Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gaza Healthcare System
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for the healthcare system in Gaza.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and I thank the Minister for attending. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee and the co-signatories of my application for the debate. I place on the record my thanks to Médecins Sans Frontières UK and Professor Ramzi Khamis for their assistance in my preparations.
This debate could not have come at a more crucial time for healthcare in Gaza: in about a week’s time, many aid agencies that provide medical care will be barred from operating there. I believe there might be an urgent question to the Foreign Secretary about this very situation today, so it is a live debate. I thank all those who have asked to speak about this crucial issue.
In June last year, when preparing to go to the main Chamber for Foreign Office oral questions, I received a phone call from my colleague, Dr Rebecca Inglis, who works for Healthcare Workers Watch. She told me that, just hours before, a GP in Gaza was killed by an Israeli soldier, shot in the head. I do not know why—perhaps because I am also a GP—but that really hit home about the situation in Gaza. More than 1,000 healthcare workers have now been murdered in Gaza, while countless others remain detained.
As well as the healthcare system in Gaza, I would like to talk about healthocide as a concept. The deliberate targeting of healthcare workers is becoming an instrument of war, not just in Gaza but in other places in the world. Healthcare workers do not have sides and are not partisan; the only side they are on is the side of humanity. We must stop this developing situation in the world. In addition, the healthcare system in Gaza is near to total collapse after such targeting. As I said, in a week’s time many aid agencies—over 30 of them—will be barred from working in Gaza. I will, then, discuss both those issues.
The targeting of healthcare workers in Gaza has been widespread and well documented. Since October 2023, 1,700 healthcare workers have been killed, hospitals have been bombed and raided, and senior doctors have been detained. I talked to one healthcare worker in Gaza who said that they could not leave the hospital in scrubs because they would be identified as a healthcare worker and arrested. Later this evening, I will host a launch event for the investigation of the Gaza aid-worker massacre on 23 March last year, when 15 emergency workers were massacred by Israeli forces.
I could not come to this debate without mentioning the tragic case of Hind Rajab, a five-year-old Palestinian girl who was murdered by Israeli forces alongside six of her family members. Crucially, two paramedics who were coming to save her life were also killed. Her voice will continue to haunt the world. I hope to meet her mother later today, and I want to be able to look her in the eye and say that this Government are doing all they can to prevent another such situation as happened to her daughter.
Healthocide is becoming a new phenomenon in war. More than 13 years ago in Syria, for example, healthcare workers were systematically targeted by the then Syrian Government and Russian forces. The same is happening in Sudan now. There is, then, a bigger point, and we must stop this happening. This country should campaign on healthocide in the world.
The situation in Gaza is grim for healthcare: not a single hospital is fully functional in the Gaza strip, while 50% of them are partially functional; only 1.5% of primary healthcare centres, or three out of 200, are fully functional; and not a single hospital is operating in northern Gaza or Rafah. Healthcare workers conduct more than 100 consultations a day; in British general practice, I am not allowed to do more than 25, so that gives a feeling of how much work these people are doing. That is putting an enormous strain on the healthcare system.
An interim rapid damage and needs assessment conducted jointly by the United Nations, the EU and the World Bank found that more than $1.47 billion-worth of damages had been inflicted on the health sector, and that reconstruction will cost about $8 billion. There is a massive need to rebuild the healthcare facilities in Gaza.
Two weeks ago, I heard direct testimony from a British doctor who had just returned from Gaza. She witnessed the wilful destruction of medical equipment—for example, cutting off the ends of all the ultrasound machines—and the systematic destruction of medical data. She described seeing patients arriving with sniper wounds that were so precise they were clearly made to cause lifelong disabilities and therefore harm young people in Gaza.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
Like me, many residents across the Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency have been horrified to see the scale of human suffering on the ground in Gaza. It is right that our Government have been doing what they can to bring children who are in urgent medical need to the UK for treatment. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that our Government continue to do all they can to help vulnerable children in Gaza?
Dr Opher
Indeed, and many of us have campaigned on the medical evacuation of young people. The Minister has delivered on that, although there have been some problems recently, which he may address. A key issue in Gaza to which I will return is that currently the medical evacuation of anyone to East Jerusalem, which is still in the occupied territories, is not allowed. East Jerusalem has some well-functioning hospitals with capacity, and that is one of the issues we need to address.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The hon. Member is talking passionately about the impact of physical injuries on young people, but we also know that trauma recovery for children and young people will have to be a vital part of the long-term solution for Gaza. The International Centre for Child Trauma Prevention and Recovery has pioneered a capacity-building model of training to put as many counsellors on the ground as possible. I engaged with the ICCTPR’s co-director at a fundraising event in Ceres in my constituency. Does the hon. Member agree that when the UK Government are looking at providing funding and support, they also need to look at trauma recovery?
Dr Opher
I absolutely agree. War is traumatic on so many different levels, and mental health is a key part of holistic care and must be covered in any rebuilding of the healthcare system. We also need to start to look at training people in the Gaza strip and the occupied territories, because it is better to train them than to import them.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend rightly makes a passionate case for why we should be doing more to help the healthcare system in Gaza. It is quite clear that the 50 severely ill children from Gaza who were evacuated by the Government and treated in NHS hospitals were well cared for. Indeed, the Prince of Wales visited some of them in hospital and afterwards said explicitly that they had faced
“experiences no child should ever face.”
Does my hon. Friend agree that the next step the Government should take is to treat children in the region? Plenty of British medics are willing to go out there and help; the Government should be encouraging them to use their NHS expertise to treat children in the region and to train medics in the specialisms that are desperately needed.
Dr Opher
My hon. Friend is spot on. Rather than evacuating children to the NHS, which was the right thing to do while war was raging, it is better to build up facilities in the area and start training doctors and other health professionals to look after people there. We are training some Gazan medical students—I have met some of them—but the future lies in building up medical training in the area.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate and for the pertinent points he is making. Does he agree that the Minister should work with the Health Secretary to ensure that clinicians of all kinds can get the release they need to spend the appropriate amount of time in the region to provide training and clinical support?
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I strongly support the points the hon. Gentleman is making in advancing his case. I am slightly worried about the expression “in the region”. We need to get medical workers into Gaza to make sure they can safely deploy their skills in the area. We are long past the time when the Israeli regime could justify its actions in terms of self-defence. The best way to achieve safe passage for medical aid workers in the area is to get the IDF out and get international peacekeepers in.
Dr Opher
The hon. Gentleman is spot on. The most important thing is peace, so that we can build a healthcare system. Although there has been a ceasefire, a lot of Palestinians are still dying. We first need to make a stable environment, and we need to be pragmatic. While there are functioning hospitals in East Jerusalem, we should be able to take people out of Gaza and get them treated there. As I have outlined, the healthcare facilities in Gaza have been severely damaged. I will come later to the possibility of bringing in mobile units on a short-term basis, but in the long term we need to build up the hospital sector.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. I have read that Gaza is now home to the largest number of child amputees but, according to Save the Children, the prosthetic centres there are not functioning. Does my hon. Friend agree that Israel needs to lift all restrictions on aid getting into Gaza, so that young people can get the vital prosthetic limbs they need for day-to-day life?
Dr Opher
I thank my hon. Friend for a point well made. It is even more basic than that: we need to allow medicines into Gaza, which are not currently being transported. Other items such as prosthetic limbs are also very important, so the border needs to open up. Humanitarian aid, not just medical aid, is needed in Gaza. We need to open the borders and allow relief in.
In a sinister development, snipers seem to be targeting specific areas of the body, such as the brachial plexus, damage to which causes long-term disability, and the sciatic nerve in the leg, damage to which causes permanent paralysis. I know that war is evil in many aspects, but we should call out that cynical approach.
Public health is incredibly important for people in the Gaza strip: 89% of water, sanitation and hygiene infrastructure has been destroyed or damaged. One of the most important things is to get clean water to people. There are about 250,000 cases of acute malnutrition in children this year, as well as 37,000 cases in pregnant and breastfeeding women.
Violence against women and the effects on reproductive health have led to a 41% fall in births in Gaza, as well as a high number of maternal deaths, miscarriages and newborn mortality. We have seen strikes on maternity wards and the destruction of Gaza’s largest in vitro fertilisation clinic, wiping out 5,000 embryos. Premature births have also sharply increased, with one in five newborns requiring intensive neonatal care. Respiratory infections, acute watery diarrhoea and skin infections are widespread. This is a particularly horrifying statistic: 11 children have reportedly died from hypothermia this winter, including a two-month-old baby and one-year-old child.
There are many serious problems, among which I would like to pinpoint Guillain-Barré syndrome, which is very rare—as a doctor, I have seen it only once—and it leads to increasing paralysis and often requires ventilation. The causes are often difficult to identify, but there seems to be a Guillain-Barré syndrome epidemic in Gaza. It may be triggered by infections or other, possibly sinister, causes. Doctors in Gaza have tried to take away soil samples but have been restricted. I do not know what is causing it but Guillain-Barré is an acute problem with serious repercussions.
On top of all that, we now face an even more alarming development: 37 international non-governmental organisations, including Médecins Sans Frontières, face deregistration on 1 March—next week. If that proceeds, they will no longer be able legally to operate in Gaza, the west bank or East Jerusalem. MSF alone supports one in five hospital beds in Gaza and assists in one in three births. In 2025, it performed 22,000 surgical operations, handled more than 100,000 trauma cases and carried out more than 800,000 out-patient consultations. If these organisations are forced out, the consequences will be catastrophic.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister urge Israeli officials to reopen the humanitarian medical corridor, allowing critically ill patients to travel to East Jerusalem and the west bank for treatment? The World Health Organisation holds a list of approximately 18,000 urgent cases, yet permission to travel that short distance for care—including urgent cancer care—has been routinely denied. Will he use any possible leverage we have to ensure that the Israeli Government immediately pause the deregistration of international humanitarian aid organisations and negotiate their continued presence in Gaza?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) mentioned, we need to establish a medical supply chain that allows medicine and equipment into Gaza immediately, and we need to find rapid alternatives to destroyed facilities. For example, mobile operating theatres could be in Gaza within 48 hours. They are about the size of articulated lorries and could be driven in, and they are self-maintaining. We could be operating with them almost immediately. We must push to allow them into Gaza. Also, we need to start rebuilding hospitals and build up field hospitals as well. There is a lot to do, but we must start on this process.
Will the Minister work with our allies to ensure that attacks on healthcare are investigated and documented wherever they occur, and that perpetrators are prosecuted? Healthocide must become recognised and exposed and we must deter it in the world. I was refused entry into the west bank last year. I realise that it is very difficult to get any leverage over the Israeli Government to influence their decisions—I respect that—and I understand that the Foreign Office tries to do what it can, but is it time to impose proper, full sanctions on Israel if it does not resolve this itself? I would like to hear the Minister’s opinion on that.
Healthcare workers in Gaza are performing the most difficult and courageous work imaginable, often literally under fire. They deserve protection and their patients deserve care. We cannot simply look away. We need action now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for opening the debate. I remind all Back-Bench Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. Members can see the level of interest in the debate; if everyone can keep themselves to five minutes or less, we will get all Back Benchers in to speak.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for setting the scene incredibly well, as he always does. He is making a reputation for himself in the House as someone who speaks up on important issues, and today he has done so again. I thank him for that, and for giving us an opportunity to participate in the debate.
It is, of course, a goal for all that all countries around the globe have access to healthcare. I am my party’s health spokesperson, so health is a big issue for me, whether it be here in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the world. Also, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I think it is very important to speak up for those in areas where persecution takes place and for those who have experienced human rights abuses. These issues are so important, and I want to represent that.
Delivery of healthcare in Gaza is so important—it is vital, as the hon. Gentleman outlined. Despite the acts of terror inflicted by Hamas, the children and the innocent people deserve better, and it is crucial that we recognise that. Today we can act collectively, and as individuals, throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) and I often talk about these things. It grieves me greatly to see wee children suffering with the atrocities and things that happen to them. Pregnant women are deprived of basic medical supplies. Questions have to be asked. There is an urgent medical need. I know that the Minister and the Government will not be found wanting when it comes to doing their bit—I am convinced of that—but sometimes, collectively, we need to do things in conjunction with other countries worldwide.
To start with, there is a severe strain on Gaza’s healthcare system, especially for children, pregnant women and those with chronic illnesses. That is sometimes forgotten. Mental health, which was mentioned in an intervention, is another massive issue. In my constituency of Strangford we have two charities that help. One is Samaritan’s Purse, which is run by Gillian Gilliland, our local rep. It helps in Gaza and elsewhere around the world. Christian Aid is another organisation that is very much to the fore and active in getting money in Ards and Strangford, and also provides practical and physical help. Those organisations do their bit across Northern Ireland and respond in areas in need of humanitarian aid. When victims of war, poverty, disaster, disease and famine cry out, such organisations are often the first to answer.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point in this important debate. Does he agree that there is an overwhelming level of concern among constituents across the country about the restrictions on international aid organisations such as Christian Aid? There is a genuine concern that after the war, people will still suffer because of restricted access.
Jim Shannon
I am no different from anybody else; I hear the same points that the hon. Lady refers to. Everyone else in this room—and those who are not in this room—will have the same issues. I mentioned those two organisations because they are physically and practically active in the middle east and elsewhere. Repeated conflict will lead to limited access to medical supplies alongside the pressure on the hospital infrastructure. In addition, Hamas’s administration policies and ongoing issues complicate healthcare delivery and lead to a significant impact on its own people—residents on both sides of the Gaza strip, who are devastated and losing livelihoods because of the lack of available healthcare delivery.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way under time pressure. He has mentioned Hamas twice. It is an absolutely awful organisation and I want to see the end of it, but he must accept that Netanyahu has some role to play in the crisis and has to take ownership of the problem as well.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is right: everybody has a role to play in the problem. For the record, Israel is not perfect. I am not perfect and the hon. Gentleman is not perfect. We do things we should not do, and there is accountability and a process. I make that point, but I look back to where it started: Hamas started the thing. I have mentioned it specifically, but this is about the people who need help. That is why we are here. Let us focus on that.
Jim Shannon
I do not think I can; it would not be fair on Members who have not yet spoken.
Hamas’s control plays a huge part in the lack of healthcare provision, including the use of civilian areas for military purposes. That complicates the delivery of aid and protection of residential areas. To say that there are chronic systematic weaknesses is an understatement.
It is important to understand the context in which the challenges exist. Hamas’s control over Gaza, its embedding of military infrastructure within civilian areas, and its prioritisation of terror over public services have directly contributed to the chronic weaknesses in the healthcare system. Israel, meanwhile, continues to facilitate humanitarian aid and medical access where possible, working with international organisations to ensure that urgent care reaches those in need. That must be enhanced and further encouraged.
We must support the invaluable work of global and UK Northern Ireland charities providing medical supplies, clean water, and essential care to children and families, while also holding Hamas accountable for the governance failures that put healthcare workers and patients at risk. Compassion for civilians—I am a compassionate person when it comes to these issues; others are the same—and a commitment to security are not mutually exclusive. Both must guide our response to the crisis in Gaza.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing this much-needed debate.
I will focus on one specific aspect of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza where the UK can really make a difference: medical transfers to the west bank. Israel’s continued ban on medical transfers from Gaza to hospitals in the west bank, including East Jerusalem, costs lives every day. It is not an unintended consequence of conflict, but a deliberate decision. Before October 2023, Gaza’s health system functioned as part of a wider Palestinian medical network, with around 2,000 patients travelling each month from Gaza to hospitals in East Jerusalem and the west bank for specialised treatment. The Augusta Victoria and Makassed hospitals alone handled more than 40% of Gaza’s referrals. At times, nearly one third of their beds were filled with Gazan patients.
However, that system collapsed overnight. Since October ’23, Israel has banned all internal medical transfers from Gaza. In January 2026, the Israeli Government confirmed to its own High Court that it is standing by its refusal to allow seriously ill patients to travel to the west bank, including East Jerusalem, citing vague security concerns but offering no evidence of the threat supposedly posed by innocent Palestinian civilians. As of early 2026, more than 18,500 patients approved by the World Health Organisation are waiting for evacuation because their treatment is unavailable in Gaza. More than 4,000 of those patients are children, and more than 1,000 people have already died while waiting for care. For every week that the ban remains in place, more preventable deaths will become inevitable.
Israel permits some patients to travel abroad for treatment, with more than 4,000 patients evacuated to third countries. But that only makes its continued refusal to allow access to nearby Palestinian hospitals even harder to defend. Hospitals in East Jerusalem are within a couple hours’ drive of Gaza. The WHO has been clear: reopening that route is the fastest, safest and most cost-effective way to save lives. Instead, patients are forced through the Rafah crossing, which operates under extremely severe restrictions. Exits through the crossing are capped at around 50 patients per day, with each allowed only two accompanying family members. At that pace, they will not survive long enough to be treated. At the current rate, Save the Children estimates that evacuating those in need could take more than a year.
Furthermore, while departures through Rafah are possible, re-entry is heavily restricted, with more than 20,000 Palestinians who left Gaza earlier in the war still waiting to return. That puts medical evacuees in an impossible position: if they leave for essential treatment, they risk permanent displacement. Medical evacuations must not become de facto forcible transfer. Under the fourth Geneva convention, Israel, as the occupying power, has a duty to ensure access to medical care and supplies, and to maintain medical services. Article 33 explicitly prohibits “collective punishment”. A blanket ban on all medical transfers imposed regardless of individual circumstances risks breaching all of those obligations.
The Government rightly emphasise the importance of international humanitarian law, and now is the time to put that into practice. The Government should publicly urge Israel to lift the ban on internal medical transfers and continue emergency overseas evacuations only as a stopgap, not as a substitute for lawful access to nearby care. Restoring access to hospitals in the west bank and East Jerusalem would save lives, relieve pressure on Gaza’s collapsing health system and reaffirm the basic principle that the sick must never be treated as a security risk by default.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) not only for securing this debate but for his impassioned speech introducing the topic, which was really appreciated.
Last week, I and over 2 billion other people welcomed Ramadan, a month of fasting, reflection and prayer. In the Muslim community across the globe, Ramadan is generally treated as a guest: it comes, we appreciate and enjoy it, it gives us a lot of blessings, and then it leaves us. That is no different for the people of Gaza. Speaking to the Independent, a young man by the name of Ibrahim described Ramadan in Gaza before the war as having “a softness to it”. He explained how he remembered the “warm glow of lanterns”—my house is in fact lit up as well—hanging in the narrow streets of Gaza, the
“smell of freshly baked bread before maghrib”,
which is the prayer just before we break our fast, and the “sound of children laughing” during tarawih, the evening prayer. In Ramadan, Muslim families come alive in the evening: they gather in large numbers, doors are open and visits are constant. Ibrahim explained how, this year, the “tables are modest”, but his prayers are still heavy. People break their fast with what is available, but they
“still welcome it, not because life is easy, but because it remains.”
Let us have a look at what remains. If anybody has seen the scenes, it is like a dystopian disaster movie, with people breaking their fast against a backdrop of utter, apocalyptic devastation. They are breaking bread among 60 million tonnes of rubble because of the destruction of more than 90% of their homes. They are eating their dates, which is what we traditionally break our fast with, but I can assure hon. Members that the sweetness of those dates cannot mask the bitterness of the death, destruction and decay that surrounds each and every one of those people. Minister, imagine breaking your fast while sitting just metres from collapsed buildings where your friends and family lived. Imagine knowing that beneath the debris, according to reports, there are more than 10,000 unidentified people—loved ones, friends, family and teachers. People pray beside them and they eat beside them.
Although the official death toll in Gaza has reached 72,000—equivalent to one out of every 33 people—a further 171,000, or roughly one in four, have been injured, and we expect the true number to be much higher. I can truly say that the joy of Ramadan has disappeared for most of the Muslim world. Even after the so-called ceasefire that came into effect on 10 October 2025, at least 603 Palestinians have been killed and 1,600 have been wounded, rendering it a ceasefire in name only. If 603 Israelis had been killed in the past four months, would we all be grateful and welcoming a ceasefire?
In the short time I have, I will briefly focus on the children—who have already been mentioned—and on the sanctity of their healthcare and the right of every child to be treated when they are sick. Children are innocent bystanders who have faced the brunt of the IDF carnage. As reported by Save the Children, they are telling aid workers that
“they want to die because there is food and water in heaven and because their parents are there.”
Death has visited many of the children of Gaza: 20,000 Palestinian children have been killed—more than 100 of them since the so-called ceasefire. That is a child every single day. Those that death has spared have been plagued with more than 40,500 injuries. As has been mentioned, children account for a quarter of all the amputations in Gaza over the past two years, making it the place with the highest number of child amputees per capita, according to the International Rescue Committee.
Let us consider this: children have seen their neighbourhoods, schools, colleges, universities and homes destroyed. They have seen their parents pulverised in front of their eyes and their siblings shredded into a million pieces, and now their own bodies are being destroyed. In whose arms are those children going to find solace? How do we envision a peaceful co-existence when these young souls have witnessed such barbaric, brutal horrors?
We must act now, because more than 18,500 people require urgent medical care, while only 2,700 have been evacuated, according to Physicians for Human Rights. Since October 2025, only 235 patients have been evacuated and many have died just waiting. For the first time since May 2024, the Rafah crossing finally opened on 2 February this year, but on average only 12 patients a day have been allowed to leave, despite Israel’s commitment to allowing 50 people needing medical care to leave each day. The current rate of evacuation means it will take four and half years for people needing medical care to leave Gaza. Children are dying waiting for basic medical care.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) mentioned that hospitals in Jerusalem—a mere 70 km away—have the facilities to treat those patients with trauma. We must facilitate the opening of the humanitarian corridor to East Jerusalem for urgent medical evacuation. We must ensure that international medical NGOs can operate freely and bring equipment, medication and personnel without obstruction. The weaponisation of bureaucracy by insisting on the registration of aid workers by the IDF is costing lives. As has been mentioned, we must ensure that children are prioritised. In addition to tackling their health needs, we must ensure that they get access to rehab hospitals and clinicians who can provide comprehensive mental health and psychosocial support—particularly the most vulnerable children, such as those who have been orphaned, separated or disabled.
We must advocate for an independent, rather than Israeli-controlled, aid access mechanism for Gaza moving forward. We owe it to the children, we owe it to all the healthcare workers who did not abandon their duty and we owe it to ourselves if we claim to uphold international law. Without health, there is no recovery. Without recovery, there is no peace. And without peace, this cycle will simply begin again. Minister, the time to act is now.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for bringing forward this important debate.
It has been 137 days since the ceasefire started in Gaza, and although attention has drifted in the media, the humanitarian crisis rages on. The health sector is at absolute breaking point. Medicines are scarce. Hospitals lie in ruins, and wards have been reduced to rubble.
Temporary relief will not be enough. What is required is a sustained and effective humanitarian response and the rebuilding of Gazan healthcare. Not only must we put pressure on the Israeli Government to fully open the border, allow the aid in and allow transfers of care, but the international community has to go further. We have to ensure that Gaza has the infrastructure and sustainability long term to cope with future crises.
Years of blockade have left Gaza with a staggering list of challenges: shortages of medical equipment and medication, the destruction of hospitals, the killing of staff and an absence of patient evacuations. Bombs and bullets are not the only things that have been killing Gazans: lack of access to medical care has already killed thousands. At the start of the war in 2023, there were 1,244 kidney patients in Gaza. Now, that number is just 622. Thirty of those patients are documented to have died in Israeli military attacks, but hundreds have died simply for the lack of dialysis.
The shortages of medicines are still acute. Basic painkillers have become a luxury, and more than half the people in Gaza do not have access to their regular medication. Lab tests are at risk of complete standstill. Oncology surgery, operating rooms, intensive care—all have been hit very badly. Ongoing restrictions on the free passage of medical equipment by the Israeli Government have meant that the quantity of medicine reaching Gaza’s hospitals is simply not enough.
It is not only about the supply. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud laid out, Gaza’s medical workforce has been devastated. More than 1,700 medical workers have been killed, 3,000 have been wounded and more than 500 have been abducted or detained. Twenty-two hospitals have been put out of service, and 211 ambulances have been damaged. Of Gaza’s 176 primary healthcare centres, only a third remain even partially functional.
Health services are overwhelmed. Thousands of critically ill patients cannot be evacuated, and 20,000 patients are waiting for treatment abroad, but Rafah is still not fully open. Options are severely constrained. These evacuations are not just a matter of immediate care; they of course relieve the crushing ongoing pressure on the healthcare system. As my hon. Friends have laid out, there are functioning hospitals in the west bank and East Jerusalem, but access to them has been barred, which seems cruel.
Andrew George
The hon. Lady is making a magnificent contribution to the debate. The hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) talked about the imminent departure of aid agencies from Gaza, which has been forced by the Israeli regime. A lot of international aid workers have been into Gaza—one from Cornwall, Jim Henderson, was killed by the IDF in 2024. Does the hon. Lady accept that we need to open up Gaza to those aid workers and to get the IDF out?
Lizzi Collinge
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The deregistering of international organisations is abhorrent. They are absolutely vital to this response, and I will touch on that point later.
Despite these unsurmountable barriers, healthcare workers have absolutely persevered. They have rebuilt health centres. Open-heart surgery has resumed at Al-Quds hospital. Childbirth services have restarted. I cannot be the only woman in the room who would have died in childbirth without medical intervention. It is horrendous to think of all those Palestinian women giving birth without medical support and of the impact on child and maternal mortality. International humanitarian organisations have been absolutely indispensable. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency carried out a 10-day vaccination campaign, which reached a third of Gazan children. That is absolutely fantastic.
We and the rest of the international community must put pressure on Israel. We must demand the immediate release of detained medical personnel, along with a guarantee that they will be protected to do their work. We must insist that the Rafah crossing is opened to allow in essential lifesaving equipment, and we must insist on lifting the forthcoming ban on organisations such as Médecins Sans Frontières.
Restoring and rebuilding healthcare systems will be a core part of overall reconstruction efforts, but we must look further into the future. The blockade and systematic underfunding have meant that even in times of relative peace, Gazan healthcare was very fragile. Reconstruction cannot mean rebuilding the fragility that existed before. We need to strengthen local medical education, infrastructure and training. That can only come with a free and democratic Palestinian state. Palestinians deserve to live in peace and health—as do all their neighbours. The situation in Gaza shows that health is more than a technical issue and about more than getting medicines: it is political, structural and absolutely central to any hope of lasting peace.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The situation in Gaza is beyond appalling in every way we can think of. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on securing the debate, and also the wonderful Palestinian activists in his constituency, who do a fantastic job in drawing attention to all this.
We must have some sense of urgency. We have a continuation of the occupation. Israel is now using thermal weapons, which have killed over 2,000 people since last year. Those weapons basically vaporise the body, which is barbaric by any stretch of the imagination. Temperatures can reach as high as 3,500°C, which is the temperature achieved when a nuclear explosion takes place. If we look at the silhouettes of the bodies vaporised on the streets of Hiroshima, that is what the people of Gaza are now having to tolerate. That is disgusting at any level.
We have the continued occupation of Gaza by Israel. Then we have the so-called Trump peace plan—that is such a disgusting misuse of language it is unbelievable—which is actually a military reoccupation of Gaza. A very large military base is now being built in the north of the Gaza strip, presumably to assist the expulsion of many Palestinian people from Gaza and the construction of hotels, casinos and all the rest of it, which is what the dream of that wretched peace plan is. Can we not ask our British Government to do something serious and say that we totally condemn the Trump plan and the reoccupation of Gaza?
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but he knows that the terms of this debate are fairly confined to healthcare. He is perfectly entitled to set out the context, but I know that he will want to shortly come on to discuss healthcare specifically.
Jeremy Corbyn
Thank you, Sir Jeremy.
I ask the British Government whether they will kindly do everything they can to allow MSF and all the others to continue working in Gaza, to respect the work of health workers and those assassinated by the Israeli occupation? Unless we look at the wider context, it is impossible to get a solution. That requires political action by the British Government to enable health workers to carry out their work.
As colleagues have pointed out, the consequences of the health disaster that is Gaza at the moment are large numbers of deaths, orphaned children and mothers dying in childbirth because of the lack of equipment. As the hon. Member for Stroud pointed out, it would be perfectly possible to get emergency medical equipment—operating theatres and so on—in very quickly. The world has beyond the capacity to deal with every health problem in Gaza. Why is it not being done? Because Israel will not allow it to happen and will not allow equipment to go in. Unless we are utterly determined as a country and a Government to get that medical equipment into Gaza, the situation will simply continue to get worse. We will be wringing our hands here in six months’ time, in a year’s time and so on—as many of us have been for many years—about the treatment of the Palestinian people.
The long-term consequences will not disappear. Communicable diseases will get worse, the sewerage system will get worse and the mental health trauma for future generations will not go away. I remember talking to Dr Mona El-Farra on the day after the 2006 election in Gaza, at which I was an observer. I went to her apartment in Gaza City and I said, “Mona, what’s the mental health situation for people in Gaza?” She said, “Jeremy, by my estimate 70% of the population are now suffering severe and profound mental health trauma.” That was 20 years ago, at a point at which there was some degree of hope for the future. There was some degree of optimism at that time. Now, there is no hope. There is no optimism. We are talking about the entirety of the population suffering from mental health trauma. That will carry on intergenerationally—and we are supplying weapons, which has allowed some of that to happen.
I simply say to the Government, “Do everything you can to demand access for healthcare workers, everything you can to get the equipment in there, and everything you can to end the occupation of Gaza and allow the people of Palestine to decide their own future in their own land, and decide what society they want to create there. It is not up to us to recolonise it; it is up to us to help them to liberate their own lives.”
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. Clinicians have been targeted by arrests, torture and bullets, and 1,700 have been killed. Hospitals, clinics and ambulances have been destroyed by bombs and drones. Medical aid, equipment and pharmaceuticals have been blocked at the border. Patients have been denied healthcare for blasts and bullets, disease, infection, poor sanitation and malnutrition at unimaginable scales. Mental trauma has engulfed every mind. Sexual violence has violated innocent women and girls.
The crisis continues, yet where are we today? The right to healthcare—to life itself—has been destroyed. International humanitarian law has been breached and the International Court of Justice’s ruling has been undermined as daily violations occur, all while the IDF has destroyed every place where someone can heal. Apart from three field hospitals, three primary health centres and six medical points, all functioning health facilities are only partially functioning. As of 30 January, 18 hospitals, 105 primary healthcare centres and 233 medical points remain non-functional in Gaza.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
My hon. Friend and I were at a meeting at which we heard from human rights and medical aid experts. I was struck by the figure that on the World Health Organisation wait list 18,500 people from Gaza are awaiting medical treatment. East Jerusalem hospitals have stated that they are able to care for 50 a day, so there is local provision available. Is my hon. Friend as distressed as I am that that is being refused? Perhaps she can elicit some response from the Minister.
Rachael Maskell
I absolutely am. I heard that evidence too. That passage for the whole of the Palestinian healthcare system must be opened. Even now, aid cannot enter Gaza. In four days’ time, 37 organisations will lose their registration to operate. The provision of healthcare, but also the whole humanitarian support network, will collapse. Although every step that the Government take is welcome, the response has been woefully inadequate, leaving people in an indescribable health crisis.
I will never forget the clinicians who have taken the time to inform us of the conditions that they work in, the scale of the challenges they face and the clinical choices they make. One clinician described having to make the choice of which child to save as they looked on at the little bodies writhing in pain and distorted by brutality. Yet the provision of healthcare, water, nutrition and sanitation will evaporate this week. If countries do not step up their efforts in the next few hours, disease will be enabled to spread further and faster.
I ask the Minister some questions. What specific demands has he made of the Israeli Government to release all 309 health workers who are being held as hostages and prisoners? Their skills are urgently needed. What specific demands has he made of the Israeli Government to extend the right of all NGOs providing healthcare or preventing ill health through food and sanitation projects to be allowed to continue their work in Gaza despite the registration scheme? When did he last call in the ambassador for Israel in the light of the immediate removal of the NGOs that deliver healthcare and vital humanitarian aid? If she does not extend those licences, why extend her stay in the UK? What has been her response? What sanctions will the UK Government apply to the Israeli Government for ending access to NGO support for humanitarian work in Gaza?
Finally, how has the Minister sought for people suffering in Gaza to move to East Jerusalem and the west bank where clinicians are ready to receive them? Given that it is our manufactured F-35 parts that have inflicted so many of these wounds, what more can the UK Government do to ensure that we provide the healthcare facilities, here and wherever we can, to save these precious lives?
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. We will need to move on to Front-Bench contributions at about 10.28 am. We have two speakers left, so if they keep to under four minutes, we can get them both in.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) on securing this debate and on his expertise in the area.
The Israeli Government carry out these crimes against humanity because they can, and no one stops them. For nearly two years, Gaza’s healthcare system has been systematically dismantled during Israel’s military campaign. The World Health Organisation reports that there were 735 attacks on healthcare in Gaza from 7 October 2023 to 11 June last year. In 2024, the UN commission of inquiry concluded:
“Israel has implemented a concerted policy to destroy the health-care system of Gaza.”
The special rapporteur Francesca Albanese has stated that the targeted destruction of Gaza’s healthcare system by the IDF amounts to “medicide”, part of
“the intentional creation of conditions calculated to destroy Palestinians in Gaza which constitutes an act of genocide.”
One image stays with me: a hospital tent, a patient on a drip, flames climbing the IV line, a man too sick to run. That is what the destruction of a health system looks like. Amid this horror, there have been many extraordinary acts of courage from very many British medics, including Middlesbrough doctor Mohammed Mustafa and Professor Ghassan Abu-Sittah. They have stitched, they have amputated, they have delivered babies and they have kept children alive in wards without power and under bombardment.
Even under the so-called ceasefire, Israel restricts healthcare. Dual-use restrictions block medical equipment, including imaging machines, prosthetic materials and surveillance tablets. More than 6,000 amputees await limbs. Only a few hundred prostheses have been allowed in. Stocks will run out. Israel has moved to deregister more than 35 international NGOs, including those funded by the British public. Those organisations deliver one in three births in Gaza and hundreds of thousands of consultations. They are being forced to hand over staff data or be shut down. Medical evacuations remain desperately limited. The WHO lists 18,000 people as in urgent need of care outside Gaza.
The deliberate targeting of healthcare, the obstruction of aid and the killing and detention of medical personnel raise serious questions under international humanitarian law and the Geneva convention. A ceasefire must mean a ceasefire. Israel must uphold the ceasefire, lift its blockade on medical aid, end registration rules, allow safe passage for patients, permit the reconstruction of hospitals and release detained healthcare workers. The UK Government must do more than issue statements. They must interrogate Israel’s actions and intent, and enforce consequences. We are seeing scenes where the dogs are healthy in Gaza and the people are starving. We must ask ourselves how it is that the dogs are so healthy. Where are they getting their nutrition? I will leave people to make up their own mind.
I ask the Minister these questions. Have the Government assessed whether UK-supplied arms, including F-35s, were used in strikes on healthcare facilities? Will they publish their assessment? Will he state without equivocation that the destruction of hospitals in Gaza is a breach of international humanitarian law and is in direct contravention of the genocide convention? What diplomatic or economic sanctions has the UK imposed in response to Israel blocking 18,000 patients? What consequences will Israel face for deregistering aid agencies? How is the UK implicated through the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre?
Given that the UK sanctioned over 1,500 individuals after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the glaring double standards are beyond reprehensible. The UK’s diplomatic statements have not shifted the Israeli Government’s policy one iota. We must use leverage, trade measures, arms controls and sanctions—concrete consequences for grave breaches of international law. Healthcare is protected in war. That is not optional; it is the law.
The UK has not done anywhere near enough to exert pressure on Israel. If the same ineffective stance is maintained, the UK risks facing charges of complicity. We have more than diplomacy in our locker. It is absolutely criminal that the UK is not using the levers available. We have legal, moral and historical obligations and responsibilities to the Palestinians, who this country has betrayed for over 100 years, from the Balfour declaration to the present day, and the genocide continues. In the name of God, I ask the Minister—I urge him and this Government—to do the right thing and act, before the Palestinian people are completely wiped from the map.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I can give the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) three minutes to speak.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. It is an honour to serve under your chairship.
Today’s debate concerns healthcare in Gaza, but the truth is this: there is almost no healthcare left. Hospitals have been bombed. Doctors and nurses have been killed. Children are having limbs amputated without proper pain relief. Babies are being born in tents, into hunger and into fear. There is not a functioning healthcare system; it has collapsed, and it is children who are paying the highest price. Thousands of children have been killed. Many more have been injured. Gaza now has an entire generation of children living with life-changing disabilities. Imagine being a child who survives a bomb, loses a leg and then cannot get a wheelchair or even basic medicine. Imagine being a parent who knows that their child needs treatment, but cannot get them out.
A Palestinian child died on Sunday. Nidal had been granted medical referral documents 14 months ago, but he died waiting for Israel to grant him permission to leave Gaza. More children will die waiting if we do not fight. Children are sleeping on the bare ground in the cold. They are drinking dirty water. They are dying from illnesses that we know how to treat. Almost every child is now carrying deep psychological trauma from what they have seen and lost.
The view of many experts is that we are witnessing a genocide. We have a moral duty to do everything in our power to put an end to this horror, because it is not inevitable, but aid is being blocked. Israel has revoked the licences of 37 international NGOs. That is outrageous. Without doubt, it will add to the suffering, the trauma and the deaths of more Palestinian children. Medical supplies are still not getting in at the scale needed. Humanitarian organisations are still being prevented from doing their work.
This country cannot fix everything, but we are not powerless. We are not doing enough. We must push for crossings to be fully opened, so that medicine, fuel and food can get in. We must fund medical equipment, rehabilitation and mental healthcare for children whose lives have been shattered. We must stand up for humanitarian agencies so that they can operate freely and safely. We must make it clear that hospitals and healthcare workers must never be the targets.
This debate is not about politics. It is about whether a child who survives a bomb is then allowed to live. Right now, too many children are not. We owe them more than our sympathy. We owe them action.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I thank the hon. Lady very much for her co-operation and self-restraint; I extend the same thanks to all colleagues who have spoken. We will now move on to the Front-Bench speeches, beginning with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing the debate and for bringing his expertise to this issue.
More than two years of devastating conflict has left Gaza in ruins. Over 70,000 Palestinians have lost their lives. More than 1 million people remain unable to return to their homes, while the vast majority of the population relies on humanitarian aid to survive. The attacks carried out by Hamas on 7 October were appalling, and their continued violations since the ceasefire remain indefensible. They must play no future role in the governance of Gaza.
Israel’s war on Gaza over the past two years has been conducted without due regard for international humanitarian law, with devastating consequences for the Gazan healthcare system. Gaza’s healthcare system is no longer functioning in any meaningful sense. Doctors on the ground describe surgeons being forced to amputate limbs and stitch wounds without anaesthesia. Patients remain fully conscious because there is no fuel, pain relief or functioning supply chains. That has been the daily reality inside Gaza’s hospitals as they buckle under continued bombardment, medicine shortages and staff losses. There is not a single fully functioning hospital left. Even since the ceasefire, more than 500 Palestinians have been killed and over 1,500 injured. There is urgency to protect civilians and rebuild a shattered healthcare system.
Aid access is in a state of crisis. Medical staff are exhausted, many nurses have fled, doctors have been killed, equipment has been destroyed and antibiotics are scarce. Amputations are common because injuries go untreated, cancer care is barely available and dialysis is severely limited. Intensive care is stretched beyond breaking point and routine vaccinations have been disrupted. Thousands of patients are effectively queued with no realistic access to care, and some remaining hospitals have been described by doctors on the ground as “waiting stations for death”.
At the same time, as we have heard, medical evacuation is limited, and beyond hospitals, public health conditions are in a dire state. Unsafe water, poor sanitation, overcrowding and winter conditions have driven notable increases in respiratory infections and diarrhoeal disease. Vaccination coverage was already fragile before the war and it is now years behind.
The UN has warned that tens of thousands of pregnant women, newborns and children now face compounded risks of malnutrition, disease and preventable death—not from bombs, but from a shattered health system unable to provide prenatal care, vaccinations or even basic hygiene. On top of that, the introduction of additional Israeli administrative restrictions has placed dozens of international humanitarian organisations under new registration requirements with limited timeframes to comply. The deadline of 1 March—next week—is approaching fast.
The uncertainty over legal status and operational permissions continues to disrupt medical deployments, supply procurement and programme continuity at a moment when trauma care, dialysis, maternal health services and infectious disease control depend heavily on international partnerships. At the same time, tighter Israeli constraints on major humanitarian service providers, particularly the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, have had direct knock-on effects on health delivery. When indispensable agencies such as UNRWA, which runs primary care clinics, vaccination programmes and community health outreach, face limits on staff entry and access to premises, utilities, banking or logistics, the impact is immediate and severe. That is because healthcare does not function in isolation. It relies on fuel for generators, secure facilities, functioning cold chains for vaccines and the ability to move personnel and supplies without obstruction.
If the operating space for humanitarian organisations is narrowed, the remaining fragments of Gaza’s healthcare system weaken further. So it is fair to ask: what are the UK Government doing about all of that? There have been some positive steps. The additional aid packages, including the £20 million humanitarian post-ceasefire package, is to be welcomed. The Government have supported about 50 sick and injured children to come to the UK for NHS treatment under a Gaza medical evacuation scheme. There have been diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council, but the UK has much more work to do.
First, the UK Government must make reliable humanitarian access a top-tier diplomatic objective. The Israeli Government must immediately allow international humanitarian NGOs full access to Gaza and the west bank. The UK Government must co-ordinate with European partners to apply sustained diplomatic pressure on Israel to reverse the ban on aid organisations, and engage with Washington directly, consistently and regularly on the issue. There must be consequences if access continues to be denied, and the UK must act with like-minded partners to establish alternative delivery channels. We should apply co-ordinated pressure for full access across all crossings while scaling up parallel routes to ensure that aid reaches those who need it.
Secondly, the UK must treat the protection of healthcare workers and medical NGOs as a red line. Medical neutrality has to be defended in practice, not merely asserted in principle.
Thirdly, it is vital that international journalists are granted full access to the Gaza strip so that the world can see events on the ground clearly and independently. The UK must continue to press for that.
Fourthly, we must expand sanctions. It is right that we have sanctioned some Ministers, but that cannot be where it stops. We should also sanction other Ministers in the Israeli Government who oppose the lifting of the aid blockade or who promote the erosion of humanitarian protections. Accountability must be consistent or it means nothing.
Let me close on the west bank, because what is unfolding there is not peripheral to the crisis, but central to it. Across the west bank, settlement expansion, demolitions and tightening movement restrictions are accelerating displacement and entrenching instability. I support the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) in her call for medical transfers to the west bank, but there too, while most hospitals remain technically operational, medicine shortages are deepening and referral approvals are increasingly delayed. This winter alone, hundreds of attacks on healthcare facilities were recorded, alongside the closure of key UNRWA services.
Severe funding shortfalls now compound access barriers, forcing critical service reductions at precisely the moment when needs are surging. To compensate, clinics and mental health teams are scaling up where they can, but for many vulnerable communities, care is becoming slower, more fragmented and increasingly out of reach. The result is an inevitable erosion of basic medical access, with growing delays, disruption and unmet needs that are quietly pushing the west bank deeper into humanitarian crisis.
I hope that the Government will now move beyond statements and take concrete action to expand accountability through sanctions to protect and open humanitarian access, and to press relentlessly for an equitable political pathway out of the crisis. Lives are being lost while we deliberate. The UK still carries diplomatic weight, and with that comes moral obligation. I urge the Minister to use it.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing the debate to allow us to consider this important matter, and Members who have contributed to it.
To pick up on some of the things that have been said so far, it is pretty obvious that everybody in this Chamber who has taken part in the debate and in other debates, whether here or in the main Chamber, wants peace for Gaza and for Israel. As always, there will be differences about the route to that peace, what people feel is getting in the way, and what more needs to be done. On some of the things that were said about the volume of aid, I note that since the conflict began, about 2 million tonnes of aid have entered Gaza. As for the management of that aid, given the industrial scale of the misappropriation of aid and the dual-use items that have enabled Hamas, over two decades, to build their terror network and to sustain their war effort, something is required to ensure that security concerns are addressed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Snowden
I will make a little progress first, given the time, but I will take interventions. The new NGO restrictions that are about to come into place affect some 15% of the aid agencies operating within Gaza, and those agencies have contributed about 1% of the aid delivery throughout the conflict. Some of those that have been notified of the new restrictions have applied and been approved to operate again in the area.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
He is the shadow Minister.
Sarah Champion
The shadow Minister—thanks. Is the shadow Minister aware that the aid that is getting in includes things such as chocolate bars, and not items that are so desperately required to address the medical needs? He speaks about volume, but we are talking about the substance of what is getting in—the lifesaving aid, not the peripheries that people are making money from.
Mr Snowden
I thank the hon. Lady for my temporary elevation; I enjoyed my 30 seconds as a Minister, but that is all I will get for now. I will come on to future aid, the volume of aid that needs to get in, dual-use items, to which I have referred, and other issues. I just wanted to pick up on and address some of the alternative facts.
The situation in Gaza is serious and severe. Hamas and their Iranian sponsors bear responsibility for the continued suffering. Hamas launched their attack on Israel on 7 October 2023. They have refused to disarm and have infiltrated and used civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, as shields and military defensive positions. The whole House should be united in calling Hamas out, and it is important that the Minister gives us an update on the steps that the Government are taking to support the implementation of the 20-point peace plan for Gaza, including the removal of Hamas.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I am sure that everybody in this Chamber is absolutely opposed to the horrific Hamas attacks that took place on 7 October 2023. What confuses me is why the shadow Minister and his party continue to repeat Israeli propaganda points. I was an aid worker before I was elected to this place. I was in Gaza during the war. Can he give us some examples of all the things that he is repeating about the misappropriation and the stealing of aid? Can he give us one concrete example?
Mr Snowden
I will come on to the UN’s stats on the amount of aid that has been misappropriated shortly. I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but I think it is a tad rich to talk about one-sidedness when the word “Hamas” was hardly mentioned in many of the contributions that we heard earlier.
The Government say that they have been calling for broader aid access, but calling for something is not the same as achieving it. We need to know whether Ministers have put forward specific, concrete proposals for the opening of individual crossings and entry points into Gaza, whether those proposals have been presented directly to the Government of Israel, and their response.
Will the Minister tell us what quantity and type of medical aid has been funded and prepared for this moment? Where is it currently stationed? How much of it has entered Gaza? Which organisations are distributing it? Critically, what new safeguards are in place to ensure that UK aid reaches innocent civilians, not terrorist groups? Aid diversion is not a peripheral concern; it is central.
Since the ceasefire announcement on 10 October 2025 and 11 February 2026, the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs notes that 1,532 aid pallets have been verified as being intercepted during transit within Gaza. Although the destination of the pallets cannot be confirmed, it does not require too much imagination to work out where they have ended up. That is why we cannot discuss Gaza’s healthcare collapse in isolation from the wider political and security situation—the two are inseparable. The ceasefire provides an opening, but a ceasefire is not peace, and the Government seem curiously reluctant to acknowledge what is needed to convert one into the other.
If the ceasefire is to translate into something sustainable, Hamas must be removed from power once and for all, and their terrorist infrastructure must be dismantled. Events of recent days—the violence between Hamas and armed groups and clans within Gaza—underline precisely why Hamas cannot be permitted any future role in the governance of the territory. Hamas have no regard for human life or human dignity; they never have.
That brings me to governance. Rebuilding Gaza’s health system without addressing who actually governs Gaza is an exercise in futility. Have the Government had any meaningful say in the composition of the transitional Administration? Has anything of substance on governance reform emerged from the so-called memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority—a document that did not even address corruption or antisemitism in school curricula? If the Palestinian Authority is to play an extended role, it must implement the most significant reforms in its history. That includes on healthcare, welfare, education, and frankly, basic democratic accountability.
Mr Snowden
I am running out of time, and I have taken several interventions. Our support should be conditional on those reforms being delivered. Have the Government made that case clearly to the Palestinian Authority?
I also ask the Minister whether the UK will be scaling up its involvement in the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre. Is Britain contributing to the demilitarisation of Gaza and the disarming of Hamas? Have the Government had any discussions with the United States about the consequences for Hamas if they do not engage constructively with phase 2—
Sarah Champion
On a point of order, Sir Jeremy. The subject of the debate is medical healthcare in Gaza, but the shadow Minister is not referring to that at all, apart from a tenuous “relating to healthcare” statement. Can you give some clarity, Sir Jeremy, on whether his speech is on point?
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. As she knows, because she heard me intervene in the debate earlier, I have been listening carefully to ensure that speakers keep to the subject of healthcare. As she also heard me say to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), it is perfectly in order for speakers to talk about the context to a degree. I have been listening carefully to the shadow Minister; if what he had said had been out of order, I would have told him so.
I will take the opportunity while I am on my feet to say that the hon. Lady and all Members know that this has been a serious and passionate debate throughout. I hope that Members will respect the fact that passionate contributions from both sides of the argument are perfectly rational and in order, and should be heard with the same respect that all other contributions have been heard with.
Mr Snowden
I thank you, Sir Jeremy, and I thank the hon. Lady for the point of order and continued interventions.
Have the Government had any discussions with the United States about the consequences for Hamas if they do not engage constructively with phase 2 of the ceasefire process?
We also want the UK to be engaged in expanding the Abraham accords. Saudi normalisation with Israel remains, in our view, the single most consequential diplomatic prize in the region, and potentially the most realistic path to a durable peace. We are enthusiastic supporters of that route, but we are considerably less convinced that the Labour Government share that enthusiasm or are working with the urgency the moment demands.
The people of Gaza are suffering. That suffering is real and severe, and demands a response commensurate with its scale. The fighting war may have ceased temporarily, but the people of Gaza are still living with the jackboot of Hamas holding back any hope of prosperity or rebuilding the healthcare system. The Opposition have consistently called for more aid, including healthcare aid, to flow into Gaza, for it to be delivered safely and exclusively to innocent civilians, and for a sustainable end to the terrible conflict that guarantees security for both Israel and the Palestinian people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) for securing the debate. I will not initially take interventions, as there have been many questions asked of me. I will endeavour to make some progress through them before I do.
Before I start my speech, I would like to say that, given the prominent reference that has been made throughout the debate to the work of British doctors and MSF overseas, I should declare that a close family member is one of those doctors working with MSF overseas. For transparency, I want to make that clear.
I would also like to take the opportunity in setting the context—as this is the first opportunity I have had since recess—to make a brief comment about events in the west bank. I want to condemn in the strongest terms the recent Israeli Security Cabinet decisions that have introduced sweeping extensions to Israel’s control over the west bank and accelerated illegal settlement activity. The UK is clear that Israel’s illegal settlements and decisions designed to further them are a flagrant violation of international law. We will take concrete steps in accordance with international law to counter settlement expansion and to challenge policies and threats of forcible displacements and annexation. That is important context for today’s discussion.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) about the importance of the inextricable link between Gaza, the west bank and East Jerusalem. The UK has recognised a Palestinian state; all three of those territories are part of that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) said, it is right to treat the children of Gaza in Palestine when they can be, but there are three major restrictions on their ability to be treated where they live: equipment, supplies and personnel.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), who referred to her time as an aid worker in Gaza, knows well, there are many talented Palestinian doctors. I was asked about our advocacy on behalf of those doctors. I will not reiterate, having provided an account to the Chamber of our work in that regard. Palestinian doctors alone are not sufficient, given the healthcare demands on Gaza. It is vital that doctors from outside Palestine are able to access Gaza to provide support. They can do so effectively only, first, if the Israelis allow them and, secondly, if they have the hospitals and equipment to provide healthcare. There has been insufficient progress in that regard and we continue to make those points clearly.
Mr Falconer
I will not.
In response to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) about our advocacy on these questions with the Israeli ambassador, I am keen to be grounded in up-to-date facts. Although the Israeli ambassador is no longer in place, having left her post last year, I did, of course, summon her in relation to the Israeli Government’s actions in Gaza. The Israeli Government are currently represented by a chargé to be followed by the appointment of a future ambassador.
I will return to the tangible questions. I am grateful for the recognition from many contributors of the work the Government have done, including the medical evacuation of Gazan children to the UK. I have met some of those children, as I know many others have. It is so moving to see the change to their lives as a result of them and their families being here. They are, of course, a tiny subsection of the children in Gaza who need care and I have already discussed the restrictions on providing that care in Gaza.
It is obviously right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale said, that, where we cannot provide care in Palestine, care is provided in the region. We have provided that care and I have seen it with my own eyes in Egypt, particularly in the Sinai in al-Arish. There are welcome improvements for Gazans requiring medical assistance to cross into Egypt via the Rafah crossing and be provided with aid, but restrictions remain. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the significant risks for those leaving to seek medical aid elsewhere, fearing that they will not be able to return home. We continue to advocate on those questions.
To respond to the shadow Minister’s questions about the numbers, we have provided £40 million of aid for health. That most recently included a £4 million Disasters Emergency Committee appeal over Christmas. I was very moved by the generosity of the British people to match the Government’s contribution. I am grateful for the continued efforts of many of our constituents across the country and Members here today to raise these issues. We provided £3 million to the WHO to support the Egyptian healthcare system to provide the assistance I just described.
Let me turn to the questions about deregistration. As many Members noted, there is a deadline of 1 March. The shadow Minister sought to provide some clarity about the limited number of NGOs affected, but I would point out that many of them are reputable British organisations. We opposed that legislation when it was first proposed and oppose it now. We need to see a solution to the issue. Many NGOs, including MSF, which has been the subject of a lot of commentary to this morning, have sought to engage with the requests of the Israeli Government. There have been many genuine efforts to engage with the Israeli Government on that question, including by the British Government. It is vital, for all of the reasons that others have put so articulately, that those aid agencies can operate and continue their vital work.
I was asked a range of other questions that went slightly beyond healthcare. When colleagues ask me to make more than statements, I remind them that we have made more than statements: I am the first middle east Minister since the Balfour declaration who can say in this place that we recognise a Palestinian state. I have already described some of the concrete actions taken to truly transform the lives of Gazan children.
Apsana Begum
The Minister mentioned the deadline for the deregistration of NGOs. If that deadline passes and there has not been a change of direction from the Israeli authorities and Government, what concrete steps will the UK Government take?
Mr Falconer
I am sure my colleagues are tired of me refusing to be drawn on concrete steps in advance of taking them, but we treat this question with the utmost seriousness, as we have done all through these discussions. We will of course respond should the already significant restrictions on NGOs, including well-respected British NGOs, further tighten in the days ahead.
I will return to some of the other questions put to me. There is a UK contribution to the CMCC, and we are seeking through that work to ensure that the aid access increases into Gaza, and that some of the vital governance questions for the future are addressed. I am pleased to reassure the shadow Minister that we raise those points on a regular basis; I raised them with Palestinian counter- parts just last week.
There has been some important progress on a whole range of Palestinian governance questions. I think the shadow Minister referred to some of the so-called “pay for slay” arrangements; there has been an important announcement from the Palestinian Authority ending that practice. There were important announcements, including on a commitment to a demilitarised Palestinian state, in July during the two-state solution conference, which I was proud to be a part of. We will continue to raise those questions.
Nobody is under any illusions about the scale of the threat that Hamas poses. We continue to be committed to, and to discuss with our counterparts, fully decommissioning Hamas’s weapons and ensuring that there is Palestinian leadership, including through the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, which has been implemented in recent weeks. We will continue our efforts in those areas.
Mr Falconer
I cannot, because I wish to give my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud two minutes to wind up at the end.
I am sure that we will return to these questions over the coming weeks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) pointed out, there are pressing deadlines ahead. Given the importance of the issues we are discussing, in recent days the Foreign Secretary travelled to chair the most recent session of the UN Security Council on the middle east as its president. We will continue to give these questions our full attention, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud for the opportunity to speak to them.
Dr Opher
I thank all the speakers who have contributed to what has been a very passionate debate. I have spoken to many British doctors who have worked in Gaza, and what we are presenting here—the sabotage of the healthcare system—is real. It is going on now, and we must deal with it rather than brushing it under the carpet and blaming Hamas.
Melanie Ward
Does my hon. Friend agree with me on the need for justice and accountability for horrific acts that have taken place in hospitals, including a massacre in the grounds of al-Shifa hospital, and a situation in Nasser hospital where many babies were left to die following Israeli military action?
Dr Opher
I absolutely agree. We must get to the bottom of those things because they must not be allowed to happen again. I propose that the Minister talks to Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care about us, as a nation, providing healthcare to people in Gaza as much as we can. That is something that I have discussed with that Minister. We must be positive here and try to relieve the suffering of Gazans, because everything I have heard has been appalling.
I thank all Members and the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for the healthcare system in Gaza.
Foster Care: Recruitment and Retention
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
I will call Rebecca Smith to move the motion and then I will call 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. I am afraid that there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as she knows is the convention for these shorter debates.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered foster care recruitment and retention.
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I want to start by talking briefly about why this subject matters to me personally. By the time I was 18—I had left home—my parents had started fostering, and it has been in my mind since I first became interested in politics that, if I ever got to this place, I wanted to speak up about adoption and fostering. That is why the Minister often sees me opposite him in debates; it comes from my own personal experience.
I should declare an interest: until the local elections, I will be a member of Plymouth city council, which I will mention a little later. I have also been a very active corporate parent. When I became a councillor, I knew that there was a corporate parent panel, and I was particularly keen to be on it. I believe that, for elected representatives, the opportunity to be a corporate parent, whether at council or national level, is incredibly important, and I was able to act in that capacity as a councillor and I am here doing so as a Member of Parliament.
We desperately need to rebuild the foster care pipeline. Every year England loses more foster carers than it gains. We are facing a perfect storm, with more children in care, fewer foster carers and fewer people applying to become the next generation of foster carers. As of March 2025, there were 81,770 looked-after children in England, but the number of foster carers fell by 12% from 2021 to March 2025. In the last year alone, there were 1,140 fewer foster placements available for children in England than the year before. Spending on children’s social care continues to increase, yet councils are consistently exceeding their budgets. We need to do more to ensure that vulnerable children in care can access the stability that comes from being placed with loving foster parents. That involves two things: doing more to encourage people to become foster carers, and doing more to retain the brilliant carers we already have.
Carer shortages are a national issue, not a provider-specific one. Fragmented recruitment efforts are leading to inefficiencies and missed opportunities. That is why I broadly welcome the Government’s foster care reforms. I am encouraged by the commitment to simplify approval processes, strengthen regional collaboration and support innovation. However, it seems to me that there is a glaringly obvious omission: the need for better partnerships between local authorities and independent foster agencies.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. Does she agree that there should be greater recognition of foster carers as part of the professional team around the child, and that fully promoting a team-around-the-child model in which social workers, foster carers and therapists are regarded and treated as equal partners would enhance the experience and outcomes for children in care and, importantly, support the recruitment and retention of foster carers?
Rebecca Smith
It makes a huge amount of sense that foster carers are considered a key part of that process. I am sure that in certain parts of the country they are, but it sounds from the hon. Member’s question like there are other parts where some work is needed.
Independent fostering agencies are responsible for 44% of mainstream fostering households. They account for nearly 38,000 children in foster care in England. If their current growth continues, they have the potential to become the largest provider of fostering services.
When children enter the care system, they are first triaged by the local authority. If the local authority is not able to place a child in its own fostering service, it will ask an IFA to step in instead. That explains in part why IFAs overwhelmingly care for children with complex needs, including children with challenging behaviours, medical needs and those who have experienced numerous placement breakdowns. They also tend to be more successful at placing older children.
IFAs are more effective than local authorities at recruitment and retention, and less expensive, but they have been consistently overlooked by the Government. Ofsted reports consistently demonstrate that IFAs offer high-quality care to children, excellent support for foster carers and value for money for local authorities. Some 96% of IFAs are rated good or outstanding by Ofsted; by contrast, only 60% of local authorities were judged to be good or outstanding. Sixty-one per cent of IFA approvals are completed within six months, compared with only 41% of local authority approvals. However, until now, the Government have not properly acknowledged the growing contribution of IFAs and the vulnerable children who are impacted as a result.
The Government’s fostering policy paper launches regional care co-operatives, which will plan, deliver and commission homes for children at scale. However, the Government have failed to recognise the crucial role that IFAs play; instead, they seem to place them in direct competition with the new RCCs. IFAs already have experience in regionalisation, yet they are left out of all conversations. They are not sitting around the table with local authorities. I believe that is short-sighted and counterproductive. It is crucial that the Government engage with IFAs, along with local authorities, to better learn from their experience.
RCC decisions must be based on the best interests of the child and not simply the provider type. We need transparent placement protocols that include IFAs at every stage of consideration. RCCs should avoid blanket exclusions or prioritisation of local authority foster carers without due regard to individual need. It is about what is best for the child.
In my view, a mixed economy approach to foster care is the most efficient model and improves outcomes for vulnerable children. Compared with local authorities, IFAs are agile because they can respond more quickly, especially since they face less financial pressure. IFAs are also better at long-term planning. From my own experience in local government, I know that the relentless four-year election cycle—indeed, in Plymouth, we have elections every year for three years—hampers long-term strategic oversight for foster carers, whereas IFAs can consistently provide the care unhindered. Local authorities have so many other pressures on their time and resources, whereas IFAs can focus on doing one thing really well: providing consistent support tailored to a foster family’s needs.
Parents who use IFAs testify to the bespoke support that they provide. Janet has been a foster parent for 23 years and has cared for 11 children. Having previously adopted two boys, she saw the life-changing impact a stable home can offer. After experiencing a lack of support from a local authority, Janet transferred to the IFA that has supported them for the past 12 years. She says:
“I have 24/7 access to support from people who know me and my family. The conversations are open, honest and non-judgemental, and always centred on the children.”
Their IFA assures careful placement matching and treats carers as valued partners in the child’s care.
Ruth and Chris have a background in mental health services, so they are attuned to the way that trauma can shape a child’s life. They say:
“Foster children have often endured things they never should. Our motto is to drown them in love—it’s not just a job, it’s a way of life.”
Through their local IFA, they receive a vital support package, easy access to social workers, tailored training, and funding support for their children to do the activities they love. They say:
“If you call, you get help the same day. It’s personal, nurturing, and non-judgmental.”
Ruth and Chris’s local service has enabled them to work with the same psychologist for six years, which provides crucial continuity for their foster children. They contrast that with the poor communication they experienced when fostering via their local authority. One time they received files with such poor notes that they could not even tell which gender the children were.
All that being said, Plymouth city council is a success story of a local authority that is working really well. The council runs its own in-house fostering agency, Foster for Plymouth—in fact, it even gives out trolley tokens for people to carry around with them. It currently has 111 approved fostering households, which offer 234 placements for children. For context, Plymouth currently has a total of 525 children in its care, so that proportion is encouraging, and it is growing. The in-house agency provides significant value for money: it costs £571 per child per week, which is lower than the cost of IFAs, at more than £1,200 per week. However, this is an unusual situation; it is not replicated in many local authorities across the country. It is also, of course, far less expensive than the cost of residential care, at more than £9,400 a week.
Foster for Plymouth has built great relationships with local organisations, including Dartmoor zoo, in my constituency, and it regularly encourages businesses to offer discounts to foster carers. By offering a council tax exemption for foster carers, the council has seen 17 households sign up in the past year. It is also worth saying that we established a looked-after children covenant, because we recognised that if we wanted to ensure that the whole city was prioritising looked-after children and previously looked-after children, that was one way of doing it. I really believe Plymouth has some good practice here.
The council has also allocated a dedicated budget for carers who may need to do loft conversions and other home alterations to care for more children. I am sure the Minister has heard people mention that as a hindrance in the past. I think it is a really practical way of encouraging people to continue fostering. The council has developed a marketing campaign aimed specifically at people who have never considered fostering. In terms of wider collaboration, the council hosts an annual fostering summit and works closely with the Fostering South West hub.
A linked issue that I want to highlight is the postcode lottery when it comes to fostering fees, which are paid to foster carers in recognition of the skills and time involved in fostering. Although allowances for foster carers are set nationally, there is no legislation or guidance about fees, and that leads to wildly differing fee payments across the country. Shockingly, some foster carers receive £38,000 a year more than others, according to the Fostering Network, a national charity. In fact, some carers receive no fee, and many receive as little as £18 a week. Better remuneration for foster carers would help with both recruitment and retention and reflect their valuable contribution to society.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Feedback from foster carers in York has highlighted the differential in the sums of money they receive for Staying Put and for foster caring, which makes it really difficult for them to decide whether to maintain that home—that safe place—for a child or to push the child out of the home. Does the hon. Member agree that those resources should be equalised, to ensure a smooth pathway for these very vulnerable children?
Rebecca Smith
Anything that encourages a consistent home for young people is vital. One thing I have not had time to mention yet is the use of supported lodgings, which we have talked about before. Ultimately, I have seen the success of enabling young people to stay within a home, so anything that encourages that is definitely worth pursuing.
Many parents give up work to foster; in fact, about 60% of foster carers do not work. Foster carers provide a professional service, and they should not be expected to do so on a shoestring. Only a quarter of foster carers say they feel their fee is sufficient to cover essential living costs. Better financial support would increase their autonomy to make decisions that are in the best interests of their children. The Fostering Network is calling on the Government to introduce a national recommended fee framework for foster carers, which would reduce the unfair variation across the country. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s response to that call.
To fix the chronic problems facing children’s services, the Government must focus on encouraging more people to become and remain foster carers, which I know they are seeking to do. Many people already have the skills and the compassion to open up their home to a child in need. Often, all they lack is the right incentives and support, so I am encouraged by the Government’s national action plan, which acknowledges the urgent need for systemic reform. However, the plan will succeed only if carers feel properly recognised and sustained over the long term.
The measures that I have outlined would go some way towards improving foster carer recruitment and retention. First, given that IFAs are more effective and less expensive than local authority provision, I urge the Government to give them a seat around the table during the regionalisation process. Secondly, the Government should fix the postcode lottery for foster care fees. Thirdly, they should learn from Plymouth as an example of outstanding local authority provision. I am sure that it would welcome a visit from the Minister, if he has never been down there, to see what it is doing and meet some of the young people who have been so affected by this policy. Ultimately, every delay in fixing the system means another child waiting for the loving, stable foster family they deserve, and we cannot allow structural barriers to stand in their way.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank both the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for securing the debate and other Members for their interventions. This is my first opportunity to talk about the fostering action plan in Parliament, so I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to set out some of the details and to respond to the points she rightly raised.
Since my appointment last September, I have made renewing our fostering system my No. 1 priority as the Minister for Children and Families. Through extensive engagement and discussion, we have pulled together a bold plan, recognising the urgency of the problem that faces us. Earlier this month, we published our action plan, six-week consultation and call for evidence to renew fostering and create 10,000 additional foster care places by the end of this Parliament. We have done this 100 years on from the Adoption of Children Act 1926—the centenary of adoption and fostering as we know it—which created much of the framework that we now work within.
Now is the time to renew our fostering system. Foster care numbers are in decline: the total number has dropped by 12% since 2019, and we face a major demographic challenge because around one third of current carers are over 60, which will compound the problem in the years ahead. There are currently appalling conversion rates and unacceptable delays in approving carers. The 150,000 inquiries made last year only saw 7,300 newly approved foster carers, and 59% of fostering assessments in local authorities take more than six months.
All that is driving pressure on residential care, resulting in children living in residential care settings when they could—and should—be living in family-based homes. There was a 24% increase in children living in residential care between 2020 and 2025, with the number now at over 18,000 children. Yet research looking at children’s needs shows that 45% of children in residential care have the same level of need as those in foster care. The result of that pressure on many foster carers is poor matches, a lack of support and an outdated rulebook that signals a lack of trust and respect. The total impact of all that on our children is that too many are forced to live away from their school, friends and family. There are too many matches that mean they do not get the connections they need, and too many are in residential care when it is not the right fit for them.
The status quo and fostering decline run at complete odds with our wider reforms to children’s social care. It means that we are breaking rather than making lifelong, loving relationships and driving the cost escalator towards ever-expanding residential care, and there is evidence of profiteering. Between 2020 and 2025, spending on residential care doubled to £3.7 billion. Our wider reforms will keep more families safely together and mean greater support for kinship options. They are backed by a major reform programme and £2.4 billion of additional spending. Even with all that, renewing our fostering system demands real focus, national leadership and ambition. I will set out the actions we are taking to give thousands more children in care the choices they need to have the enduring relationships that must become the obsession of the care system.
First, to make sure that the whole of the English system is galvanised by the target that we have set of 10,000 care places, we are renewing local authority fostering teams and expanding fostering hubs that have made meaningful progress to take on the full end-to-end process. We are pushing fostering hubs to take on the whole process rather than just the initial inquiry stage. According to our plans, the majority of local authorities in England this year will recruit and train foster carers in end-to-end hubs. Those hubs will be held to account for rolling out the most effective features of existing hubs, so that we can get the conversion rates up. We will also launch new hubs in the coming weeks.
Further to that, we will create the second wave of regional care co-operatives with greater clarity: they will not simply be commissioning bodies but directly create provision and be tied to fostering hubs. To respond to the points raised around IFAs by the hon. Member for South West Devon, the RCC’s role is in many respects to strike a better relationship with the not-for-profit and profit-making sectors in both fostering and residential care. Throughout the whole process of building the plans I have engaged with independent fostering organisations and will continue to do that. They have value to add into the process and can bring innovation into it. But I want to add a word of caution: there is evidence from Competition and Markets Authority studies that profit-making independent fostering bodies cost more on average than local authority fostering, and it is being done for profit.
With the direction of travel that we have seen the residential care system going in, we are now at a point where about 90% of all residential care is run on a for-profit basis and where the largest companies demonstrate behaviour that amounts to profiteering. I do not want to see that replicated in the fostering system, so we need to grip it before that happens. Market failure will be the result of inaction from the Government in this field, and I will not tolerate that.
All other local authorities that are not in an RCC or a fostering hub will be set stretching targets to approve, and we will set new standards on the process overall. Ofsted will update its inspection framework to hold those local authorities to account. We are also consulting on whether the role of fostering panels for approvals should be changed, and whether that adds value to the process commensurate with the time and cost involved in those fostering panels. We will launch a digital platform to speed up the process. All of that should speed up conversion rates and get more approved carers as soon as possible.
Rachael Maskell
Could the Minister say a little more about how foster carers from within families will be handled in this process? That is really important. Also, how will the reunification process work, so that we can reunite a child with their birth family?
Josh MacAlister
My hon. Friend is at risk of taking me off down two very important subjects that I would love to spend an entire Westminster Hall debate talking about. Briefly, I want to see the fostering approval system change so that it is sensitive to the differences between approving, for example, a known person to that child who will only ever foster that child, and approving foster carers who are doing it through the more conventional route. The problem at the moment, as I have heard from many kinship carers, is that they are held to standards that are just not appropriate. Grandparents are being given a hard time because they vape, or because they have only one spare room and they are wanting to look after two grandchildren. I want all that swept away so that we can have a common-sense system that gets behind the people who are already in that child’s life and love them, so that that becomes the central focus of how we structure the care system.
Similarly for reunification practice, it is important that people recognise more widely that the route from living with parents to living in care often involves going back and forth many times, and it should not. We need to build a care system that can wrap around families and parents who might be struggling. The option of part-time foster care or family fostering can offer real value. I did a radio call-in this morning on that very point and spoke to a young care-experienced person called Mary who had that experience of moving in and out of care. I think she said her mum was bipolar. Mary’s mum loves her and can offer some care and support to her, so it would be great if the care system could bolster Mary’s family rather than replace Mary’s family, if it is safe to do so. That is what we should try to do at every step with the care system.
Secondly, we will scale and support innovation to get new carers and look after the ones who are already caring, because retention is as important as recruitment. We will double down on Mockingbird, the programme of support for existing foster carers, funding another 100 constellations. We will also set new standards of support for all carers so that they can benefit from the features that make Mockingbird such a success. We will take Room Makers, first started in Greater Manchester—a programme that sounds very similar to the one mentioned by the hon. Member for South West Devon—to national roll-out. At least £25 million will fund extensions or renovations so that children can stay connected for longer, or grow up with their brothers and sisters in the same house. We will launch a fostering innovation programme to bring forward even more new thinking, with a focus on new and flexible models of care, like weekenders, step down, and specialist care and support for retention.
Specifically, I have been delighted to work with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to set up a new programme to scale up remand fostering so that children do not unnecessarily enter young offender institutions. Through all of that, we will encourage partnerships between fostering hubs and independent fostering associations, as the hon. Member for South West Devon has highlighted. Renewing fostering means opening up to new models of care and new families. The Government welcome that innovation.
Thirdly, we will rewrite the rulebook around fostering, prioritising making foster care feel human, loving and normal for children, and respected and supported for carers. We have launched a rapid consultation on changes to the allegations process, which has been a source of complaint for many years. We are doing that so that it is fairer for carers and does not unduly rock existing strong relationships.
We have launched a call for evidence on a range of issues, including a foster care national register and consistency of allowances. We will be setting out a process of analysing the variation of allowances across the country in order to highlight the point that hon. Members have raised. We will make some changes around the distinctive role of kinship and connected carers in fostering, and the training and support that they need. That will lead to a rewriting of national minimum standards and other statutory guidance for fostering at the earliest opportunity. We will take immediate steps to clarify that foster carers must be respected in conversations about their child among professionals. We are also immediately taking action to clarify that the day-to-day decisions about children, such as permissions to get haircuts and overnight stays, should be made by foster carers by default, not exception.
We are rewriting the rulebook to put long-lasting relationships first, and that will be part of wider action to take on myths about who can and cannot care. Our vision is a fostering system built on relationships that last. By recruiting and retaining more carers, acting regionally, innovating, supporting families and simplifying the rules, we will create thousands more foster families across England that are closer to children’s communities and schools. We know we can do that because the appetite is there in the country; we are just failing to convert it. We have done it in recent history: the Homes for Ukraine scheme showed what we can do when confronted with a problem. Civic society and Government can be mobilised in harmony towards a shared goal.
This is a decisive moment for fostering in England; together we will ensure that every child who could thrive in foster care has the option of a home to grow up in, with the love, stability and opportunity that they deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Local Transport: Planning Developments
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of planning developments on local transport.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. Let me start by making something clear: the local people of Harpenden, Berkhamsted, Tring, Redbourn, Sandridge and the surrounding villages are no nimbys. They are not against housing. They are raising the alarm against top-down national planning that does not serve local housing needs; that leaves local services bursting at the seams without adequate investment, or with investment that is delivered far too late; that fails to deliver the transport infrastructure that communities actually need; and that is eroding precious landscapes, some of which are home to rare chalk streams found nowhere else in the world. Some of those people have joined us in the Public Gallery, and I thank them.
This debate is about the impact of planning on transport infrastructure, and to understand that, we need to see the big picture. The towns and villages in Harpenden and Berkhamsted, including Tring, Redbourn, Wheathampstead, Sandridge and Markyate, are steeped in history. The beautiful Chilterns national landscape can be found around Tring, Berkhamsted and Aldbury. Four rare chalk streams thread through the constituency, alongside the Grand Union canal. Settlements that appear in the Domesday Book can be found, and the old Watling Street runs through the centre of Redbourn. There is also Berkhamsted castle, where the English throne was surrendered to William the Conqueror.
But there are also towns in the constituency that were originally designed for horse-drawn traffic and are now gridlocked with commuter cars. The M1 cuts right through the middle of the constituency, and every time there is an accident, it causes further gridlock on country lanes. The capacity of Luton airport, which is just seven miles away, is nearly doubling, going from 19 million to 32 million passengers a year. That will add roughly a million passengers per month, many of whom will travel on the same routes as local people.
On Thameslink and London Northwestern services, rammed trains are cancelled almost daily—indeed, a group from the Probus club in Harpenden arrived after their train was cancelled today—and bus services have been decimated. That is before we even talk about the impossibility of finding an NHS dentist, the pressures on GPs and the desperate need for additional school places, particularly for children with special educational needs. These old towns and villages are not built for growth of such scale.
We must, then, look at the Government’s approach to planning. Labour has continued the top-down numbers legacy that the Conservatives left behind and, in some cases, made it significantly worse. From top-down targets to grey-belt land, developers are literally having a field day, using loopholes to get unplanned development through. This matters. Giving developers the green light leaves us with an unco-ordinated approach, and infrastructure and communities are coming last.
The new methodology for calculating housing supply has hit St Albans council particularly hard. Its targets have almost doubled, from 855 to 1,660 homes per year, and the numbers in Dacorum have gone from 1,016 to 1,380 homes per year. Both those increased figures will have to be dealt with in further local plans, because they do not even include the massive housing development that we are seeing now.
The changes have left us facing substantial housing sites, such as the 1,400 homes in the Marshcroft development east of Tring, the 850 homes at South Berkhamsted and the more than 700 proposed homes in north-east Harpenden. The Marshcroft development alone would increase the population of Tring by a potential 40%. As Lucy from Tring says:
“It makes no sense…our roads can’t handle it.”
The town got its market charter over 700 years ago, and it has the roads to match. It is also buttressed against the Chilterns national landscape.
I warned the Government from the outset that their plans for development on grey-belt land would hand the advantage to developers rather than communities, which is exactly what has happened. The unclear definition of the grey belt creates a wide-open door for developers, not for communities. Crucially, by focusing protections on towns, the guidance leaves villages, which often have fewer services and weaker infrastructure, far more vulnerable to unplanned development. In Berkhamsted, developers have used the grey-belt back door to push applications adjacent to allocated sites. For example, the grey-belt back door was used in the Haresfoot farm application to get permission to build on green-belt land.
The situation in Redbourn is even more alarming. The latest proposal is a 1,000-home development that is not in the local plan but claims grey-belt status. If that is combined with other sites, Redbourn faces a pipeline of development that could see its population grow by over 70%. As Jen from Redbourn says:
“I am hugely concerned that there is no local democracy that allows villages to stop disproportionate housing development.”
Catherine from Redbourn is equally clear:
“When it comes to measuring green belt, brown belt and grey belt land, villages should not be measured in the same way as a town. This is green-belt land with rare chalk streams, water vole and flora that you don’t find in Europe—it should be protected.”
Redbourn is precisely the kind of village with less infrastructure that has been left more exposed by grey-belt development. Will the Minister speak with colleagues from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to address the top-down practices that take powers and critical infrastructure away from communities?
Although the previous Conservative administrations left Dacorum and St Albans without adopted local plans, which left our area ripe for speculative development, Liberal Democrat councils in the area have worked hard to finally get local plans to the examination stage, but while the plans remain in inspectors’ hands, the Government give no protection from unplanned development. Despite continuous calls on the Government to help to protect us, we have been left exposed.
All that is before we even consider the wider pressures bearing down on local councils, which leave the looming threat of Government takeover when too many appeals are overturned. Nor have we covered the lack of teeth for neighbourhood plans, or the proposals in the planning legislation to make it easier to build near train stations. All these rules put the power in developers’ hands and take it away from communities—so no wonder developers are popping up across the constituency. Does the Minister agree that tackling unplanned development and giving communities more power is vital when preparing transport infrastructure?
Underlying all this is a structural failure in how infrastructure can be planned. The speculative and unplanned development I have outlined sits entirely outside of planned growth modelling. That means that unplanned sites are assessed site by site, in isolation, and with no cumulative way of seeing what they mean together for the roads, buses, rail, cycling, schools, GPs or dentists that communities need. It is wholly inadequate, fragmented and reactive.
Local plans cannot account for national infrastructure decisions, either. The Luton airport expansion, the Universal Studios theme park, and even a rail freight development, approved by the Government, have taken the place of thousands of potential homes elsewhere, and cannot be accounted for. When councils do secure investment for infrastructure with section 106 money or the community infrastructure levy, the current viability criteria mean they can often get out of building more affordable homes, or limit that investment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this topic to the House. We have similar problems back home in Northern Ireland. From listening to her, it seems that whenever a new development goes up, it relies on private cars, because there is no public transport out in the countryside, so the pressure is always on people to provide their own transport, which affects the local roads and infrastructure. It also seems like private developers are not following the rules that require a detailed traffic and transport impact assessment for all major developments. If that has not been done when the rules indicate it should have, should the councils, Government or local bodies not take enforcement action to ensure that what is required actually happens, rather than sitting back and doing nothing?
Victoria Collins
I agree with parts of the hon. Member’s intervention. The developers have armies of legal teams and, as I will come on to, the national legislation is open to interpretation when it comes to roads. Councils are essentially left powerless to enforce the legislation, because developers find the loopholes. They have the money and the power to push past.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
My hon. Friend is right to point out that developers have armies of lawyers, and one of the most frustrating things for local authorities is when they come back again and again. Even when planning authorities reject an application, developers will take it to appeal, and even if the appeal is rejected, they will wait a short period and then come back again. They only have to win once, which is incredibly frustrating for the communities that face the threat.
Victoria Collins
Absolutely. On top of that, councils also warn that when they get section 106 money or funding from the community infrastructure levy, the funding available is not enough for the new roads needed for development. They also warn that if we expect section 106 contributions to deliver all new infrastructure, the burden will often be pushed on to new homeowners, as prices can be pushed up.
What is more, there is no guarantee on the delivery or timing of infrastructure plans, often because major infrastructure depends on external bodies or funding cycles, such as for highways and regional transport, as well as on NHS capital planning cycles or educational funding cycles. The Government must adopt an infrastructure-first approach. How will they empower communities to take a cumulative view of the infrastructure impact of planning? What action are the Government taking to address the train capacity and service issues I have highlighted?
Let us turn to the reality on the ground for transport services, starting with roads. Local people put it best. Fiona from Berkhamsted says:
“The roads are completely overwhelmed by traffic through Berkhamsted.”
Anne captures the absurdity of national planning guidance:
“The biggest issue for Berkhamsted is a one-size-fits-all NPPF”—
national planning policy framework—
“for a valley town where the only place left to build is at the top of valley sides, and ancient narrow streets give little scope for cycle routes—certainly not a joined-up network.”
Having once been a keen cyclist in Berkhamsted, I can confirm that the difficulty of getting around means that my poor bike has been left locked up. Sarah from Berkhamsted asks:
“What’s the point of building new houses if there are no pavements for people to walk or safe roads for cars to use?”
Gill from Harpenden is direct, saying:
“The town has so many pinch points on already narrow roads that are already causing jams.”
As I said, the towns and villages in my constituency are old, and many of the roads were built for horse-drawn traffic. Berkhamsted is a hilly place, but there is not a single mention of topography in the national planning framework. Yet the loose definition of “severe”, in terms of cumulative impact tests for roads and traffic, leaves another door wide open for developers.
If someone cannot get around by car, perhaps they can use the bus. Well, that is a whole other story. Under the Conservatives in Hertfordshire, we saw a 56.5% reduction in bus mileage between 2017 and 2023—the biggest reduction in England. That has left us with inaccessible areas where people need a car to get around. The 307 bus in Redbourn runs to Harpenden station only from 9 am, with the last departure at 2 pm, and on Sundays there is no service at all. There is no direct bus connection to local secondary schools. Catherine from Redbourn says it plainly:
“While you might have had to wait ten minutes in London for a bus, here we have three buses a day to Harpenden—you cannot rely on the buses.”
In Berkhamsted, we worked with local campaigners to bring back the 500 bus every half hour, but the service stops at 7 pm. It is a similar story in Tring. I once tried to get a bus across my constituency, from Wheathampstead to Berkhamsted, but what should have been a 30-minute drive took four hours. The recommended route from Harpenden to Berkhamsted is actually via London and costs £35 one way.
Hannah, a sixth-form student from Harpenden, makes the point well:
“Public transport allows me as a young person to visit friends and do activities outside the House—it gives me independence.”
She adds:
“I have never considered living in Harpenden in the future, because it would be far too expensive to buy a place to live.”
That is a double failure by this Government that needs to be heard. Young people say they cannot afford to stay and cannot get around even if they could.
So what about the train? In the last four weeks, only seven out of 122 daily trains from Harpenden to London ran 100% on time. From Berkhamsted to London, only three out of 78 daily departures ran 100% on time, and from Tring there were also only three. From driver availability issues to Thameslink core infrastructure failures and a bottleneck around Croydon, it seems that things will only get worse as pressures grow around the Thameslink line from Bedford to Brighton. Beyond housing development, I have mentioned the other pressures from the expansion of Luton and Gatwick airports, and the Universal Studios development.
There is a two-track bottleneck through central London, and when it fails, the whole line fails. Govia Thameslink Railway has asked the Government for funding for a back-up system; has that been agreed? What are the Government doing to work with rail operators to prepare for the pressures that are building up on the Thameslink line from Bedford to Brighton?
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Like in my hon. Friend’s constituency, there are all kinds of speculative developments in Surrey Heath, but one of the greatest challenges we face is the potential relocation of Frimley Park hospital. When I asked about the budget that had been set aside for the creation of new roads, railway stations, road improvements and road-widening schemes, I was told that no money had been set aside and that any costs might come, notionally, from a contingency fund. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is no way to use a contingency fund? If Government bodies cannot get it right, what hope should we have for private developers?
Victoria Collins
Quite frankly, I find it shameful. It is no wonder that communities are pushing back on development if they see that the infrastructure is not there, and if they cannot get around and cannot get a GP appointment, yet they see thousands of new homes being built. No wonder public trust has been lost.
I could not cover every application across Harpenden and Berkhamsted, but the story is repeated across our corner of Hertfordshire and, indeed, up and down the country. I thank the thousands of constituents who have contacted me. Thousands have written to me about their concerns—94 alone with comments for this debate—and, as I said, several have joined us in the Public Gallery.
Here is the nugget of the issue: if I could say, hand on heart, that top-down planning would, in 10 years’ time, truly deliver affordable, sustainable housing, and houses that local teenagers like Hannah could afford, if I could look her in the eyes and tell her she is wrong about not being able to afford a home, and if I could say that the infrastructure would be built, that developers would not squeeze out of their commitments and that trains and buses would catch up and be up to scratch, I would be making very different arguments. But I cannot.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
The latest NPPF makes it clear that transport planning and infrastructure should be designed in at the outset, but my rural constituency has seen continuous large-scale development outside towns, from which it takes 25 minutes to walk into a town centre. There are no buses. It is not like London where, after waiting five minutes, a bus turns up; a person can wait two hours and nothing turns up. Does my hon. Friend agree that the NPPF needs to allocate funding, on top of the commitment to make sure that transport is considered at the outset?
Victoria Collins
Absolutely; I agree completely.
I come back to the promise that I would like to make to Hannah but cannot. Given that the average house price in Berkhamsted is over £650,000, and in Harpenden is more than £900,000, and given that last year the median new build price across the constituency was £747,500, so-called affordable homes—an average house—in expensive postcodes like ours, priced at 80% of market value, still cost more than half a million pounds. How on earth can we say to local people that they are sacrificing green belt so that their children or grandchildren can afford to buy? Local people know that is not the truth, which is why they are pushing back.
Local people understand the need for housing, but they cannot understand why powers are being taken away from them, top-down targets are pushing expensive homes on to communities that need genuinely affordable housing, and precious landscapes are being sacrificed. They cannot understand why Labour have not learned the lessons from the last Government. Communities will again be left without the transport infrastructure they need, and local people will be forced to move away. I call on the Minister and the Government to hear our calls for infrastructure-first and community-led development. It is the least that our communities deserve.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Order. I suggest a time limit of four minutes to start with.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for giving me the opportunity to talk about one of my favourite topics—public transport, or the lack thereof.
As other rural MPs in the room will know, improving local transport links is a never-ending discussion, particularly in a constituency such as North West Leicestershire that only has a bus service to rely on. We have no passenger rail at all, so everybody needs to travel by road.
Off the back off 14 years of austerity forced upon us by the coalition and then the previous Conservative Government, we need to consider the context that our community has been growing throughout that time. Alongside the destruction of our public services, libraries, Sure Starts and day services, our public transport was cut by 62%.
Planning developments and local transport are about understanding the population we have, as well as the future population. When talking about planning, we have to consider the impact, particularly in my constituency, of huge shed expansion in the industrial sector.
I speak to local residents in Heather regularly, a village in North West Leicestershire. They are just a stone’s throw away from Ibstock, a developing town. Many have told me that when they first moved to Heather, they did not need to use public transport regularly, but knowing they could get a bus meant they had a service they could rely on. Now, as they are getting older, their needs have changed, but the public transport in Heather is long gone. Demand fluctuates, but we are not evaluating that quickly enough or planning for the long term, so when the demography of a town or an estate changes, we are reliant on the community fighting for themselves to get services in place, rather than bus services reflecting the needs of that changing community.
When we talk about connecting new housing developments to leisure, jobs, education, medical and other services, the context is that we have so many fewer services than we had 15 years ago. Context is important in these transport conversations. Planning for change and growth is at the very core of what we are discussing. In fact, planning a new housing estate feels so much more straightforward when the numbers needed to create a new school or doctor’s surgery are taken into consideration. It might not be easy, but we understand the maths that sits behind it. However, when it comes to public transport, it is much less cohesive. It seems a complete waste that public transport is lagging behind in a much more piecemeal discussion. We are not planning for change; we are responding to it, and that is very frustrating for our local communities.
We had a newish development in my community that already involved the enhancement of a new school and the opportunity to extend the doctor’s surgery. As part of the planning conditions, residents were given a six-month bus pass, but it is of little use: there are no buses, so what is the point? We are not getting true, seamless connection between our new developments and our towns. Our towns need those new communities to survive and thrive. Any building in existing town centres does not create good connectivity and extra footfall. It actually means an impairment to growth. Quite often, the bus network does not serve newer estates that sit just outside our town centres, which means that residents are cut off from the town centre, and the town centre is cut off from them. They simply never visit. Therefore, the opportunity to help our town centres is lost. I was proud to sit on the Bus Services Bill Committee, and the Government’s commitment to get more money to local authorities for public transport is clear. However, the difficult part of that is trying to ensure that the money is actually being best utilised, as we are not planning for change; we are reacting to it.
There needs to be a better link between where people live and where services are required. We are never going to be able to plan for everything, but I would like to hear the Minister’s view on how bus services in the long term can be a vehicle for growth and create clearer community connections.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing this really important debate.
In my experience, nothing erodes public confidence in the planning system faster than development that is delivered with the promise of appropriate infrastructure that never materialises. People are often accepting and understanding of new homes being built if it is done in a thoughtful and considered way. What they are not willing to accept is development pushing local residents out of catchment areas for schools, it becoming impossible for them to see their GP, their homes starting to flood regularly, and no longer being able to get a seat on the train on the way to work. In my constituency, we face huge amounts of development with an absolutely ridiculous doubling of housing targets, all while London’s target comes down. Unfortunately, I see no signs of adequate investment in our local public transport to accompany this ludicrous target.
As Members will be aware, the Government’s draft revised national planning policy framework is heavily tilted towards encouraging development around stations. I understand the logic to that. If we want to reduce car dependency and create opportunity, we have to build near public transport. To maximise the use of existing infrastructure, we have to build in more urban areas that are already well connected. If we want to protect high-quality green belt, we have to densify close to existing settlements. Those are sensible propositions, but the NPPF is too broad brush and does not discern between those bits of land close to stations that fit with these objectives and those that do not.
Let us take Kingswood station in my constituency, for example. There is high-quality green-belt land nearby, yet the train service is far from ideal, there is no timetabled bus service and there are plentiful other brownfield sites and, indeed, greenfield sites that would be much better to build on first. I recognise the good intentions behind that change, and I support looking at land close to train stations first, but additional parameters are required to act as an appropriate filter to protect villages such as Kingswood. If the planning system is going to prioritise developments near stations above all other considerations, it must also be accompanied by extra investment and funding in transport capacity. If the infrastructure is not there or not credibly planned, the answer should be no. That approach would enable growth at genuinely suitable hubs while protecting small villages.
On Gatwick expansion, I am concerned that Gatwick airport has been given the green light to operate a second runway without sufficient thought being given to what that means for surrounding public transport. Reigate station sits on a busy community artery, yet the Department for Transport has said nothing about the impact that millions of extra passengers heading down to Gatwick will have on the line or the station.
The most transformational improvement for Reigate station would be achieved by extending its platform to allow additional and more efficient services. Back in 2020, a Network Rail scheme proposed the creation of a 12-car turnback platform to allow Thameslink trains to stop at the station and avoid the need for splitting and joining of trains at Redhill. I ask the Government to reconsider that project in the light of Gatwick expansion. Redhill is impacted, too, so I would be grateful if the Minister clarified what plans are in place for these stations and lines to meet the need for additional capacity and more frequent and reliable services. This is also a good opportunity to ensure that the facilities at those stations are fit for the 21st century and fully accessible, so that everyone can use them.
On the topic of accessibility, I would like to raise the plight of Earlswood station. It serves a growing area, and one that could come under even greater pressure if the planning system encourages heavier development around it, yet Earlswood’s infrastructure is already creaking. Things have got so bad that the underpass was recently badly flooded and had to be pumped out. People are literally taking their shoes and socks off to get the train, and those with buggies, older residents and disabled passengers are effectively blocked from travelling. I am pleased to see that Network Rail has now replaced the pumps to help to address the situation, but there is still more to do in the long run.
In closing, if the Government want public support for housing growth, they must improve support for public transport as well. Those two things must go hand in hand.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I, too, thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing today’s debate, which brings together so many of us who have a shared passion for aligning local transport with development.
I can understand why so many colleagues have come here today to raise concerns about future developments and how they see new properties as adding pressure to local transport, but I join my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) in pointing out that many rural communities are already missing vital transport links for our existing residents. In Shropshire, we lost over 65% of our local buses under the last Government. Two out of every three buses were deleted. Imagine what that did to the largest inland county in this country. We now have communities that are isolated, residents who are lonely, and vital services, such as health, shops and community, that are just out of reach for so many.
Like many others here, one of my biggest challenges since becoming an MP has been how to help local transport partners work together to build back our transport infrastructure. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the opportunity that comes with new housing developments—not just the opportunity to secure funding and plans for more buses, trains, bus stops and networks, but opportunity that runs in the opposite direction. A couple of colleagues have mentioned the change to planning infrastructure, but when we consider strategic housing developments in our local plans, we need to reconsider the opportunities for maximising housing and development close to existing transport infrastructure.
The Rail Industry Association produced an influential report on this issue last October called “Station Investment Zones: A new model for investment in transport, housing and growth”. The argument from the industry is that well-connected stations already offer economic opportunity as engines of growth and that transport or local government landowners could unlock sites near stations, trams, buses or transport hubs to offer hyper-connected housing as infill.
There is another benefit from that approach—one that I have also heard Ministers mention. By investing in our station quarters, we can lift what can sometimes become forgotten corners of our towns and turn them into more brightly lit, well-used areas, with more footfall, amenities and bustle. Let us bring people back to the community hubs that these areas should always have been. That would also deliver more passengers for rail operators such as Great British Railways and reduce unnecessary car journeys, helping the modal shift that we are all trying to drive forward to reduce congestion and pollution in town centres such as Shrewsbury. I would love to see that type of development near my train station in Shrewsbury. Let us get more shops, cafés, streetlights, ATMs and footfall to complement the services that are already offered there.
I was therefore delighted that the Government amended planning policy in the NPPF to include a presumption in favour of suitable developments within 800 metres of a well-connected station. It is the ultimate example of joined-up Government: cross-departmental policy delivering much-needed housing where we already have transport infrastructure and in turn helping to fund more transport for the areas where housing will need to be increased, which Members have talked about today. On behalf of the people of Shrewsbury, I say to the Minister: thank you very much for bringing forward a sensible and impactful policy that will help all of us in the search for transport alongside housing.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) on securing this important debate and on her continued work in this policy area.
In West Dorset, the issue with planning development is not just about how many homes we build, but where we build them and whether they are built with the infrastructure that is needed to support them. As I have said repeatedly, we need the right houses in the right places and at the right price. That means genuinely affordable homes for local people. It means accessible homes, so that older residents can downsize and stay close to the family. It means not building on floodplains—something that recent storms in the area have shown to be serious and costly. It means protecting natural landscapes, such as the one that covers 70% of West Dorset; and it means that, when new homes are approved, the infrastructure that is needed, such as GPs, dentists, schools and, critically, transport, must be delivered.
Having spent many thrilling hours on the Railways Bill Committee, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), I will not revisit every rail argument, but I do want to be clear that housing growth and rail capacity must be planned together. Local transport must be properly joined up. Local communities must be given a voice; and buses need to connect reliably with train services, so that people in new developments can realistically commute without relying entirely on a car.
When demand increases, supply should increase with it. Ticket prices remain too high, and peak services are often overcrowded, with elderly and disabled passengers standing for long journeys. It is not acceptable, and it will only worsen if housing numbers rise without matched investment. West Dorset is rural and spread out. We have an ageing population. Many residents rely on buses to get to work, school, hospital appointments and shops, but bus services have been cut back dramatically.
From 2010, service frequency in West Dorset fell by 62%. Satisfaction with bus services across Dorset stands at just 48%, despite nearly half of residents living in areas ranked in the top 20% most deprived nationally for access to services. Dorset received £3.8 million through the bus services improvement plan, compared with £11.6 million for Devon. It was one of the lowest settlements in the south-west. It does not reflect our rural geography, the scale of the problem, our older population or our surge in visitor numbers during the summer months.
When new housing developments are approved, especially in rural areas, they should come with guaranteed improvements to local transport. If buses are unreliable or non-existent, people will have no choice but to drive. Properly supported community transport also has a role to play. In places where commercial routes are no longer viable, there should be secure grant funding for community-led services. A hub-and-spoke model linking villages to key towns can be more realistic than trying to restore full commercial routes.
The CB3 service in Beaminster shows what can be achieved when communities work together, but parish and local councils cannot be expected to carry the financial burden alone. We should look seriously at pilots for larger roll-outs of on-demand services. Flexible bus systems can use technology to plan the most efficient routes based on bookings. These services have already worked particularly well for younger people travelling between villages.
If that is to work, the council will need technical support and funding to deliver it properly. On-demand services should be supported where reinstating traditional bus services is not viable, and the Government services should provide new centralised pots for community transport funding that can be bid for to specifically counteract the years of underfunding. The extra money and multi-year funding from central Government is a welcome change, but it is not enough to turn the tide. We need measures targeted to those places that have lost the most before we can start building a more sustainable network; otherwise, we will just normalise failure.
There is also a sequencing problem in planning. I have seen developments where housing has gone ahead but infrastructure has stalled, sometimes because a contractor has gone bust after being awarded the contract, as happened recently in Bridport. That leaves new homes without the transport links, roads and roundabouts that they were promised. It undermines trust in the planning system and fuels opposition to future development.
Transport is central to whether a development works. If we build homes without properly improving buses, trains and roads, we increase congestion, make daily life harder and create understandable resentment. If we want communities to have and agree to new housing developments, we must show that infrastructure will come alongside it, not years later.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Although it is a pleasure to be called, Sir Desmond, I did not intend to give a speech. But I was planning to intervene, so I will quickly say that I recognise the points made by the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins). I come from the generation that has really struggled to buy a home in the community that they are from. Many of my colleagues and friends who have done incredibly well in their lives—they have achieved—are still living with their mums and dads. That is something that cannot continue.
While I recognise the hon. Member’s concerns about development with transport not following, the situation that we have now is simply not sustainable. We have to be brave, both as politicians and local representatives, to ensure that we do not make the perfect the enemy of the good. We have to push things forward for our young people. They have had the same promises—that we will build those affordable houses; that we will make those developments connected to their communities—for 20 years.
I say this as someone who has opposed and supported developments in my constituency: I take the hon. Member’s point that we will never meet the needs on our waiting lists unless we build affordable homes, but we have to actually start putting spades in the ground at some stage. As representatives in this Parliament, we cannot continue seeing the low numbers of houses being built in communities like mine in Redditch for another decade. It puts the life chances of my residents at risk, and means that my friends have to move to nearby conurbations, instead of being able to raise families and live in the constituencies that they want to. I agree with many of the things that the hon. Member said, but I also think that we need to be brave as politicians moving forward.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for bringing forward this debate.
On paper, Mid Leicestershire is well connected between the M1 and the A46, but the reality for my constituents is a different story. I am not coming at this as a nimby; I am not opposed to development for the sake of it. I recognise the pressing need for housing, particularly for young people to get on the property ladder, and for growth. However, what I cannot accept is endless development without the infrastructure to sustain it. Homes without roads, rail links and other public transport make the lives of my constituents poorer. So while the map may suggest connectivity, the daily experience of my constituents tells a different story.
In Markfield, for example, residents regularly contact me about the Fieldhead roundabout. Many residents face delays of more than an hour when travelling just a few miles to get to work, to hospital appointments, or to simply take their children to school. All of that is happening while further development is being granted, and there appears to be next to no consideration of the long-term and cumulative impacts of developments on connectivity.
In Stanton-under-Barden, residents have effectively been cut off from Coalville and the surrounding villages since last September. Their sole bus service has been cancelled as the direct result of disruption caused by a large development at the entrance to the village. While Leicestershire county council claims that alternatives are available to residents, my casework suggests otherwise. In Ratby, there is a prolonged closure of roads—again, as a result of developments, which have even disrupted the regular delivery of people’s post.
The question is: what can we do to help residents with the ongoing challenges posed by continued development, while ensuring that we have places for the next generation to live? First, I believe that there must be a fundamental re-evaluation of whether section 106 money is being spent as originally intended. We are consistently told that those contributions from developers to local authorities exist to mitigate the impact of new developments on existing residents, to fund roads, schools, transport links and community infrastructure—but does that actually materialise?
In 2024, it was reported that councils are sitting on more than £6 billion of unspent section 106 money. That is £6 billion that was intended to ease the pressure on communities—to improve junctions, support bus services and enhance local amenities. Instead it lies dormant or, worse still, is returned to developers.
Amanda Hack
I am a neighbouring constituency MP, and one of the things that has always been a huge frustration is that Leicestershire is in the top ten of held-on-to 106 money. There definitely needs to be a conversation about how we get that 106 money spent—and spent quickly.
Mr Bedford
The hon. Lady and I both served on Leicestershire county council together, so we are both well aware of that issue. We have made the case before to ensure that the money is invested in local infrastructure, and will continue to do so.
Secondly, I have seen in Mid Leicestershire the consequences of being a constituency that straddles multiple local planning authorities. Decisions made on the edge of one authority impact the residents who lie on the other side, in the other authority. I tabled two amendments to the Bill that became the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 that were aimed at addressing that issue. Sadly, the Government chose not to adopt those amendments, so I ask the Minister to relook at the issue to ensure that where multiple planning authorities straddle different areas, that is taken into consideration when planning permission is granted.
Finally, we should not support the Whitehall assumption that all roads must lead to London. We need to link big cities in the north, in the midlands, east and west. That is how we will truly level up. Most of us in this House recognise that we do need development, homes and growth, but development without infrastructure is not progress; it is a burden. We need better connectivity in our local areas, the infrastructure for which goes hand in hand with planning reforms. I urge the Government to take on board the many constructive suggestions from today’s debate, so that we have a system that truly recognises the need for infrastructure before and alongside development.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I am afraid I have been lured into making some side comments before getting into the meat of my speech. This is in relation to the point about aggregate supply and meeting the housing needs of young people. It is really important that we bring some facts to that debate, and the reality is that from 2013 to 2023 the housing stock in this country expanded more rapidly than our population did. It is not an issue of aggregate supply, and focusing on that will never meet the needs of younger people in this country.
The relationship between new housing and local transport, cuts to the core of why we need to end the developer-led, profit-motivated approach to planning in this nation. Despite warm words in national guidelines, right across the country the relentless reality of most new estates is more traffic, more toxic air pollution and more space given to car parking than to children for play. The reality is inadequate public transport, distant services, non-existent local employment opportunities and more noise, congestion and pollution blighting our lives. Few things shape the basic, day-to-day experience of life in the UK in 2026 more than the disconnect between transport policy on paper and actual development around our towns and villages.
When we came to power, Labour promised change, but this experience will not begin to improve until we address one of the most harmful phrases in national planning policy: the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Few policies are more baleful or more egregiously misnamed. It may be called sustainable development, but in fact it does exactly the reverse of what it says on the tin.
This legacy policy puts power overwhelmingly in the hands of developers, overruling the aspirations of local councils and trampling on the concerns of communities. It is responsible for the proliferation of bolt-on estates on the edge of towns and villages, with no realistic prospect that most people living there will be able to access the services and facilities that we all need in our daily lives, other than by driving—locking in car dependency from the get-go.
The presumption in favour of sustainable development allows the construction of developments designed to exist as commuter dormitories, rather than creating real communities with work, leisure and culture all within walking distance. It is the precise opposite of the idealism of the garden city principles originally put into action in Letchworth. By clearing the way for speculative, unsustainable developments, the presumption currently ensures that much of what is built in this country is defined by what is easy and profitable for developers, rather than what is good for people and planet. Above all, car-dependent developments like these squeeze the space for genuine society. Community connections will always struggle to thrive if the public realm is dominated by parked cars and traffic.
We need to put local authorities back in the driving seat, with the powers to design and deliver developments that genuinely deliver affordable homes in well planned and cohesive communities, with all the opportunities necessary for happy and fulfilling lives. Above all, to ensure that development comes with healthy and positive local transport connections, we must—the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I serve, called for this—amend the definition of “presumption in favour of sustainable development” in the national planning policy framework in order to strengthen the safeguards against environmentally unsustainable, unplanned and speculative development.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for her very insightful opening speech.
If the number of homes in an area is doubled but the roads, buses, rail capacity, flood protection and sewerage are not doubled, something has to give. In Siddington, in my constituency, we are being asked to absorb up to 1,100 additional homes on top of the 2,500 already under way nearby, with no credible, guaranteed transport plan to support them. That is not infrastructure-led growth; it is infrastructure playing catch-up, and rural communities are the ones that will pay the price.
In a previous career as a management consultant, I learned through critical path planning that certain things must happen in a specific order to work smoothly; that just does not seem to be happening at the moment. In a perfect world—I know we do not live in one—the land use framework would have come out first so we could see how to allocate our land. I understand that if we add together all the land area commitments in this country, we will need a couple more Waleses to accommodate them all. Clearly, something has gone a little awry.
To pick up on a point already made by a couple of colleagues: will housing targets actually deliver the affordable houses we need, where we need them? I am not at all convinced. As an environmentalist, I am very concerned by measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Are we at risk of trashing our countryside and building houses that are not fit for their designated purpose? Of course, we do not yet have the sewerage infrastructure; as a constituency that lies largely in the Thames Water catchment, this is very much top of my mind.
Mr Bedford
Does the hon. Lady agree that the utility sector should be a statutory consultee? In a previous life, I worked for a utility company. One of the frustrations for that company was that it was often asked to provide infrastructure to support massive housing developments, yet there was no requirement for it to be consulted as part of the planning process. Does she agree that is wrong?
Dr Savage
I believe we need to challenge the automatic right for developers to connect to the sewerage network. In fact, they must be encouraged to work with public utilities to ensure that capacity is there before they put spades in the ground.
I realise I am slightly digressing from the key issue of transport, which I will come to now. Siddington’s road network consists of narrow rural lanes that were never designed for high traffic volumes. High congestion already exists at peak times, especially around Ashton Road and the routes feeding the A419 and A429 corridors. Some 1,000 homes could mean another 1,500 or even 2,000 vehicles, with a significant increase in daily car movements. If the potholes are bad now, they are only going to get worse—not to mention the impact on carbon emissions and air quality.
Instead, we should be encouraging public transport and active travel, and designing new developments accordingly. I have heard recently from town councils in Cricklade and Fairford of their concerns about these large, bolt-on estates that are a little too far from town centre facilities. People will have to drive, adding to existing congestion and pressure on parking spaces.
Rural bus services are already limited in frequency and coverage. On the 51 route, the loss of the 8 am service and the 4 pm return means that it is just not a viable way to get to work and back. The result is being locked into increased car use. A young constituent of mine, Heather Kent, attends Stagedoor Learning in Cheltenham, but she now faces an 11-hour day with long waits between services or is dependent on her parents to collect her. She first came to my attention as someone who regularly does litter picks in the area; she will now be spending more time trying to get to and from places and less time picking up litter.
Meanwhile, on the 77 bus route from Fairford to Cirencester, there have been service changes and serious reliability concerns. Once somebody gives up on reliable public transport and buys a car, we have lost them; they will then use their car to get everywhere, with all the consequences of that. What we need is not just a short-term promise of viable public transport; we need it to be locked in for the long term—not dependent on developer payments—so people can plan their lives accordingly.
Going forward, as has already been mentioned, the impacts will be not just linear but exponential. We need careful, sensible modelling of what the impact of these new developments will be, and the resulting total vehicle movement. I want to emphasise that I am not opposed to housing. Clearly, we need more affordable housing, but I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), about having not only developer-led housing for profit but the right kinds of housing in the right places with an in-built sense of community.
Without careful planning, we will face permanent congestion, reduced safety, worsened flooding, a loss of village identity and potentially serious adverse impacts on nature and wellbeing. Planning should shape the future; it should not erode the present. If we allow large-scale developments to proceed without guaranteed transport infrastructure, we will be building not thriving communities but daily frustration, longer commutes, gridlocked lanes and an increased flood risk. Growth done well creates opportunity; growth done badly creates regret and resentment.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The West of England rail line runs from Exeter to London Waterloo via Feniton, Honiton and Axminster. Network Rail describes the line from Exeter to Basingstoke as
“one of the worst-performing single-track sections nationally”.
It is one of the most under-invested lines in England. In this place, it is a cliché to talk about a Cinderella service, but trains serving residents on the West of England line do provide a Cinderella service—in fact, people stood waiting for a South Western Railway carriage to travel from Feniton, Honiton or Axminster may wonder if they are waiting for a pumpkin. According to the Salisbury to Exeter rail user group, the line has examples of everything that the Secretary of State for Transport says is wrong with rail in this country. For example, the section between Salisbury and Yeovil Junction operates at an 88% capacity, well in excess of the 80% threshold needed for resilience.
In May last year, the Minister stated that there were no plans to enhance the West of England line. Yet it is apparent to anyone who travels on it that there is a dire need for improvement. Between August and November last year, the service ground to a painfully slow pace during dry weather because of a so-called soil moisture deficit. During that period, the entire line was served by just one train every two hours, and when journeys were cancelled, passengers were left waiting for upwards of four hours for trains.
The situation is particularly concerning in the light of proposed new housing developments in Devon. Exeter is the fastest-growing city in England by population. Over 1,100 houses are to be built across east Devon in each of the next five years, as demanded by the housing targets imposed on local authorities by the Government in Westminster. In the 2030s, a new town called Marlcombe is projected to be built; it would have 10,000 houses over the long term.
Last November, the Housing Secretary announced that proposed developments within 15 minutes of railway stations could be given a default yes in the interests of promoting house building in so-called travel to work areas. Changes to the national planning policy framework are currently subject to consultation, but they lack restrictive criteria for those railway stations that are not deemed to be well-connected and could open up development in any village or town that has a railway station, apparently without restriction. New housing developments surely cannot be justified in this way when the rail infrastructure is substandard. That is raising significant concerns for residents of communities I represent such as Feniton, Honiton, Axminster and Cullompton.
Thankfully, a vision for the line has been laid out by the Salisbury to Exeter rail user group, with six points agreed by key stakeholders including South Western Railway, Network Rail, Great Western Railway and Devon county council. The plan includes new rolling stock and power sources, signalling and the delivery of double track, and, at the very least, passing loops at Whimple and Tisbury. However, the funding is missing.
The Rail Minister stated on the “Green Signals” podcast that
“connectivity drives growth, jobs and homes”.
He is right, but without investment and improvement the West of England line will not have that connectivity. In the absence of that investment, the line cannot be the basis on which new housing is justified. The message from people I represent is plain: “Infrastructure first, please.”
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing the debate. I have listened with great interest to many of the speeches given today, including from my near neighbours. It has been interesting to hear a run through of their constituencies and I will give a bit of a run through of some of the issues in my constituency as well.
Many Members have spoken to the issues of bolt-on developments and so-called ribbon developments where we get additional speculative developments extending villages and towns beyond their infrastructure capacity. That is true for a village in my constituency called Chalgrove, which is at risk of becoming one of the longest villages in the country. If the developers get their way, it will eventually look a bit more like Chile when we look at it on the map. Developers are seeking to take advantage of the B480 without delivering any infrastructure alongside it. As a councillor, I have fought against developments that seek to do that.
I also want to speak to badly planned development in particular. That is nowhere more true than in Chalgrove, which has an airfield that was sold by the Ministry of Defence back in, I think, 2001 to Homes England. Chalgrove is in the middle of nowhere and I do it no disservice by saying so—it is a lovely village in a rural setting. It has no mass transit system; there is no railway and there is a very limited bus service. It is a car-dependent community and there is no getting away from that; it is purely the geography of where it is.
Yet Chalgrove has been assigned 3,500 new homes in the local plan that was forced through by the former Conservative Government and, indeed, by a Member who no longer sits on the Conservative Benches but sits with Reform UK. Residents are wholly opposed to that, as am I, because it requires massive road building to facilitate it. It requires bypasses at the villages of Chiselhampton, Stadhampton and Cuxham, even though Homes England is trying to row back from that. We will also get bottlenecks at Little Milton as residents try to move from that car-dependent, dormitory town to the M40 and onwards to London, Oxford or beyond for work. We need to move beyond car-dependent communities for the reasons that many, including my hon. Friends, have outlined.
Elsewhere in my constituency, bypasses—so-called edge roads—are still required to facilitate developments, and I have been supportive of the Watlington relief road. That is an example of a community that has embraced development. It actively sought the development of new homes that it did not have to take on in the local plan. It put them into its neighbourhood plan so that it could get a relief road, because the historical nature of the town means it has a choke point that was previously used only by horse and cart, but is now used as the main through route to the M40.
It has therefore been incredibly frustrating to see homes being built ahead of the relief road, to the point where we are now seeing intense difficulties navigating the town. Even where we have communities that embrace development, we are betraying them by not delivering the infrastructure alongside it. I want to see more investment in infrastructure for those communities that get new developments.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) on securing such an important debate; she has made a number of salient points that I wholeheartedly agree with, in particular about the impact of losing local voices in the planning process.
As Liberal Democrats, we believe the Government should be doing things with people, not to them. Their planning reforms are another example of where we could gain the confidence of far more people in planning decisions if they were properly involved and consulted. I was pleased to hear the excellent speeches of my hon. Friends: my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) talked about housing growth pressure; my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) reminded us of the importance of doing the right things in the right order; my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) spoke about the importance of money; and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) spoke about getting the balance right between different types of transport.
Most reasonable people would think that decisions about transport and planning should go hand in hand. Planning decisions lead to transport requirements and transport provision will inform planning decisions. However, like so much of the creaking and archaic machinery of the state, the predetermined silos for those two areas sit separately and often work in conflict rather than in harmony. What people want is for decisions to be made with a focus on them. How do we best plan infrastructure and transport to support people?
Even within transport, there are silos within silos. The different modes of transport and transport integration are not considered together, despite how interconnected they are. Those levels of bureaucracy and failure to deliver a working transport system are not what people want. They just want decisions to be made that help to get them where they want to go, when they want to go. If that is really beyond the ability of the state, we should all despair. Talking about alterations to the machinery of government might sound like wonkery, but in cases such as these it is clear to see where making the state work better would make our constituents’ lives better, too.
Rarely am I desperate to give credit to the planning system, but it does succeed in taking a more holistic view of transport into consideration when making decisions. It can assess the needs and uses of a wide range of transport modes. It understands the interplay between housing, employment and transport, and it thinks about where people are going and when, and what steps might need to be necessary to improve their experiences.
However, the planning system has little real power to actually make changes. The closest it can get is by creating a sizeable enough housing demand and hoping that the transport decision makers notice and deliver the necessary improvements. That means that many people end up in disconnected new estates or working in employment areas without any real accessibility other than by private car. There is a fundamental lack of an overarching strategy for too many of these decisions— and that could make the experience of people living in newly built areas and those seeing change in the ones they already live in immensely better.
For Norfolk, I believe a key way for us to secure that strategy was through devolution, which I have been trying to deliver since my first county council campaign kicked off nearly a decade ago. Devolving transport powers to local areas means that decisions on wide-ranging strategy and aims can be made closer to the people they impact, with real local buy-in. The promise of seeing those powers in Norfolk made me feel that we might finally crack the rural transport problems that have held our area back for too long. Instead, we have seen a double whammy of let-downs on that front in recent months.
First, the Labour Government pushed our mayoral election down the line to 2028, meaning more years without the power to deliver the change that my residents need now. Secondly, in the past week we have seen the Conservative leader of Norfolk county council launch a titanic tantrum over local elections and refuse to work with the Government on any further devolution discussions. Because she felt jilted by the Government, she has abandoned the opportunity for progress and money to pursue a personal vendetta against the Secretary of State, calling him things that I frankly cannot repeat in this Chamber. I have strong disagreements with the devolution process, but I want to put Norfolk first, not the ego of someone who is supposed to be a local leader. She tried to throw Norfolk under the bus—although, without any transport powers, it is unlikely that one would show up.
To go back to the matter in hand, there are improvements that we Liberal Democrats want to deliver and could deliver at local and national levels. We want to see more buses with more people on them, and these need to work out alongside the planning of new developments. For young students and workers, we have proposed a bus fare discount, enabling easier access to work and education or just getting to socialise with friends. We want to expand walking and cycling access with a boost to budgets and a drive to create more active travel routes that get people out of cars and on to paths where possible. On our railways, we want to make the commuter experience better, back passengers with a new passenger’s charter and give people the confidence to move their journeys on to public transport.
Now that the local elections are back on in Norfolk, I am sure many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues will find themselves at some point over the next few weeks lost inside a rabbit-warren estate with a dodgy phone signal and a bunch of undelivered leaflets, asking themselves the key question: was this place designed for people to live or for cars to drive? We have to make transport and planning work more cohesively, because they deliver tangible benefits to our constituents’ lives and could do so quickly. The Government can and must do more to restore faith in the planning and transport systems so that all our residents reap the benefits.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Thank you, Sir Desmond, for agreeing to chair this interesting debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing this debate today. Any Member of Parliament with a pulse who has served more than a day here will realise how interconnected is the relationship between planning decisions, housing developments in their constituencies and the provision of local infrastructure to support them. I bet the biggest complaint every single one of us will have received over our period in office is, “We are not against planning, but we need the infrastructure in first and the development later, because we need to look after not just the coming population, but the existing one.” Trying to balance the needs of future and existing populations is right at the heart of local democratic representation.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Epsom and Ewell has the highest accommodation costs in England. That pressure is being addressed by building new housing, but the challenge is that in one development in my constituency, residents had to wait nearly a decade after moving into their new homes to get a bus route and new school, with additional pressure on train services. Although housing and some development is essential, does the hon. Member agree it should reflect community needs and the capacity of local transport services?
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for that intervention.
In her speech, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted said that many of the services from Berkhamsted to London were not on time, so I took the opportunity to look up the frequency of those services. I gently point out that people in my constituency would give their eye teeth for a service every 10 minutes and that level of connectivity—they only have to wait a couple more minutes and there is another train, and another one after that. However, I do not diminish her fundamental argument about transport infrastructure, the subject of the debate—you have rightly been generous, Sir Desmond, in letting us stretch that to other local infrastructure—if new populations are to be accepted by existing populations, infrastructure needs to expand at the same pace, and ideally in advance of the growth in population.
We have heard a number of good speeches; I commend the hon. Lady’s speech, but I will also highlight the two Conservative contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) made the important point that where we have an increased population, it is not only the roads, but the railway infrastructure, that suffer and need to be expanded. In her case, that is an extended station at Reigate. Her constituency also suffers a double whammy, with travel growth due to the nearby expansion of Gatwick airport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) made a number of good points. With multiple developments on local transport infrastructure, each one is identified and dealt with in isolation, not considering the cumulative impacts. The argument goes that the road can stand another 500 or 1,200 units, and that might be the case but, when there are 20 cumulative applications, the infrastructure creaks. He made another good point, of which I have personal experience, about constituencies with multiple local authorities, where one local authority can make a planning decision that adversely affects residents in the authority next door.
In my case, the Liberal Democrat North Norfolk district council is planning a large increased settlement to North Walsham, totally ignoring the huge impact of traffic going through nearby Coltishall, where everyone is funnelled over a single bridge across the river. There is an ongoing fight, with one district council ignoring the needs of another. Surely we can do better than that.
The Government have also taken steps to alter housing targets, moving targets around the country. Those steps have not always been accompanied by consideration of the impact on local transport. A prominent example is the county of Dorset, where a significantly increased housing target is being imposed—top-down, as the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted said—yet one of the first acts of the Labour Government was to axe the improvements to the A303, the road that links Dorset to London and the south-east.
Currently, an eight-mile journey that should take only 10 minutes is regularly taking over an hour. The A303 is also the vital connection between the south-east and the south-west—areas where the Government’s targets will result in a significant increase in development, with more people, more cars and more congestion. That example demonstrates the disconnect between what local areas need when it comes to transport and what the Government are willing to deliver.
Even when plans have been developed and funding has been secured for key transport schemes, they are often hampered, and sometimes even cancelled due to—in my view—unreasonable and burdensome over-regulation. I need only look at my own constituency and the scheme for the Norwich western link road. The delivery of that scheme is vital to the residents of Norfolk and to the local economy. Traffic congestion, delays, and queues on small rural roads and through communities in my constituency have long been blighting the area to the west of Norwich. Detailed plans were drawn up for a new 3.9-mile dual carriageway, the last section needed to complete the orbital dual carriageway route around the city of Norwich.
Plans were developed over seven years with local consultation and £230 million in funding—achieved by me. It was classified as a high-value scheme by the Department for Transport’s criteria. Relying on that planned road, many thousands of new houses had been allocated to land north-east of Norwich. Natural England was consulted throughout that seven-year period; in fact, it was very much part of the team. Then, one week before the final planning application was made, and without any notice to the planning team, Natural England changed its approach to a nearby colony of bats and withdrew its support—not just for that scheme, but for any mitigation approach. That left £50 million of development costs, and local residents and businesses across Norfolk let down. They were not consulted and their views were not taken into consideration.
Despite the Prime Minister talking a good game when it came to organisations unreasonably blocking crucial infrastructure schemes for similar reasons—I pray in aid the bat tunnel—the Government did not step in to help. I am interested to hear from the Minister how the Government are planning to stop unelected quangos effectively vetoing democratic decisions.
That road may have hit the buffers, at least for the time being, but the associated housing allocations all remain and can be seen in Taverham—it is a very live issue in my constituency at the moment—and elsewhere. This is exactly what residents hate: the process taking over from the reality on the ground. The cart is put before the horse, and then it is going in one direction and cannot be stopped. There is no review. The anger that I suspect we all experience on the doorsteps when residents feel they are being ignored is very real.
In November last year, the Government published a rapid evidence report on the impacts of integrated land use and transport planning, which summarised evidence on how combining land use and transport planning affects travel. One of the first suggestions in the rapid evidence assessment for policy makers making land use and transport decisions was:
“Developing awareness of potential unintended consequences via short scoping studies ahead of major investments.”
It highlighted that that could
“enable mitigating action to be taken where appropriate.”
Anyone who examines the Government’s record over the past 18 months realises that they have an exceptional talent for not considering the consequences of their actions. Perhaps the Minister would like to feed that suggestion into the wider Government.
Let us also look at planning and development in areas with much better local transport provision than many of us currently enjoy. One might think that areas with more developed transport networks would be able to encourage significant planning and development without some of the issues that we have been debating. Utilising areas such as brownfield sites close to existing locations should be an important way to help with some of the planning challenges posed in rural areas including Norfolk.
In London, however, which has by far the best transport network in the country, and significantly subsidised transport services with buses, we have seen the London Mayor’s absolute failure to deliver housing. Just look at last year; what has happened is really shocking. In London last year there were just 5,891 housing starts. That is 94% below target and a 75% year-on-year decline—the steepest drop in the country, the lowest tally since records began almost 40 years ago, and the lowest figure for any major city in the developed world this century. What a record.
Rebecca Paul
It is important to flag that reducing the number of houses being built in London pushes people in London out into constituencies such as mine. The Government say, “We’re building more houses so that children and grandchildren can stay close to their families,” but what happens is that those in London move into other constituencies. Does my hon. Friend agree that that does not really achieve the aim?
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The failure of the London Mayor is putting pressure on her constituency and many other communities in the wider orbit of London.
The Government will say they are trying to take action to integrate these elements and to ensure that planning development does not negatively impact local transport, but in trying to deliver their targets on development, they should stop and consider the steps they can take to make it easier to build infrastructure and support planning that actually delivers local infrastructure improvements, before new populations arise.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, as always, Sir Desmond.
I thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing this debate and thank Members for all their comments and contributions. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss how planning developments impact on local transport, a subject of great importance and a priority in the context of our housing ambitions. An awful lot has been said today; Members will forgive my aversion to taking many interventions, as I think it is important that I respond to many of the comments made.
Aligning housing and transport is essential for delivering homes that are connected and sustainable and that provide genuine choices for people. To that end, we have prioritised making changes to the planning system in support of growth and place-making. That includes providing the tools that local planning authorities need to ensure that developments are supported by the right transport infrastructure for the local context.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is currently consulting on revisions to the national planning policy framework. If progressed, these revisions will deliver better located development with more sustainable travel choices, supported by robust guidance.
We have already made changes through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 to streamline the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects, which will speed up the pace of decision making on critical projects. The Act also places a duty on combined authorities, combined county authorities, upper tier county councils and unitary authorities to prepare spatial development strategies, which is an important opportunity to set the context for local plans, which will have to be in general conformity with the strategy once it has been adopted. Taken together, these changes will make a real difference to the people we all serve, delivering more housing, greater transport choices and better designed, healthier places.
The Government believe that an integrated, affordable and sustainable transport network is vital to unlocking homes with good access to jobs, education and public services. That includes improving bus services, boosting passenger numbers and giving local leaders greater control.
To support that work, last year my Department launched the connectivity tool, which brings together transport and land use data to show how well locations are connected to jobs and key services, helping communities to identify infrastructure gaps and plan development sustainably. The tool is already being used across the country to ensure that new housing aligns with existing and planned infrastructure. I believe the tool will empower local government, developers and planners to make better decisions about where development should happen, and to plan for the infrastructure needed to support it.
In parallel, the Railways Bill will establish Great British Railways as a directing mind. One of its objectives is to facilitate homebuilding and place-making. Great British Railways will be outward-facing and will work in partnership with mayoral strategic authorities, enabling a greater focus on local priorities such as housing and regeneration.
We have already taken action. Platform4, a company launched in November 2025, is already working to develop disused brownfield land—real land—with an ambition to deliver 40,000 homes over the coming decade. That will support our housing, regeneration and growth ambitions by creating new places to live, work, learn and play, putting the railway at the heart of our neighbourhoods.
The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted also mentioned green-belt policy and its implications for villages such as Redbourn. As I understand it, the proposed changes to the definition of grey belt seek to better enable the identification of grey-belt land when ensuring protection of the green belt. Alongside that, the introduction of the spatial development strategies will identify broad locations for housing growth across larger geographies than the district level, while at the same time co-ordinating the provision of strategic infrastructure and improving the environment and climate resilience. That will help to better distribute developments and identify their appropriate scale in places like Hertfordshire. In reference to major developments in the surrounding areas, all planning decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis, based on national and local planning policies and other material considerations.
The Government approved the special development order for the Universal Studios site in December 2025, noting the project’s national significance. Extensive transport works to support the surrounding network are to be delivered, including the expansion of Wixams railway station to enable public transport journeys to the site.
Given the ongoing legal proceedings, there is not much I can say about Luton airport. However, the Secretary of State for Transport’s decision letter on the case sets out her reasoning for that consent.
Regarding the cumulative impacts of developments, the Government are operationalising a new approach to transport planning through changes to the national planning policy framework. By taking a vision-led approach to transport planning that sets clear outcomes from the outset of the planning process, we can deliver well-connected communities that are served by sustainable transport and co-located with key services, breaking the cycle that has left people with a lack of transport choice and ever more congested road networks. I believe that will make it easier for new developments to deliver the transport options that people need and want and will help decision makers to better manage the cumulative impacts of significant developments affecting places such as Redbourn.
To respond to the specific concerns about congestion, National Highways is a statutory consultee on planning applications and will assess the impact of new developments on the strategic road network. National Highways expects developers to explore all options to reduce dependence on the strategic road network for local journeys. National Highways is empowered to recommend refusal of planning applications that would cause substantial impact on the road network, including issuing holding responses to enable more evidence to be provided, or to provide conditions for mitigating the impact of development.
To pick up on a few other points that Members raised, I understand that the local plan in St Albans is currently being replaced. It is one of the oldest and most out-of-date plans. I recognise that it has been inherited—it dates back to 1994. It is expected that a new plan will be adopted in March. The Government’s proposed national policy framework outlines that all development proposals should be capable of proceeding without having a severe adverse impact on transport networks in terms of capacity and congestion, including the cumulative impact. Local decision makers should consider the cumulative impact on transport when deciding their planning applications.
On rail or rail operators that are required to plan services based on demand and value for money, Great British Railways will have a significant impact, as I have mentioned. Govia Thameslink Railway has shared demand modelling with the Department, which does include projections for planned development along the Thameslink network. The Department requires all operators to plan future timetables that reflect expected demand and provide value for money for the taxpayer. We will continue to work with Govia Thameslink Railway as it develops its proposals for development along that route.
On bus funding, I am sure all Members will welcome the £3 billion of multi-year funding that is going to support bus services across the country. Hertfordshire county council will be allocated £34.1 million under the local authority bus grant from 2026-27 to 2028-29. That is in addition to the £12.2 million already allocated. For the first time, the formula includes a rurality aspect to make sure that rural areas receive their fair share.
Moving on to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), I find it hard to accept some of his comments. We inherited a housing crisis caused by the Conservatives that has seen house building plummet. The Government will not shy away from taking the decisive action needed to fix that for good. This Government are turning the tide on the Tories’ housing crisis, which has seen 1.3 million families stuck on housing waiting lists and over 165,000 children growing up in temporary accommodation. On affordable housing, our new £39 billion social and affordable housing programme will build around 300,000 new homes over 10 years, including at least 60% for social rent—around 180,000 homes. That is six times the number of social and affordable homes built in the last decade.
Today’s debate has demonstrated the importance of integrating transport and housing and seeing them not as separate systems, but as one. I trust that the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted can see how, taken together, those reforms represent the meaningful re-gearing of the transport and spatial planning systems to fix the housing crisis while delivering the transport that our communities need.
Steff Aquarone
On a point of order, Sir Desmond. I want to draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving county councillor.
Victoria Collins
I thank all hon. Members who have spoken. I reiterate that the people of Harpenden, Berkhamsted, Tring, Redbourn, Sandridge and all our local villages are not nimbys. They understand the need for housing—and genuinely affordable housing. However, it is clear that they cannot understand a planning system that hands power to developers and takes it away from communities. This debate has shown that many Members and their local populations have the same frustrations.
What the Minister talked about is a nice display of how, while local councils supposedly have these powers, in many ways the reality undermines their use of them, as I outlined, leaving communities still facing a developer-led system. That means doubling housing targets without doubling infrastructure. Nor can people understand a system that leaves villages such as Redbourn facing 70% growth through the grey belt. As the Minister mentioned the grey belt, I should clarify that it does not protect villages, it protects towns. That is a problem with the NPPF, and something that I will be putting forward in the consultation, and yet local people are also being expected to sacrifice precious landscapes for homes their own children still cannot afford.
Trains cancelled daily; buses that stop at 2 pm; roads built for horse-drawn carts that are now gridlocked—that is the reality of planning without infrastructure. I welcome the current reviews of the NPPF, but what will happen to villages such as Redbourn and others under the current planning system, still outlined by Labour, if they turn out to have been dealt a really bad card? Will they be able to retrofit some of that planning infrastructure? It really is an issue for our local communities.
I would also push gently on the Thameslink question. Some of the proposals are welcome, but it is going to be a massive issue for so many communities all along the Bedford-Brighton link. We really must look again at that infrastructure. There is a real issue at the core of Thameslink, whether around Croydon or elsewhere.
I ask the Minister to take back one message to his team: communities like mine do not want to choose between housing and infrastructure; they both need to be planned together from the start. That infrastructure and community-led development are the least that our communities deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of planning developments on local transport.
Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
I will call Ann Davies to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the mover of the motion and the Minister. As no other Member has approached the Minister, nobody else will be speaking, unless it is through an intervention. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered banking hubs in rural and post-industrial communities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. It is unfortunate really that this is a 30-minute debate. So many people have been in touch to make interventions or speeches, including the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), but as you mentioned, Sir Desmond, it is impossible to fit everybody in.
I am pleased to lead the debate on this important topic. Access to cash and banking services is a pressing issue in rural and post-industrial communities. I hope to outline why we desperately need to increase the availability of services through banking hubs in those areas.
Jim Shannon
I will just say that so many people are here because the hon. Lady has brought up a subject matter that is worth more than 30 minutes of debate. Does she agree that the only goals that banks seem to have are bigger dividends and more profit? When they close branches there is a dramatic effect on rural life in her constituency and in mine. Is it not time for banks to look not at profit, but at the people and customers that they should be supporting?
Ann Davies
I totally agree, and I will come on to that later. In 2006, cash accounted for 62% of all payments in the UK. It now accounts for around 14%, with some forecasts taking it down to 6% in 2031. However, if we look beyond those percentages, we can see that cash still plays a vital role in people’s lives. For many, cash is indeed king.
New figures from Link, which accounts for 77% of the UK’s entire ATM network transactions, show that cash continues to be central to how millions of people manage their money. In 2025, £76 billion was withdrawn from Link ATMs, in 1.27 billion transactions recorded across the year. Link notes:
“While ATM use naturally evolves as more people choose digital payments…cash remains a trusted and widely used option.”
Link data shows that the most popular places in which to use cash remain convenience stores, supermarkets and payments between friends and families.
Dr Savage
In my rural constituency, mobile banking hubs, including mobile vans and post offices, are absolutely vital, especially for older constituents who still prefer to use cash, and for rural businesses that need to pay in cash. Recently, services in Hullavington and Minety were suspended, which was a real problem. Does the hon. Lady agree that in rural communities, mobile banking vans are not a luxury, but an essential service, not just for the people using cash but for the businesses and pubs where cash payments are made?
Ann Davies
Absolutely. Unfortunately, as of December last year, those post office vans no longer accept cheques. Some people of a certain generation still use cheques, but those cannot now be paid in by using a post office van, as we have in our village. Someone must physically go to a bank to pay in a cheque, which makes it very difficult for the elderly, especially given that in my area we do not have public transport either.
Removing local banking services risks deepening financial exclusion and placing additional strain on already vulnerable adults. Despite cash and in-person banking still being integral to many communities across the UK, they are becoming harder and harder to access. That is demonstrated by the number of bank closures across Wales. As the Welsh Affairs Committee has noted, the number of bank and building society branches fell from 695 in 2012 to 435 in 2022.
Ann Davies
I promised the hon. Member for Waveney Valley that he could intervene on me, and that will be my final intervention. I am so sorry.
Adrian Ramsay
I was waiting for the appropriate point to pre-empt the fact that the hon. Lady is clearly talking about banking hubs in rural areas. In my constituency of Waveney Valley, the market town of Bungay has been told that it cannot have a banking hub because there is already one seven miles away in Harleston, but of course in rural areas, proximity does not necessarily mean accessibility when it comes to travel times or public transport access. Does the hon. Lady agree that, in determining the criteria for banking hubs, real accessibility in rural areas needs to be accounted for, and there needs to be flexibility in the system to achieve that?
Ann Davies
Absolutely. The data is there for all.
The closures disproportionately impact less populated areas, as the distance to travel to bank branches is greater. For instance, data from 2008 to 2018 show that the greatest increases in travel distance to the nearest bank branch were in Montgomeryshire, Clwyd South, Arfon, Dwyfor Meirionnydd, and Brecon and Radnorshire. Those rural and less populated areas also tend to have older populations and less reliable internet, and experience the unique nature of rural poverty.
Ann Davies
I am so sorry, but I am going to finish.
Restricting access to cash also affects many of those living in rural and post-industrial areas. As the Financial Conduct Authority has noted, digitally excluded older people, people in poor health, those with lower financial resilience and those with lower financial capability depend more on cash. We have seen that play out in my constituency, where we have recently experienced the closure of the last bank in the town of Ammanford—a Lloyds Bank on Quay Street. The closure will leave Ammanford—a town with an area population of 23,709—without a full-service bank branch. It will impact not only the town itself but the surrounding communities of Brynamman, Glanamman, Tycroes, Llandybie, Betws and the wider Amman valley.
The decision demonstrates a worrying lack of understanding of the needs of rural and post-industrial communities. For many, online banking is not an option. For example, broadband coverage in Carmarthen is significantly below national standards. Gigabit in Carmarthenshire is 41% compared with 78% in the UK. Superfast broadband is 85% compared with 96% in the UK. Those figures demonstrate that large parts of the county, including Ammanford and its surrounding villages, lack access to the high-speed internet that is required for secure and consistent digital banking. In practice, that means that online banking is unreliable or inaccessible for many households. Mobile banking apps do not function properly, especially in areas with poor signal and slow connections.
Digital alternatives cannot replace in-person services, especially for vulnerable groups such as older adults, those with disabilities and people managing complex financial needs. A significant proportion of residents are elderly, vulnerable or without access to transport, and the prospect of travelling long distances to the nearest branch is unrealistic and unjust.
I have had many constituents contact me to express their deep concern about the closure of the Lloyds branch. One constituent told me:
“We really desperately need this facility now. I don’t think any consideration has been given to the disabled, elderly, or even younger people who cannot travel to other towns. Although I understand the Post Office will absorb some customers, it does not provide all banking needs.”
He continued:
“I understand why the banks have to close some branches, but Lloyds’ support in the past has been invaluable to this area. With a brain-injured partner, it is nearly impossible to travel to Gorseinon. This would be a major trip causing unnecessary distress and anxiety for him; disabled parking in Gorseinon doesn’t meet his needs either.”
Cash has a social value, too. Another constituent said:
“I’m old school and still like to have cash—giving my grandchild pocket money, giving tips if I go out, taxis—the list could go on.”
It is clear that cash does not just facilitate economic exchange; it creates bonds and ties within communities, an aspect that is important to smaller and rural areas.
Where do we go from here? The Federation of Small Businesses Wales has said:
“While it is unrealistic to expect a return to high street banks on every street, it is important that new models are further developed—such as banking hubs—to ensure that these services are available locally.”
Banking hubs are a key alternative to communities that have lost access to bank and building society branches. They offer easy access to face-to-face cash and banking in the communities that have lost their bank branches.
I welcome that the Government have pledged to establish at least 350 banking hubs across the UK. In Wales, there are 12 shared banking hubs, with more in the process of being set up in Gorseinon and Caergybi—Holyhead. However, I note that none are in my constituency of Caerfyrddin—not one.
The Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 gave the Financial Conduct Authority responsibility for maintaining cash deposit and withdrawal access, although not wider banking services. The FCA’s rules came into force in September 2024. Those rules require banks not to close their services in communities until they have carried out an assessment showing that the closure would not impact withdrawal and deposit services in that area. Those assessments are conducted by Link.
While such a safeguard is welcome, the process itself seems to overlook rural and post-industrial areas. It does not allow for discretion to be applied to consider the needs of those communities. For instance, in the case of Ammanford, Link assessed that there was no need for additional services like a banking hub, given that Ammanford did not meet the population threshold of 10,000 people living near the high street. It said that Ammanford had 7,444 adults living nearby, which is still a significant number, but 23,709 people live in that surround. As we know, in post-industrial areas, the town merges into the villages—or the villages merge into the town.
Residents have made it clear that they are finding it incredibly challenging losing their only banking facility. A petition is being circulated in response to the decision, and it has already gathered hundreds of signatures—I urge all in the Chamber to share my online petition. I urge Link to engage with local stakeholders, including businesses, councillors and residents, to ensure that the assessment reflects actual community needs, including by establishing a banking hub in the town of Ammanford.
Can the Minister set out how the Government can accelerate the establishment of banking hubs in rural and post-industrial communities as part of their plans? What recent assessments have been made of the adequacy of the cash access review process to account for the unique needs of those communities? Banking hubs are a lifeline for communities that are already under strain. We need prudent policymaking in this area from the Government, so that constituents like mine are not overlooked for such important services. Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.
In my very best Welsh, I thank the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies)—she is smiling, which makes me think that I may have got that pronunciation ever so slightly wrong—for securing the debate. It is clearly an important topic to her, given the passionate way that she spoke, and to Members, given the number of interventions. I know from my experience, not least in Treasury orals, the correspondence that I get, and the banking hub surgeries that I run in Parliament, how important this issue is to Members right across the House, so I thank her again for securing this very important debate. I also thank those who have made interventions thus far, including the hon. Members for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Conservative Government passed the Financial Services and Markets Act in 2023, which gave the FCA powers to set up banking hubs and give access to cash. Does the Minister think that that was a missed opportunity at the time to prevent banks from closing high street branches in the thousands, as they have since continued to do?
Lucy Rigby
If the hon. Member would let me progress just a little further, I will cover the issues he refers to.
As I said, the strength of feeling expressed today, and more broadly in parliamentary interactions, shows just how important this issue is to Members, and to people right across the country, particularly in the types of communities that the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin represents. I recognise the particular concerns about rural and post-industrial areas, where longer travel distances, which were referred to, more limited transport and, in particular, uneven digital connectivity make the loss of a bank branch especially acute.
It is right to acknowledge that banking has changed very dramatically in recent years. Many customers have benefited from digital innovations that allow them to more easily manage their finances. For those who have benefited, those types of innovations have increased accessibility and convenience.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Minister mentions the need to recognise innovations. At the same time, we have to recognise that organisations such as banks, and also the Post Office, are very much inclined to be self-interested. In my own constituency a year ago, we lost 21 out of 25 locations for vans. The Government surely need to intervene to make sure that remote and left-behind communities are not left even further behind because these large financial organisations are looking after their own interests.
Lucy Rigby
I was going through some of the changes in the landscape of banking, and will come to a slightly more negative aspect of that, if the right hon. Member will allow me to do so. I hope that will cover the substance of her question.
The most recent data from the Financial Conduct Authority shows that over nine in 10 adults banked online or used a mobile app in 2024. We also know, alongside the statistics on digital innovations that I just referred to, that around a quarter of adults carried out banking face-to-face in a branch over the same period. I put that alongside the statistics that the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin referred to about cash usage, which I will not repeat. I make no judgment about why I am a little old school on occasion with my attachment to cash, as she put it, but we know that many of those who still rely on in-person services are older customers and more vulnerable individuals. We also know that many businesses right across this country continue to depend on cash.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
In my constituency, we have faced exactly the issues that the Minister highlights, and I am grateful for the work on this, in particular, on the needs of elderly people, which is being investigated by the Government, and those who are elderly and possibly frail, who find it difficult to travel on public transport. One of the issues we have faced is a lack of access to immediate parking and support for elderly people to get in and out of branches.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Will the Minister take another intervention on that point?
Douglas McAllister
Alexandria is one of many post-industrial communities within my constituency, and the Bank of Scotland recently announced the closure of the town’s last remaining bank, but as a result the new Alexandria banking hub opened in my constituency in November 2025, which is a very welcome addition to the high street. Does the Minister agree that that ensures crucial access to cash and face-to face-banking services for businesses and residents, especially the elderly and vulnerable, in Alexandria in West Dunbartonshire, and adds to our high street work with the Pride in Place scheme?
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend raises very important issues, including in relation to Pride in Place. What is so important about this debate and about banking hubs is that there is an interaction between access to cash, and the ability to speak to a bank or a community banker, and the health of our high streets and how people feel about their towns and communities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Lucy Rigby
I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack).
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
My constituency, including the main town of Coalville, has a strong industrial past. Coalville is not entirely rural, so it does not qualify for a banking hub. Lloyds is abandoning my community and will close a branch in Coalville in June, despite how busy and well used that branch, on a main high street, is. Does she agree that we need to ensure that gaps in bank provision are filled as soon as possible with banking hubs, and that banking hub assessment should include access to business banking, because that is what we really lose when a main high street bank goes off the high street?
Lucy Rigby
The House will forgive me for not commenting on individual cases, but it is safe to say that I am familiar with the circumstances that my hon. Friend refers to, and I know the urgent nature of some of the issues that she—
Lucy Rigby
I will give way first to the right hon. Gentleman, and then to my hon. Friend.
Sir John Hayes
The Library has made it clear that many groups beyond the elderly and the disadvantaged, including people with mental health difficulties, people with physical difficulties and people who rely on others to pay bills for them, struggle with these issues, and they struggle all the more in rural areas like Lincolnshire. That is why 98% of MPs surveyed have said that they think there should be a banking hub wherever the last branch has closed. When 98% of MPs think something, a wise Government listen carefully and act quickly.
Lucy Rigby
As ever, the right hon. Gentleman gives me good advice and, as ever, I shall pay close attention to what he says. He rightly refers to different aspects of vulnerability and I will come on to some of those slightly later in my remarks. What is clear from the interventions that we have just had is, again, how passionately Members from right across the House feel about these issues, which is why the Government have been clear that it is critical that people have access to the services they need.
Torcuil Crichton
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for securing this important debate. To echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), I have come to Westminster Hall today following discussions with Lloyds Bank, which has decided to close the Benbecula branch of the Bank of Scotland in my constituency; there have now been two bank closures in my constituency in a few short years. That closure decision appears to be as irreversible as it is regrettable, but the danger now is that we will have no banking hub, because the banking population of Uist is too small to fit within the parameters of one. Will the Minister ensure that the banks, Link and associated authorities expand and adjust their parameters, so that sparsely populated areas and island populations continue to have access to banking services?
David Smith
The Minister has been very generous. On the specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), similarly in Alnwick and Berwick, in my constituency, there is an issue to do with the diminution of high street banking. Only three years ago, there were three banks in Alnwick and now there are none, and one bank is now closing in Berwick. Regarding the criteria for community banking, will the Government look at Link and other such services, and say that it is not just access to cash that should be a statutory right but access to banking?
Lucy Rigby
I can answer that very directly. We keep these issues under review, as my hon. Friend would expect. Prior to those interventions, I was talking about action that the Government have taken. Our recognition of the importance of banking services to local communities underpins what we put in our manifesto, which was a pledge to work with the industry, as the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin rightly said, to get to at least 350 banking hubs across the country.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for being exceptionally generous with her time. I want to emphasise the point on banking hubs. I have been particularly frustrated about the town of Haltwhistle in my constituency. It is a smaller town but has a huge area that looks to it, going from Slaggyford and Gilsland up to communities nearer the Scottish border. On the current criteria, it is too small to attract a banking hub by itself, but the businesses that look to it are now forced to look to Hexham or, further afield, to Newcastle, or indeed to the west of Carlisle. That risks strangling the growth of economic enterprise in the west of Northumberland, which is already, I must say, very poorly supported by Northumberland county council.
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend sums up very well the links between some of the issues that we are discussing today and wider economic growth, which, as Members will know, is the Government’s principal mission.
Any hope that I might have had of reciting the names of the constituencies of Members who have contributed to the debate is fast evaporating. What I will say, on our 350 banking hubs in the course of this Parliament, is that it is important to note that that is a floor rather than a ceiling, so it is entirely possible that the 350 target will be surpassed. More than 270 hubs have already been announced, and more than 210 are now open. In Wales specifically, 17 banking hubs have been announced and 12 of them are already open.
Banking hubs do not just provide assisted cash services through post office staff and allow customers to withdraw and deposit cash. They also of course, as Members will know, provide community bankers from customers’ banks, offering customers the opportunity to speak to someone face to face about their banking needs, as they would in a traditional bank branch. I was in the banking hub in Warwick just last week and was able to meet community bankers and customers who were coming in. I saw at first hand the important benefit that having someone there whom people were able to engage with brought to those who were coming in.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I am grateful to the Minister for her generosity. I agree wholeheartedly that it is important that these hubs offer that wider range of banking services, and I draw her attention to the plight of community bank account holders, who often need to have access to a service that currently is available only in a bank branch, but could be provided in a banking hub in the future.
Lucy Rigby
The hon. Member makes a strong point. I am rapidly cutting bits out of my speech, but I will cover as much as I can. Members will know that some hubs offer services that others do not. We have been exploring with the banks how services might be expanded and improved where there is a community need for that to happen. Just last month, I held a roundtable with a large number of banks, Cash Access UK and UK Finance to discuss the services currently provided in banking hubs, including access to printing facilities, which we know are really valued in some communities. Saturday opening hours are another example of the things that were discussed. Overall, that discussion with the banks was about how we improve the functionality of hubs. We also discussed what the industry might be able to do to raise awareness of the location of hubs—which we know in some areas is not as high as it might be—alongside awareness of the services that they offer their customers.
I want to spend a second addressing the important points raised about digital exclusion and particular vulnerabilities. Although many people benefit from digital services, the Government of course recognise—this is inherent in the financial inclusion strategy that we published at the end of last year—that many people face real barriers. That is exactly why digital inclusion sat alongside access to banking as a core pillar of the strategy.
The financial inclusion strategy includes an industry-led working group on inclusive design to improve accessibility right across financial products—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of the 2016 EU membership referendum on the UK.
It is a pleasure to be here with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank colleagues for turning out for today’s debate.
We are now on the 10th anniversary of the vote to leave the European Union: a lost decade for the economy, a lost decade for business, and a lost decade for future generations and in particular our young people, which has left us poorer, more isolated and less secure in a changing world. I note—again, I am grateful to colleagues for turning up today—that those of us who seek to discuss the issue are overwhelmingly those of us who want a closer relationship with the European Union, because, bluntly, we know it has been a disaster. Nobody is arguing that leaving the EU was a good idea, or that it has left us any wealthier or made us better off. In fact, no other state has sought to leave the European Union since the Brexit debacle unfolded. Such isolationism and exceptionalism is something we must reflect upon very seriously indeed. I know the Government are, but we have a number of specific questions for them.
Stephen Gethins
Not at the moment.
I want to reflect for a moment that, although the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I made him aware that I would be referencing him today, in this one instance—told us that the UK would not be the last member to leave, no one left and more members are seeking to join. That has been the legacy of this period. Are any colleagues from Reform here today? No. There are some from the Conservatives—I can never quite tell who is in and who is out and which way round they are—but there are no Reform Members in this debate on its showcase policy platform. This is an isolationist, nationalist project, and it has failed profoundly. On that point, I will give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), because he is always very courteous in the Chamber.
Jim Shannon
That is very kind. The legacy for us in Northern Ireland is that we are half in and half out, and our businesses, our exports and imports, and our people suffer. I know that the hon. Gentleman and I have very different opinions on Brexit, but does he not agree that Northern Ireland did not get the Brexit that everybody else got, which we wanted?
Stephen Gethins
It certainly did not get the Brexit it voted for, because the people of Northern Ireland voted overwhelmingly to reject it—and no wonder; it was a Brexit that undermined the peace process. But do not worry. Mr Gove, who is not in this place so I do not need to notify him, told Northern Ireland that it was going to get the best of both worlds. Well, if only we had all had the best of both worlds.
Stephen Gethins
I am not going to take too many interventions, but as I took one from the hon. Member for Strangford, I think I should take a viewpoint from the majority point of view in Northern Ireland as well.
Sorcha Eastwood
Yes, indeed—I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I remind colleagues that Northern Ireland voted to remain. It is regrettable that Northern Ireland has borne the brunt in all of this. I do not spend my time relitigating Brexit, because it tore my country apart, but for our community and voluntary sector in Northern Ireland, the legacy is that we have never had the European social funds replaced like for like by any Government since we left the EU, and that is a disgraceful legacy.
Stephen Gethins
I thank the hon. Member for her powerful point, and the respectful way in which she makes her case regularly. I was in this place at the time; Northern Ireland was consecutively overlooked, and its views disregarded.
I hope Members will forgive me, because I am going to try to make some progress, but I think it is incredibly important that the first two interventions, although from different sides, were from Members from Northern Ireland, which is overlooked far too often in this place, because the peace process was a price that others thought was worth paying—to a far greater degree than it should have been.
Let me talk about the economy. The National Bureau of Economic Research states that £90 billion has been lost in tax revenues, or £250 million every day. That means that the amount wasted, and not taken in tax, every 48 hours is the entire annual budget of the council of the city of Dundee, part of which I represent. Investment is lower than it would have been, too. Despite that, the UK paid out billions for the privilege of putting itself in this ludicrous situation. More seriously, small and medium-sized enterprises, which grow our economy and employ so many people, have found it harder to grow; for households, the cost of living has increased at a time when they can ill afford it—the Government know this, and they know how serious it is for households—and trade deals that we knew would do nothing to compensate for the loss continue to do nothing.
There is a human element, too, in the form of opportunities for young people. As politicians, we should all leave more opportunities for the generations who come after us than we enjoyed ourselves, but this place leaves fewer opportunities. My life was transformed by doing Erasmus at the University of Dundee. I am glad that the Government have belatedly come round and reintroduced it, but there is a lost generation of those who never had it, and who no longer have freedom of movement, which allowed our young people to live and work in the EU. Why on earth do Members think—I wonder if the Minister can tell me—there was such an explosion in those with Polish, French or, in my case, Irish ancestry seeking second passports?
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
On that point, will the hon. Member give way?
Stephen Gethins
If the hon. Member can tell me that, then I welcome her intervention.
Alison Bennett
The hon. Gentleman is very generous. Does he agree that it is totally unfair that one person in my constituency missed out on their gap year and the opportunity to travel abroad because they have a British passport while their friend got to travel and have that experience because they could access an Irish passport?
Stephen Gethins
I absolutely agree. That is the benefit of Ireland being a member of the European Union and why I cannot fathom why Labour and, I am sorry to say, the Liberal Democrats—I can understand the Conservatives and Reform—do not endorse rejoining the European Union. It is staring them in the face.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I tire sometimes of the hon. Member’s party in Scotland making this fuss about us not wanting to rejoin. If he looks back, he will see that the Liberal Democrats were the ones who desperately wanted not to leave. We campaigned for a second referendum. We want to create a new customs union. We desperately want to be closer to Europe, so, please, will the hon. Member kindly give the correct picture of the Liberal Democrat position?
Stephen Gethins
The correct picture is this—let us talk about the present. Do the Liberal Democrats want to rejoin the EU right now? My party does; does the hon. Lady’s? I will give way again—yes or no?
Christine Jardine
If the hon. Member can explain the contradiction between wanting to join one union and give up sovereignty and wanting to leave another.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Member has fallen into the nationalist exceptionalism trap that I would expect more from the Conservatives or Reform. Why is it that the 27 member states of the European Union consider themselves independent and sovereign? The European Union is a club for independent states; the UK is not. That is the fundamental difference.
I will talk briefly about migration, because it is important—and I want to make progress, as a lot of Members want to speak. The UK left the Dublin regulation, which led to an explosion in the number of small boats—the Brexit boats, the Reform boats, the Tory boats. In the EU, irregular border crossings have gone down, but in the UK they have gone up. I know that the Government are looking at returns, but that is a desperate situation.
On the impact on devolution, Scotland voted to leave, but even within the deal we have the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. I hope the Minister will revisit that Act—one that Labour cried out about previously, and the Scottish Parliament refused consent for. We have talked about Northern Ireland. Because we do not have the purest of pure Brexits, now the European convention on human rights is under threat. It is a bit like the purest of pure communism has apparently never been tried; the purest of pure Brexits, for the ultimate Brexiteers, has never been tried either. The threat to devolution continues under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, and I hope the Minister will address that.
Finally, we are less secure. Today is four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and I know we are all in the same place on that. It turned the whole of Europe upside down. The EU is integral to our security, so will the Minister tell me why Canada can join the defence procurement scheme but the UK cannot? What progress is being made on that? It is a fundamentally important issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Gethins
Let me just make one more point, and then I will take an intervention from the Labour Benches.
We know the importance of food and energy security, and Ukraine, Moldova and others see their future in Europe, so why on earth does the UK not? Eighty per cent of our 16 to 24-year olds want not a customs union, but to rejoin the EU. Seventy-five per cent of Scots want to rejoin, because Brexit has been a failure.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Nobody can doubt the hon. Member’s Europhile credentials, but I do doubt his party’s commitment to unions of any kind. Why else would the SNP spend more fighting a by-election in Shetland than it did fighting the Brexit referendum? When he has finished answering that, perhaps he can tell us why his party spent more fighting the Glenrothes by-election than it did fighting Brexit.
Stephen Gethins
I am glad the hon. Member raised that. In Scotland we campaigned and overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU—a vote that was ignored by his party and by this place as an anti-democratic protest. On the point of how much campaigning was done, the Brexit referendum took place six weeks after the Scottish, Welsh and London elections. In order to make the campaigning period longer, I tabled an amendment to the European Union Referendum Bill so that we could campaign more, spend more and make the case more, but his party rejected it. Its Members walked into the Lobby with the Conservative party, as they often do, to reject that amendment. I tabled an amendment so that 16-year-olds could vote, as they do in Scotland; his party rejected it. The only amendment it endorsed, and I am glad it did, was one that allowed European nationals to have the vote—that one was accepted. Throughout the process, we sought to amend the damage that his party had done under the Labour leader at the time, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).
Stephen Gethins
“Who’s he?” he says. He was your leader over two general elections.
Brexit has failed. Many of those who spoke of democracy have since taken their seats in the House of Lords and will never have to face the electorate again. We even have limitations on discussing and debating the Head of State, as has been happening today on, in fairness, a Liberal Democrat motion. To those who bewail the chaos and failure that has enveloped the UK over the past decade, which has seen us run through six—soon to be seven, apparently, if the Scottish Labour leader has their way—British prime ministers since the Brexit referendum, I say: please, reflect on where we are. We need to rejoin. I will endorse anything that brings us closer to the EU, but we know that anything would be simply less bad.
Ten years on, enough is enough. I am about to listen to all these Members make the case for Europe. I say to Liberal Members, to Tory Members, and to Labour Members in particular: have the courage of your convictions and get us closer to Europe, get us rejoining Europe, and stop damaging the UK.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Order. There will be a two-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. I will begin calling Front Benchers for the wind-ups at quarter-past 5.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I commend the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins). There is a thirst to discuss this in the Chamber—apart from the shadow Minister’s side; he looks rather lonely.
Cambridge was one of the most pro-remain areas in the UK. I am proud that the Market ward in central Cambridge had the highest remain vote anywhere in the country; I share that view with a passion. That early morning of 24 June 2016 in an empty sports centre in Chelmsford, where the votes in the east of England were being counted, was one of the lowest points of my political life.
I accept that the vote was lost in 2016, but the years that followed have cost us dear. In the science and research field, we have clawed our way back into Horizon, but look at the damage done: relationships broken and ground lost that will take years to rebuild. I am thrilled that the Government will return us to the Erasmus scheme, which, as the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry said, has done so much to enrich lives, although again years have been lost.
As a Food Minister, I saw directly the problems that so many of our brilliant food producers have faced getting their products to European customers, such as all those export health certificates that had to be completed. That is why I am so pleased that the Government are doing the long, hard, painstaking work to build a new SPS agreement. Let me finish this brief contribution on that positive note. If that day in Chelmsford was a low point, the agreement of the SPS process last year was one of the high points. As Food Minister, I was privileged to be with a number of major food companies in the Downing Street garden celebrating that occasion. Pieces of cake with EU and UK flags were a joy to see. That was a sight that would bring joy to so many of my Cambridge constituents who are passionate Europeans. Yes, a decade has been lost but we are now on the right path.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I suppose I should be timid about entering this echo chamber of remainers and remoaners, but here I am. The first thing that strikes one is the utter disrespect for the largest democratic vote ever in the history of this nation. To many in this place, that is a nothing to be swept aside. I say to them, if they are democrats: “Shame on you!”
I am intrigued by the approach of the Scottish National party. The raison d’être of that party is a sovereign, independent Scotland but, as soon as they get that, they want to hand away their sovereignty and independence and subjugate it to the sovereignty of a foreign EU. No doubt they also want to build a Hadrian’s wall international customs border—if they join the EU, and the rest of the United Kingdom does not, that is what they are going to have. Let me tell them what that means, from the experience of Northern Ireland. It means that supply goods from the main market in Great Britain will be subject to international customs declarations, tariffs, paperwork and extra costs. That is what the independence-seeking SNP thinks is the recipe for the future.
We have heard much propaganda today about the alleged failures of Brexit. Yes, it has failed where it has not been given, which is in Northern Ireland, but look at manufacturing, which is probably the area most affected by Brexit. Is it not strange that the UK’s productivity performance in manufacturing has been the strongest of any country in the G7?
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for his powerful speech in opening the debate.
In June 2016, my constituents voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union, following a campaign in which I and my team worked as hard as we have in any election where my name was on the ballot paper. For the vast majority of residents in Dulwich and West Norwood, the UK’s membership of the EU and their consequential status as both British and European citizens was fundamental to their identity, and their loss by such a narrow margin was viscerally felt.
The loss has turned out to be much greater than the replacement of our burgundy passports with navy ones. During the campaign, we consistently raised our evidence-based concerns that Brexit would harm our country. We were accused of scaremongering, but on every single one of the issues on which we campaigned, the passage of time has proved us right.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The National Bureau of Economic Research has said that, because of Brexit, the economy is 6% to 8% smaller than it otherwise would be. At the first Black Country Chamber of Commerce meeting I went to, most of the businesses were talking about the adverse effects of Brexit.
Would my hon. Friend agree that the step forward now is to carry on and make the most of the agreement that the Government have made with the European Union, with a view to growing the economy and backing British jobs?
Helen Hayes
My hon. Friend is right. The Office for Budget Responsibility is clear that Brexit has caused a 4% long-term reduction in GDP and has created a structural challenge in UK manufacturing. The export of UK goods to the EU has fallen by 27% and imports have fallen by 32%.
Helen Hayes
I will not give way, because of the number of Members who wish to speak. Some 16,400 SMEs have given up exporting to the EU because of Brexit-related red tape. [Interruption.] I will not give way, because of the number of colleagues who wish to get in.
Our food is more expensive, regulation has dropped, and there was no £350 million a week for the NHS. During the debates that followed the referendum, I took the view that I would prioritise representing my constituents’ views, and that on such an important matter, even if we were losing the argument, democratic representation and plurality of voices mattered. It led me to rebel on a number of votes and to resign from the shadow Front Bench in order not to vote in support of the Conservatives’ Brexit deal.
Brexit drove a huge wedge through the middle of our country. It divided regions from each other, split communities and even families, according to strong and sincerely held views. We do not need to re-litigate those arguments and to keep telling each other we were wrong, or seek to convince ourselves that we can easily return to where we were. However, responsible government demands that we reckon with the reality we find ourselves in. We must acknowledge the immense harm that has been done—that we are poorer and less secure as a consequence of Brexit—and it is right that we seek to undo the damage.
I welcome the steps that the Government have already taken to reset our relationship with the European Union, starting with re-establishing the warmth of our friendship, reopening regular and constructive dialogue, negotiating new deals and rejoining Erasmus+. There is further to go, but we must move forward, step by step, making the consensus, building community and connection, and moving forward in a realistic way, recognising that relationships are mutual, not unilateral, and that there is more to do to rebuild our relationship.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond, and I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for securing this important debate.
In South Cambridgeshire, the majority of constituents, 60.2%, voted to remain in the European Union. They did so from a clear understanding that our prosperity, freedoms and security depend on and benefit from co-operation with our closest neighbours, but the effects of the Brexit referendum deal have been stark and deeply damaging. Our young people have lost the freedoms that we as their parents once took for granted—the right to travel, work, study, live and love across the EU. Economically, Brexit has blown a £90 billion-a-year hole in the public finances, with around £250 million every single day in lost tax revenue, and an economy now between 6% and 8% smaller than if we had not left, which particularly hits our small and medium-sized businesses.
There are wider issues of security, too. As Dr Paul Browne, chair of Cambridge for Europe, said,
“the world of 2026 is not the world of 2016… Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine shows us that democracy, defence and economic security are one”.
After a decade of working internationally with communities and economies devastated by climate change, I became much more politically active when I realised that Brexit would threaten our environment. Nature knows no borders. Wildlife mates and nests in one country while feeding in another, and the habitats and water framework directives were hugely effective in respecting that. However, we are now diverging from those protections of the nature and wildlife that we all hold so dear. The Institute for European Environmental Policy has found that since Brexit the EU has introduced 28 new or strengthened pieces of environmental legislation that the UK has not adopted. Meanwhile, we have weakened protections in areas such as habitats, pesticides, forever chemicals and fisheries. We must be bolder, rejoin, closer to the EU and—
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I was going to talk about business, trade and many other factors, but let me focus my remarks on young people. When I go to schools and speak to young people across Beckenham and Penge, they describe the significant impact Brexit has had on them. Young people in my constituency and across the country continue to face the brunt of such a consequential decision that they had no say in whatsoever. In January last year, YouGov found that over 75% of 18 to 24-year-olds thought Brexit was a mistake. Behind that percentage are real people whose aspirations and ambitions are being held back.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman find it bizarre that at the moment British citizens can spend only 90 days out of every 180 in Europe, yet reciprocally EU nationals can spend six months in the UK? Does he think that at the next EU-UK summit we could pursue a reciprocal visa travel arrangement?
Liam Conlon
That is something the Government are looking at, and I would welcome the Minister’s response.
This week, I have had the pleasure of being joined by two university students from Beckenham and Penge, Zoe and Isaac, who are in the Public Gallery today. I asked them what Brexit has meant for them in practical terms. Zoe said that although her course offers a year abroad, which is something she has always wanted to do, it is now implausible for her to go because of how expensive it has become given increased mobility, visa and administrative costs. Likewise, Isaac would like to study in the EU after he graduates or to work abroad, but current restrictions mean he is unlikely to be able to do so.
I therefore welcome the Government’s steps to address some of these issues through plans to rejoin the Erasmus scheme in 2027 or indeed through the EU-UK youth mobility scheme, which would give those aged 18 to 35 the chance to study and work for up to four years abroad. Will the Minister tell us how quickly that will be rolled out?
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for securing this debate.
Almost a decade since we held that fateful referendum, let us look back and count the many and varied so-called “Brexit benefits” that some promised us. As we bask in the glorious position that the UK now enjoys on the world stage, admired and envied by nations that remain tethered to the huge co-operative trading bloc—with its equal standards, paperless flow of goods, shorter passport queues, easier travel, investment infrastructure, tourism, shared intelligence, movement for students and those in shortage occupations, shared research and development, and art and music projects—the stark reality, 10 years on from the infamous and baseless bus slogans, is not really freedom at all. It is not freedom for those of us whose constituencies have so many ties with our continental neighbours—ties that go back centuries and are embedded in this nation’s social, political, industrial, legal, creative and academic history.
My constituency’s very soul—our magnificent cathedral, heritage, people and institutions—are not only British but European. We are practically joined to France. A few days ago, we welcomed the French ambassador and other dignitaries to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the signing of the channel tunnel treaty by Mrs Thatcher and President Mitterrand, in a cathedral built mostly of French stone.
Kent is essentially Britain’s front door to European travellers. Thankfully, as a UNESCO world heritage site, it will always be a thriving and popular destination, but that is despite Brexit. Our easy relationship with the neighbours who could just pop over from next door has changed dramatically. Our economy is based on tourism, agriculture, produce, and our trading relationship. Whitstable oysters supply French restaurants, but that once seamless transaction involved 72 pieces of paper and multiple checks after Brexit. Our farms and local food businesses—
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.
It has been a rather dreary February. Despite looking quite hard, I have not been able to see any of the rainbows or unicorns that we were promised during the debate of the Brexit days, or the millions promised to the NHS. However, let us be realistic and build our hopes for the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) mentioned young people, and of course the vast majority of this House would agree that we want collaboration, shared security, shared prosperity and more jobs. What we need to talk about are the social and cultural consequences of the UK’s departure from the European Union, and we need economic common sense.
The Government have already made great progress in resetting the relationship with the EU after the Tory years of chaos.
Rosie Wrighting
I worked in buying in a retail head office at the time of Brexit. It was an extremely uncertain time. I remember having to stay up quite literally all night to figure out how we were going to move stock from the EU into the UK to protect sales ahead of Black Friday. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK-EU reset is a real opportunity to offer certainty to businesses that the Conservative party let down at that time?
Catherine West
My hon. Friend knows of what she speaks in the area of trade in the EU and manufacturing in the UK.
The new UK-EU partnership includes an agreement to work towards making agrifood trade easier, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) mentioned. Ultimately, the sanitary and phytosanitary deal will add £9 billion to the UK economy in the long term, but we need to get on with it. We are 18 months into this Parliament. We need to put our foot on the accelerator to fight against food poverty, bring down food prices and help manufacturers.
Let me emphasise that there is so much more we can do to support our creative sector. We need specific commitments on touring to allow artists to travel visa-free and to carry their instruments, equipment and props without prohibitive admin and bureaucracy. A special cultural exemption from the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement would go a long way towards that and I know that is at the heart of the discussions for the Cabinet Office.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The hon. Lady mentions the trade and co-operation agreement, which was of course meant to remove tariffs. Does she share my concern about companies, such as those in Taunton and Wellington, that do not have to pay tariffs but who have to pay £300 for every cross-border transaction, to have all the paperwork done? That is effectively a tariff, and not the free trade we were promised. Does that not show the lunacy of the way the Brexit decision was carried out?
Catherine West
The hon. Member is completely right that there is far too much unnecessary bureaucracy that did not exist before. If we can develop the relationship with European partners, those creases can be ironed out and we can have much more friction-free trade.
To realise our full potential in tackling global challenges such as climate change, the UK needs to play a fuller part in the latest iteration of the EU’s research and innovation framework programme, FP10, as we did with Horizon Europe 2024. I would welcome an update from the Minister on that point.
Nothing says more about who we are and our place in the world than our relationship with our closest neighbours. The new UK-EU strategic partnership is a great start, but there is lots more to do. Let us not waste this wonderful opportunity.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. Eighty years ago, just after the second world war, my great-uncle Zelia stood outside this Parliament building. He doffed his hat—everyone had a hat in those days—and he said, “She saved us all.” He was a Latvian Jew. He lived in Paris; I was always told he had fought with the French resistance. He certainly knew what Britain had meant to Europe. The whole of Europe knew that.
At that moment, Europe looked to Britain for a lead, but we pulled back. Even when we finally joined them, we developed the habit of blaming Brussels more than reminding people of the benefits. So when the 2016 referendum came, people answered on the basis of what they had been told and what they had not been told. Now, 10 years on, the cost is clear. Boris Johnson promised the NHS £19 billion a year. Instead, we have lost £90 billion a year, every year, in tax revenue.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
My predecessor, Boris Johnson, promised much that never seemed to materialise, locally as well as nationally. My hon. Friend is right in his assertion that we have seen significant economic impacts. Pharmaceutical companies in my constituency talk about double administration and double testing of the exports of drugs now, with the need to go through both the European and UK medicines agencies for approvals. They say that has directly harmed investment and jobs in the UK. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about that?
Ben Coleman
I do. I congratulate my hon. Friend again on replacing Boris Johnson with a much nicer man, who definitely has much better hair. I absolutely agree.
We have to recognise that the swiftest path to growth for this country lies in tackling the red tape that Brexit introduced. I think of a small butcher in my constituency of Chelsea and Fulham, who used to import most of his goods from Spain and Italy and now has shelves half bare because his small distributors just cannot cope with the paperwork.
We do not have that £90 billion in tax revenue any more, and that is money that we need badly for our NHS, police and schools after years of Conservative austerity. I am not dismissing the concerns that drove the leave vote, least of all the feeling of not being heard, but the response that the referendum conveyed has made all those problems worse. If we left to take back control, the evidence is that we simply have much less of it. No wonder that two thirds of the British people, including six out of 10 of those who voted to leave, now say that they want a closer relationship with the European Union, which my Government are pursuing.
The British people deserve better. This country, diminished though it is, but still undefeated, has never shrunk from doing what the moment requires. Let us seize this moment to repair the damage, welcome the reset, act with ambition, optimism and hope, and put Brexit right.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I never inhaled: I always opposed Brexit, and I continue to fight for a closer relationship with Europe. I also recognise that the way the previous Government left the European Union was the hardest of Brexits. They compounded the damage that walking out of the room did to this country, and we see that in our constituencies every single day. I do not believe that anybody voted for 1.8 million fewer jobs to be created in our economy, or for 16,000 businesses to give up on trading with Europe because the basic consequence of Brexit was paperwork. I do not believe that anybody in this country really wanted those outcomes.
Ms Creasy
I apologise, but I am aware of the time available. I also recognise that 2016 was over a decade ago. One of the challenges in this nation is that we have always acted as if the hard part about our relationship with Europe was us deciding what we wanted to happen, and the easy part was going and telling our European counterparts what we wanted to do. In a decade, President Trump has been elected twice, covid has happened, the #MeToo movement occurred and TikTok was invented—not to mention the antics of President Putin. If we are going to get this right then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) is right to argue, we need to get closer to Europe, but, in what we ask now, we have to show them the respect of recognising the damage we did in walking out of the door.
First and foremost, we need a salvage operation for British businesses, jobs, climate and people. That requires looking at the deal that has been done with Switzerland. We must get closer to the single market, because the customs union is not our European counterparts and European freedom of movement. There is so much more that we can do but, first, let us start by respecting those people we disavowed.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for introducing the debate. I simply wanted to say that, for years, I watched from afar as a normal member of the public in Northern Ireland as this place discussed my, my family’s and my country’s future. I really meant it when I said that Brexit tore my country apart, because it did.
I stand here today as the only elected Member from Northern Ireland who is neither nationalist or Unionist. I am really proud of that, and of the decision that Lagan Valley made. No doubt, others may later say that I am simply a nationalist, or that I am just a vehicle for a populist argument. I find that really denigrating, because Northern Ireland did vote to remain, but that was across Unionist people, nationalist people and people like me who are neither of those things.
We will hear that there are issues with the protocol—of course there are. I sit on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee; we discuss it regularly, and I table written questions regularly. I did not want to leave, because I am British, I am Irish, I am Northern Irish and I am European. I will never choose; do not make me choose. But that is what this did. It ripped away that umbrella of identity, and Northern Ireland has never recovered. Others simply will not let it.
Truth be told, it was such a great burden for so many that I am not sure what the way forward is. Others throw out simple referendums as the cure to it all. I do not believe them. I do not believe the others throwing out simple referendums about a united Ireland as the cure. I do believe that, as other Members have suggested, we have to have something for the UK as a whole, because we simply need to get closer. I just wanted to say that the referendum broke my heart and the hearts of many others, and it caused great unrest and strife. Many of us in Northern Ireland are recovering.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
We know so much now, 10 years on from the referendum, about the economic impacts of the Conservative Brexit deal. I will not spend too much time discussing them, other than to say that they come up every time I knock on a door in Reading that belongs to an owner of a small or medium-sized enterprise. Across the UK, their exports have fallen by almost a third since Brexit. We are now bearing the costs of that.
Yuan Yang
No thank you.
There is much we can now do to mitigate the costs of Brexit for our constituents, including securing a sanitary and phytosanitary veterinary agreement with the EU. I ask the Minister to give an update on the progress of that. Colleagues on the living standards coalition of MPs found that securing such an agreement could reduce EU food import prices by between 3% to 6% in the next few years. That will go a substantial way to reducing our constituents’ cost of living.
In order to move forward, we have to look at where we are now and see how the world sees us. In my previous job reporting on trade from Brussels as a British journalist for a British newspaper, I would often attract wry comments from other members of the European Commission and community about my nationality and the choices that my country made. During the years of the Brexit negotiations, we had five Foreign Secretaries and six Business Secretaries, so no wonder they had some comments about my Government.
Contrast that with the reception that our Prime Minister had at the Munich Security Conference. I was in the audience and heard the spontaneous applause when the Prime Minister declared that
“we are not the Britain of the Brexit years anymore”,
that we must
“build a stronger Europe and a more European NATO”,
and that
“there is no British security without Europe, and no European security without Britain.”
Security does not just mean defence—it means food, energy, and climate and the environment, and I am proud that in my constituency we have one of the last remaining European institutions headquartered in the UK: the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, which will build on its new site. Soon, it will raise the British flag alongside the flags of all its partners.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for the way in which he introduced the debate. He did forget, though, in his recollections, that we could have had a customs union if he had not abstained on that decision, along with his 35 SNP colleagues. That is a simple fact. Perhaps he can address that in his winding-up speech.
One of the challenges we face as a country is that so many people in the UK feel left behind. They still feel the impacts of the banking crisis and of covid. Both were once in a lifetime but have been exaggerated and amplified by Brexit. The Brexiteers told us that all we needed to do to set our country on a wealthier path was to get rid of the Europeans. I have to say that it is very similar to the argument we hear from Donald Trump about Mexicans and also the argument we hear from the SNP about getting rid of the rest of the UK. All three are wrong for exactly the same reasons.
Now the same Brexiteers tell us that all we have to do to set our country on a wealthier path is to get rid of immigrants—to other them. Again, that is not correct, particularly when we remember that there are about 350,000 immigrants working in our NHS. We all know that the route to prosperity is to work more closely with our biggest trading partners, and for us that is the European Union. I am proud that this Government have taken us in that direction. I do hope that one day we rejoin the EU, but I do recognise that, as others have hinted, that has to come after a manifesto commitment and a referendum. It is not something that any of us want to rush into right now, but I welcome the fact that, day by day, we are getting closer to our European partners.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Our duty in this place is to build bridges, not walls, and yet, since the Brexit vote, we have seen our country pull itself apart day by day because the disruptors who caused the Brexit vote have continued to disrupt our communities. Why is that? They have made our country poorer, they have regressed our economy, we have lost jobs and our services are no longer supported in the way that they were.
We have to build our way back and build our way back fast. Rebuilding the relationships is the first step, but we must move forward, as so many have said, to a customs union, to the single market and ultimately to our membership back in the European Parliament, being rule-makers, not rule-takers. That is what my city voted for back in 2016; two thirds of my constituents voted to remain. It is why we need to come together and reach a decision among ourselves on a pathway to hope once again.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for securing the debate. In 2016, the British people were offered a vision of life outside the European Union built on easy promises: £350 million a week for the NHS, effortless global trade deals, and all the benefits of membership with none of the obligations. There was no detailed blueprint, no agreed destination and no serious plan. As the still comparatively new Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath, I am acutely aware that my predecessor played a large part in leading us down that track.
Ten years on, we are living with the consequences of those events. The National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that Brexit has suppressed UK GDP by between 6% and 8%, a loss equivalent to around £250 million a day. The trade deals struck with Australia and New Zealand amount to a fraction of 1% of GDP. They do not come close to compensating for the loss of frictionless trade with our largest and closest market, Europe.
Dr Pinkerton
The capriciousness of the United States makes the case for closer economic co-operation with Europe all the greater. This is not abstract. Businesses up and down the UK are grappling with rules of origin paperwork, border delays and lost contracts. Investment is held back. Productivity is squeezed. Growth has slowed.
This is not only about economics. Three quarters of young people voted to remain. A generation has lost the freedom to live, work and study across Europe. We withdrew from Erasmus+. We stepped back from the easy exchange of ideas and opportunity that strengthened our country. At a time of war in our continent, and growing geopolitical instability, stepping back from Europe has not made us stronger. It has left us more exposed.
The Liberal Democrats have always been clear: Britain’s future lies at the heart of Europe. We are unapologetically pro co-operation, pro political and economic unions of all shapes and sizes, and pro-European. We believe that sovereignty in the modern world is strengthened by partnership. Pooling power with allies does not diminish Britain: it amplifies us. That is why we have proposed a new UK-EU customs union—a practical, deliverable step to rebuild economic partnership and provide certainty for British businesses, including those in Northern Ireland.
Last year, the House backed that approach in a vote that, for the first time in years, appeared to nudge the Government into speaking seriously about rebuilding our relationship with Europe. A customs union would remove tariffs and rules of origin barriers, cut border friction, strengthen supply chains and support growth. It is neither the final destination nor the sum total of our ambition for the UK—I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry to our four-point plan—but it is the next step in restoring a close economic partnership with the European Union and rebuilding trust with our largest trading partner. That is absolutely essential in the low-trust environment created by the events of the last 10 years.
Britain was, and will always be, a European country. Our prosperity, security and influence depend on recognising that fact. This is not a debate about the past. It is not a betrayal of 2016, as some would have us believe. It is a test of whether we are prepared to act now in the national interest. It is time to be ambitious for the United Kingdom again. It is time to rebuild a serious partnership with Europe. It is time to deliver growth, widen opportunity and secure Britain’s place at the heart of European economic, cultural and strategic life.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
More than seven in 10 voters in my constituency voted to leave. That was not an accident, it was not confusion, and it was not because they were lied to.
Having spent seven happy years working in the European Parliament, I was not unfamiliar with the EU’s strengths, as well as its faults, but if there was one thing that caused me some hesitation before I decided to campaign for leave, it was knowing that it would be a huge undertaking. Unpicking 50 years of legislation and regulation would clearly be disruptive for many businesses, including many in my constituency, and would use up a lot of Government time for at least a decade. Of course, a global pandemic, a once-in-a-generation energy crisis and the shockwaves of war in Europe have added to the disruption. But to attribute every headwind to Brexit, as some Members have done, may be politically convenient, but it is economically simplistic.
Some Members have spoken about a £90 billion hit. The reality is that, since Brexit, UK GDP has grown at about the same rate as Italy’s, and above that of France and Germany.
Mike Wood
No, I only have five minutes.
For that £90 billion to be credible, one would have to imagine that we would have vastly exceeded the growth of every large European country if only we had stuck to what we were already doing, closer to the framework that those countries with lower growth are still in.
Carla Lockhart
I think the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) has had his say, quite significantly.
The EU is a failing entity and we got out at the right time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is the continued capitulation of this Government and other UK parties, and a failure to accept the democratic outcome, that has led us to this point—especially the problems we are experiencing in Northern Ireland? Joining the EU is not the solution; it is about a strong Government leading this United Kingdom as a whole.
Mike Wood
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. Last summer, the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland said that two thirds of the SMEs in Northern Ireland that moved goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland had ceased to do so because of the way EU checks were being conducted. The Northern Ireland protocol says that if the UK experiences diversion of trade, we can take unilateral action. If two thirds of small businesses does not count as diversion of trade, what does? As the record shows, exports to the EU grew more in the five years since we left in 2021 than they did in the six years before the referendum.
The Opposition have set five clear tests for any renegotiation with the European Union: no return to free movement; no new payments to the EU; no loss of fishing rights; no dynamic alignment with EU rules; and no compromise on NATO’s primacy in European defence. Those tests are not ideological; they are the minimum requirement for respecting the 2016 mandate. Dynamic alignment may sound technical, but it means accepting rules that we no longer shape. Budgetary contributions may be dressed as programmes, but they mean sending money back without membership—often far more than can be fairly attributed to the costs caused by our participation. A customs arrangement that restricts our trade autonomy undermines the very sovereignty that voters endorsed.
Brexit was never about isolation: it was about independence. It was about being outward looking on British terms. We now have the ability to strike trade agreements globally. We have joined the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, helping to open access to markets in 11 high-growth economies, from Canada to South Korea and Australia. Many of the bilateral trade deals that we have signed go far beyond the proceeding EU trade agreements, with deeper digital trade and data chapters that are important to so many of the sectors in which Britain is strongest.
Financial market reform has reduced the risk margin for life insurers, meaning that we can promote long-term growth and divert more to long-term infrastructure and green technologies. In agriculture, the UK has moved to environmental land management schemes, based on the principle of public money for public good, to support environmental outcomes instead of just paying landowners to own land. Our duty is clear: to honour the mandate, to defend the sovereignty the people voted for, to work with our allies as equal sovereign partners where we can, and to protect our country’s ability to take its own decisions in our nation’s interest.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I thank the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) for securing the debate, and other Members for the many contributions today from all sides of the House and all parts of the UK—if not quite representing both sides of the debate in proportion to the referendum result.
I want to cover some of the questions raised regarding the Government’s approach, and reflect on the importance of the vote 10 years on. Whichever side we were on, the Brexit result was the most significant and defining political moment of a generation, not just in terms of our relationship with the EU but in reshaping our place in the world and challenging long-held assumptions about our economic and trading relationships, our security relationships and our diplomatic power and reach, as well as the very ties and bonds that hold together this great United Kingdom of ours—particularly in respect of Northern Ireland, where the referendum result has undoubtedly raised huge challenges, which were powerfully brought up earlier.
Of course, the referendum result also defined the political choices of the last decade, leading not just to the rise and fall of many Prime Ministers but to gridlock in Parliament and, in my view, to an overlooked consequence: the big domestic reforms that the country was crying out for—on special educational needs and disabilities, social care, planning and tackling inequality—were ignored because Parliament and successive Governments proved themselves incapable of doing Brexit and, frankly, anything else. [Interruption.] That—
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Ward
I am afraid I will not give way. That is the silent tragedy of the Brexit decade. It is a mistake we will not repeat.
I have a quick confession: at the time of the referendum I was a youngish political adviser to the relatively new Member of Parliament for Holborn and St Pancras. I remember sitting in his garden the day after the referendum, discussing what on earth we would do next. Suffice to say, he was not best pleased with the result, but he understood its significance and, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) referred to earlier, the importance of respecting that result and finding a way through.
After a short period of introspection, the now Prime Minister sketched out a vision of what he thought Britain should do. In time, this became known as “making Brexit work”. It meant being outside the EU, but being close to it. It meant leaving in an orderly way, while minimising the economic, cultural and diplomatic dislocation that we all knew would follow. It meant co operating where we can, protecting British businesses, supply chains and employment standards and, as he mentioned many times in the House during the subsequent debates, ensuring no hard border in Northern Ireland.
Nearly a decade on, this Labour Government were elected with a mandate to do precisely that. Last year, the Prime Minister hosted the first UK EU summit, where we agreed the first stage: the common understanding and a new framework for UK EU relations.
Chris Ward
I am afraid I will not; I am so sorry.
That first stage includes a new security and defence partnership because, as the Prime Minister said in Munich, there is no British security without Europe and no European security without Britain. As mentioned, it also includes an SPS agreement which will—my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) made this point powerfully—make a huge difference to farmers and food producers. We are also in the process of negotiating access to the EU’s internal electricity market, which will cut bills for businesses and consumers.
We are negotiating the youth experience scheme, which a number of Members mentioned and which I strongly support and called for. I am also delighted that we have negotiated—quite quickly, I think—to rejoin the Erasmus+ scheme, which will benefit more than 100,000 young people. We will legislate for that shortly. We aim for the agreements to be in play by the first half of 2027. The progress we have made in the last 18 months is the basis of the closer relationship that the Prime Minister had in his mind’s eye when we discussed this back in his garden some 10 years ago.
To be clear—I say this proudly and confidently—this is just the start of a new relationship with the EU under this Government. We are no longer, as the Prime Minister said in Munich, the Britain of the Brexit years. We want a closer relationship with the EU and we want deeper integration. We were elected with a mandate to do precisely that and we will deliver it. In line with our manifesto, that will be outside the single market and the customs union and without freedom of movement.
We will not try to relitigate the referendum result, but we will repair the unnecessary national self harm of the deals negotiated in the last decade, and we will align with the single market where it is in our national interest and our sovereign right to do so. We will deliver a partnership with the EU, based on common economic and cultural interests and in the national interest, and turn the page on the last decade of failure.
Stephen Gethins
Huge thanks to colleagues, genuinely, and in particular to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), who came along to represent one particular perspective. I also thank the Minister, but I remind him, of course, that the Prime Minister voted for a referendum on the EU in 2019. I do hope that the Brexit omerta is over, and I gently remind the House that our democracy is no longer a democracy when we no longer have the ability to change our minds. Brexit has been a disaster.