on the questions that I have already answered previously. I appreciate his passion for this topic, and I commend the Westland Helicopters tie that I have spotted he is wearing—we seem to be at a Putin-esque table in this debate, with one person down at the far end away from the other, but we have much in common on this issue, as he knows from our private conversations.

I welcome the opportunity to talk about the contribution that Leonardo UK makes to our armed forces and our economy, especially at a time when we are reassessing every pound of defence spending and investment that we are making. Our intention is very clear, as we set out in the strategic defence review and the defence investment plan: we need to fundamentally rewire defence and build a stronger, more lethal military, which can deter and, if necessary, defeat, those who threaten us. As such, we are looking at the whole programme of defence spending.

Let me get straight to the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. He will not be surprised when I say that I cannot announce a decision on the new medium helicopter programme today, but I can assure him that we will announce that decision as soon as possible as part of the defence investment plan. I am acutely aware that the contract decision is of great consequence, not to just Leonardo and its workforce at Yeovil but the wider community. As a fellow south-west MP, I can assure him that the importance to the wider region is not lost on me.

I also remind the hon. Gentleman that when we discussed this in the main Chamber, I committed that we will not allow the decision to time out. He is right that the best and final offer price has an expiry date, but we have committed as a Government that we will not time out—that is, it will not simply fail at that point; we will make a decision ahead of that, as part of the work we are doing on the defence investment plan.

[Adam Dance]

I thank the Minister for reiterating that point. My concern is that we do not have a date for when the DIP will come out, and he has just said that the new medium helicopter programme will be in the DIP. Is he therefore saying that if it is not out by the end of March, he will make a decision outside of the DIP on the new medium helicopter programme?

[Luke Pollard]

I have been pretty clear on a number of occasions in the Commons that we are not letting this decision time out. Therefore, a decision will be made, which is consistent with what I have said before.

[Ian Roome]

This is a really important programme, and I see that the official Opposition have not even bothered to turn up to the debate. I asked the Defence Secretary about the DIP, and he told me it would be out by the end of December. Now it is going to be March. Can the Minister guarantee that it will be March? What is the hold-up? Is it that the Treasury and the MOD cannot agree the finances? Could he be honest and let us know what the delay is in getting the DIP out?

[Luke Pollard]

As a Department, we are working flat out to deliver the DIP. It remains one of the key actions that we are trying to deliver as a Department. As a Defence Minister, I would prefer to get it right to getting it done quickly, with decisions that may not be as comprehensive or clear as we would like them to be. We have committed that we will get it out as soon as we can. I have also said a number of times that we will not let the decision on the new medium helicopter time-out. In the spirit of commenting on ties, it is good to see the hon. Gentleman wearing an RCDS tie; as a graduate of the Royal College of Defence Studies, which I know he is as well, it is good to see that.

I want to set out the engagement we are having with Leonardo, because it is important that we tell the story about what is taking place while we are looking at the new medium helicopter programme, as well as the wider record that we inherited. We have been engaging closely with the management team at Leonardo in both the UK and Italy, and we have stressed throughout that the company remains a vital strategic partner to UK defence. In fact, the Defence Secretary spoke to Leonardo’s global chief executive, Roberto Cingolani, last week. I continued those discussions in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia this week, when he and I were at the world defence show, where I met with both Roberto Cingolani and the managing director of Leonardo’s helicopter division, Gian Piero Cutillo.

Last month, the Secretary of State visited Leonardo’s radar and advanced targeting system centre in Edinburgh to confirm the award of a £453 million contract to manufacture upgraded and new radars for the Eurofighter Typhoon fleet, which is a huge investment in cutting-edge British technology with Leonardo. That investment will support 400 highly-skilled jobs at Leonardo’s site in Edinburgh and Luton, as part of a network of nine main sites that the company operates across the UK, employing more than 8,500 people. The Secretary of State’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), is sitting behind me. The Leonardo site in her constituency will also benefit from that contract, which reinforces the fact that contracts are about not just the point of manufacture but the supply chain across the entirety of the UK—a point that I know has been made in a number of these debates.

It is important to reflect on the challenges as we came into government. We inherited a procurement system that was overcommitted, underfunded and fundamentally unsuited to the threats that Britain faces today. Reforming, refinancing and restructuring that programme for a new generation of warfare is a challenging task but a necessary one, and it is one that we are tackling methodically and thoroughly. This is the first line-by-line review of defence investment for 18 years, a period in which our armed forces have been increasingly hollowed out and yet the world has become a far more dangerous place.

[Ian Roome]

Does the Minister agree that the new medium helicopter programme is a chance not just to upgrade an important capability but to move the service branches on to a common helicopter platform?

[Luke Pollard]

The hon. Gentleman is certainly right that we inherited a situation where there are far too many platforms across all our forces, which complicates servicing, operations and interoperability—the warfighting effect they can have—and does not create the inter- changeability that we are looking to deliver, as set out clearly in the strategic defence review.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is no longer in his place, but in his intervention he spoke about the Puma helicopter, which is a really good example. Those helicopters were on average between 43 and 50 years old. It is hard to make the case that the Puma helicopter was at the cutting edge of military aviation. It was also an incredibly expensive helicopter to keep up. As we made decisions about removing old technology and investing in new technology, we announced that platforms like Puma would be retired. Retiring old equipment and bringing in new equipment is the right decision, and that is effectively the work we are trying to do at the moment.

[Edward Morello]

I do not disagree with the points the Minister is making, and Lord knows I am happy for us to dedicate the rest of the debate to bashing the previous Administration for their failures. He talks about the need to future-proof decision making. Part of the problem that we have with defence procurement is the length of time it takes to get from a decision to deployment. That means that we end up changing the spec of what we are asking for, which ends up with the Ajax disaster that we are all looking at. In the remaining time, will the Minister speak to what the plans are to speed up defence procurement to make quicker decisions on both smart tech and dumb tech and on crewed and uncrewed, so that we can get to that war footing as quickly as possible?

[Luke Pollard]

I had noted the hon. Gentleman’s question and was coming to it in a moment, but as he has invited me to, I will deal with it now.

Since the general election, we have signed 1,100 major defence contracts as a Government, and 84% of those have gone to British companies. Where we do buy from international companies, we do so either because the technology is solely available from international supply or because it provides a military advantage in terms of timescale, price point or interoperability function with existing technologies. That is a necessity. I want to see more of our rising defence budget spent with UK firms, and that includes international firms that are based in the United Kingdom, creating jobs and growth opportunities.

[Adam Dance]

I thank the Minister for that comment, because that is so important. As he knows, Leonardo, which is based in Yeovil in the south-west, is the only end-to-end helicopter factory left in the UK. Surely, that is definitely a win-win. I hope that when the Minister said he would not let the decision time-out, a positive decision will be coming.

[Luke Pollard]

I would be surprised if the hon. Member was advocating for another position on that point.

At the risk of getting another intervention from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), I will finish the point on procurement. In the defence industrial strategy, which is a good read if he has not been through it, we have set out the ambition that was mentioned in the SDR of improving our procurement times. That means large, complex programmes that take five or six years on average going to two years; two-year programmes going to one year; and one-year programmes going down to a few months to six months. That is a big change in terms of how we procure, and it is a fundamental part of the decisions that will be coming out of the defence investment plan.

Rather than looking at the procurements that started under the previous Government—and as the House will know, the new medium helicopter began in February 2024—we continued. That is because, once a procurement policy has started, it is best practice to continue it with the rules of the road that were in place at the point where the procurement began; otherwise, it can be opened up to legal challenge and so on. To address the point that the hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned about pressing ahead, we pressed ahead with that procurement because it had begun and it was in train. That was the right thing to do, because the sense from industry and from the MOD was that restarting it carried greater risk than bringing it to a conclusion. The framing, setting, financing, financial arrangements and specifications were all set by the previous Government in relation to the new medium helicopter.

Finally, I will deal with the intervention from the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome), before returning to the point raised by the hon. Member for Yeovil. The challenge about whether we will always need crewed helicopters is a live one. If we look more broadly at our transition from crewed systems to autonomous systems, the SDR sets out very clearly that, at this period in time, the Government will invest in a mix of crewed, uncrewed and autonomous systems with a greater drive to autonomy, which not only increases lethality and mass, but provides jobs and growth opportunities. We know our adversaries are investing in similar technologies, so the question about the crewed, uncrewed and autonomous mix is a live one.

That brings me nicely to the point that the hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned around Proteus, which is a brilliant example of how investment in new technologies can deliver more change. It is a good project, which was funded by the Ministry of Defence through our work with UK Defence Innovation and was delivered by Leonardo. It is a sign of our strong partnership with Leonardo that we collaborated on the Proteus project, which experiments with a future rotary wing uncrewed air system. I have spoken to Leonardo about not naming helicopters after our ships. I would also like to get to a point where we stop naming things after bad guys in science-fiction movies, such as Skynet from “The Terminator” films, which is the name for our satellite communications systems, or giving things existing names.

However, the technology is outstanding. That is an area that provides huge growth opportunities for British industry, including, potentially, for Leonardo, subject to the usual competitive tendering processes around Proteus in the future. It is a good example of how an autonomous full-size helicopter can be demonstrated, but the mix that we are looking for in the strategic defence review is a mix of crewed, uncrewed and autonomous systems as we move in that direction. The investment that Leonardo has made in uncrewed and autonomous systems is to be welcomed.

[Adam Dance]

I am worried that if we do not get the new medium-lift, and if we should want Leonardo to be a bidder for Proteus, its job force might not be there—the company has that concern—so Proteus may not come. I am glad the Minister has said that he wants a mixture of both; that sounds promising.

[Luke Pollard]

The strategic defence review sets out very clearly the mix that we are looking for, partly because the technology is not currently available. In many cases, there is not an off-the-shelf product that we can simply buy from UK, or largely international, firms. It is something that requires the innovation that we are looking for.

The work we are continuing to do with Leonardo recognises the opportunities for growth in the defence sector, the importance of sovereign capability, and the importance of different military capabilities within our overall force picture. Given the defence knowledge present in the debate, the hon. Member for Yeovil will appreciate that there are different and changing priorities, and that we are learning lessons from Ukraine in terms of what capabilities we need.

Some of the programmes that we inherited from the Conservatives, who are not represented in this debate, were unsuitable for modern conflict, and unfunded. A key part of the defence investment plan is ensuring that every programme that is in our programme of record is sustainable, funded and can exist in reality, not just on PowerPoint. That is a big difference to the previous Government’s approach. As we move to warfighting readiness, which is my No. 1 mission as a Minister, I need to ensure that the equipment that we are purchasing and supporting can provide the deterrent ability that we need to deter aggression, but also has the ability to defeat it if required. That is why we are preferencing battlefield-ready technologies and those that give an increase in lethality.

I appreciate the passion that the hon. Member for Yeovil has for his hometown, and the importance of the contract. I will commit to continuing to have conversations with him and MPs from the wider region, and we have frequent discussions with our colleagues from Leonardo.

[Edward Morello]

I am aware of the time and it sounds like the Minister is wrapping up, but I did not want to be the only Member in the debate who had not been complimented on their tie.

[Luke Pollard]

I am afraid I did not bring my long-vision glasses, so I cannot spot everyone’s tie.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

It is very nice.

[Luke Pollard]

It is a very nice tie.

[Adam Dance]

Will the Minister give way one more time?

[Luke Pollard]

As long as it is not about ties.

[Adam Dance]

The Minister made the point about funding; is a lot of this tied up with the money for the contract not being there from the Treasury?

[Luke Pollard]

Unlike in previous Governments, our Treasury colleagues are aligned to our defence mission. We are working more closely with our Treasury colleagues than I have ever seen before. The close co-operation that we have, on the preparation of the SDR, the DIS, and the work that we are doing with Treasury colleagues on the DIP, is a good example of how the MOD with a different approach can find a close friend in the Treasury, which will ultimately help support the growing defence budget that the Chancellor and Prime Minister have announced for the Ministry of Defence.

There is £5 billion extra in our budget this year, and there is not a single person who has ever served in our armed forces before with a decade of rising defence spending ahead of them. What we spend that money on—and, importantly, how we spend it—is the debate around the defence investment plan. I welcome that debate, because there needs to be more discussion about how we can not over-spec, as the hon. Member for West Dorset suggested, and then change the specs during procurement. That is something that we have embraced fully, learning the lessons from the last Government, where that was not the case.

I have committed, earlier in the debate and previously, to not letting the decision on the medium helicopter time-out. We will continue our conversations with Leonardo, and I am happy continuing conversations with the hon. Member for Yeovil in a constructive manner to ensure that the points he raised on behalf of his constituents can be taken on board as part of the broader defence investment plan work.

Question put and agreed to.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Woodland Creation

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Emma Lewell in the Chair]

14:30

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of woodland creation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate on woodland creation, which my hon. Friend the Minister just described as the most wholesome debate we are going to have this week. I secured it because I really benefited from the beautiful blue and green spaces that I grew up alongside, and it is important to provide opportunities to benefit from accessible, beautiful blue and green spaces to everyone across the country.

Green and blue spaces are not just a luxury but essential infrastructure for our climate, nature and people’s everyday lives. Trees and woodlands cool our towns and cities, reduce flood risk and revive biodiversity. They support both medical and physical wellbeing, strengthen social connections and give people access to nature close to home. We have many missions as a Government, but I think providing good blue and green spaces, including through the creation of new woodlands, is one way we can help to support them all.

When green and blue spaces are planned well, they demonstrate that growth and environmental responsibility are not opposing forces but natural partners. I believe my home city is living proof of that. It is a new town created by the Harold Wilson Government of the 1960s, and from its very beginning the city was designed around green and blue corridors, with parks, woodlands and waterways woven into the fabric of daily life. That founding principle continues to shape the city today. Modern development sits alongside ancient landscapes, historic waterways and diverse habitats for wildlife. As a result, Milton Keynes now benefits from over 6,000 acres of parklands, rivers, lakes and woodlands, supported by more than 22 million trees—my fantastic city has 80 times more trees than the number of residents.

Over time, the city has protected and enhanced its natural assets. Ancient woodlands remain accessible and cherished, while parks and waterways connect neighbourhoods. Nature is not pushed to the margins but placed at the heart of the city. Many places are now trying to retrofit that approach, but Milton Keynes understood it from the start.

I have previously spoken to the Minister about the wetland arc project, led by the Parks Trust in Milton Keynes, with support from a National Lottery Heritage Fund grant. Once completed, this uninterrupted blue and green corridor will significantly enhance one of our city’s greatest assets. It supports wildlife, provides vital flood mitigation and carbon capture, and gives residents access to nature on their doorsteps. As the impacts of climate change become far more visible in our communities, the importance of wetlands and woodland creation cannot be overstated.

According to the 2025 global wetland outlook, around 22% of the world’s wetlands have been lost since the 1970s, placing immense pressure on biodiversity and increasing flood risk. The wetland arc will stretch across the north of Milton Keynes, covering 355 hectares, which is around 500 football pitches of parkland. What excites me most about the project is the understanding of wetlands as multifunctional spaces: they are not only habitats for wildlife but places that protect communities from flooding, support active travel and connect local people.

Under the stewardship of the Parks Trust, another great invention of the Milton Keynes Development Corporation, the wetland arc has the potential to become a distinctive and accessible landscape for the whole city, strengthening biodiversity while remaining open to everybody. We must not only create new woodlands for today, but think about stewardship into the future. I was reminded of the power of the Parks Trust’s local stewardship just last month, when I joined the trust to plant trees in Stanton Low Park. Among them was a “tree of hope”, a sapling grown from the Sycamore Gap tree. Only 49 of them were gifted across the UK, and I am proud that one now stands in my constituency.

Elsewhere in my constituency, Linford wood offers another powerful example of how woodland can be protected and enjoyed within a city. This 97-acre ancient woodland, with its network of footpaths and carved timber sculptures inspired by woodland wildlife, is deeply loved by local residents across the city. It shows that ancient woods are not just a relic of the past, but living spaces that continue to enrich modern communities. What makes places like Linford wood so valuable is not only their ecological importance, but their role in people’s day-to-day lives. Families walk in the wood at weekends and runners use it for shaded paths. It is part of the route I am using to train for this year’s London marathon —the Minister is welcome to sponsor me, to support my local hospice.

Woodlands are not just abstract environmental assets but part of the rhythm of community life. I hope that, throughout the debate, we talk just not just about the woodlands in rural parts of the country, important as they are, but the ones that exist in and support urban contexts.

We might feel instinctively that spending time among trees lifts our mood and clears our mind, but the evidence increasingly backs that up. Aviva’s latest “Picture of Health” research, published in September 2025, highlights a growing shift across Britain towards embracing nature as an essential part of maintaining wellbeing. In a survey of 2,000 UK adults, 65% said they actively seek out nature to support their mental health or manage stress, 80% said nature boosts their happiness, and 74% reported a reduction in stress and anxiety after spending time outdoors. The research also found that regularly spending time in nature is linked to higher energy levels, improved concentration and better sleep. After the week some of us have had, I think we would appreciate all those things.

The findings underline an important truth: access to nature is not just a luxury or a lifestyle choice, but a fundamental part of supporting the nation’s health and wellbeing. If more people are turning to green spaces to support their wellbeing, it becomes all the more vital that we protect, create and sustain the natural environments they rely on. Woodlands in particular offer accessible, restorative spaces close to where people live. Investing in their creation and long-term stewardship is therefore not only an environmental priority, but a social one, ensuring that the physical and mental health benefits of nature are accessible to everyone and not just a fortunate few.

Woodland creation must sit at the heart of our national approach to environmental recovery. After 14 years of Conservative drift, England was left with a serious deficit in woodland creation and forest resilience, with tree planting falling to a 20-year low before Labour took office. The Government are turning that around, and planting rates are now at their highest level in more than two decades. More than 7,000 hectares were planted last year, with 10.4 million trees planted in 2024—a 46% increase on the previous year. We are back on track to reach 16.5% of woodland cover by 2050, meeting the Environment Act 2021 target. Backed by £1 billion of investment over this Parliament, it is the largest tree-planting and forestry programme that England has ever seen. The investment supports not only planting but long-term stewardship, skills and apprenticeships, nursery capacity and access to nature.

The announcement of a new national forest across the Oxford-Cambridge arc, where my constituency sits, is fantastic news. I hope the Minister will consider that with reference to the forest of Marston Vale, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). That would be a fantastic position and is obviously close to Milton Keynes.

Milton Keynes shows what is possible and what has worked. I think I owe such a good start in life to the fact that my city provided so many things for me, up to and including fantastic access to green spaces and nature. I want to ensure that everybody right across the country has that same access. If we are serious about leaving a better environment for future generations, we must continue to invest in woodland creation, tree planting and new forests so that the benefits seen in Milton Keynes today can be enjoyed across the country for decades to come.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

If Back Benchers could keep their speeches to five minutes, that would be most helpful.

14:39

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As always, it is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall for consideration.

I declare an interest as a landowner and farmer: I own land down at Greyabbey and Kircubbin in the Ards peninsula. I have told this story in the House before, but it is important that I declare it. I planted out an area of my farm; it could have been used for cattle, but we felt it was important to plant trees, because the hedgerows are disappearing and the habitat is not what it once was. We planted some 3,500 trees, with the help of my son, under the Woodland Trust scheme, and that will be beneficial in the years to come. Had the scheme not been in place, it would never have crossed my mind to diversify in that way. If a scheme was available again to pay the costs of the saplings, for instance, I believe landowners would take the time to plant out their land. Such buy-in among local landowners can be only a good thing.

Over the past six weeks, with my other son, we have been trying to plant out some hedges. In the last six weeks we have planted some 600 of them, as well as apple trees. There is nothing quite like an apple off a tree when you have grown it yourself. I think the apples are sweeter—maybe they are not, but I believe they are.

I want to highlight the case for my local council, Ards and North Down council. It is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I want to share some of the problems we are having back home, to give a Northern Ireland perspective. The council is making real efforts to make a difference in the creation of areas of biodiversity. I understand it is actively engaged in significant woodland creation and tree-planting initiatives, most notably through its STAND4TREES initiative, which aims to plant one tree for every resident by 2032. We have 160,000 residents in the council area, so it is quite an ambitious scheme. Guided by the trees and woodland strategy for 2021 to 2032, the programme focuses on enhancing biodiversity, increasing the native tree canopy and promoting community engagement in environmental stewardship.

A problem has occurred, and other Members might be able to demonstrate whether it is a one-off. When the council recently attempted to purchase land to facilitate tree planting, it was outbid at an astronomical rate. This is a real concern. It is not simply about the price of the trees and the manpower—or the womanpower, because we both participate. With the price of farmland hitting an all-time high, this could be a very costly venture. In Northern Ireland, an acre of land currently costs £15,202, which right away puts any ideas about tree planting at a disadvantage. It is the first time the overall average has exceeded £15,000.

Councils whose purse strings are already tight are trying to work out how they can be involved in planting at an affordable price. I should have welcomed the Minister; it is lovely to see her in her place. We are pleased to have her here and I know, because she loves this subject, that she will encourage us all with the answers to our questions. It would be a pleasure to hear from her about what can happen if councils want to plant, but are restricted by the price of land.

Leading by example is always a good thing, yet unless the Government come alongside our local authorities, it will be left to individuals to bite the bullet themselves and plant out the bottoms of their gardens on hilly land. For us to really make a substantial difference, we need greater help—for local authorities to purchase land and for landowners to get the trees to plant out. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—Northern Ireland’s equivalent of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—has the small woodland grant scheme for new native woodlands, and the forest expansion scheme for larger projects of three or more hectares, but the costs are not close to being met. It sounds terrible, but sometimes we do need help to enhance, encourage, coerce or, perhaps, persuade others to do that.

We all know that trees provide more than beautiful scenery. They provide the very air that fills our lungs, and we sometimes need to be reminded of that. They sustain an ecosystem that most of us do not even know about, never mind value. I know that I do, but I am not sure if everybody else does—not because they are any less smart than I am, but because of how important it is. The Government and the Minister know the value. We must do more to fund the future and to fund woodland creation in a greater way.

14:44

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.

Woodland creation is, at its heart, hopeful work. It is about climate action, nature recovery and public good. It is about taking long-term decisions for future generations. I also like that we know it is doable, because we have examples right across the country. At a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for woods and trees, I saw a fantastic slide that showed the national forest in the midlands going from 6% tree cover all the way to 23% or 24% tree cover. It was fantastic to see that visually displayed. That woodland is supporting animals, birds, walks, trails and 5,000 tourism-related jobs every year.

That is why I back the Labour Government’s ambition to create three new national forests, including one right in the centre of the growth corridor, in my part of the world and that of the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). That is the kind of growth everybody can get behind—from seed to sapling to towering trees. We can already see the Labour Government’s first new national forest getting under way and taking shape. A friend who lives in that part of the world says that so many fences have been erected to protect the new trees it now resembles a prisoner of war camp. Those fences are really important, because protection in the early years matters for trees. Saplings are vulnerable. They need time, protection and sustained care.

The Minister and I recently discussed young tree survival in an Adjournment debate that I very much enjoyed, so I am back for more. That debate focused on urban trees, but I want to talk about woodland trees today. There are a lot of similarities, but also some differences. The similarity is, of course, that we need to get the right tree in the right place. They all need water, though less so in woodland environments than in urban environments because the soil naturally retains more moisture. In woodlands, weed control is particularly important, as is making sure that the saplings are planted well, healthy, British grown and disease free. The first three to five years are so important for establishment. We have to move beyond the “plant, plant, plant” mantra to “establish, establish, establish” because that is what really matters. Success is measured not by trees planted, but by trees thriving.

Thinking about the very early years of trees means thinking about having thriving domestic tree nurseries supplying the right trees, at the right time, in the right quantities. With our ambitions rising significantly, domestic supply needs to keep pace to avoid reliance on imports, which increase pest and disease risks and weaken resilience. Planting native species gives the greatest wildlife benefit. How will the Government better align tree supply with planting grants? Given that nurseries need to plan so many years in advance, how do we ensure long-term stability?

We also need a focus on skills and workforce. Growing trees is skilled and technical work and the nursery sector faces big skills shortages. This week is Apprenticeship Week. I have met lots of apprentices, but none planting trees. How do we make sure that we have a real pipeline of talent in forestry skills and horticultural training? Investment in people is investment in resilience.

As the Minister knows, I back the “Strong Roots” report’s recommendation for British-grown tree certification. The idea behind that is to grow market identity, transparency, investment and confidence—and pride, too. It is totally on brand for this Labour Government to establish “Great British Trees”. Will the Minister push that with her Cabinet colleagues as we seek to change the country and create landscapes that endure?

14:48

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. It is also a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer).

I congratulate another constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis), on securing this important debate on woodland creation. As he knows, my Mid Bedfordshire constituency, which he mentioned, is home to the community forest of Marston Vale, which is one of a handful created in the 1990s to help to establish and enhance woodlands. The forest has had a tremendously positive impact on the environment in Bedfordshire, with 16.9% tree coverage across the forest area, up from only 3.6% in 1991, and nearly 3 million trees, shrubs and hedgerows planted. That has transformed a Bedfordshire countryside scarred by our historic brickmaking industry into a beautiful place to spend time, yet Bedfordshire is still in a nature and biodiversity crisis.

Our countryside, particularly our ancient woodland, is under significant threat from development, due to both the increasing numbers of people roaming our area as a result of population growth, which brings its own challenges to local nature, and development proposals, including that at Keepers Place, with which the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North will be familiar as it straddles the boundary between our constituencies. That is just one development among the thousands of houses proposed to be built across the area of the forest of Marston Vale in coming decades.

Our ancient woodlands are at their best when surrounded by nature. The community forest has done fantastic work introducing reafforesting and sustainable woodland management practices across Mid Bedfordshire, but we cannot support our woodlands through reafforesting alone. That is why I hope that the Minister will set out, in her response, how this Government plan to ensure that our ancient and newly created woodlands alike will be protected over the short and long term. I endorse the Woodland Trust’s recommendation that the Government should ensure that our ancient woodlands are protected, including through designation as sites of special scientific interest. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on that.

I conclude with a request to the Government on a topic about which hon. Members have already spoken. I welcome the Government’s ambition to create a new national forest in the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. Mid Bedfordshire sits at the heart of that corridor, alongside the constituencies of the hon. Members for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard and for Milton Keynes North. Mid Bedfordshire has the forest of Marston Vale at its centre, and has the expertise to deliver a new national forest that can be enjoyed across the growth corridor. I have made a number of representations to Ministers already, and I believe that the new national forest should be built on the forest of Marston Vale by expanding southwards through my constituency. It would be of value to people right across the region, would provide a lasting benefit to the growth corridor and would help to support the continued restoration of one of Britain’s most nature-depleted landscapes.

14:52

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell.

The state of England’s woodland paints a clear picture of national decline. The elms are gone, the ash is dying and even the English oak is at risk from the existential threat of climate change. We have far less woodland cover than many of our European neighbours and what woodland we have is in poor condition: just 7% of it is in good health. Many of our oldest trees—living legends that have been part of our landscapes for generations and that can each be home to thousands of species—are still at risk. A lack of diversity in size and species, and a lack of open, sunlit glades for young trees to grow in, has left our ecosystems fragile and degraded. That does profound harm to the wildlife that our voters love. Iconic species such as hazel dormice and our beloved red squirrels are disappearing into the pages of the history books and the number of woodland birds has fallen by 37% over the past 50 years. It must be said that although the wealth generated from tearing down woodland for shipbuilding, agriculture and construction was tightly privatised by a small, wealthy few, the consequences of the nature crisis are and will be felt by all.

We are on track to miss nearly all our targets for nature recovery. We have already lost half our biodiversity and one in six species are teetering on the brink of extinction. Those are not abstract targets that we can shrug off but missed opportunities to save species whose haunting absence would impoverish the lives of every generation to come. Unchecked, such decline will have disastrous consequences. Nature is not only the essential foundation for our economy but a source of joy to millions of people, and an irreplaceable ingredient of our national identity and culture. The Joint Intelligence Committee has warned that nature decline creates “cascading risks” to our food security and national security. To be frank, wringing our hands about nature’s decline in these debates while signing up to an economic model that treats nature as something to exploit, or destroys if it is in the way, will no longer cut it. The depoliticised niceties and doublespeak have to go.

We need to have the honesty to call out leadership that treats nature as an obstacle to progress, rather than a measure of it. Every politician loves ancient woodland until it is home to one of the world’s rarest bat species and is threatened by the latest grandiose project dreamt up in Whitehall. At that point it immediately becomes a blocker and a convenient scapegoat for the insane cost overruns of our model of outsourced and subcontracted infrastructure delivery, which so often rips off the public purse. We would not destroy historic cathedrals or royal palaces in this way, but, only a few years ago, we proved once again that even one of the best-loved trees in the country—every bit a work of art in its own right—can be destroyed in the pursuit of higher GDP. If we fail to do better, the public will not forgive either this Government or our political class more widely.

There are two tasks ahead for reversing the national decline of our woodlands. First, we must take a bold approach to woodland creation—on which subject much has already been usefully said today. I pay tribute to the Woodland Trust for its leadership in driving the northern forest, which will reach across Hull into Liverpool and surge into our cities. That is how we grasp an opportunity not just to rescue ecosystems, but to enrich communities, foster happier, healthier lives and reconnect ordinary people with what is collectively our greatest national inheritance.

As the Labour Government rightly focuses on building an economy with secure, highly skilled and meaningful work for all, here is an enormous opportunity. Essential woodland management—coppicing, pollarding, thinning, restocking and the rest—will require a new generation of tree surgeons and forestry workers, potentially offering brilliant careers right across the country. However, even the Woodland Trust or my hon. Friend the Minister—talented though they are—cannot recreate ancient woodland, nor restore other irreplaceable habitats or species once they are lost to extinction. Therefore, as we pursue woodland creation, we must also defend the protections we already have. The Woodland Trust has long argued that loopholes in the national planning policy framework leave ancient woodland vulnerable to damage and deterioration from development.

We should be strengthening those protections alongside an ambitious programme of nature recovery. Instead, the nature sector has been left fighting endless battles with the Government simply to stop things getting worse. That is why I led more than 60 MPs and peers alongside major nature charities, including the Woodland Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Wildlife Trusts, in opposing proposals to weaken the habitat regulations recommended in the nuclear regulatory review. We must be clear: if someone cares about our woodlands and woodland creation, they cannot advocate for repealing our most important nature protections. Planting trees while weakening the habitats regulations is like planting flowers at one end of a field, while a bulldozer rips it up at the other. We need a joined-up approach that protects what we have and restores what we have lost. That is why I am calling for red lines for nature. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting this campaign in the coming months.

14:57

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) for securing this worthwhile debate.

Scotland is home to some outstanding examples of both natural and created woodland. In my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire North, which is a mix of urban and rural geography, we have the Boden Boo woodland hidden below the Erskine bridge, which spans the River Clyde. I also love to visit the Finlaystone estate with my daughter. It is a vast woodland area on the border of the neighbouring constituency, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), and it sells Christmas trees during the festive period.

Woodland creation brings so many benefits, and I want to bring them to hon. Members’ attention today. We have all recently seen the devastating impact of flooding. In some places, woodlands can help to naturally manage flooding. They help slow down water reaching watercourses and ease the pressure on catchments. Growing trees trap harmful carbon dioxide and at least temporarily reduce the impact of our emissions from fossil fuels. Woodlands can provide a habitat for thousands of native species, from insects to small mammals and birds. They are especially important for pollinators such as bumblebees and butterflies, providing a safe refuge all year round and supporting insects with a reliable food source thanks to a rich diversity of pollen and nectar-producing plants.

There are very few communities around the UK that could not benefit from more woodland, and I am glad to lend my voice in support of long-term, ambitious commitments to woodland creation. Woodland creation is not just an environmental issue; it is about climate delivery, economic resilience, rural jobs and national security. The UK currently imports over 80% of the timber it uses, leaving us exposed to global price volatility and supply shocks.

However, there is a problem with the planting of conifer trees. Since 2010, broadleaf woodland has increased, but conifer woodland has declined in England. Only around 12% of new woodland creation has been conifer—far below the minimum of 30% that is widely cited as necessary for net zero and timber security. That matters because only fast-growing conifers will lock up meaningful volumes of carbon by 2050, and softwood provides the bulk of the timber the UK uses. Home-grown timber is strategically important to national resilience and security. Global supply is tightening and future demand is projected to outstrip supply, increasing international competition for timber.

In my former profession in the property industry, decarbonising construction has been a key priority over the last decade or so. I believe the property industry has leant into the environmental challenges ahead of the curve and used innovation to find solutions. Timber can reduce embodied carbon in buildings by 20% to 60% while storing carbon in long-lived products. Yet only 9% of new homes in England are timber-framed, compared with over 90% in Scotland—a major missed opportunity.

Timber is so important to jobs and growth—a priority of this Labour Government. Expanding productive forestry and domestic processing supports skilled rural employment, strengthens UK supply chains and keeps value in the United Kingdom. Nature and timber are not in conflict. This issue is too often framed as biodiversity versus timber, but the evidence is clear: this is not a binary choice. If we are serious about net zero, we must be serious about woodland creation. That means planting productive conifers as well as native trees. Without home-grown timber, the climate maths, the housing challenge and our economic resilience and national security simply do not add up.

15:02

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) for securing this debate. He set out perfectly the value of woodlands to both nature and people, and his city is clearly a living example of that.

I appreciate that hon. Members might wonder why, as the Member of Parliament for Cannock Chase—a constituency famed and named for its forest—I might want to speak in a debate on creating new woodlands, but my answer is this: “You can’t have too much of a good thing”. Woodland creation is central to building a greener, fairer Britain, and the Government have set ambitious targets, aiming to increase woodland cover in England to 16.5% by 2050. Our current woodland cover remains significantly lower than many of our European neighbours at 13.5%, compared with an EU average of around 38%.

In Britain, describing somewhere as “leafy” usually is shorthand for “wealthy”, which says a lot about how access to nature reflects inequality on multiple levels. The Woodland Trust’s tree equity score clearly demonstrates that the many benefits provided by trees are disproportionately enjoyed by wealthier communities. Even in my constituency, that disparity is evident. Chadsmoor is one of the most deprived areas of Cannock Chase and is also among the most nature deprived. By contrast, more affluent areas like New Penkridge Road in Cannock benefit from significant tree cover despite being less than two miles away. That contrast shows that the communities that stand to gain the most from access to green space are too often those with the least access to it.

Planting trees is often the easy part, but explaining to residents why an unmanaged woodland has suddenly appeared at the end of their road is considerably harder. In Hednesford, an urban woodland was established on Bradbury Lane with positive intentions, but insufficient maintenance generated understandable complaints from residents—an important reminder that successful woodland creation requires sustained stewardship and community involvement.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to funding not just planting, but long-term management and skills development. However, on the flip side, I have heard concerns about newly planted trees on housing and commercial developments not being properly cared for and subsequently dying, or even not being planted in the first place. Although the national planning policy framework makes it clear that planning decisions should require aftercare, councils need to ensure that those conditions are attached and enforced.

Alongside expanding woodland cover, it is equally important that we improve the quality and resilience of the woodland that we already have. In December, I visited Birches Valley in my constituency, where I met the Forestry Commission’s agroforestry woodland officer to discuss the restoration of ancient woodland. Plantations on ancient woodland sites—often referred to as PAWS—account for around 17% of the nation’s forests. Forestry England has set an important ambition to restore those sites to resilient native woodland, but achieving that will require a doubling of the rate of restoration.

The work is ecologically vital. Moving woodland from predominantly non-native canopy cover towards native broadleaf species strengthens biodiversity, increases resilience to pests and diseases, and helps to ensure that our woodlands are better able to adapt to climate change. The Climate Change Committee has recommended that two-thirds of new woodland should be broadleaf and one-third conifer, to maximise climate and biodiversity benefits while reducing the risks associated with monoculture planting. However, foresters have highlighted concerns such as the impact of pests such as deer and grey squirrels, and the long-term financial sustainability of restoration. I therefore welcome the Government’s funding for Forestry England’s PAWS restoration programme.

As we expand woodland creation, we must also carefully balance environmental ambitions with the needs of our farming communities. Agroforestry—integrating trees into productive agricultural land—presents significant opportunities, including improved soil health, enhanced biodiversity and increased flood resilience. Here, the Government’s approach recognises the vital role that farmers and rural communities play in environmental recovery. Many farmers are already boosting natural flood management by increasing woodland cover, as well as natural water storage areas.

Concerns have been raised, though, particularly in upland areas, about productive farmland being taken out of use or tenant farmers being displaced in pursuit of woodland creation targets. It is vital that environmental policy retains the confidence and support of our farming sector, particularly the 50% of farmers who are tenants. Schemes such as the sustainable farming incentive present an opportunity to strike that balance by encouraging tree planting on less productive land or areas already identified for nature recovery, or intercropping with arable crops, allowing us to increase woodland cover without undermining food production or rural livelihoods.

In closing, I note that woodland creation and ancient woodland restoration are not competing priorities. They are complementary pillars of a broader strategy to restore nature, improve community wellbeing, strengthen climate resilience and protect our natural heritage. Not only that, but in representing Cannock Chase, I am contractually obliged to be enthusiastic about trees at all times. Thankfully, trees are one of the few policy areas where we can improve air quality, biodiversity, public health and community pride simultaneously, which in policymaking terms is about as close as we can get to a unanimous win.

15:08

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) for securing this important debate.

Many people move to Cornwall precisely because of our natural beauty and our woodland areas. For us Cornish, those areas represent a vital aspect of Cornish wellbeing and our identity. Many of our woodland areas are globally significant, and include Cornish native mountain ash and Cornish elm, and our high Cornish hedges are home to entire ecosystems. But on the evening of 8 January this year, residents across Cornwall received alerts on their mobile phones of a red weather warning. Winds reached up to 111 mph in some locations, blasting roofs from buildings, bringing down telephone lines and ripping huge trees from their roots to the ground.

Tens of thousands of trees were toppled in west Cornwall alone, as the storm blew in from the Atlantic. Some of them had stood for 90 years, surviving the second world war and even the great storm of 1987. The first to suffer some of the most severe damage were on the Isles of Scilly, including the island of Tresco, which I know well, where trees—huge, ancient trees—were brought down in the world-famous, tropical Abbey Garden. St Michael’s Mount lost around 80% of the trees on its northern slopes, with many more so badly damaged that they will now have to be felled. Considerable damage extended across my constituency, into and around Mawnan Smith, Trebah garden and Glendurgan.

While our communities and those charged with protecting our unique woodland areas have shown remarkable resilience, Storm Goretti has brought into sharp focus the urgent need for future-proofing and for increased support for planting, maintenance and long-term woodland recovery after what are likely to be ever more frequent storms. Though organisations such as Forest for Cornwall have established thousands of trees across the duchy in recent years, we need a comprehensive woodland creation strategy—and the funding to support it—for mitigation, resilience and long-term woodland protection. It must recognise the vulnerability of Cornwall’s position on this island and our unique landscape, and ensure that our woodland areas are restored, nurtured and protected for generations to come.

15:11

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) on securing the debate.

Like many Members, I am a lover of woodlands, both ancient and new. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) said earlier, “You can’t have too much of a good thing”, and the creation of new woodlands—and the Government’s ambition to do so—should be celebrated. Just adjacent to my constituency, we have a 400-acre site that mixes ancient woodland with relatively new parkland. The old favourites of oak, ash and thorn are around the place, and I have spent many hours walking in those woodlands, greeting ancient oak trees as old friends. I am a self-confessed tree-hugger—I literally will hug a tree—and there is something to be said for the calmness that this brings; the understanding that we are feeling sometimes centuries of life coursing beneath our fingers. I strongly support the transfer of that from one generation to the next.

Our woodlands are a key feature in the protection and preservation of wildlife. They support creatures big and small, and knowing and naming those creatures is a pure joy for anyone who is, like myself, a keen amateur naturalist. I remember hearing a nightingale in our local woodlands, which was the real highlight of a walk. Sadly, as Members will be aware, that is a vanishingly rare thing to hear and see. Supporting the creation of woodlands will ensure that we keep these native creatures for generations to come.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady refers to some of the vanishing bird life in her area. In my constituency there are a number of farmers and substantial landowners who have taken an initiative to bring back the yellowhammer, which is also very scarce in many parts of the United Kingdom. Projects in Ballywalter, Lord Dunleath’s in Rosemount, in Greyabbey from the Montgomerys and in Tubber from the Gilmores mean that for our neighbours not too far away and ourselves in a much smaller way, the yellowhammers are back. If we make the effort, bird life will return.

[Jen Craft]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is key to recognise the role that farmers can play in rewilding and embracing biodiversity. In Thurrock, there are farmers who are doing excellent work in rewilding some of their land to make sure that species can thrive and continue to grow. It is not only on farmland but an RSPB nature reserve near me has seen, thanks to investment and focus on regrowing blackthorn, the brown hairstreak butterfly make a remarkable comeback. Apparently it was a record-breaking count for them at the weekend. Creatures such as butterflies and invertebrates do not always get the praise that they deserve in this place, but they are key to the survival of nature—and of ourselves. Initiatives such as those are vitally important, and we must continue to support them.

The creation of woodlands is to be welcomed. I would like to highlight a couple of the threats to new and juvenile woodlands. One of the biggest is not from humans or climate change but from invasive species, such as roe deer. I know the Minister is keen on rewilding and reintroduction of species, having been a vocal advocate for the reintroduction of beavers. That is an important way to lean in to giving nature a helping hand in our natural recovery.

It has been suggested that the reintroduction of the lynx—an apex predator—is one way to keep down numbers of roe bucks and prevent overgrazing. It would keep them on the move in what is known as an ecology of fear, which hon. Members might feel familiar with in this place. It means that herds keep on the move and it prevents overgrazing, allowing vegetation and tree saplings to take root and grow. I wonder whether the Minister might consider that—leaning into nature and giving a helping hand to encourage recovery in a natural way by returning some of our lost species.

It is vital that while we look to grow new woodlands, we protect our ancient woodlands. Old species such as oak, ash and thorn are under threat, and it is vital to protect them where possible. In my constituency, the planned lower Thames crossing will unfortunately see the loss of an ancient woodland known as the Wilderness. Although the decision about that road has been made, I urge the Minister to work with her Government colleagues to ensure that there is no net loss to biodiversity through the scheme, and that mitigation and compensation for lost or damaged habitats are fully taken into account.

Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), I do not take such a pessimistic view on prospects for nature versus investment; I believe that the two can and must co-exist. Unless we encourage development and growth, mitigation of our ancient woodlands and the species that thrive there, we will see continued loss through climate change. I welcome our commitment to growing new woodlands and the benefit of being among trees.

“I think that I shall never see

A poem lovely as a tree.”

That line has never seemed so apt. Many more people deserve to enjoy forest bathing, enjoying the cool, calm reflective benefits that nature can bring.

15:17

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) on securing this timely debate and his thoughtful and heartfelt opening speech.

Who does not love trees? They enhance our lives so much. In the past 18 months, morning walks in the woodlands below my house have helped to keep me sane-ish. On a London day, I can take a walk among the urban trees along the South Bank—not quite the Cotswolds, but it will do. Never has woodland creation seemed more important. As our climate changes and nature declines, trees are not a luxury—they are part of the solution. Done well, woodland creation enhances biodiversity, captures carbon, improves flood resilience and supports local economies.

Yet, we are not where we need to be. Although canopy cover has increased slightly, we consistently miss national planting targets. The overall quality of our woodland remains generally poor and, according to the Woodland Trust, is in decline. In England, just 13% of the land area is covered by trees, compared with an EU average of 38%. Only about 7% of native woods are in good condition. Meanwhile, in a heartbreaking statistic, nearly 70% of our ancient woodland has been lost or damaged.

We have a stated ambition to reach 19% cover by 2050 but that is looking increasingly challenging on current trends. If new woodlands are to thrive in the changing climate we must focus not just on quantity but on quality. As has been pointed out, planting alone does not necessarily create woodland. Saplings need careful aftercare, long-term management and protection. That means not just boasting about how many trees we have planted, but how many trees actually survive. Along the A14 in Cambridgeshire, around 860,000 trees were planted, yet 70% died soon after completion. It was admitted that they were probably the wrong species, in the wrong place and planted in the wrong season—other than that, it went really well.

As the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) said, the correct metric is not trees planted, but trees thriving. Also, saplings planted in one place are not an adequate replacement for mature trees in another place. Nature works to its own rhythms and it does best when we work with it, not at odds with it. Strategic woodland creation should also prioritise areas with low canopy cover so that the benefits of trees, such as cooler streets, cleaner air, flood protection and improved wellbeing, are shared more fairly. Access to nature should not be a postcode lottery, particularly as hotter summers make urban trees ever more essential. Anybody who has been out door-knocking on a hot summer’s day on a new estate, longing for the shade of a tree, will know exactly what I mean.

In my South Cotswolds constituency, housing targets are placing intense pressure on a district where 80% of the land is protected landscape and much of the rest is floodplain. People care deeply about the woodlands and green spaces that shape our identity. New developments must show that we can meet housing need while also expanding tree cover and strengthening biodiversity. Long-term stewardship and environmental sustainability must be embedded from the outset; without that commitment, we risk repeating past mistakes.

I am pleased to report there are encouraging examples. My hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) has championed the Somerset tree strategy, a 10-year plan to protect and expand treescapes in areas where canopy cover in some neighbourhoods is below 10%. Increasing canopy cover reduces storm water run-off, prevents flooding and creates vital habitats. In the South Cotswolds, I am proud to say that many of our farmers understand that. Trees slow the flow of water, shelter livestock and protect the integrity of soil. They are an important part of a working landscape. I welcome the development of the Western forest, alongside the various other forests that have been mentioned today. It is the first new national forest in 30 years and will stretch across Bristol, Somerset and into parts of my constituency in Wiltshire and Gloucestershire.

Community stewardship is also important. In my constituency, groups such as Fruitful Malmesbury are leading what I like to call tree roots efforts, rather than grassroots efforts, planting and nurturing local orchards and woodlands. When communities feel ownership, the survival rates of trees rise, and so does social value and community spirit.

On the economic benefits, orchards provide habitats for pollinators and wildlife while sustaining livelihoods. The south-west cider industry partners with more than 300 farmers, manages more than 15,000 acres and produces around 670 million litres of cider each year—truly a benefit for nature and humanity. A new orchard may take seven years to break even, but it can yield environmental and economic returns for many decades. That is sustainable land use—patient investment for long-term gain.

We still import nearly 80% of the timber that we use. We could expand and actively manage domestic woodland, thereby supporting skilled jobs and making our supply chains more resilient. As construction increasingly moves away from high-carbon materials, we need renewable home-grown timber that stores carbon in our buildings and is backed procurement policies that support British growers.

The Liberal Democrats are committed to binding targets to halt nature’s decline and double nature by 2050, expanding protected areas, restoring habitats and increasing woodland cover. We support planting at least 60 million trees a year, alongside the aftercare already mentioned to ensure that they flourish. Will the Minister comment on the urgency with which the Government are acting, or failing to act? Continued subsidies for biomass power, including at Drax, rely on primary forests and undermine our environmental credibility.

[Jen Craft]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning biomass power, as I have a specific issue in my constituency, where the fuel that is used to power a biomass generator has unfortunately generated a significant amount of dust, causing a heavy amount of air pollution in the local area. It is a form of green energy, but it unfortunately has a local impact on the air quality that residents in Tilbury can expect. Does the hon. Lady support me in saying that the Government should look again at how much we rely on this kind of energy generation?

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I am a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, and we are launching an inquiry into the importance of air quality, which needs to be addressed when we take a holistic view of how energy, humans and nature can thrive alongside one another.

COP30 offered an opportunity to demonstrate leadership on deforestation. The Liberal Democrats urge support for the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, which is designed to provide permanent funding for conservation by rewarding countries for protecting forests. It was a golden opportunity to turn ambition into action, but, sadly, the Government chose not to commit public investment at that point. I hope that they will in the future.

The saying goes that the best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago, but the second best time is today. I know that the Minister has a genuine love for nature, as do I. Some people might think of me as more of an oceans person, given my past story, but these days I find that I am more and more drawn to hills and trees. I am sure that the Minister will agree that we all have a responsibility, both locally and globally, to protect and restore the forests on which we depend for so much. If we get woodland creation right, we do more than just plant trees. We invest in climate resilience, thriving wildlife, strong rural economies and healthier communities for generations to come.

15:27

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) on securing the debate and clearly setting out the key benefits for us all of our woodlands, in both rural and urban areas. We have had a good debate, and all of the many contributions were about the strength of support for our vital woodlands.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke of his own experience planting trees—he is clearly a man of many talents. The hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) highlighted the importance of young trees and the need for trees to thrive. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) is a fantastic local champion, and put forward strong arguments for expanding the forest of Marston Vale. We heard about the opportunities for tree planting and the areas for greater focus to protect and grow our woodlands. I am grateful to all hon. Members who shared the special and vital woodland areas in their constituencies.

There has been welcome cross-party consensus about the benefits that woodlands bring to communities and our environment. As the Member of Parliament for Chester South and Eddisbury, I see those benefits at first hand: I have the privilege of having Delamere forest in my constituency. It is 927 hectares of woodland—the largest woodland area in the county of Cheshire—and a wonderful example of one of our most diverse natural ecosystems and habitats.

Beyond removing and storing carbon, woodlands such as Delamere provide a home for thousands of species of mammals, birds, invertebrates, plants and fungi. Oak trees alone can support more than 2,300 species, and 326 are entirely dependent on oak for their survival. Delamere forest also supports our local economy through its appeal to visitors and tourists, and is home to a wide range of species, including beavers, which have been reintroduced into a nature reserve on the edge of the forest—demonstrating the vital role woodland plays for nature, climate and local communities alike.

The previous Government recognised the importance of woodland, publishing their England trees action plan, which set out a blueprint for how to protect, enhance and restore nature. The nature for climate fund was backed by £750 million to support peat restoration and woodland creation and management. The current Government have committed to establishing three new national forests in England, planting millions of trees and creating new woodland. What we need to see now is their delivery.

It is estimated that the global demand for wood products will treble by 2050, while supply is set to drop in the next 20 to 30 years, increasing pressure on supply chains. As hon. Members pointed out, the UK imports 80% of its timber, making it the second largest net importer, with only China importing more. The Forestry Commission is clear that that situation must be improved. With that in mind, what action is the Minister taking to increase the percentage of productive species, as requested by the Forestry Commission and Natural England, to protect rural employment and reduce import reliance?

Wood can also act as a substitute for more carbon-intensive materials, such as concrete and steel, making timber equally vital for decarbonising the construction industry, which contributes 37% of global greenhouse gas emissions. How does the Minister envisage timber helping to reduce emissions when the UK is so reliant on importing it? Does she agree that bolstering domestic supply should be a priority, bringing benefits for the environment and our economy?

The Government tell us that they are pursuing an economic growth agenda, although I have to say we have seen little evidence of that ambition coming to fruition—in fact, quite the opposite. One reason for that is the Government’s persistent tendency to fall back on bureaucracy and red tape—or, in this case, green tape—which stifles ambition and actively disincentivises woodland creation. In the light of that, what assessment has the Minister made of enabling planting on lower-value uplands? Has she given any consideration to revising planning policies to enable such planting, or to reviewing the weighting given to archaeology when determining or refusing forestry consents?

With the benefits that forestry brings, such as timber, habitat and amenity, landowners should be incentivised to plant and grow trees, and advantageous tax benefits are a key method of encouraging forestry. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will look to incentives for tree planting as part of the future SFI scheme, when it reopens, as the previous Conservative Government did? His Majesty’s official Opposition are clear: the family farm tax and the family business tax should be scrapped in their entirety. The Government’s partial U-turn does not go far enough, so what assessment has the Minister made of the benefits of withdrawing the family farm and business taxes on tree planting?

Finally, some have shared their concerns that the voluntary woodland carbon code does not provide businesses with a sufficient financial incentive to plant more trees. Including trees in the emissions trading scheme can see the price of an individual credit rise by up to 67%. I understand that that has the potential to remove and store up to 19 million tonnes of carbon emissions from our atmosphere. As I understand it, the Government have acknowledged that they hope to include nature-based carbon removals, which I hope will include woodland creation, by 2028. I ask the Minister to prioritise that work to avoid any delays.

It is in all our interests to create a more resilient, productive and nature-rich landscape, and securing a diverse range of forests and woodlands will help to achieve that aim. Woodlands and forests have always been part of our country’s landscape. They have inspired writers and composers, supported our economy, and been playgrounds for our children and places where we can all connect with nature. They are part of the fabric of our community and the fabric of our country, and with that in mind I hope the Minister can reassure us that the Government are alive to the threats facing woodlands.

15:34

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell, and what a lovely debate we have had. It has not been the best part of my week—that was releasing a mother beaver and her three kids on the National Trust’s Holnicote estate in Somerset yesterday—but it has been the second best. We have had a lovely debate, with constructive and thoughtful contributions from many colleagues.

Where are we having this debate? In Westminster Hall, which is home to northern Europe’s largest medieval timber roof, built in the 1390s from 650 tonnes of English oak. It was saved from the blitz fires by former Cabinet Minister Walter Elliot, who directed the firefighters to allow the Chamber to burn but, whatever they did, to save that roof. What an amazing piece of foresight that was, and what a piece of foresight it was for Winston Churchill to demand that oaks be chopped down across England ready for the reconstruction of the main Chamber we sit and debate in. And how wonderful it is, for those of us who have had the privilege, to stand at the Dispatch Box, which was a gift from the people of New Zealand. People knew that we needed timber after world war two, and the Commonwealth—the empire, as it was then—stepped forward and stepped up.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) on securing the debate. How lovely it was to hear him talk about the “tree of hope” coming out of the Sycamore Gap tree. Last year, I visited Northumberland to see where the Sycamore Gap tree stood and to hear about the national park’s plans to honour and memorialise it. The power that trees have to speak to us across the centuries and across generations cannot be overstated.

It was lovely to hear about the wetland arc in Milton Keynes. I know Bedfordshire well because I taught at Cranfield School of Management for seven happy years. I also did quite a lot of canvassing in a variety of by-elections in Mid Bedfordshire and found some places that I had not known about.

The trees and woodlands of England and the United Kingdom are more than just part of the landscape; they are part of our national identity. They filter our air, they cool the cities and they shelter our wildlife. We talked about leafiness and how it was associated with wealth, but when we walk in a city and see a glorious display of cherry blossom, we almost have public art in the street. That display of luxuriance and beauty is there just because it is there; it is not performing any function apart from providing a visual display. It is absolutely glorious to see some of the urban planting going in across our cities, and when I cycle around places, as I often do, I am always thinking, “When they designed this place, what were they thinking about for the future?” It really makes you think about how councils think about their constituents.

Trees are part of our shared national culture. They stand as symbols of endurance, wisdom and renewal. In Japan, forest bathing, which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) talked about, is prescribed by doctors to prevent anxiety, lower stress and help heal depression. I heard about that on a visit to Wakehurst—I recommend a visit—which has done experiments on different tree scents. The Japanese cypress gives off an odour and oils that are a mood enhancer, lifting the mood and clearing the mind, as my hon. Friend said. I think I will steal that idea for the future.

Growing up in Coventry, I played every weekend in the War Memorial Park, the city’s great act of remembrance for those we lost in world war one. Every tree has a plaque beneath it remembering the people who died—a living memorial to the lost.

As forestry Minister, I regularly see the majesty and benefit of woodlands up close. I met the social enterprise Forests With Impact, launched at His Majesty’s prison Haverigg in Cumbria, which upskills prisoners to grow trees for onward planting. One of the comments from the Ministry of Justice about the prisoners who grow the seeds is that they want to know where the seeds are going. As they imagine their lives on the outside, they want to know where they can visit and say, “I grew that seed,” or, “That might have been a seed that I handled,”. I pay tribute to the last Government for some of the work done in prisons on that intimate connection between environmental justice, social justice and the criminal justice system.

I have stood beneath the spruce and pine of Kielder forest with the people who manage it, and I have heard about Forestry England, which is the largest provider of parkrun in the country, with 220,000 people a week running through our national forests. I was of course passionately against the coalition Government’s attempts to try to sell off England’s national forests—that was 16 years ago, but some of us have very long memories.

The Government’s plan for change sets out how we are going to build a stronger, fairer, greener Britain, and I gently say to the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth)—I am not sure whether she is standing in or she has had a promotion, but if it is a promotion, then many congratulations.

[Aphra Brandreth]

I am standing in.

[Mary Creagh]

She is standing in—very good. However, I gently say to her that while trees have a key role to play, we have done six interest rate cuts, and inflation is set to come in on target, so the economic plan certainly seems to be going much better than it was in the days of Liz Truss.

Let us talk about woodlands. They stitch our habitats back together, and they provide corridors for our birds, bats and beetles. All Government-funded woodlands must be designed and planted to the UK forestry standard. That world-leading technical standard for sustainable forest creation and management ensures a diverse mix of species, which will not only benefit wildlife but make woodland more resilient to climate change and the ever-changing risks from pests and diseases.

[Jim Shannon]

There is no doubt that every one of us, including the Minister, is keen to encourage the planting of more woodlands but, by its very nature, having more woodlands, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) mentioned, means pests increasing in numbers, and that includes deer and grey squirrels. As someone who has never shot a deer or a grey squirrel, although I have shot many other things, including birds, I ask the Government to consider working in tandem with the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Countryside Alliance and individuals who are insured to ensure that deer numbers—we do want to see deer—are kept at a level where they do not become a pest and that grey squirrels are, to be honest about it, eradicated, so that red squirrels can survive.

[Mary Creagh]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised that subject, which I was coming on to. Native wild deer are an important component of our landscape, and they play a role in healthy forest ecosystems. However, excessive browsing, foraging and trampling by deer put pressure on woodland ground flora, damage trees, and inhibit the natural regeneration of existing woodland and, crucially, the growth of new trees through natural colonisation. Trees will get on and do it themselves if we just leave them, but they cannot do it if they are constantly being yanked up by deer or grey squirrel populations.

We have to manage the impact of deer and grey squirrel populations, and it is our intention to outline plans to do that. We published our squirrel strategy last week, and the deer plan is imminent. We provide grants for capital items such as fencing and for the management of deer by lethal control. That is done through countryside stewardship grant funding where the land manager has been advised by a Forestry Commission deer officer that such action is needed.

We are funding projects relating to reducing deer impacts, and I am particularly concerned about the muntjac deer and the Chinese water deer, which are a particular feature of the east of England. They are alien, invasive species, so there are risks about hybridisation with our own native deer. One of the two—I cannot remember which one, but I think it is the muntjac—can breed three times a year, so it is constant breeding. Covid has had a very bad impact on deer management. We do not really have research on deer numbers, but anecdotally they are high, so we need to take action. I am particularly anxious about the east of England, and the steps needed there.

I want to say something about the British quality wild venison standard. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) may not have shot a deer, but I have certainly eaten quite a lot of venison. That wild, organic meat is really healthy and plays a part in creating that ecosystem. Some charities, such as the Country Food Trust, are doing really good work in that area.

[Blake Stephenson]

The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) mentioned the potential introduction of the lynx as an apex predator, but active deer management is already under way in my constituency through culling. Do the Government have a preference on culling versus introducing an apex predator, or a combination of the two? What thought are the Government giving to deer management?

[Mary Creagh]

We have given some consideration to the question of introducing the lynx. At the moment, they are classed as a dangerous wild animal under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, and all dangerous wild animals have to be kept in a fenced enclosure. A massive fenced enclosure would be needed for a lynx. At the moment, the policy in the legislation makes it challenging. We need to balance that and work with stakeholders. Like beavers, they are animals that need a range, a habitat and the ability to roam around and breed. The question is: what happens when they breed and produce offspring? One pair of lynxes could end up being eight or 16. What is the management plan going forward? There are certainly some policy wrinkles in that—I will come back to deer, but that would need to be in very large forests with a lot of room to roam.

To go back to Kew Gardens, I had the pleasure of spending an hour with Kevin Martin, who is the head of tree collections at Kew. He has been going over to Kazakhstan in central Asia to collect tree seeds and do research on the seeds of the future and what our changing landscape will mean as we have hotter, drier summers and warmer, wetter winters. I also went out with somebody to look at trees, and we looked at this amazing lime tree with all its heavy nectar. He said to me, “For bees, that is like having a meadow in the sky.” Our city trees and the lime trees that grow along the embankment might be a bit of a nightmare from an allergy and pollen point of view, but for the bees of our capital city, and all our great cities, they are meadows in the sky.

[Alison Taylor]

Does the Minister have any comment on the lack of conifers being planted and the need to have them alongside broadleaf trees?

[Mary Creagh]

We need woodland creation of all types. In 2024, the proportion of conifers being planted went up to 12% of tree planting, from 9% the previous year. We need productive woodlands as part of that. Non-native forests can provide biodiversity benefits and vital seed crops for mammals, red squirrels and birds. We are working towards increasing the rate of conifer planting because, as colleagues have said, its importance to timber in our construction industry cannot be overstated. We aim to publish a new trees action plan in 2026, which will set out how our Government’s £1 billion investment into tree planting and the forestry sector in this Parliament will be used to achieve the new 2030 interim tree cover target and improve the resilience of our trees.

[Jen Craft]

The Minister will not have failed to notice the spectacular redwoods at Wakehurst on her visit there. Will she support Forestry England’s measures to make sure that one in five new trees planted are novel species such as the redwood and the cedar, which are predicted to cope much better with changing climate?

[Mary Creagh]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The redwoods and the cedars are glorious, iconic species that can thrive in incredibly hot weather. They also give us year-round colour, because they do not drop their leaves, so less resource is needed to manage the leaf fall. Forestry England has published a list of 30 priority tree species selected for their ability to withstand extreme weather and resist pests and diseases. Of course, we have to think now about what will be able to survive 30 or 70 years into the future.

We have heard about how great trees are in towns and cities. They can reduce urban heat by between 2°C and 8°C, making a huge difference during hot weather. Those are not soft benefits; they are real public goods with real public value. Last year, tree planting in England reached its highest level in over 20 years with 7,000 hectares, or 10,000 football pitches, of new canopy. As we have heard, though, our tree cover is well below average, and we are the second largest net importer of timber in the world. Our environmental improvement plan, published in December, set a new interim tree canopy and woodland cover target that requires a net increase of 43,000 hectares from the 2022 baseline under the previous Government.

As I said, we announced the creation of the first new national forest, the western forest, stretching from the Cotswolds to the Mendips—that is really important for flood protection; I was in Somerset yesterday, looking at the fields under water—and spearheaded by the forest of Avon. Some 20 million trees will be planted across the west of England over the next 25 years. Last November, we announced the creation of two more national forests. The second one will be in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor.

The expression of interest process for community partners closed on 30 January. I am sure that the forest of Marston Vale will have applied, as will others. I shall remain completely neutral, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North encouraged that application. We will launch a third new national forest competition, for the midlands or the north of England, by July 2026, so hon. Members should watch out for that. We will see millions of trees bringing peace, shade and joy to people around the country.

As we have heard, Milton Keynes has a long history of integrating trees into its living space. We must demonstrate how natural infrastructure can work alongside national infrastructure. It is very disappointing to hear about the A14 and the trees that have died. The tree-planting season is from November to February, and there is plenty of water around at the moment; we should not be planting them in the summertime.

Integrating trees into agriculture through agroforestry allows farmers to reap the many benefits that they provide, while maintaining and in some cases improving agricultural output. Our England woodland creation offer is tailored to encourage woodland creation where it is best suited, exemplifying the concept of public money for public good.

I will say a final couple of things. First, the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, asked a specific question about APR and tree planting. I will write to her on that, because I would not want in any way to mislead the House. We do have the woodland creation planning grant, which makes thousands of pounds available to fund the groundwork before the first sapling goes in—the right trees in the right place.

Last month, we published the grey squirrel policy statement, saying how we will reduce the grey squirrel’s impact on red squirrels, as well as on our trees and woodland. I will just say that, for many of us, a cheeky grey squirrel—or five—is the only bit of nature we see in our garden, so I am not sure that they will be eradicated from towns and cities, but we need to ensure that we protect and create secure areas for our red squirrels to thrive.

We know that forestry supports rural economies, creates green jobs, supplies sustainable material and is important for tourism. We updated the “Timber in construction roadmap” last year, and we committed to planting, harvesting and using more sustainable timber at home. The Department for Education has a really good system for timber-framed buildings. I visited a timber frame production facility called Innovare—just outside Coventry—which told me how quickly it can get in and build these schools and extensions, which is particularly important for children with special educational needs who are very upset by things changing every day. Putting a frame up and then building from the inside out is a really good way to deal with that problem.

As a Government, we are supporting the Forestry Commission and University of Cumbria-led three-year paid forestry apprenticeship programme, with 21 apprentices graduating from this degree-level forestry apprenticeship just last November. Our investment in degree-level apprenticeships and training will boost rural employment.

Last year, Forest Research, which is part of the Forestry Commission, mapped England’s trees outside woodland by satellite and laser and made the results freely available for the first time. That showed that trees outside our woodlands make up 30% of the nation’s tree cover. I invite people to have a look, to log on and see what trees they have, and to check our satellite mapping; we always need citizen science feedback on all that.

Last year, I was honoured to open Forestry England’s newly upgraded seed processing unit in the constituency of the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, in Delamere forest. The building is timber made and will be net zero carbon in operation. It has been named in honour of a long-serving member of Forestry England’s seed supply team, the late Vernon Stockton. It is the largest in the UK, and it will process cones, fruit and berries from across Great Britain, carefully selected for their genetic potential, each year producing four tonnes of top-quality seed. The forests of the future are being made in the Delamere forest tree seed processing centre.

However, we must not neglect public safety. Four months ago, following a Westminster Hall debate in the wake of the tragic death of Chris Hall, I wrote to local councils reminding them of their statutory public safety obligations and highlighted the guidance available to them on how to manage trees safely.

To conclude, I commend the work of the Parks Trust in Milton Keynes, and it is great to see a Labour Government, like the one that created that great city, and the Parks Trust carrying on with the great vision of trees, woodlands, parks and gardens close to where people live. At the end of last year, the Secretary of State visited the Parks Trust and heard more about its wetland arc project, which is bringing together local volunteers for community tree planting, increasing nature and climate resilience.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North said, we face a nature crisis, but we are not out of solutions yet. Trees are one of our fastest, strongest and most dependable tools. I am pressing the Climate Change Committee and the emissions trading scheme, which is independent of Government, to include the woodland and peatland carbon codes as part of their future emissions trading scheme; they will make a decision on that at some point this year.

Tomorrow’s towns and cities must be richer in woodland, smarter in their use of wood and contain woods that are resilient, well designed and well connected. We will plant for the long term, knowing that what we plant today leaves a legacy for tomorrow. I thank everyone who came to this debate, everyone who loves trees and everyone who is out there right now, in the pouring rain, digging and planting these little sticks that will turn into something magical and powerful, creating a greener, fairer Britain.

15:57

[Chris Curtis]

I thank everyone who has contributed, including my hon. Friends the Members for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Thurrock (Jen Craft), for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor), as well as the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson).

People like me often talk about the importance of building new homes and infrastructure in this country, and no one in Government should apologise for housing targets in places anywhere across the country—but I do not think, nor will I ever believe, that that is in conflict with improving nature. My city is proof of that. Derek Walker, the chief architect of Milton Keynes, said that for the city to be a success, it needed to be

“a forest city that would be greener than the surrounding countryside”.

He achieved that.

The reason I am so supportive of the Government’s nature strategy is that it would allow that sort of thing to happen again as it supports outcome over process. I would like to see the Department go further in ensuring that, when we enhance nature in this country, we focus on outcome and not on process, so that, for example, when we are building a railway line across this country and there is a £120 million to spend, it is spent on ensuring that we can enhance and protect forests, and not on a pointless bat tunnel that does absolutely nothing to enhance nature.

When we think about an energy strategy for the future, as was recommended by the nuclear regulatory taskforce, we acknowledge that building nuclear power stations is one of the best ways of enhancing nature in this country because it means that, within a very small geography, we can produce a great deal of energy. Anybody who cares about protecting nature should support the Department in implementing those measures in full.

I conclude by returning to the topic of trees and woodlands. They say that planting a tree is the greatest act of altruism. The time spent digging and planting is a small act, but it will shape the Earth for future generations. Consider the people who planted the 22 million trees in Milton Keynes; Fred Roach, the guy who led the development corporation, died a few years before I was born, but the city he built, the trees he planted and the green spaces he created were enjoyed by my family, especially me and my brother as we were growing up.

This Government need to show that same altruistic attitude, planting trees and forests so that this country can remain a green and pleasant land for centuries to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of woodland creation.

Rural GPs: Funding

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered GP funding in rural areas.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about this important topic. Statistics show that, as of 2024, 17% of England’s population, equating to 9.6 million people, live in rural areas. For these communities, accessing healthcare can be challenging. The challenges are well known: rural GP practices serve elderly and often isolated populations, and are tasked with delivering complex care in large and often sparse geographical areas. The demands have long been accounted for in our funding formula for GPs, the Carr-Hill formula. The model was introduced in 2004 and was designed to ensure that GP funding reflected variations in workload and local population characteristics, including a measure of rurality.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

Sherston in South Cotswolds is in imminent danger of losing its surgery. There is an enormous local strength of feeling, with 2,850 out of 3,000 patients signing a petition. As the right hon. Lady mentioned, people who need doctors’ surgeries by definition tend to be elderly, ill or parents with small children, so does she agree that the NHS should prioritise the provision of GP surgeries for small rural communities such as Sherston?

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Lady raises a very relevant point, and I agree wholeheartedly. People in lots of areas in my constituency cannot get to a GP and are bereft of a GP surgery.

Until now, we have had a measure of rurality, but this Government have instructed the National Institute for Health and Care Research to review the funding model and examine how working-class areas could benefit under a new model based on deprivation rather than workload.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on bringing this subject to Westminster Hall. I am always glad to come along and support her, because she leads great and very pertinent debates. I am a resident of a rural area, and the pressure that my local GPs are under has to be seen to be believed: only three practices cover the whole Ards peninsula, which has a growing population. Does the right hon. Lady agree that funding must be available to give surgeries the potential to have physio rooms, nutrition advice and perhaps even pharmacies that provide first-stop medical advice? The cost of such facilities needs to be met by Government, because there will be savings in the long term.

[Esther McVey]

It is always good to have my hon. Friend—and I do call him my hon. Friend—intervene on me. He makes very good points. It is also important that a local GP chooses, and can see what their local constituents require and what is best for their health outcomes.

The move to a new model based on deprivation rather than workload is, at best, an act of ignorance that fails to acknowledge the significant challenges of running GP practices in rural areas; at worst, it represents yet another example of Labour’s assault on rural life. Measuring pressures on GPs solely through the lens of deprivation would ignore the complex, distinct demands faced by rural practices. Rural communities have older populations. In 2019, the House of Lords Rural Economy Select Committee found that the average age in rural areas was almost six years higher than in urban areas, and a quarter of the rural population were over the age of 65.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for securing this important debate. Dr Richard West MBE and Dr Daniel James, general practitioners in Woolpit in my Suffolk constituency, have been awarded the Royal College of General Practitioners East Anglia Faculty GP prize this year in recognition of sustained contribution to rural mental health and community-focused general practice. Does she agree with me that we must do all we can to look after the mental health of the rural population, particularly isolated farm workers?

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Member raises a very good point indeed. I congratulate his constituents. The pressure that I know the farming community is under and the impact that the family farm tax has had on the mental health of the rural community and farmers has been significant.

Life expectancy is longer in rural areas, placing greater demands on GP practices. Statistics published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggest that people born in mainly rural areas in 2018 to 2020 were expected to live two and a half years longer than people born in urban areas. Older populations place greater demands on GP surgeries, presenting with complex healthcare needs and higher levels of chronic illness and frailty. The Rural Services Network analysis shows that GP-registered patients over the age of 75 account for 11% of rural GP patients, compared with just 7.5% in urban settings.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is making a wonderful speech. Is she going to come on to the pressures of house building? There is huge pressure for new homes, and many of our rural areas already struggle with insufficient infrastructure. I am working with our GP in Handbridge, where their site is now too small and not fit for purpose given the larger population that the practice now has. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as pressure for more homes is put on constituencies like ours in Cheshire, it is vital that existing residents have access to GPs that are in suitable premises, fit for the numbers and the older population that often use them?

[Esther McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for raising that point. She is absolutely right that the number of new homes that are going to be built in rural areas, putting more pressure on GP surgeries, is significant. Without new GP practices, I am not sure where our residents will go when they need a doctor and need to see somebody about their health.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

In a similar vein to the previous intervention, one in five GP buildings predate the NHS itself, which is a quite staggering fact, and over a third of GPs say their premises are no longer fit for purpose. In places such as West Dorset, outdated buildings struggle to deal with the current population, let alone the projected future growth as a result of house building, and fewer than a third of practices that applied for capital funding last year were granted funds. Does the right hon. Member agree that GP estate funding must also be expanded to help rural areas deal with the increased population?

[Esther McVey]

I agree with the hon. Member. I will come on to my surgeries that are indeed in Victorian buildings—spread across four—and need to be brought together and modernised. That is in Knutsford in my constituency. I know that there will be many other places like that across the country. The hon. Member raises a valid and pertinent point.

We know that GP services in rural communities are spread across a large geographical area, and many elderly residents in Tatton live alone. Although such independence is cherished, travelling long distances to access healthcare is more difficult. Public transport is often limited or non-existent. Community transport schemes exist in Tatton, but they cannot always accommodate short-notice or urgent medical needs. Often, elderly residents do not drive, so they are left reliant on costly taxis or GP staff taking the time to travel to a patient’s home. That places additional pressures on already stretched services. In Lostock Gralam, despite a population of about 2,800 people, there is no GP practice. That forces patients to make a lengthy journey to Northwich, and without a direct bus service many are left to rely on taxis to make their appointment.

For those communities, recruiting and retaining staff becomes more difficult and more expensive. The Rural Services Network reports that 59% of hard-to-recruit GP speciality training posts are located in rural areas. There is less access to specialists and consultants, which makes their services more expensive. Community services and provision are sparser in rural areas, too. Pharmacies, which help to relieve pressure on GPs in urban areas, are not as common in rural areas. When I secured this debate, I was contacted by the Dispensing Doctors’ Association, which provides an essential role in dispensing medicines to patients who live more than 1.6 kilometres from a pharmacy. It delivers to about 10 million patients across England, but is facing increasing challenges due to its reliance on manual delivery.

In addition, while urban pharmacies move ahead with digital efficiency, rural pharmacies often struggle to keep pace because broadband coverage is often unreliable, rendering remote consultations near impossible and service delivery more difficult. The benefits of digitisation in healthcare are well understood across this House, but they rely entirely on having the right infrastructure in place. Without connectivity, rural practices are simply unable to access or benefit from Government investment in that area. There are lots of people from rural areas here, and we know how unreliable our broadband infrastructure is.

In 2022, the all-party parliamentary group on rural health and care published an inquiry into healthcare in rural areas. It concluded:

“Rurality and its infrastructure must be redefined to allow a better understanding of how it impinges on health outcomes”.

No progress has been made on achieving that. Removing the rurality measure of GPs’ funding entirely would be a step backwards in understanding how settings impact GPs’ ability to provide healthcare.

There is little transparency about who exactly will be consulted in the funding model review. In a written answer to a parliamentary question, the Government confirmed that the review

“will draw on a range of evidence and advice from experts,”

such as the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation and the British Medical Association general practitioners committee, but there is little information beyond that. There are GPs in Tatton who are keen to contribute but, as of yet, have not been able to.

[Peter Prinsley]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Esther McVey]

I will indeed, although I am keeping an eye on the time.

[Peter Prinsley]

There is obviously a problem with funding the recruitment of additional GP partners in rural surgeries. Does the hon. Member agree that we should think carefully about how the partnership model itself might be improved?

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Member raises another good question, and we can ask the Minister to look into that.

The logical conclusion of not having GPs from rural areas take part in this review is that the Government do not want to listen to them. They are intent on rewriting the formula without acknowledging the realities of delivering rural healthcare. A broadbrush measure such as deprivation cannot take into consideration the very close link between the ability to deliver healthcare and the rural or urban settings in which GPs exist. It comes as little surprise. Whether selling off our family farms or introducing a devolution agenda that pits rural against urban areas, time and again the Labour Government have shown that they are not willing to listen to rural areas, but are quick to sell out rural Britain at the first chance.

As is typical, Labour’s response to pressure is to level down some areas, which serves only to create additional pressures elsewhere, rather than acting to fix them. The pressure faced by rural healthcare will not disappear soon. The NHS long-term workforce plan, published under the previous Government in 2023, recognised that the increased demand from an ageing population is not uniform in the UK. It estimated that

“In 2037, a third of people aged over 85 will be living in rural communities”

compared with just a quarter now. The Government must act to address that trend.

I have been campaigning for a new medical centre in Knutsford, as was acknowledged before, where doctors desperately need more space and modernised facilities to meet patients’ needs. The current surgeries in Knutsford do not do that; they are all Victorian buildings and are not suitable. I have been pressing for that for a long time. I have met with the Minister—I thank her for that—and I would be grateful for an update on the progress of the practice in Knutsford.

GP practices deliver community care and their ability to deliver is reliant on the environment in which they serve the patients. We must have a funding formula that acknowledges the challenges of delivering healthcare in rural areas. I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions. Who is being consulted in the review, and will it include those with first-hand experience of delivering healthcare in rural settings, like my GPs in Tatton? What assurances can be provided that rurality will remain a factor in a new funding formula? Given the specific challenges they face, will the Department commit to publishing an assessment of the impact on rural communities ahead of any change to the funding formula?

16:16

[The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing the debate and raising a critical issue that I know is important to many hon. Members. I am pleased to be here on behalf of the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), who is working hard on the issue.

This Government have made primary care a pillar of NHS reform, to make the left shift and put more healthcare into the community. In our 10-year plan, we specifically highlighted our commitment to people in rural and coastal areas, because they have been left behind. As the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) highlighted, the infrastructure is appalling in many places, and some of those areas have the worst deprivation in the country. Last week, I was pleased to visit Redruth in Cornwall and talk to a GP practice about the deprivation it faces and the work it is doing. We do understand that, which is why we highlighted it in our 10-year plan.

Over the last 18 months, we have taken a number of measures to increase funding, support our workforce and improve patient access, so that we can rebuild the front door to the NHS and create a neighbourhood health service. It is important to remember that when we came into office 18 months ago, we found GP services in an appalling state: underfunded, understaffed and in crisis. First, we inherited an absurd state of affairs where patients could not book appointments, while GPs could not find work. We took immediate action to put GPs to work so that patients could get the care they need. We promised to recruit 1,000 more GPs through the additional roles reimbursement scheme, and we recruited not 1,000 or 2,000, but 3,000. In the right hon. Lady’s ICB area of Cheshire and Merseyside, there were 102 more GPs on the frontline at the end of last year compared with when we took office.

Secondly, for the first time in more than a decade, we have agreed a GP contract, which means more than £1 billion extra for general practices, bringing total spend on the contract to £13.4 billion this financial year. That is the biggest cash increase in more than a decade. Thirdly, the previous Government left GP surgeries across the country with leaky pipes, falling roofs and buckets catching rainwater. We are investing £102 million to fix GP surgeries this year, and over the next four years, we are committed to investing another £426 million on GP estates and refurbishing neighbourhood health centres. On top of that, ICBs will have £195 million every year to support strategic primary care investments, with a focus on replacing crumbling infrastructure —an issue that many Members have raised today.

I am proud to say we can now see some green shoots of recovery in primary care. According to the Office for National Statistics, patient satisfaction has gone from 60% to 73% since this Government took office. A lot has been done, but we absolutely recognise that there is a lot more to do, especially as GPs become the cornerstone of our neighbourhood health services. Over the course of this Parliament, we will train thousands more GPs. We have already made an additional 250 training places available this year, taking the total to 4,250 places, with plans to expand that further.

Let me turn to the specific points raised by the right hon. Member for Tatton, starting with Knutsford—as she said, we met about that last year. On the medical centre, East Cheshire trust is working on the outline business case, which it needs to submit to the ICB. The ICB needs to be satisfied with the submission, which would progress to a full business case, which would take some time to secure the necessary planning permissions. It also needs to look at how the clinical services work for both the general practice and the trust, and how they will be delivered, while ensuring that it is value for taxpayers’ money and lines up with the overall development that we want to see towards neighbourhood health services.

As I have said to the right hon. Lady and many hon. Members, we expect ICBs to be collaborative and to keep their local MPs up to date and in the loop regarding plans for their constituencies. That is the situation at the moment: the trust is working on the outline business case with the medical centre, which is where that conversation needs to progress.

On the main subject of the debate and the Carr-Hill formula, I must confess that I have seen this over many years in my time working as a manager in the NHS. It is a difficult issue, and one we are taking seriously, particularly when it comes to wider access in rural areas. Rural and remote areas face specific pressures, whether that is recruitment challenges, longer travel times or population fluctuations for various reasons, including tourism in some places. That is why the previous Labour Government introduced the formula in 2004, but we believe the formula is no longer fit for purpose today.

A lot has happened in those 20 years and the research underpinning the formula was done in the 2000s, which means that so-called workload coefficients were estimated on the basis of data that may reflect clinical practice, such as patterns of home visits, from as far back as the early 1990s. Clinical practice and population health have changed markedly since that time. GP practices serving more deprived areas receive 9.8% less funding on average per needs-adjusted patient than those in less deprived communities. That is despite having greater health needs and significantly higher patient-to-GP ratios.

We are asking experts to help us to design a formula that reflects patient need more accurately, working on the principle that funding for core services should be distributed equitably between patients across the country. Deprivation is a factor, but not the only one. Let me be clear, this is not about taking GPs away from urban areas or robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is about ensuring that funding is fairly distributed.

The right hon. Lady rightly said that the review is being conducted by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. The review team has already engaged with partners at the Royal College of GPs, the general practice committee of the British Medical Association and the NHS Confederation, among others. Although I cannot pre-empt the review, the point is to ensure that funding is targeted towards areas that need it most. That means considering a broad range of factors relevant to the delivery of primary care services, including difficulties delivering services in rural areas, as she and others have outlined. We expect the first phase of that to conclude in March.

We will then see whether there is a need for further work to technically develop and model any proposed changes to the formula. In response to the right hon. Lady’s question, we will of course look to understand the impact of any changes to the current formula on practices across the country ahead of implementation. The Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg, will update the House on the progress and outcomes of the review in the normal way.

Lastly, although many hon. Members will know this, it is worth highlighting that some 40% to 50% of GP practice funding is currently not determined by this formula. The income into GP practices is based on a number of other areas as well. We will obviously develop our neighbourhood health services in future, so we need to take notice of all those factors.

I want to comment on the point that the right hon. Lady raised about analogue and digital. That is a key part of our 10-year plan. As the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), said last week, wherever people live in our country, they deserve the same access to healthcare as everyone else. Wealth should not determine health, nor should a postcode.

I understand the point that the right hon. Lady and others have made—it has been made to me very often—about infrastructure and access, particularly digital. However, using digital based on geography offers huge potential to fight inequalities. For example, because of the online services for GPs that we launched in October, patients can now contact GPs through online services to request an appointment or raise a non-urgent query, which is in addition to telephone and in-person requests. That is tackling the 8 am scramble that we committed to addressing when we came into power, so that patients no longer have to wait by their phone to call GPs at a time of day when many go to work or get their kids ready for school.

The right hon. Lady correctly says that rural communities largely have older populations. We want to be digital by default—and many older people are very digital—but human where it matters. That means that people in rural areas and elsewhere will still be able to use the phone if they want to, and they will not be waiting nearly as long because the other phone lines are being freed up. We are seeing real progress in that area.

When we came into government, the front door of the NHS was hanging off its hinges. In these 18 short months, we are seeing the green shoots of recovery in general practice and recovery and reform in primary care. Our plan for change is creating a neighbourhood health service that puts GPs at its heart, so that the NHS is there for everyone, wherever they need it. We know that is not going to be easy and we want to work with it to develop that. I hope that today we have set out how we are trying to get there. Yes, there is more investment, but there is also fundamental reform, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg will be happy to keep in contact with Members as we progress this issue.

Question put and agreed to.

16:24

Sitting suspended.

Supported Exempt Accommodation: Birmingham

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

16:27

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered supported exempt accommodation in Birmingham.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I declare my interest as a landlord.

It is fair to say that most people up and down the country will not know much, if anything, about supported exempt accommodation, but in Birmingham it is something that almost everyone has become all too familiar with. In just eight years, the number of people housed in supported exempt accommodation in our city has tripled to more than 32,000 across 11,200 properties. My Birmingham Perry Barr constituency alone hosts 20% of the city’s total units. That means thousands of vulnerable individuals placed in a small number of neighbourhoods. This is not a marginal issue for us; it is shaping daily life.

With the city containing more supported exempt accommodation than anywhere else, Brummies face a completely different reality on the ground from every other community in the country. Of most immediate concern to my constituents is the antisocial behaviour, criminal activity and fly-tipping that come with a high number of these properties in such close proximity.

Let me be absolutely clear from the outset that this debate must not be about stigmatising vulnerable people. Many of those housed in supported accommodation are there because they have experienced trauma, addiction, serious mental health issues, abuse, time in care or even time in custody. They deserve compassion, dignity and meaningful support.

But compassion must be matched with realism. Some of the individuals placed in ordinary residential streets have needs so acute that they require intensive, structured and often 24-hour care. When someone is in such crisis that they are unable to manage basic personal safety, hygiene, or addiction issues in public spaces, that person is not being supported adequately. They are not “bad neighbours”. They are people who require structured, possibly clinical support environments—not standard terraced housing or residential streets. The same applies to certain ex-offenders, particularly those leaving custody with complex behavioural, psychological or substance misuse issues. Reintegration is vital, but it is a delicate process that needs close management and the right resources.

The issues that are being caused in my constituency are a matter not of law and order, but of care. I have had reports of individuals experiencing severe mental health breakdowns defecating in public spaces. Residents have described open drug use on streets where parents are walking their children to school. There are cases of individuals injecting themselves in broad daylight, in full view of families. For many of my constituents, everywhere they look they see visible manifestations of profound vulnerability and unmet need.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

With the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ayoub Khan]

Of course.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

I call Jim Shannon, on supported exempt accommodation in Birmingham.

[Jim Shannon]

I spoke to the hon. Gentleman beforehand, and he knows where I am coming from. I congratulate him on bringing forward this critical issue for vulnerable people. He will know that every constituency, wherever it may be in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has immense housing pressures, and it is often the most vulnerable—the very people he is referring to—who fall through the cracks. Does he agree that every local authority and housing authority—in Birmingham or, as it may be, in Northern Ireland—must have greater access to supported living for those who could thrive with a little help? We have a duty of care, as do the Government, to ensure that everything possible can be done to change the way things currently are.

[Ayoub Khan]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. Often this comes down to adequate resourcing. As I described, we have a situation in which individuals who need intensive support are not being provided that support. They are being placed in neighbourhoods, which in itself is very challenging; someone might have an addiction to alcohol and be placed in a community where there is very little infrastructural support. It is vital not only that there is suitable accommodation but, more fundamentally, that we have the right level of support in and around particular areas. When we have large saturation without the support, the problems faced by many of my constituents and people in Birmingham more broadly are inevitable.

That brings me nicely to the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, which was passed to resolve some of the issues that we are facing in Birmingham. It promised to introduce compulsory national minimum standards for exempt accommodation, including on referrals, care and support, and quality of housing. It promised to grant local councils the powers and resources needed to enforce such standards, and greater control over the licensing and planning permission given to providers. Since the Act received Royal Assent, however, it has been stuck in the consultation stage, with disagreements over how to implement it on the ground. While the Act shows no sign of taking effect, the expansion of exempt accommodation in Birmingham continues unabated.

The Government seem intent on painting the situation in Birmingham as simply a local matter that is nothing of their making, and the council’s call for powers to regulate the concentration of these properties as some kind of nimbyism, and yet the city’s importing vulnerable individuals from other local authorities against the council’s will is what caused the explosion in the first place.

While supported exempt accommodation plays an important role in housing vulnerable people, the concentration and volume of provision in Birmingham far exceeds local need. This is not something that the Government have not known about; in written evidence it submitted to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in 2022, Birmingham city council confirmed that only 42% of properties were needed to meet local need, with much of the remaining 58% being used to house people referred through local authorities or national bodies outside the Birmingham area. In all too many cases, people are being put in exempt accommodation in Birmingham simply because it is available, with no afterthought for the relative level of support that tenants can be provided or for the impact on the local area. Worst of all, Birmingham city council knows that is happening, but the Government still have not given it the licensing powers to stop it.

Inaction on the Government’s part has been glaring, but I am pleased that the same cannot be said of activists in my constituency. During my time as Member of Parliament for Birmingham Perry Barr, I have been encouraged by the tireless efforts of local groups to raise the issue, including the HMO Action Group, the Handsworth Triangle Action Group, the Soho Road business improvement district and Handsworth Helping Hands. I must also thank Birmingham city council and West Midlands police for mobilising in the way they have to try to tackle the crisis.

A particular bright spot has been the council’s in-house SEA pilot, which we can safely say has punched well above its weight and made Birmingham better for it. With minimal Government funding, the pilot has recovered £8.8 million in overpaid housing benefit, while also completing 2,600 antisocial behaviour investigations. That is with only 21 people covering the entire Birmingham city area. We must think of what more can be done to reduce fraud and waste in Government spending by giving the council the means to expand that operation.

The SEA pilot and groups of committed activists have done an incredible job to improve care standards for vulnerable people in supported exempt accommodation, where such action is needed, but they simply cannot fill the gap that the Government have allowed to grow. To make matters worse, rather than supporting them, the Government are refusing to fund the SEA pilot—its funding runs out next month. As a result, the bankrupt Birmingham city council has been left in an impossible position. It must either scrounge the money together to fund the initiative itself, or lose what little grip it had left on the situation.

That point is worth repeating. After depriving the council of the powers to regulate the market for three years, the Government are now refusing to give it the means to provide even a band-aid solution to a problem that they are compounding. While assurances were given that the Government would respond to the consultation as soon as possible, we have been hearing that for a long time.

This is not just about some additional antisocial behaviour taking place on the streets; it is about the vulnerable individuals who are being let down by the system, and it is about the residents who have paid the price for Government inaction and seen the character of their streets tainted. Residents feel that their neighbourhoods have been lost and, worst of all, they feel as though no one in Whitehall cares enough to solve the problem.

This is not to say that there is no place for supported exempt accommodation in Birmingham, because it plays a pivotal role. When it works well, it changes lives. I have been to neighbourhood forums in my constituency and spoken to people who have turned their lives around because of the support they receive from their registered providers—people rebuilding their lives after serving prison sentences, suffering domestic abuse, leaving care, or combating debilitating addictions or mental health conditions. But without the efficient, effective and meaningful licensing scheme for supported housing that the council was promised three years ago, Birmingham is simply unable to cope. We are asking neighbourhoods to absorb extremely high numbers of people with complex needs, but we are not providing the council with the tools required to support those individuals or reassure residents, and inevitably it is only the vulnerable individuals and the residents around them who stand to lose.

The problem of over-concentration is exacerbated by the inefficient support infrastructure that comes with it. The SEA pilot shows that when Birmingham is given tools, it delivers, but the city has more supported exempt accommodation than anywhere else in the country, and yet it does not have the corresponding level of funding, enforcement capacity, clinical provision or community-safety staffing required to manage the consequences.

If someone requires 24-hour wraparound care, addiction services, psychiatric input and structured supervision, they need a properly funded care facility, not a standard residential property with light-touch oversight. We must distinguish individuals who are stabilised and ready for supported community living from those in acute crisis who require secure, high-support environments before they can safely transition into neighbourhoods.

At present, that distinction is not being properly resourced and the result is unfair on everyone. It is unfair on residents who see behaviour that is deeply distressing and feel that their concerns are dismissed, it is unfair on vulnerable individuals who are placed in environments that do not meet the scale of their needs, and it is unfair on Birmingham city council, which is expected to manage the situation without adequate funding or authority.

The council’s supported exempt accommodation pilot has demonstrated what can be achieved when resources are provided, but pilots and short-term funding are not enough. What Birmingham needs is sustained funding for community safety, including more community safety officers and a greater neighbourhood policing presence in areas with a high concentration of supported housing. I would be incredibly appreciative if the Minister could make the necessary representations to his colleagues in the Home Office on that front.

The council needs the ability to manage concentration and set boundaries on the number of people from outside the city that it must house, because no neighbourhood should be asked to shoulder a disproportionate share of highly complex placements without the consultation, infrastructure and services to match it. When it comes to managing such complex matters, having an ineffective, watered-down licensing scheme is worse than having nothing altogether, because we end up with the same outcome at a higher cost to the taxpayer.

I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on what can be done to ensure that the 2023 Act is implemented in a way that reflects the impact that exempt accommodation can have on neighbourhoods and community harmony. I would also be grateful to hear what is being done to increase the speed with which the Act is implemented, and clarification on when the Government will respond in full to the most recent consultation.

Finally, the council needs the necessary powers to ensure that vulnerable individuals receive the best care possible. That means clarifying the extent of providers’ duty of care to their tenants, with tailored and specialist plans that not only provide personal support to the individual, but outline their obligations to ensure harmony with neighbours and the local community.

To conclude, I have a couple of final questions for the Minister. What financial support do the Government intend to provide to Birmingham city council in its efforts to contain the local crisis that the Government’s prolonged inactivity has exacerbated? The SEA pilot, in particular, is of great value to my constituents, and it would be a real shame if it disappeared. Will he agree to meet with me and local groups so that they can convey to him the true scale of the impact that the oversaturation of SEAs is having on their neighbourhoods and communities?

At the end of the day, this is about vulnerable people who need structured care, communities that need reassurance, and a local authority that cannot continue to carry a national burden without national support. Birmingham is not asking to step away from its responsibilities; it is asking for the means to fulfil them properly. It is my sincere hope that the Government will escalate their efforts to deliver exactly that.

16:44

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this debate.

Since I was elected in 2017, issues with supported exempt accommodation have been persistent in parts of my constituency. When supported housing works, it changes lives: it helps prison leavers turn a corner, helps people get off the streets, and helps those battling addiction or mental illness rebuild their lives. But in Birmingham the system is not just being abused; it is broken. Supported housing provision in Birmingham has tripled since 2018. Today, nearly 33,000 people live in 11,200 supported exempt properties, and the cost has risen to almost £400 million—about half the entire country’s exempt spending. The council is clear that that level far exceeds local need, yet the sector continues to expand at pace.

In September 2024, I secured a Westminster Hall debate on this topic. I was very pleased to hear the ambition of the newly elected Government to finally get a grip on the wild west sector, but unfortunately progress has been slow, and we are here again. Many people who enter supported accommodation do so because they have nowhere else to turn. Public funding is there to give them safety, stability and a pathway to independent living. When it works, it saves lives and money. As the National Housing Federation reports, quality providers save the public purse approximately £3.5 billion annually by alleviating pressures on the NHS, social care services and the criminal justice system. As I have seen time and again in my constituency, however, bad actors have been allowed to exploit the system and profit from the neglect of people who are suffering.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. She is making a very important point about rogue providers. The council needs to be given the necessary regulatory powers and all loopholes need to be closed if we are to make supported accommodation effective in neighbourhoods. Does she agree that it is not simply about the money? The rogue providers who exploit vulnerable people have to be acted on very quickly.

[Preet Kaur Gill]

Yes, absolutely. We are here to talk about when we can expect the regulations, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

In 2021, I worked with the council, my local police inspectors and north Edgbaston residents to shut down Saif Lodge. That example makes the case for why regulation is needed. I carried out a spot check with the police and was appalled to find 25 residents with one support worker, and no staff on site at weekends. The conditions were filthy and cramped. Prostitution, drug use and other antisocial behaviour had become routine. It was the first case in the country of an exempt property being shut down, but it took more than a year, with the matter before the courts. That really makes the case for why regulation is so important. Saif Lodge was a symptom of our system.

I want to thank many campaigners, but in particular I thank Jane Haynes at Birmingham Live and Nick Hall, a constituent of mine who wrote an excellent piece in Central Bylines for which he spoke to many residents in north Edgbaston living in exempt accommodation. He told me that one 42-year-old man said that he feared for his health and doubted that he will reach 50. Another said:

“It is safer to live in a park than in the provider’s rooms.”

Since then, West Midlands police has publicly highlighted links between the exempt sector and organised crime gangs, money laundering, fraud and drug dealing. The impact on the community is real. One constituent, a veteran who served for 36 years, recently told me that he plans to sell his home and leave the area because the property next door had suddenly been converted into exempt accommodation without any consultation. He fears that the rogue providers have no care for those they support or the local areas they set up shop in.

We cannot continue like this. In the last Parliament, I campaigned for a new regulatory system for supported exempt accommodation that would introduce minimum standards of support, update housing benefit rules to define care and supervision requirements, and give councils the power to manage local provision and act swiftly against rogue operators, yet we are still waiting for the new regulations to be introduced under the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023.

In July 2025, the previous Minister for Homelessness stated that they aimed to publish the Government’s full response to the consultation on these measures after the summer recess. In response to my written parliamentary question, the current Minister for Local Government and Homelessness said on 13 January this year that the response would be published “as soon as possible”. I hope the Minister responding to the debate will update us on when we can expect to see the Government’s response to the consultation so that we can get on with bringing in these crucial regulations.

I thank the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness for visiting my constituency to see for herself the diverse accommodation available. I also welcome the steps taken by the Government and Birmingham city council to date. Birmingham city council has set up a specialist team to tackle antisocial behaviour and crime, and to improve property standards. I am grateful to the Government for extending the supported housing improvement programme with an additional £1.5 million for Birmingham. Since the team was set up, over 9,000 of the most severe hazards, such as severe mould and fire risks, have been removed. It has issued 48 community protection orders against antisocial behaviour and £8.8 million has been saved by refusing unjustified housing benefit claims.

Birmingham city council also set up its own quality standard programme, but voluntary schemes cannot replace statutory oversight. So far, only 15% of providers have successfully achieved gold, silver or bronze accreditations. The council’s actions starkly evidence the need for regulation of the sector. The Minister will be aware that the SHIP funding ends in March 2026 and the council is bridging the gap with the homelessness prevention grant. Only clear regulation will give the council the tools it needs to manage local provision effectively.

I welcome the Government’s publication this week of the statutory guidance for local supported housing strategies. The local strategy will be an important step in mapping current and future provision. Proper processes will be formulated for referrals, and housing teams will work with colleagues in health and social care to deliver a much better co-ordinated system, but we must go further.

Local authorities are still saying that without new regulations to define minimum standards of support and empower councils to crack down on exploitative providers, vulnerable people and taxpayers will continue to be ripped off. The statutory guidance is an important first step, but it will not fix the problem that my constituents are facing today unless we move at pace to bring in these regulations.

None of that is intended to dismiss the many excellent providers that deliver high-quality support every day—many of them are doing a really good job; they play a crucial role and change lives—but the sector has also attracted landlords who see vulnerable people as a source of income rather than a responsibility. Without firm oversight, those operators undermine good practice, exploit residents and damage our communities.

Everyone agrees that people fleeing abuse, leaving prison or care, or battling mental health and addiction deserve somewhere safe that they are connected to and that truly helps them rebuild their lives. Our communities deserve to feel safe and taxpayers deserve to know that their money is protecting people, not enriching those who exploit them. The stories of fear, failure and sometimes outright abuse are heartbreaking. We cannot look away any longer.

16:52

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) for securing this important debate. Shelter is a basic human need. It is a human right. The Liberal Democrats and I believe that everyone has the right to a safe, secure and adequate home.

This issue is close to my heart. When I served as the Mayor of Woking, I supported Woking’s local homeless shelter, the York Road Project, by raising money and awareness for it. I knew at the time that I was raising money for a good cause, but the covid pandemic hit as soon as we had finished raising that money, and it was invaluable in protecting vulnerable people at one of the most vulnerable times. That project is a high-quality provider of support.

Woking’s women’s refuge, Your Sanctuary, is a high-quality provider of exempt accommodation, but I know that residents of exempt accommodation elsewhere are being let down badly, whether in Birmingham or elsewhere in the country. Those residents have effectively been denied the support they need. Meanwhile, millions of pounds of public money is wasted—or, more accurately, transferred to the bank accounts of landlords and providers who are taking advantage of the destitute. We need to sort that problem out right now. The system of exempt accommodation was described in the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee’s October 2022 report as a “complete mess”.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s supported housing review, published in 2024, estimated that there are over 634,000 units of supported housing in Great Britain, with 535,400 units located in England alone. The review estimated that by 2040 between almost 1 million and 1.3 million supported housing units will be needed, considering the current demand, predicted increase, demographic trends and unmet need. The situation is spiralling out of control, and the Government need to get a grip.

There are many good providers—I have talked about some in my constituency, and I hope that all Members have similar examples—but there are awful and appalling instances where the system allows the exploitation of vulnerable people who should be receiving support, while unscrupulous providers make excessive profits by capitalising on loopholes. It is apparent that there is a gold rush, with money mainly being transferred from the taxpayer through housing benefit. That is a sorry state of affairs.

It has now been three years since the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act, a private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), was passed and received Royal Assent. Unsurprisingly, the wheels of Government have ground along at a snail’s pace. Three years have gone by, but the Act has still not been implemented due to difficulties in creating regulations. Last year, The Guardian reported:

“People are dying…and communities are being irreversibly damaged due to delays to a…law to clamp down on unregulated supported housing”.

Will the Government enable a situation in this Parliament in which we can create regulations, stem the flow of cash into what is essentially a black market, and halt those deaths?

Right now, as we debate in Westminster Hall, vulnerable people in our society—the homeless, survivors of domestic abuse, those with mental health issues and those released from prison—are subject to dangerous housing conditions with little or no support. There is a general consensus across the major political parties that the regulation contained in the Act is needed, so surely it should be implemented as soon as possible. The Government should stop dragging their feet.

The Act was meant to improve the situation when it was passed. It states that a panel should be set up and that after three years, the panel should come up with recommendations for changing planning law. That panel has not yet been convened. I have heard from constituents, local authorities and campaigners who are worried that it was forgotten about in the light of the general election. The extended timeline risks further escalation of these issues without immediate intervention.

On behalf of people affected by this issue, I urge the Minister to consider, first, convening the panel now to enable action on this issue and, secondly, accelerating the panel’s timeline for giving its recommendations. Given that there has already been a delay of over a year in setting up the panel, having it make recommendations three years after it is set up will mean that these ongoing issues will continue to affect people for too long. I urge the Minister to act.

16:58

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) on securing this important debate.

Supported exempt accommodation plays a critical role across the country, but as we have heard, there are clear issues that need to be resolved. It provides housing to support those living independently, and crucially, it supports some of the most vulnerable people in our society, including care leavers, people with disabilities, those who have experienced homelessness or rough sleeping, those recovering from a drug or an alcohol addiction, individuals recently released from prison, and victims of domestic abuse and modern slavery. The nature of supported accommodation and the support that it provides mean that it is exempt from the usual caps on housing benefit. That exemption exists for a good reason. However, the sector is fragmented, regulated by multiple bodies and lacks a single, coherent regulatory framework.

For some time now, there have been serious concerns about inconsistency, poor standards, poor-quality provision in some areas and the long-term financial sustainability of the sector. More recently, the Government’s supported housing review, published in November 2024, showed that in 2023, there were 634,000 units of supported housing in Great Britain. More than a third of those—more than 215,000 units—were claimed through the housing benefit system. Critically, the review also highlighted a substantial shortfall. It estimated that nearly 400,000 additional supported housing units are needed right now to meet the unmet demand. Looking ahead, that figure rises dramatically, with up to 640,000 additional units required by 2040, particularly for older people.

Against that backdrop, it is deeply concerning that the sector itself has warned that it is in crisis. In April 2025, more than 170 organisations wrote to the Prime Minister to call for at least £1.6 billion a year in long-term funding for local authorities. Further warnings followed in July 2025, highlighting the risks of strengthening regulation without providing the funding to make it work. In August 2025, the Local Government Association echoed those concerns, calling for increased funding and new guidance to help councils prepare for the implementation of the new regulatory requirements.

All that sits in a wider housing context that should worry us all. The Government have set a target of delivering 1.5 million homes by the end of this Parliament, yet their own figures show that housing supply in England fell to 208,600 net additional dwellings in the year 2024-25 —a 6% decrease on the previous year and the biggest fall in 12 years, outside the pandemic. Just over 190,600 new homes were built, which is fewer than in the final year of the previous Government and 16% below the peak of 2019-20.

Against that backdrop, let me turn to the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023. I welcome the fact that the Conservative Government supported the passage of the Act, which is the first to directly regulate the standard of support provided in supported accommodation in England. It received Royal Assent in June 2023, and has the potential to drive up standards, improve accountability and protect residents from poor-quality provision. However, legislation alone is not enough. The Government consulted on the implementation of the Act in the summer of 2025, and in January 2026 they said they would respond “as soon as possible”. Given the pressures facing the sector, a response cannot come soon enough. Will the Minister confirm when the Government will publish their response to the consultation and when the Act will be fully implemented?

Finally, let me put on the record the action taken by the previous Government in this area. Alongside the passage of the Act, they published a national statement of expectations for supported housing, setting out what good looks like and how local authorities should plan to meet the demand. They invested £5.4 million in enforcement pilots, including in Birmingham, and an independent evaluation showed that the pilots improved the quality of accommodation and support while preventing an estimated £6.2 million in illegitimate or unreasonable housing benefit payments. Further support was provided through updated guidance, good practice resources and £20 million from the supported housing improvement programme to help councils to drive up quality and value for money.

The challenge is clear. Regulation must be implemented properly, swiftly and with adequate funding. Supported housing is not a niche issue; it is a lifeline for hundreds of thousands of people and a cornerstone of our wider housing system. If we fail to get this right, the most vulnerable people will pay the price. That is why I urge the Government to act with urgency, with clarity and with the resources needed, so that the sector can thrive.

17:03

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

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) on securing this important debate, and thank him for his clear and comprehensive account of the challenges of poorly managed, and in particular non-commissioned, exempt accommodation in his constituency.

I also thank other hon. Members who have participated in the debate, including my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) and for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill). My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), have championed this issue for, in some cases, many years. I remember the debates about it in the previous Parliament.

Members will have noticed that I am not the Minister responsible for supported housing. The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), is currently in the main Chamber updating the House on changes to local government finance. I will obviously do my best to respond to the various points raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr and others, but I know that the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness will be happy to follow up with any Member in relation to specific issues of concern. I have no doubt that she will be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, his constituents, should that be appropriate, to discuss matters in more detail.

In general terms, let me reassure Members of two things. First, the Government take incredibly seriously the need to ensure that all individuals who benefit from supported housing live in safe and decent accommodation and get the support that they need to get back on their feet and improve their lives. As we have heard, in many cases these are very vulnerable individuals who need support if they are to get their lives back on track.

Secondly, we remain firmly committed to addressing exploitation and profiteering at the hands of rogue exempt accommodation operators. Understandably, that has been the focus of the debate. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) —and others noted, there are lots of high-quality providers out there. There is also, as the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking)—rightly argued, huge unmet need in this area. That is why, as Members will know, at the spending review the Government announced £39 billion for a new 10-year social and affordable homes programme. We want to see new supply of supported housing in England come through that new programme in greater numbers. Although we did not set any numerical targets or ringfence budgets for that programme, it has been designed with the flexibility necessary to ensure that those types of accommodation that require higher grant rates can come through the new programme in the appropriate numbers.

We are also providing wider support for the supported housing sector. We announced £159 million, through the local government finance settlement for 2026 to 2029, for support services in supported housing. We are working with targeted local areas and officials are confirming allocations with those areas in the coming days and weeks.

I recognise not only that Birmingham has significantly more supported exempt accommodation than anywhere else in the country—the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr rightly said approximately 31,000 individuals are housed in around 11,000 units—but that it faces acute challenges in respect of unsafe and poor-quality supported housing. I think it was mentioned earlier, but the Local Government and Homelessness Minister recently met the leader of Birmingham council and Members representing a number of Birmingham constituencies to discuss the ongoing problems that Birmingham faces.

It is worth my saying a few general remarks about supported housing. It helps those who need extra support to live as independently as possible in the community, and that support can take many forms. Some individuals may need supported housing for a short time while they recover from a period of crisis; for others, supported housing is a home for life, helping them to live independently outside of institutional settings. The Government fully appreciate that there have been real issues in parts of the supported housing market. Over recent years, far too many residents have been placed in inappropriate accommodation or dangerous situations, with little to no support.

As we have heard today, the impact of unsafe, poor-quality supported housing on residents, their families and communities should not be understated. Increased antisocial behaviour resulting from poorly managed housing and knock-on impacts for wider services such as the NHS and the police are frequently brought to the Department’s attention. Communities in a number of areas across the country have been blighted by these problems, but we know, as I have said, that the issue is most prevalent in Birmingham. Let me be very clear: that state of affairs is intolerable. It cannot be allowed to continue, which is why the Government are taking action.

Action has been taken prior to and alongside the legislation that the previous Government supported and that we have been taking forward. The supported housing improvement programme has been in place in Birmingham since 2022, and before that the supported housing oversight pilots resulted in real improvements—I think the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr made that case in his speech. The multidisciplinary teams that have been established in the local authority, across housing enforcement, adult social care and housing benefit teams, have strengthened understanding and allowed targeted action to take place.

Although the programme will end in March, the lessons learned and the actions taken by Birmingham city council should now be firmly embedded. We are ending that funding as we work towards the implementation of the Act and, thereafter, local authorities will charge fees for the administration and enforcement of licensing in particular going forward. We have not cut off all funding with a view to having no replacement; there is work alongside our intentions to roll out the legislation.

Let me turn to that legislation, which has rightly been the focus of much of the debate. I remember it going through the House when I was the shadow Minister. We should commend the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on his private Member’s Bill, which the previous Government supported, and on all his work on the wider homelessness agenda. That legislation was a response to long-standing concerns about the quality of non-exempt supported accommodation, its oversight and the value-for-money questions we have heard about today.

Despite there being many excellent supported housing providers, regulation in this area is absolutely needed. The Government are working to introduce the necessary measures to improve quality and oversight as soon as possible. I am happy to tell Members that we intend to implement the Act in stages over the coming months, and I will provide some more detail on the different elements of the Act that we intend to take forward, and the timescales. It should be said that local authorities can and should still use their existing enforcement powers to take action against poor-quality accommodation as we do so.

I am pleased to say that, this week, we have allocated £39 million in new burdens funding to local authorities, including Birmingham, to start work on their local supported housing strategies. Those strategies ask local authorities to assess their current supply of supported housing, and to estimate their unmet need and future demand. They must then set out how they will meet them. The first strategies are due to be completed by 31 March 2027, and statutory guidance to support this work was published earlier this week.

The Liberal Democrat spokesman challenged me on the advisory panel. I can assure him that it has not been forgotten about. We are moving forward with its establishment. The chair will be officially appointed imminently and the panel will be officially convened. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the panel will then advise the Government on the implementation of the Act as a whole and consider what further support the supported housing sector needs going forward. We are taking that part of the Act forward.

As has been mentioned a number of times, the Government have also consulted on our proposals for supporting housing licensing and new support standards. We did that last year, and I know that a response has been anticipated for some time. It will be published as soon as possible. I well understand the urgency that Members from across the House have expressed. We will publish the new national supported housing standards along with guidance, so that residents, providers and local authorities know the standard of support we expect.

We will consult on licensing regulations later this year, giving stakeholders an opportunity to comment on the regulations before they are debated in Parliament. This is really important, and it goes to the point about high-quality providers that several Members made. We need to ensure that we introduce the licensing scheme in a way that is both proportionate and effective, so that the expense of bearing down on the rogue providers and operators does not penalise high-quality providers. Local authorities will receive new burdens funding to establish their licensing schemes, and we will monitor the licensing schemes to ensure that they are having the intended effect.

The Government are committed to implementing the measures in the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act and to giving local authorities the powers they need to tackle the problems evident in supported housing in Birmingham and across England. The progress that has already been made is worth noting, and we want that to continue. We want councils like Birmingham to make use of their existing powers. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston mentioned some of the progress made under SHIP in Birmingham. SHIP and the previous programme received a total of £6.5 million in funding, and that has rightly generated huge amounts of benefit: £8.8 million of housing benefit spend was prevented; the number of cases where support was deemed to be inadequate has dropped from 33%; and we are seeing the proportion of inspected properties that meet the decent homes standard rising from 44%. Progress has been made, but the regulatory framework that the Act introduces does need to be brought forward.

[Tahir Ali]

Given the delay in the Act coming into force, would the Minister consider issuing interim guidance so that local authorities can get on more swiftly with some of the changes that they have been asking for for a very, very long time?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We issued guidance earlier this week in respect of some of the provisions that are in the Act, but I will ensure that the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness has heard my hon. Friend’s call for more support and guidance in that area, alongside the implementation of other elements of the Act.

The Government and my hon. Friend the Minister are committed to working with all Members, local authorities and supported housing providers to make sure the measures have the intended effect. Aside from the note of party political debate injected into our discussions by the shadow Minister in regard to the wider housing supply, I think there is cross-party consensus about what needs to happen on this particular issue, and the need for the regulatory framework to be introduced so that we can get supported housing that is good quality, appropriate for the needs of the individuals and helps them to live as independently as possible.

17:14

[Ayoub Khan]

I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for her efforts in this debate—not just her contribution today, but her work in Parliament previously. I also thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) for his interventions. The hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) is not here, but we have had lengthy conversations and it seems that she is equally concerned, as are the other parliamentarians who represent Birmingham, about the sheer saturation of exempt accommodation.

We all recognise the vulnerabilities of the individuals we all come across on a daily basis in our local shopping centres and hospitals, and the pressure on the West Midlands police when there are incidents. An enormous knock-on burden in Birmingham is being felt by local residents. Historically, many of the vulnerable individuals we now come across would not have been walking the streets. They would have been in care homes receiving the right level of care, but we do not see that now.

I thank the Lib Dem spokesman and the shadow Minister for their contributions. As the Minister said, we are all essentially singing off the same hymn sheet. We all understand the importance of supported accommodation for those who can live with minimal support, integrate into society and contribute to local neighbourhoods. But unfortunately we are not getting that. Licensing and enabling the council to regulate the sector is so important. I hear the Minister, but I am afraid the phrase “as soon as possible” will not be well received by local residents who have to deal with the challenges on a daily basis.

I accept that consultation with providers—especially those that do amazing work to provide support for vulnerable individuals who live in local neighbourhoods—is an important part of the process, but if there is going to be a delay because of the consultation, I would like the Minister to reconsider the SEA grant that is given to Birmingham city council. If licensing kicks in, let us say towards the end of the year, or even next year—whenever that may happen—the fact is that we do not have the capacity to deal with the problems that communities currently face. Will the Minister take that point away? I can see that I have gone over my allotted time, Ms Lewell.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered supported exempt accommodation in Birmingham.

17:17

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Written Statements

Wednesday 11 February 2026

UK-India Double Contributions Convention

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)]

Following the joint commitment made by the Governments of the UK and India in a side letter agreement to the comprehensive economic and trade agreement dated 24 July 2025, a double contributions convention between the UK and India was signed on 10 February 2026.

The text of the convention—as a Command Paper—and the relating explanatory memorandum have been laid before Parliament for scrutiny. Both will be available on gov.uk. The convention will enter into force at the same time as the UK-India trade agreement.

[HCWS1327]

Education Estates Strategy

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)]

Today, we are setting out our plans for an education estate in England that supports opportunity for all. The education estate is a platform for opportunity, learning and communities. With over 22,000 schools and colleges across England, the estate supports the outcomes, health and wellbeing of over 10 million children and young people.

High-quality and inspiring school and college buildings are essential to delivering world-class education and creating the conditions for all children and young people to achieve and thrive. The public saw clearly when all this goes wrong during the disruption caused by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, and we see it every day when schools are not designed to be inclusive for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. Historical under-investment and a lack of long-term funding certainty and strategic planning have contributed to a rising maintenance backlog. Schools and colleges have had to patch and mend buildings that have already deteriorated and are not resilient enough to climate change. The estate needs to be suitably sized at both a local and national level and be flexible to meet changing needs from children, young people and their community.

Children with SEND have a right to attend and be included at their local school but schools have not been designed to be inclusive environments. That ends now as we lay the groundwork for an inclusive education system where children are supported at the earliest stage and can thrive in a school that meets their needs, close to home. We want schools to be inclusive by design to support children and young people with SEND.

We are investing over £3.7 billion through to 2029-30 to deliver specialist places for children and young people with SEND, including through the expansion of inclusion bases within the mainstream system so they can learn among their peers. Many schools already provide exceptional support for children who need it, through SEN units, resourced provision and pupil support units. But we know that the variety of provision, and the inconsistent terminology is difficult for parents to understand and navigate. We will replace the current terms with the term inclusion bases and publish national guidance on best practice. This will make it easier for parents to understand what support is available for their child and to recognise what good looks like. And today, we are setting out our ambition that, over time, every secondary school in England will have an inclusion base, alongside thousands of places in primary schools.

Many schools already have this type of provision in place, and so in lots of cases this will be a continuation of the support children and young people with SEND already receive. Where new places are needed, including by repurposing existing space, this can be supported by our capital investment. We will also publish new dedicated guidance on high-impact adaptations in mainstream settings to enhance inclusivity and accessibility, supporting local authorities, responsible bodies, and education settings. More detail on how we will support more children and young people with SEND to achieve and thrive will be set out in the schools White Paper.

Today’s education estates strategy is supported by unprecedented long-term funding and investment in education capital of £38 billion to 2029-30—the highest since 2010. At the core of our strategy is a shift to more proactive management, long-term strategic maintenance and more renewal of the existing estate. This is alongside building and rebuilding where renewal is not possible, and ensuring there are high-quality places from early years to post 16.

In addition to investing almost £3 billion per year by 2034-35 in capital maintenance and renewal for schools and colleges, we will go further by launching a new renewal and retrofit programme for schools and colleges from April 2026. This is backed by over £700 million to 2029-30 and will tackle projects such as fixing roofs and broken heating systems so buildings can last for decades to come, be more resilient to climate change as well as protecting more schools from flooding. We will support schools and colleges to reduce energy costs by unlocking private finance investment in solar and energy efficiency measures and invest over £300 million to 2029-30 to expand Connect the Classroom so schools have access to fast, reliable broadband.

We are investing almost £20 billion in the school rebuilding programme through to 2034-35 to rebuild schools and sixth-form colleges across England. Over 500 schools are already in the programme, and we will select a further 250 schools by early 2027. Buildings will be future-proofed for climate change with new designs that improve outdoor facilities, increase access to nature and improve indoor air quality. Through our new construction framework and design specifications, we are supporting local workforces and creating around 13,000 skills opportunities including apprenticeships and T-level placement opportunities. We will continue to deliver places where they are needed from early years to post 16, including thousands more school-based nursery places and creating extra capacity to support increases in 16 to 18-year-old learners.

We will support responsible bodies to proactively and effectively manage their estates. This includes setting out clear standards for estate management alongside guidance, tools and data to support them and a new digital service to make it easier to access estates guidance, programmes and funding.

Children, families and communities are at the heart of our education estates strategy. Through our 10-year plan, we will deliver a decade of national renewal for schools and colleges as we continue our journey for an education estate that is fit for now and the future.

[HCWS1324]

Early Support Hubs

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)]

This year, the theme of Children and Young People’s Mental Health Week is “This is My Place”, drawing important attention to children and young people’s sense of belonging and the important role that communities and community organisations play in supporting their mental health and wellbeing. As a Government, we rightly celebrate the vital role of community organisations in providing support, compassion, connection, and hope to children and young people where and when they need it.

That is why I am pleased to announce that the Government are investing an additional £7 million so that the 24 early support hubs we are currently funding can continue to operate an expanded service offer for 2026-27. This means that in total we have provided more than £20 million since April 2024 to ensure that thousands more children and young people will continue to receive quicker mental health support, and to enable further continuity in the provision of these services. These hubs help to prevent mental ill health while also bringing care closer to home, both important objectives in our 10-year health plan.

Crucially, this continued investment means that thousands of children and young people will receive earlier, open-access mental health and wellbeing support, where any child can self-refer without an intermediary or prior formal contact. The hubs will continue to offer mental health support and advice to young people aged 11 to 25, and provide continued access to a range of services that are tailored to local need. This could include group work, counselling, psychological therapies, specialist advice, as well as signposting to information and other services. In addition to the mental health offer of hubs, young people may also be able to access advice on wider issues, including sexual health, jobs, drugs, alcohol, and financial worries.

Alongside continuing to support the services offered by these 24 hubs, the funding will ensure continued evaluation of the impact of these services, with early indications suggesting that young people value the holistic approach of the hubs. The evaluation has also highlighted the benefits of easily accessible support for young people, based on interviews with service managers. The evidence and insights collected through the early support hubs evaluation, which aims to publish in the summer, will support the delivery of young futures hubs, alongside best practice and learning from other initiatives. This learning will inform our ambitions for community mental health and wellbeing support for children and young people, ensuring that they have access to what they need, as soon as they need it.

[HCWS1328]

Nursing Workforce

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)]

Today I am announcing a comprehensive package to recognise the value of the nursing profession. Nurses are essential to leading and delivering the Government’s 10-year health plan, and critical for patient safety and outcomes, but the profession has been undervalued in the NHS for far too long.

Too many nurses are not being compensated appropriately for the work they do, and there is currently no universal preceptorship programme in place for new graduate nurses.

This Government are clear that a constructive relationship with unions is in everyone’s interests. Following engagement with all nursing unions, including UNISON, Unite, and GMB, and a dedicated period of intensive engagement with the Royal College of Nursing, they have agreed a series of measures that will transform the nursing profession and make sure that nurses get the pay and support they deserve.

Today I am committing to invest in the NHS nursing workforce in four ways:

Prioritising increasing graduate pay. It is important that graduate salaries are competitive within the wider labour market to attract graduates into the NHS. I am therefore asking the NHS staff council to prioritise graduate pay in the upcoming discussions on pay structure reform. This will impact all graduates under the Agenda for Change contract, including nurses.

Reviewing the work of every band 5 nurse. Every band 5 nursing role will be reviewed by employers over a set timeframe to ensure that job descriptions and pay bands reflect the work that nurses are being asked to do. Additional national funding will be made available to support the band 5 review process and any resulting salary uplifts. This will be separate and additional to the funding that will be made available for annual headline pay rises and for pay structure reform.

Establish a single national nursing preceptorship standard. I have asked the chief nursing officer for England to lead work as part of the upcoming professional strategy for nursing to improve the quality and consistency of preceptorships for all newly qualified nurses. This work will be delivered in partnership with trade unions, employers and other key stakeholders.

A review of the evidence. We will review the evidence that is gathered as part of the review of band 5 nursing roles to determine whether any further action is required.

We will continue to work together with unions to ensure this work is delivered at pace, and that nurses get consistent support in their early careers and are paid for the work they are asked to do.

[HCWS1329]

Police Covenant Annual Report

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

I am pleased to announce that the first annual report for the police covenant under this Government, has today been laid before Parliament. The report, the third since the creation of the police covenant, will also be available on gov.uk.

The police covenant demonstrates a recognition by Government, policing and society of the sacrifices involved in police work. The covenant sets out to ensure that members of the police workforce suffer no detriment as a result of their role.

As the covenant moves into a new phase under a new Government, we have reassessed the priorities for delivery to ensure the work is better focused on the needs of the workforce, and to reflect the evolving realities of policing. This means that, as the covenant progresses further, there will be a greater emphasis on supporting forces to enact consistent policies and systems, setting a minimum standard of provision, and a renewed focus on how the actions taken address specific identified disadvantages.

This annual report reflects this new focus, highlighting not only the progress made so far, but also how the work of the covenant can improve police health and wellbeing in future.

It is my ambition, and that of the Government as a whole, that the covenant should leave the police workforce in no doubt that we are on your side and will support you. You do so much to protect us, it is only right that we protect you.

This work has already begun.

The chief medical officer for policing has ensured greater cohesion between the work of the covenant and the work of the NHS. Police awareness training for GPs has been implemented, highlighting issues better than ever before. A new national health and wellbeing strategy has been created, ensuring that, for the first time, a coherent and comprehensive approach is adopted by forces. This work will deliver improvements in health and wellbeing provision across the board.

And there have been great strides forward in the monitoring and addressing of assaults against officers and staff, and in the handling of fatigue.

The national police wellbeing service, who have taken the lead on many workstreams, will continue to drive forward work to provide support to families and leavers, building on the success of their existing packages.

All of these things are to be welcomed. Yet, there is still much to do if we are to live up to the promise within the covenant, to ensure that the police and their families suffer no disadvantage because of their work in policing.

[HCWS1326]

Telecommunications, Radio Spectrum Management and Postal Services: Strategic Priorities

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)]

I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital Economy, Baroness Lloyd of EFFRA.

I am today laying before Parliament the Government’s draft statement of strategic priorities for telecommunications, the management of radio spectrum, and postal services.

Digital connectivity is at the foundation of our economy and society and underpins almost every part of daily life. The strength, security, and resilience of our digital infrastructure matters deeply to people, business and the economy in the UK.

This statement builds a vision for the UK’s digital future that is enabled by high- quality, secure, reliable and affordable connectivity. It outlines the Government’s strategic priorities and desired outcomes across a number of areas, including: fixed and mobile telecoms, digital inclusion through empowered and confident consumers, telecoms modernisation, the management of radio spectrum, telecoms security and resilience and the postal services.

The statement follows a statutory consultation that ran between 21 July 2025 and 18 September 2025. Around 70 stakeholders with interest and expertise across the policy areas covered by the statement responded to the consultation, including telecoms companies, trade bodies, local authorities and consumer groups. I would like to thank all respondents for taking the time and effort to respond.

These strategic priorities have been designed to support this Government’s ambitions for growth and for agile, responsive regulation that encourages innovation to support these growth goals. They have also been designed to deliver our vision for an inclusive digital society, where consumers are empowered and confident when engaging with the market.

As the independent regulator, Ofcom must have regard to the priorities set out within the statement when exercising its functions. We are committed to working with Ofcom and industry to drive forward progress against these priorities to build a UK that will have the connectivity it needs, whatever the future holds.

I intend to designate the statement for the purposes of section 2A of the Communications Act 2003 after the end of the statutory “40-day period”—as defined in section 2C of the Act—unless either House of Parliament resolves not to approve it within that period.

[HCWS1325]